Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive608

Oh dear

Well, I've just been a total tool and installed twinkle for the first time. Basically, I've messed up big time with it. I firstly started deleting everything in Category:Proposed deletion as of 30 March 2010 with it - that might not be the end of the world, but it's worth a review. The major problem is that I attempted to delete the category here, but Instead I deleted the three articles in the category and unlinked anything that was linking to the category. I'm going to bed shortly, so I won't have time to fix my mistakes now - I'll do it in the morning, but if anyone has time it would be much appreciated. Apologies for causing such a mess. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 02:09, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

well the Circular bidirectional bus routes thing has been fixed but the prods are still an outstanding issue.©Geni 02:19, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I understand why. There were more than 400 pages in that category thanks to the new Wikipedia:Proposed deletion (books). I myself deleted a couple hundred of them, but doing those deletions one at a time was taking hours. -- Atama頭 18:53, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully you've now learned that drinking and twinkling don't mix. TheGoodLocust (talk) 02:54, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Maybe jor you, & for Rqan, but I find phat I eventuallu need to twinkle after drinking" No matter what the fluid is. (Oops, you weren't talking about that kind of twinkle, were you?) -- llywrch (talk) 05:10, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Intervention needed at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability

This may not be the best place, but could an admin or other non-involved individual take a look at the Wikipedia talk:Verifiability, an editor made a bold addition to the policy (good), a discussion began (by me) at the talk, two or three others agreed with me, one of which reverted the addition, the bold, revert, discuss cycle... however instead of agreeing to discuss, convince, and form a concensus the original editor has reinstated without the discussion finishing (which I promptly reverted), and another (who has not commented at all in the discussion) has reinstated it again with the edit summary "a large majority is needed to overide this" even though it is a recent addition that was never subject to a consensus of its own on being added. Given a similar 3RR warning regarding additions/retractions on policy pages given to one of the editors I thought it best to bring this to here and hope that intervention leading to a true consensus one way or the other can be brought about instead of what I consider to be bullying.Camelbinky (talk) 23:44, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

You could also add this to WP:RFC to get more responses.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 23:48, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Need a Range Block

There is a persistent vandal changing dates in India related articles. (see discussion here). This has been going on since February. He is using a Dynamic IP connection from the Indian ISP BSNL. The IP range he uses is between 117.204.112.0 and 117.204.127.255. An abuse report was filed sometime back but nothing has come out of it. A 48 Hour rangeblock stopped him for sometime but he is back to doing what he does. I request a range block for IPs 117.204.112.0 - 117.204.127.255 for a period of two or three weeks. Only 4096 possible IPs will be affected and the contributions from that range indicate apart from the vandal, very few users fall in that range. I feel a range block's advantages far outweigh the disadvantages, as the damage he does is subtle and takes time to revert. Right now a few Indian editors are keeping watch for him, but we cannot go on forever. Please help up blocking the range for longer periods.--Sodabottle (talk) 22:36, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

117.204.112.0/20 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) blocked for 1 month. Tim Song (talk) 02:15, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!!--Sodabottle (talk) 08:06, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Misleading Information in an article about Al-Qaeda

The Wikipedia article regarding Al-Qaeda contains misleading and incomplete information. The article's first paragraph states that Al-Qaeda is an Islamist group. This implies a connection to the religion Islam. However, this is not the case - Al-Qaeda does not follow Islamic fundamentals as Islam does not promote killing of other human beings in any way or for any reason whatsoever. I want this to be communicated to the reader: Al-Qaeda is an Islamist group but does not follow the fundamentals of the Islamic religion.

Without such clarification, the author and his/her article is portraying a negative image of Islam, which is unacceptable, harmful to the religion's reputation, misleading, and incomplete. I request that the statement, "Al-Qaeda does not follow the fundamentals of the Islamic religion" be added to the first paragraph of the article, which can be found at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda

Let me assure you that I am very serious about this issue, and will be watching closely for the changes to be made, or at least a strong and valid response.

____________________________________

EDIT: I apologize if you misunderstood by what I meant. Here is a link to a journal published by the Middle East Policy Council that justifies my request. The link is: http://www.mepc.org/journal_vol10/0306_wiktorowiczkaltner.asp

I have posted this, as you suggested, on the article's talk page, so this edit is just for your acknowledgement. Thanks for your support and time! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.142.251.56 (talk) 01:05, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Citations for that point would be needed. Our personal opinions on the matter do not figure into it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:53, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

(ec) This belongs on Talk:Al-Qaeda, not here, but be aware that any such statement will have to be backed up by some pretty darn good sources, considering that Al-Qaeda is widely accepted as an Islamist group, and that attempts to add the statement without sources will almost certainly be reverted by users in the regular course of their editing. Further, statements that "I am very serious" and "[I] will be watching" are counter-productive on Wikipedia, which operates in a collegial and cooperative manner where decisions are made by consensus. If the consensus of editors finds that your statement is not adequately supported by citations from reliable sources, then it will not be allowed into the article, no matter how serious you are or how much you watch. The best thing you can do now is to dig up some reliable citations to support your contention, and post them to the article's talk page (linked above) to be discussed by other editors -- no one is going to add them for you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:56, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Before you go and have that discussion, I suggest you read up on the difference between Islamic and Islamist. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 03:13, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

And indeed the difference between WP:TRUTH and WP:Verifiability. Guy (Help!) 08:43, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

AIV Backlog

AIV is in backlog. Could an admin take a look? Thanks...NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:14, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Request for help regarding banned users

Hello, a banned user, Fraberj (talk · contribs) keeps coming back, and back, and back, with sockpuppets. Mostly IP socks, but socks nonetheless.

Check out this category for all his IP and normal socks, to try and determine the rangeblock yourself, since I am not very knowledgeable in the subject. Otherwise, I'm going to attempt to use the rangeblock calculator to try and determine the range at which this banned user can be blocked for a time of 3 months minimum. Maximum, I hope longer, maybe in the 'year' or 'indefinite' category. The continued personal attacks and legal threats are getting tiresome, not to mention the ban evasion.

Here is the range I gleamed using the calculator:

71.112.0.0/12

... Unfortunately, the calculator also warns me that 1048576 users would be blocked... so that seems like a no-go.

Instead, I request that Self-replicating machine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) be semi-protected indefinitely, as this banned user keeps coming back. I also request the same regarding the talk page.

I realize this isn't RFPP, but I think this matter is slightly different. Enough to warrant a thread on a different forum.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:05, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment If the article is semi-protected, the talk page must remain free. Other IP editors need to be able to suggest improvements if they are unable to edit the article themselves. Mjroots2 (talk) 06:19, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Apologies I posted this in the wrong place. I meant to post it at AN.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:22, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Not necessarily. In extreme measures, the talk page can be semi-protected as well. See Talk:Jim Bell (log). –MuZemike 06:50, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Resetting Username and Password

Resolved

I recently entered a Username "BStaples" and 10 password. When I try to enter it, I get a response that it is invalid. My email address is "bob@ Please reset my password . Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.212.228.78 (talk) 05:29, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

click on "send new password". you'll receive an email. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 05:33, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

There does not seem to be any User:BStaples on this wiki. Make sure you input the user name exactly as created. Diannaa ^TALK 05:42, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

User exists since 2006. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 05:44, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

October 26, to be exact, and with exactly one edit: BStaples (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:23, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Ah so desu. Diannaa ^TALK 05:46, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Citylane

Not sure yet if this poses a problem but it follows on from all the trouble we have had at WP:CRIC with the banned User:Richard Daft and his latest banned reincarnation as User:Rosebank2.

Could you please read this diff which was improperly placed on WT:CRIC and immediately removed by one of the members there? It followed this post on my user page which I could take exception to, but I have instead decided to reply as per these posts on Citylane's own talk page. Note that I had already replied to his post on my page before I saw the one on WT:CRIC.

It is puzzling that he was apparently being very reasonable and offering help when he wrote to Talk:Lamb's Conduit Field and earlier his edits to this page.

Can someone please give me some advice about what to do given his threats? The ACS that he refers to has this article about it. Despite his tone, it has no official status re the subject in question and I presume it has no influence here.

Incidentally, I do not believe this person is the same as Daft/Rosebank. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 11:52, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Having looked at the post again and compared it with a recent one by Rosebank, I have changed my mind and have reported this to SPI. Please close and archive this item. Thanks. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 17:38, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

user:Unomi Wikistalking

Wrong venue. Please move to a more appropriate venue

 – NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs/^Vote! 17:11, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

This user has followed me around and wikistalked me on this page [1] United Nations Security Council Resolution 478. He never edited here before and didn't use the talk page. I asked him to justify reverting a page knowing nothing on the subject, without participating in the talk page, and never having edited the article. His rv justification was completely false too. Is he a sockpuppet of someone? Was he informed about this page? or is he wikistalking - either way a block is in place. Amoruso (talk) 14:13, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

• This appears to be a content dispute between yourself and other editors. Three different editors have restored the content that you are removing. I would suggest that trying to get them blocked because they don't agree with you is not only pointless but disruptive in itself. Dispute resolution is thataway. Black Kite (t) (c) 14:40, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that both users came from nowhere and appear to be sockpuppets, and did not engage in any discussion. that's a very big problem. not the content dispute itself. Amoruso (talk) 15:43, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I am happy to engage you on talk, that is the whole point of WP:BRD, at the moment though you seem to be ignoring Harlans arguments on the talkpage, much as you have ignored Off2riorobs on BLP/N, mine and nableezys on Talk:Ariel University Center of Samaria. This is indeed a content dispute and I would be open to inviting mediation on the matter. Unomi (talk) 17:00, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

IP User:88.111.62.210?

On 31 March, 88.111.62.210 was blocked for disruptive editing. This was a culmination in a campaign that had been going on for some time by a user taking advantage of dynamic IP addresses. The same person has been active in the same sort of disruption (i.e, edit warring and removing sources) since 31 March using:

• 3 April – 88.111.51.88
• 5 April – 88.111.61.215
• 7 April – 88.111.38.144
• 8 April – 88.111.63.54

Is there any possibility of blocking the 88.111 range for a reasonable period?

Failing that, could you please place protection on his latest target articles which are Lamb's Conduit Field and Bromley Common? Thanks. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 05:53, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Range is 88.111.32.0/19. Only ~8000 IPs, but I'm not sure the level of disruption warrants a block yet. I've protected the first page you brought up; I'll watch the second and protect if necessary. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:04, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much. It is actually several days since he attacked the Bromley page. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 08:38, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I've resurrected this today. The IP user has again attacked Bromley Common and is currently active in this topic using first 88.111.52.108 and then 88.111.47.144. Actually, I don't object to his question about licensing as I am interested in understanding that and complying with it. But I do object to his blatant attempt to twist an honest question by a member and ignore a more recent conclusion by that member on the same subject.

I think this has gone on long enough and I formally request that a range block be put in place to ban this person, who is undeniably a WP:TROLL and a stalker, from using the site. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 15:50, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

BlackJack was warned two weeks ago about civility and name calling and here he is calling me a troll and stalker with what evidence? removing a link from a page? does that warrant insults? does that warrant blocking? --88.111.47.144 (talk) 16:17, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I think he has answered his own questions with his extremely childish action on Talk:William Bedle where he is seeking to remind me that a GA nomination of mine failed. As if I care nearly 18 months on. This is what I mean by wikistalking. Can we please have an immediate ban? ----Jack | ^{talk page} 17:43, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not seeking to remind you of anything. When article's pass or fail GAN the information should be stored on the articles talk page, I was merely correcting a mistake you had made, am I not allowed to do that anymore? --88.111.47.144 (talk) 18:00, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

User:75.94.77.100 making what appears to be vandalistic edits

75.94.77.100 (talk · contribs) has, for several weeks now, been changing articles on academic scoring systems in various countries to different numbers and grade naming, with no edit summaries, and no sources. I asked them several days ago to source their edits, but they continue their problematic edits. I've been reverting every one of their edits, since they aren't making any attempts at communication, I'm concerned that they're just making things up. Some of their edits go back to January, asnd several editors have edited over those changes since then, so it's going to be pretty hard to extract their suspect edits from those of other users. I do note that one IP editor reverted their suspicious edits back in January, but this IP just continues. Woogee (talk) 04:15, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

If it continues, leave a stronger warning, and if there's still no response, either in edit summary or on his talk page, and he continues in the same pattern of editing, then let us know here. As yet, there's not enough justification for a temporary block. -- œ^™ 21:53, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Dannyboybaby1234

Dannyboybaby1234 (talk · contribs) is showcasing disruptive ownership issues that are damaging the Aaron Livesy article. Despite being told of WP:MOSHEAD, several times today (s)he has capitalised words in section headers that ought not to be capitalised because "I feel like Capitals are NEEDED, as i DID START THE PAGE". On their last edit, (s)he logged and used thier IP: 80.235.145.247 (talk · contribs). On the talkpage of the article, (s)he states that because they created the page, all changes should "be discussed through me". Pyrrhus16 15:40, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I've got this.--Chaser (talk) 16:02, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Now reverted a separate editor with their IP after receiving a message from Chaser. Pyrrhus16 16:47, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

IP blocked.--Chaser (talk) 22:21, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Is it typical to have articles like this? Almost an episode to episode description of what happens to a character in Emerdale? Dougweller (talk) 18:58, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Toa Nidhiki05

Toa Nidhiki05 (talk · contribs) was recently blocked for edit warring on the Democratic Party (United States) article. Unfortunately, rather than learning to work more collaberatively, the user seems to have decided that discussion is of no value. Immediately after the block, he remade the same edit for which he was previously 3RR blocked. He also now has a notice added to his talk page stating "I will not respond to messages on this page for a while; the editors of Wikipedia have proven themselves to be obsessed with injecting their own bias onto pages, and I have no wish to communicate with them."

The user has also filed a request at RFPP to have their talk page fully protected (which was declined); and has also posting a message to another user with the edit summary of this edit "I am not talking anymore".

At this point, I believe additional admin intervention is needed due to the user's decision to avoid any attempt at consensus, as they feel their opinion (regardless of if their opinion is right or wrong) is the only one that matters. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:01, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

You misunderstood my question; I stated that because I am become a mainspace-exclusive editor because of the other two members involved in the dispute. As far as I know, that is not illegal. Also, as far as I know, there is no rule saying I cannot re-add my edit after my 31-hour ban. In addition, my opinion is not the only one that matters. I have repeatedly tried to talk with the user, as seen here. TN05 —Preceding undated comment added 21:38, 11 April 2010 (UTC).

TN05, the discussion to which you linked is the same one to which you added the edit summary on your most recent post that "I am not talking anymore". Update: although I see you still applied an additional reply on that page, thank you for continuing to engage in discussion despite the prior edit summary. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:46, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I've left a gentle but clear message on the talk page. It is a bit of a hissy fit, but I've tried not to bite. However I have been clear that continued 3RR, edit warring and so on will lead to blocks. Discussion is how it works around here. SGGH ^ping! 21:41, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Note, there are also a couple discussions related to this subject on the article talk page. If the user wants to discuss the changes, there are multiple parties showing an interest in the subject. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:45, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

User has told me he has taken these things on board. We shall see what manifests in terms of talk-page discussion, but the ANI report seems to have served its purpose for now. SGGH ^ping! 22:22, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Redirects

Resolved

 – –MuZemike 00:27, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Nothing to see here, folks.

On March 29, PartyJoe (talk · contribs) created six redirects, from the names of teenagers facing serious criminal charges, to the article South Hadley High School (see his contributions for that date, as I'm not going to link the names here). The names of these students have appeared in news reports, such as the last two references in the school's article, but they appear nowhere in that article itself. This is a bit outside my usual editing area; nevertheless, it seems to me that the redirects may need to disappear, even though, I suppose, they're not technically BLP violations because the names have appeared in reliable sources. Would someone more versed than I in such matters take a look at this? Deor (talk) 19:12, 11 April 2010 (UTC) I doubt that speedy or oversight would be appropriate since they're redirecting to an article on a school, rather than on a criminal act. Having said that, though, it is common to redirect the names of perpetrators to articles on their crimes where one is notable but the other not. However, if the redirects are being used to some way imply culpability for something, G10 may be appropriate. could you elaborate on the facts a little for those unfamiliar with the circumstances? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:20, 11 April 2010 (UTC) They were listed in the article when I created the redirects. There may be issues with 4 of them being minors. It may be best to delete those now, and maybe wait for a admin to rule on the 2 charged as adults. PartyJoe (talk) 19:24, 11 April 2010 (UTC) (edit conflict)Having just ventured over to the article, am I to assume that this pertains to the controversy surrounding the suicide? I'm tempted to RfD them since the individuals in question are not notable, though, as I say above, I don't think speedy is appropriate unless the redirects are being used to implicitly attack the individuals. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:28, 11 April 2010 (UTC) PartyJoe, if you created them and think they should be deleted, tag them with {{db-g7}} and they can be deleted. Now you've come here, I highly doubt you're using them to attack the individuals so I'd say RfD is the best place for the discussion of nay PartyJoe doesn't wish to G7. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:28, 11 April 2010 (UTC) (edit conflict) I know nothing about the facts of the alleged crimes, if that's what you mean. On further investigation, however, I see that the names do appear in Death of Phoebe Prince#Criminal case, so it seems to me that if the redirects are going to point anywhere, it should be to that article/section. Personally, I see no reason why we should have redirects at the names of nonnotable individuals who haven't been convicted of any crime, no matter what the target; but I may be wrong. That's why I brought it up here. Deor (talk) 19:29, 11 April 2010 (UTC) To be tagged as advised. PartyJoe (talk) 19:32, 11 April 2010 (UTC) I was going to say, redirects to the section which propose involvement in a criminal case without any kind of citation (particularly if these is no conviction) violates WP:BLP. SGGH ping! 19:38, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

User:CynofGavuf

CynofGavuf put the London Amateur Club up for deletion once. He or she used the reason "amateur club" as a reason. So it was speedily closed due to no substance in the reasoning for putting it up for deletion. CynofGavuf opened that first deletion up again. I told him to not revert that as it is seen as disruptive and he can be potentially blocked for doing so. Now he put it up for deletion a second time and still put "amateur club" as the reason again. I told him again that if he puts it up again, it will be seen as disruptive and possibly blocked. If he would have given a better reason for nominating this article, it wouldn't have been an issue. But he decided not to and proceed with doing what he is doing. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 22:36, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

• The only disruption I can see here is the out-of-process closing of the first AfD by yourself. OK, "amateur club" is not exactly the greatest rationale ever, but when the nominator reopened the AfD and expanded on it ([2]) you closed it again! Not to mention that there's nothing in WP:NAC or WP:SK for that matter which allows you to do that. The new rationale is better; the AfD should now run as normal. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:11, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Black Kite. You shouldn't be doing AFD closures if you've participated, whether you're an admin or not.--Chaser (talk) 01:55, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Possible unauthorised bot

Starzynka (talk · contribs) has created a large number of pages in a very short amount of time. Looks like an unauthorised bot. -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 09:59, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

No it isn't. I don't get much time on wikipedia, and when I do I try to create missing articles.Starzynka (talk) 10:05, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Something needs to be done here, it's a similar case to Tratra22395768 (talk · contribs) a few weeks ago. -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 10:15, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

You are very rude. I try to help wikipedia with articles. My stubs have official government reference and interwiki links and just need expansion. Over 5 other wikis already have these articles. I am not using bot, but I have spent my own time contributing. It is disgusting the way you treat people in english wiki.Starzynka (talk) 10:28, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Tratra22395768's page creation reached a maximum rate of at least 19 in a single minute. As far as I can tell Starzynka's highest has been 7 in a minute. Given the fact that the articles' contents are basically identical (using PAGENAME for the name), a human editor creating a page every 9 seconds doesn't seem too surprising to me.

With Tratra22395768 there were also concerns about the notability of the stubs being created. I'm not really up to date on the consensus on notability of villages, which is what Starzynka's creating. Olaf Davis (talk) 10:27, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Articles like this which need put into english. I will ask WP:Hungary to try to help translate and fill out the recent stubs. But please WP:AGF. We are volunteers here. My stubs like Hammam Dhalaa have 34,000 people living in them. Stop wasting my time and report real problems here instead.Starzynka (talk) 10:30, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, just to be clear, I don't have a problem with the subject matter, and, as I understand it, both villages and species (Trantra created articles about sea-snails) are generally considered notable. I don't have any concerns about the articles themselves, but I believe there is cause for reasonable suspicion for bot or script activity, which is why I thought it should be brought to the attention of administrators (see WP:Bot policy#Dealing with issues). Anyway, if I'm mistaken or reported it to quick, I apologise and will gladly accept a trout. -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 11:20, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I am on the white list so you don't even have to patrol my stubs.Starzynka (talk) 11:26, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Your articles are nice and are in much better shape than new articles on villages in India. Diannaa ^TALK 03:13, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Wooblz!

The user has been warned many, many times about invalid redirects and copyright violations as well as fair use image sizes. Yet today he has created another invalid redirect/blp violation as well as #1 and #2 oversize versions of images after getting a very stern warning that this would not be tolerated any more. See his talkpage history for a long list of warnings which he has chosen to delete and ignore. Given that he doesn't seem to care, some action needs to be taken to stop him from continuing his behavior.--Terrillja _talk 02:21, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Another editor that just doesn't seem to get it, be it failure to grasp image licensing/fair use in anyway or paying any attention what so ever to any communication. Another bizarre edit recently was blanking an article and replacing it with a redirect to an article he created several times here. I have also notified him off this notice. Rehevkor ✉ 02:37, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

(The redirect was apparently a misguided attempt at a cut&paste move, have redirected the article created and warned him, for what it's worth.) Rehevkor ✉ 02:45, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Large amount of blanks and redirects without apparent consensus.

I noticed that Aocduio has been blanking and redirecting a large amount of historical stub article's related to Korea to more general-purpose article's. I cannot see any consensus for doing so, and the large amount and speed at which this is done concerns me a bit. I left a note on the users talk page requesting if he or she could provide some more detail, but im tacking a note here as well to get some more eyes on this. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 08:24, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

According to Korean Wikipedia, Hwandan Gogi contents just the rise of korean nationalism. Ruler of Buyeo article also redirects into Buyeo article in Korean Wikipedia. By the same token, I'm just to follow the historical regulations.---Aocduio (talk) 08:29, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

What other Wikipedias do does not necessarily have to be followed here. I'd say redirects are inappropriate in any situation where 1) the information blanked is not present in the main article and 2) the stub passes WP:GNG. Ironholds (talk) 08:53, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Ironholds. Why remove information from the encyclopedia? If it is not covered in the redirect target, it should be left as a stub. Dlohcierekim 14:31, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

From my fairly limited knowledge of the workings of Korean Wikipedia they don't have nearly as many articles as we do. Hence, there are going to be more redirects that could be articles. We don't need to do what korean wikipedia is doing. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs/^Vote! 16:59, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Articles about histories are different from the histories themselves. Otherwise, every non-fictional book could be replaced with a redirect to its topic. Do you have evidence that Hwandan Gogi is the only source for those articles and that it is a hoax? Hwandan Gogi is cryptic (some historians support it, some dispute it is just meaningless). This belongs first at WP:RSN before getting rid of all that. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:51, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Vandal only account

Resolved

 – 07:38, April 12, 2010 MuZemike blocked Gerhard von Stauner

Recently created Gerhard von Stauner looks to be a vandalism only account. Similar editing habits to User:Irvine22 who has just been indefinitely blocked, so it may be a sock. More likely a sock of User:Dick Stauner who either was Irvine or follows him around. However the nature of the edits are vandalism so it doesn't seem worthy of a SPI report. Would someone have a quick look? --Snowded ^TALK 06:48, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Das ist ein Skandal - wie du dicht traust! Gerhard von Stauner (talk) 07:12, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Block review

Yesterday I warned Pookzta (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (who signs as Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez) to cease his disruptive campaigning over the deletion of Judy Wood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). He has instead chosen to carry on the campaign on multiple pages. This is a disruptive single-purpose account pressing a Truther agenda, and his discussions take the form of endless repetition of the same assertions without modification or concession to the points made. The obsessive use of doctoral titles is usually indicative of an agenda being pressed, and that does seem to be the case here. I don't think he's here to pursue the goals of Wikipedia, I think he's here to pursue an agenda. Guy (Help!) 09:37, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Support block. He is here with an agenda, his case has been rejected all the way to DRV, but he is unable to drop the stick. JohnCD (talk) 09:58, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I support the block...Pookzta repeatedly spammed a number of pages with the cut & paste notability claims and undeletion arguments, broadly accused editors here of working for some nefarious purposes, and ignored repeated attempts to offer advice that would have helped. Pookzta's aggressive, agenda-driven editing was tendentious and not appropriate. — Scientizzle 13:14, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Support block. If they could at some point offer assurances of dropping that stick and moving on, then an unblock might be considered at that time, with them being banned from picking it up again or further tendentiousness. Dlohcierekim 14:02, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Support - Apparently even the conspiracy theorists rejected his arguments. What does that tell you about its notability? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:37, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Neutral - I lean toward giving him another chance, provided he restricts his rants to the appropriate page, probably Talk:9/11 Truth Movement. His arguments are faulty, but only the spamming makes it disruptive. (I am not willing to act as a mentor, if such is required.) However, his claim that it's the only Truther argument that the Supreme Court has ruled on might be evidence of notability of the argument, if it were, pardon the expression, true. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:18, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you could take him up on his offer to add you to his e-mail list. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:52, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Never mind, he's posted his thesis on his talk page. This reminds me of some of the other conspiracy theories (I won't say which ones, since I don't want him to branch out) in which the conspiracy theorist decides what the evidence should look like, observes that the actual evidence doesn't square with his expectations, and therefore concludes that something's fishy. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:24, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I hear you. Kudos to Arthur for some patient work there. Guy (Help!) 21:11, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Note: unblock request declined. Tan | 39 16:37, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

After three unblock requests and a bit of edit warring, I removed Pookzta's access to his talk page. Any admin can feel free to reverse this at any point. Tan | 39 17:29, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

For the record, I have removed some soapboxing from his talk page. Feel free to revert my edits if I was out of line. --bonadea contributions talk 18:35, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Good block. Dougweller (talk) 19:52, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Endorse block I don't think we're going to get productive work out of this individual. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:46, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

• oppose block from what I have seen of his edits, it appears like this editor is simply using all avenues available to dispute what he feels is an incorrect decision. There is nothing wrong with this, and veteran editors such as the editors above take these courses of action all the time, the only difference here, is User:Pookzta is new, and does not have the network of like minded editors that many of these veteran editors above have. It is clear that JzG and many other editors here have an incredibly negative view of alternative views about 9/11. Unfortunately, silencing editors who have different viewpoints, and who don't shut up when asked by veteran editors threaten them is nothing new on Wikipedia. Okip 21:05, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I have a negstive view of single-purpose accounts who are here to push WP:TRUTH at all costs and who WP:FORUMSHOP and who show no signs at all of understanding and learning from feedback. The context of long-term POV-pushing by Truthers is only a minor factor in this. And yes, I also have a negative view of anyone who is here to push fringe views, that is by no means restricted to 9/11 nor is it a problem, we even have a policy on it: WP:UNDUE. Guy (Help!) 21:45, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

• Arthur Rubin's comment makes me pause, and I'd have liked to give this user another chance - but I still inclined to endorse block; (the risk of) further problem editing is too great to ignore. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:05, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Ipkip, I found your entry on his page | troubling to say the least. It looks to me to be a "suggestion" on how to get around his current situation.

I'll remove it for now. KoshVorlonNaluboutes,Aeria Gloris 13:00, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Topic-ban for User:Newman Luke on Judaism-related articles

Per Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Newman Luke, the consensus seems clear that User:Newman Luke should be topic-banned from Judaism-related articles. Are there any objections? -- Avi (talk) 01:29, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

• Newman Luke (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I agree that a topic ban is appropriate. Newman Luke's plan for reform of Judaism articles first came to my attention in this 3RR report filed on 15 February about Forbidden relationships in Judaism. The report was closed with protection of Forbidden relationships in Judaism, and my suggestion that both parties work for consensus. What followed was not any good-faith attempt at discussion from Newman's side, but an ongoing campaign of article reversion. He thinks the current content of these articles is mostly wrong, and needs an extensive rewrite. Perusal of the above RFC/U may be able to convince you that Newman Luke has practically no support from other editors for his views. He has harshly criticized his editorial opponents and and accused them of article ownership. You'll see a lot of mention of 'vandalism' in his edit summaries. He does not seem willing to use regular discussion to bring about change. The past admin warnings to Newman Luke seem to have had no effect on his behavior. EdJohnston (talk) 12:07, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

articles on Jewish subject have suffered from OWNership attempts from various positions. I don't think highly of the slant he's been trying to take, which does seem like an effort to find areas which some observers might find some few traditional attitudes curious or quaint or misguided--a very POV approach. Some of the other approaches I think almost equally slanted, and often he is the only one challenging them. I agree it's a nuisance to have to deal with him, but I am reluctant to chase away what is often the only voice calling for re-examination. At least, ban only from article space, not talk space or WP space DGG ( talk ) 16:36, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I followed the RfC/U, but have no connection to the dispute. Based on what I saw at the RfC/U, it seemed like Newman Luke doesn't have any insight into why so many editors are persistently unhappy with him. In the absence of such understanding, I do not think that it is possible for him to collaborate successfully in this area. I think that DGG's suggestion of a mainspace topic ban is an appropriate way to get this large group of editors back on track with building the encyclopedia instead of fighting in the mainspace. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:31, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

• Per DGG and WhatamIdoing, a mainspace topic ban seems like a better solution for now. I'm not convinced that a talk page topic ban would be useful at this time. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:04, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support Collect (talk) 13:08, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Failed mediation on Race and intelligence

On the talk page of the mediation page for this article, a version of the lede was decided by a consensus of multiple editors. Ludwigs2 had also put in place a faulty procedure for redrafting the article in mainspace. This permitted David.Kane (talk · contribs), an inexperienced wikipedia editor, to push his extreme personal point of view in the lede, giving WP:UNDUE support for a minoritarian point of view. The editor used almost no secondary sources. What he put into the lede was a combination of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH which contradicts almost all secondary sources. Ludwigs2 was well aware that David.Kane had a WP:POV and that he had very little editing experience in mainspace articles. I have reverted the lede to the previous lede decided by consensus. Allowing a single inepxerienced editor to reek havoc with a notoriously controversial article of this kind was extremely ill-advised and has wrecked the article.

It is not advisable to discuss 3RR when David.Kane was given carte blanche to make whatever edits pleased him. Mathsci (talk) 23:10, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

David.Kane (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is continuing to restore his POV-pushing edits to the article. The article is disgraceful. it does not in any way whatsover reflect any secondary sources. It reveals David.Kane's personal point of view and possibly that of the other WP:SPA's active in mediation. Ludwigs2 has condoned David.Kane's foolhardy edits. Mathsci (talk) 23:37, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

If editors other than MathSci would like me to give my side of the story, I would be happy to do so. Short version: 1) Throughout this mediation, I have abided by all the decisions/suggestions made by the various mediators. (We have had three so far.) 2) I think that the mediation has been very successful. Compare the version of the article we have now [3] with the version that we started with [4]. 3) I like to think/hope that I have contributed to the success of the effort but, not being an experienced editor, I would leave that judgment to my fellow mediation participants, at least half a dozen of whom have explicitly thanked me. David.Kane (talk) 00:48, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I think it needs to be pointed out that this is the third time Mathsci has brought up this same issue here in the past three weeks. The previous two times were here and here. Both of these threads were started by other users, but Mathsci redirected them into complaints about Ludwigs2’s handling of the mediation case for this article, and the admins eventually declined to take action against Ludwig. Doesn’t Wikipedia have a rule against this sort of forum shopping? --Captain Occam (talk) 01:21, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

If a party to the mediation is dissatisfied, that shouldn't be swept under the carpet. I think it would be best to close the mediation. PhilKnight (talk) 02:18, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

If the current lede (and article), [5] are the result of the mediation, then I would say that the mediation is in practice a success. I'd support protecting it for a while DGG ( talk ) 03:06, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes DGG, Ludwigs2 stepped in and restored the lede decided by consensus, removing David.Kane's radical rewrite. We now have to look at David.Kane's rewriting of the rest of the article, which seems to have the same problems, perhaps worse. Captain Occam is wrong about my posts to ANI. This is the first time I've initiated a post for a while. Mathsci (talk) 07:03, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

“Captain Occam is wrong about my posts to ANI. This is the first time I've initiated a post for a while.”

Everyone: just look at the two threads that I linked to, and read at least half of them. Everything I’ve described is there if you do. Mathsci hasn’t actually initiated a post here about this topic recently, but he’s turned two posts about other topics into discussions about this one, so much so that the original discussions were completely abandoned and his own complaints ended up being the only thing that the admins responded to. Now is the first time he’s initiated a post about this recently, but it is not the first time he’s brought it up here, and had the admins look at his complaint and decline to take action about it. --Captain Occam (talk) 08:36, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Captain Occam, it's not a great idea for a WP:SPA to challenge an experienced mainstream editor like me. Edit some ordinary articles and perhaps then you might be taken seriously. Mathsci (talk) 23:23, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

2 more days. Xavexgoem (talk) 04:38, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly. Incidentally, [6] shows the rewrite. Guy (Help!) 09:41, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

What is happening at that article and that "mediation" are ridiculous. I have reverted the article to the last-good version of late march. If a group of fringe theorists wants to rewrite it, they should write up their draft somewhere, not engage in a sham meditation. The sheer number of edits David.Kane is making makes it impossible for anyone to monitor his changes. He should make concrete, section by section proposals, or write a larger draft in the talk or user namespace. This dithering around in mainspace by questionable actors is disruptive. Admins, step in - this is sanctionable behavior. 02:30, 12 April 2010 (UTC)This comment was by User:Hipocrite

I haven't looked in any detail at any of the main text of R&I except the history section, which was quite inadequate. I had rewritten the history over about three days from secondary sources. Hipocrite meanwhile tried to revert David.Kane's changes to the main text. Although I think David.Kane's version was barely readable - just a kind of disorganized muddle - it was not a good idea for Hipocrite to proceed in that way, since reasonable editors have come to the article and are improving it (including one more administrator). Hipocrite did insert the history section that I had left for comment on the talk page, but I think that's fine. He prompted me to write a short summary for it. However, now David.kKne is proceeding to add his own brand new content to the history section from primary sources, i.e. as if he is an historian himself and can make personal comments. I reverted his edit according to WP:BRD, but he did not respond to my talk page message. Instead Bpesta22 just restored his edit. Ludwigs2 then dropped in on the article talk page, contradicting the information I was giving about WP:BRD. If Ludwigs2 can't find another article to edit and persists in making trolling remarks on the Talk:Race and intelligence, encouraging edits that are against policy, pleasecould an administrator just perhaps gently nudge him in the right direction? He seems to have no interest at all in commenting on content. A page ban perhaps? Mathsci (talk) 05:14, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

again, for clarity, here's diffs: Mathsci is referring to this, and subsequent comments where I commented on his (to my mind) peculiar reading of policy. hipocrite, in turn, has begun a near edit war on the article, despite his explicit claim that he doesn't know a damned thing about the content [7] (paraphrased form the last line) . not my place to judge, of course, but I don't think either case here displays a healthy attitude towards the project. --Ludwigs2 06:27, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

• Can some uninvolved admins please review this whole mediation and article? Any version of the article that fails to note the criticism of the Pioneer Fund is certainly not neutral. I was briefly involved at the beginning of the mediation but gave up when it became dominated by walls of text, trolling and POV-pushing. Fences&Windows 12:37, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

The Pioneer Fund is currently mentioned in the article, albeit briefly. There was a couple of discussions of the matter in mediation Wikipedia_talk:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2009-11-12/Race_and_Intelligence/Archive_5#NPOV_and_data here, and in this thread - you can examine them. I'm actually surprised there wasn't a more dedicated discussion of the matter. Feel free to expand on the matter in the article - mediation is over. --Ludwigs2 15:47, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Wind Mobile

I need some assistance with changes I am trying to make to the article on Wind Mobile. I am trying to include a criticism section and discuss the company's net neutrality and issues the company has been having with the reliability of its network. User:jæs has consistently rolled back every one of my changes http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wind_Mobile&action=history. First, they were removed on the grounds that a leading academic's opinion on the matter wasn't reliable because he said it in his blog (Talk:Wind Mobile). Next, my comments about network issues were rejected because they cited user forums. I changed the citation to a paragraph from the Globe and Mail and it was again removed on the grounds that I was cherry picking facts to support a bias. I have argued that customer satisfaction and net neutrality is encyclopaedically relevant to an article about a business. jæs disagrees and believes that I am trying to turn Wikipedia into a consumer forum. That is fine, but instead of engaging the community, jæs is outright reversing my edits. jæs is citing WP policy in deletions but I do not feel that I am violating them. The discussions at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Michael_Geist and Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests#Wind_mobile may be helpful. BordenRhodes (talk) 07:26, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd recommend that you pursue the first stages of Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, as this seems like a content dispute, not appropriate for here at ANI. GlassCobra 17:19, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Thnks fr th Mmrs

The "Parody" section of "Thnks fr th Mmrs"is complete bullshit. The song does exist, but Fall Out Boy never performed it in any way, shape or form. I don't know whether the user needs to check their sources, if they were trying to promote a friend's parody or what the deal is but it needs to be fixed. By the way, the "source" they have for Fall Out Boy singing it in Glasgow is a 30-second clip from "Thnks fr th Mmrs" - in 2007, before the parody even existed. Drew Pickles69 (talk) 14:51, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

You should probably bring this up on the article's talk page. –Turian (talk) 14:56, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

both sources used in that section fail WP:RS and WP:V, random youtube video and some user created content on a site don't quite cut it.--Crossmr (talk) 15:30, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive Editing by User:Vexorg

This user is engaging in the kind of disruption is virtually impossible to deal with. Reverting without consensus or references, disruption on the talk pages, and even canvassing to get his WP:POINT into the article. For the record, this is not the first time I have brought this editor to this board, but report is in reference to this article only. The defense will be a loud accusatory finger (sorry about the mixed metaphor) pointed at me and any of his other accusers. Please strip off the histrionics and look directly at the diffs. I hope I have not got any of the diffs wrong. I have tried to be careful but mistakes happen and I will correct any asap. Thanks

Disruptive editing at Rothschild family

The following are recent reversions (the last three days)

• [8] 5 March
• [9] 5 March
• [10] 5 March
• [11] 3 April
• [12] 4 April
• [13] 4 April
• [14] 5 April
• [15] 5 April

Disruption on the Talk page

Verorg started a section about another editor he titled 'Complaint about User:Mbz1 and his POV edits

• [16]

Examples of Vexorg's dialogue on the talk page:

• [17] "this isn't the place to discuss your lack of knowledge..."
• [18] acknowledging that he is restoring material on the basis of his own argument without consensus or references
• [19] continues to restore debated material based on his own arguments rather than consensus or references
• [20] asking another editor if he is editing as an IP and threatening to do a checkuser
• [21] again threatening this user with checkuser
• [22] accusing another editor of "untruths" and "smelling a Pov here"
• [23] more personal attacks, expresses his desire to reinsert the same material "after a reasonable time has elapsed"
• [24] Accusing other editors of having a "problem" - again expressing his intention to reinsert his material despite the lack of consensus for such a change
• [25] demanding of another editor once again if he is a particular IP
• [26] "It's not surprising that Stellarkid wants to remove the section, given his/her political stance as shown in several disruptive Arbitration reports over the last few weeks. "

Canvassing

• [27]
• [28]

User:NickCT's comment after being canvassed by Vexorg here [29]

Thanks for your consideration. Stellarkid (talk) 03:54, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comment by Stellarkid

I have fixed the edits above to reflect the correct date. I misread 3-4, or 3-5 got it backwards or something like that. My intention was not to indicate 3RR violations since if that were the intention I would have gone to the appropriate board. My intention here is to show that there is disruption and that Vexrog is not using the talk page constructively to make his case. He is not getting RS or listening to the concerns of others and trying to address them. He seems to believe that he has the truth and so the right to put his edit in despite lack of consensus and challenges by others. Stellarkid (talk) 20:59, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Where's the beef? What are you trying to do here? Surely you don't think that's enough to get Vexorg banned. In fact if this is all you could dig up on him it's a credit to Vexorg. Factomancer (talk) 04:51, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

It would be great if someone could straighten out what's going on with these two groups of editors, but if that's not possible to do, then I suggest it might be necessary to block Vexorg, Stellarkid, Factsontheground, Mbz1, Breein1007 and whatever other members I missed of these contentious and disruptive groups. They've all been warned that blocks were going to start coming, I assume other people are as tired of seeing these same names here over and over again, so admins should start wheeling and dealing, I think. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:53, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

This ANI has nothing to do with me. I will strongly request that you refrain from mentioning my name again unless you intend on filing a report against me. Otherwise, keep me the hell out of this because I am not involved. Thank you. Breein1007 (talk) 05:48, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

The people who keep bringing unnecessary drama to the noticeboards should be banned. Those of us merely trying to write articles and improve the encyclopedia should be left alone and not punished for other people's misbehaviour. There's no Wikipedia policy that says that you can be banned just because people mention your name a lot. And who are you to suggest that I am banned? How many articles have you written lately? Factomancer (talk) 05:05, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment And in fact the accusatory voices are raised against the messenger as expected, with calls to block me for bringing it forward. This venue is where we are supposed to bring such things. You may call it drama, but not one of you have addressed any of the diffs brought forward. If you don't see anything problematic here, fine, say so; but please do not start calling up other names for blocks. Deal with this one, then if you are unhappy with me or others, bring the report and the appropriate diffs. Some people are beginning to make editing Wiki an unpleasant experience, and that goes against the purpose of WP. Thank you. Stellarkid (talk) 05:40, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I never mentioned your name in the above comment, I merely said "The people who keep bringing unnecessary drama to the noticeboards should be banned". It's interesting that you immediately interpreted that as meaning yourself. Freudian slip? Factomancer (talk) 06:00, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Those first diffs on the Rothschild article are from early March, not early April. However, I completely agree that Vexorg's discussion on Talk:Rothschild is uncivil. There's a ginormous debate on that page over what looks to me like a relatively minor section heading issue, complete with canvassing and tons of personal attacks about the "political agendas" of other editors involved. I tried earlier today leaving the editor a note about civility 1 because I thought all of the conspiracy accusations against other editors were pretty irritating, unfortunately s/he found it "patronizing" and told me so on my talk page. The editor is certainly willing to engage in discussion, but their incessant conspiracy theorizing about editors who disagree with them on issues related to Israel/Zionism being part of a "Lobby" just seems to me to be really unhelpful in terms of keeping editing in this area calm and civil. CordeliaNaismith (talk) 05:23, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

First and Final Comment by Vexorg - This clearly obsessive and bad faith attempt to get me blocked/banned by Stellarkid doesn't even warrant a millisecond's response. It really speaks for itself as a continuation of the disruptive derailment that has no doubt annoyed all the admin who have had to wade through this nonsense over the last few weeks. This latest piece of partisan melodrama is not something I wish to be associated with and I sympathize with any administrators who have to deal with this incessant and childish guff. And for the record the 'rant' left at my talk page by CordeliaNaismith was extremely patronising and that is why I swiftly removed it. I won't be spoken to like that in real life or on Wikipedia. This whole debacle is getting beyond ridiculous. I'll leave you all to it. Vexorg (talk) 05:49, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Vrubel's Demons - having been at the receiving end of Vexorgs incivility, I was thinking of reporting him myself, but apparently someone else did that. I do not know and do not care about any prior quarrels this editor had with other editors, but I do care that he derailed a discussion about content by attacking other editors and by canvassing what he perceived as like-minded editors (though let me emphasize that one of those canvassed did not respond, and the editor responded added to the discussion about the content). He also filed a bad faith sockpuppet report about an editor who disagreed with him, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Off2riorob/Archive. When warned at his talk page about his incivility and edit warring, he accused me of hounding him [30]. It this behavior which makes any discussions about content impossible, and drives away those editors who actually want to improve the content of the article. Демоны Врубеля/Vrubel's Demons (talk) 07:01, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment by NickCT This is another example or "drop-of-the-hat" arbitration. If you read the Rothchild talk page, you'll see that this issue is being taken care of, and the tone of the debate is simmering down. @Stellar - By filing these ANI you only serve to inflame. Verxog may be loud, but he hasn't done anything egregious. When he does, I'll report him myself. NickCT (talk) 13:10, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposal

I don't really care who it starts with, but something's got to give or this will go on forever -- so why not start right here and now, since general warnings have been given already. My suggestion is that both of these editors should be blocked for a reasonable short period of time, say a week, and when they return it should be under a topic ban which requires them to deal with their disputes with each other only on the relevant article talk pages or in legitimate dispute resolution. Any posts to AN, AN/I, RSN, COIN, SPI regarding each other would be grounds for another block. The third time, block indef. Then, when some other member of either of the two battling groups cames here with another dispute, start the process over with them.

Until they are forced to deal with each other, there's no real reason for them to come to any accomodation or compromise as long as they think they can come running here (and elsewhere) to continue the fight and run the string out even further. Channel them into dispute resolution, and if they don't want to go there, indef them.

Anyway, I'm feeling bloodthirsty tonight and that's my suggestion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:31, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose If Vexorg did something to earn admonishment or a block then Stellarkid was justified in bringing this report. I don't want to get too involved in this since I know the admins are losing their patience but this proposal seems a little far reaching and based on frustration instead of a decent review of the complaint. If it is found that both CordeliaNaismith and Stellar are wrong in their perceptions then there might be reasoning.Cptnono (talk) 06:44, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that this is basically a problem between Stellarkid and Vexorg, Vexorg directed personal attacks at other editors on Talk:Rothschild family also. It also looks like 2 other editors have discussed campaigning or personal attacks with Vexorg on his talk page: 1, 2. Given that, within the last day, Vexorg has started a Wikiquette thread regarding a comment on another editor's talk page and opened a sockpuppet investigation which was rejected as fishing, it looks to me that this editor is making significant contributions to the drama. CordeliaNaismith (talk) 07:17, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken, I have nothing in principle against your affection for radical solutions. However, we have enough action already and I have good reasons to believe that you solution will only increase the stream in this bloodbath (so blood-thirsty or not-you may not like the outcome). I see it as a complex problem that need the intervention of expert surgeon-maybe involvment of other admins, new in this I-P but experineced with solving complex long lasting conflicts, and with the close supoervison of bureaucrats-could lead to cease fire. Nothing would be less benificial for WP than mass "executions" of user accounts. It will only result with less articles on this topic, with articles that are biased and so forth. This conflict involved, generally, with more than 30 editors-it seem just to suggest special policy in regard to editing in I-P related articles.P.s. I agree with Breein 1007, this random name dropping you did is improper and destructive.--Gilisa (talk) 10:25, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Further discussion

Comment: Any reviewing administrator should be advised that User:Vexorg was recently given a strong warning (final warning?) about such behavior. Vexorg has also been previously blocked for a type of behavior that somewhat resembles what's shown in this report. FYI. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 15:18, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment #2 – The edits that Vexorg made to Stellarkid's comments are also concerning, and, I believe, actionable in of themselves. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 18:29, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

• Reply by Vexorg - I am discussing this at my talk page. So before you jump in and start shouting for action, I did in fact revert myself previously. And after it was pointed out that it was against policy I just came here to revert myself a 2nd time but I see you have done it for me. So thank you for that Ynhockey :) - I think, and in regard to policy, I think it's better to let Stellarkid's misrepresentations of my diffs be exposed for all to see. Vexorg (talk) 18:39, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I apparently made an error in my dates. Will try to fix that later in the day. The point was not to show that Vexrog had violated 3RR. I don't know if he did or not, probably he didn't as he was conscious of violating it and made a note of giving it a proper amount of time before reinserting the material. My point was just that he was edit -warring and disruptively inserting information against consensus and without references to back up his assertions. Stellarkid (talk) 18:42, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

• Reply by Vexorg - "Will try to fix that later in the day." - if there is good faith why not fix it now? It would take 5 seconds? Vexorg (talk) 18:49, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
• Comment to Stellarkid It is very difficult to believe that you accidentally dated edits made on the 5th of March as being from 3rd of April.

I will note that you have made use of misrepresentation when it suits you:

• here where you selectively quote for effect.
• here where you misrepresent the provenance and quality of a source: Based on the link Big Campaign which is a propaganda anti-Israel site, NOT an RS at all. Using this bogus site and its information,.
• Which I asked you to correct here
• Yet you continued on with the misrepresentation here - The root source was of course http://www.soas.ac.uk/lawpeacemideast/, this is apparent when one visits the link that I gave when adding the cats in question, which is why it is troubling that you chose not to reproduce it in full.

I think it is understandable that one wants to offer a strong case but it is troubling when an editor does so by proffering half-truths and fabrications, as I believe to have demonstrated that you have. Unomi (talk) 19:29, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

• Reply to Unomi-- The difference was I think between the dates 4-3 and 3-4 -- March 4th or April 3rd. Stellarkid (talk) 20:45, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

• Further reply to Unomi.this is not a misrepresentation nor a selective quote. It is what the words say. It was not quoted "for effect" but to clarify why people might find it offensive. The tacked-on disclaimer is a bit meaningless if you know Carlos Latuff's work and the fact that he came in 2nd at the Iran Holocaust Cartoon Contest

• The second link which you call a misrepresentation is based on this link [31] which your edit summary says {"add cat per http://www.bigcampaign.org/index.php?page=report-uk-economic-links-with-israeli-settlements"} and a handful of other edits using the same edit summary, all of which are found on the page you linked to. Will deal with the other accusations of misrepresentation later today. Busy now. Thanks Stellarkid (talk) 21:19, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

• Your third and forth diffs are directly related to the second which I answered above, and are not in the slightest misrepresentations of your source which you yourself listed--please see the second point above. Stellarkid (talk) 00:12, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

• If you can't distinguish between: http://www.bigcampaign.org/index.php?page=report-uk-economic-links-with-israeli-settlements" and Based on the link Big Campaign then I would say that your value proposition to wikipedia is questionable.
• You cut off the quote in mid sentence in order to support your preconceived notion of what he really thinks. You cut off the part of his quote where he defines the subset he considers to be racist along with the part where he explicitly rejects anti-semitism.

This is intellectual honesty 101 stuff, please stop trying to defend the indefensible. I am withdrawing from this thread, please do hit me up on my talkpage if you have further concerns. Unomi (talk) 07:26, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Well I support some kind of restriction on User Vexorg, recently it is almost impossible to find an edit of his that has not been reverted, all of his edits are to a single issue and on some articles he is repeatedly labeling organisations as Zioninst when his additions are reverted by multiple editors he repeaterdly inserts them, causing disruption at multiple locations. He reported me as a sockpuppet, there was no evidence at all apart from he thought it was me and the report was closed with a looks like bad faith comment, I would have more expected an apology under such circumstances but after the SPI was closed User Vexorg continued to question if I was the IP. He also posted messages in a canvassing manner at two editors talkpages, Umoni, who is here commenting and another editor. I don't see any sign that there will be any change at all in his editing pattern, without restriction the disruptive pattern will simply continue. Off2riorob (talk) 19:59, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I concur. In fact this recent comment by Vexorg [32] suggests that the Vexorg shows little insight into the inappropriateness of his behavior. A preventive block or ban might be in order, in particular given the extensive block log of this account. Демоны Врубеля/Vrubel's Demons (talk) 22:03, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Correction of misrepresentation by Демоны Врубеля/Vrubel's Demons above by Vexorg - because I don't want to clutter up this ANI with a battlefield, I made a comment about a misrepresentation of me by user:Off2riorob on my talk page. Демоны Врубеля/Vrubel's Demons has now misrepresented me by claiming this is 'showing little insight into the inappropriateness of [my]behavior.' There is nothing inappropriate about commenting on misrepresentations made about myself on my talk page however many times you say it is. It is my right of reply to comment on such and as long as people continue to misrepresent me I shall continue to comment on that. And the repetition of your arguments at this ANI are starting to make it seem untenable that you are acting on good faith. 'extensive block log of this account' - hyperbole. Vexorg (talk) 22:21, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments by George

Going through the presented case:

• I don't see a case of disruptive editing, and I view Stellarkid's list of Vexorg's edits as misleading. You've listed eight edits over two months. Of those, three were made in a row, and only two were reverts. If the implication is that Vexorg was edit warring by reverting twice, I would note that Vexorg wasn't the only one who reverted to his version, and it would appear that Off2riorob reverted two editors three times in total (assuming that they are IP address 173.120.203.243, something that might warrant a CheckUser), making them more guilty of edit warring than Vexorg.
• Regarding Vexorg's commentary on Mbz1 on the talk page, I find it odd that you would be reporting this a month after he wrote the comments. Vexorg is clearly commenting on the contributor in addition to the content, which should be avoided, but at the same time I don't view anything particularly outlandish in their statement. Mbz1 has since been topic banned, which adds some weight in Vexorg's defense of his comments.
• Vexorg's comments on the talk page constitute minor incivility, when he says things like "lack of knowledge" and "untruths". Stellarkid's synopsis of those edits, and extensive list, is, however, somewhat exaggerated. Most of those diffs don't show anything other than a content dispute.
• Vexorg's comments to Unomi and NickCT were pretty clearly canvassing.

All-in-all, Vexorg's minor incivility and canvassing should be punished. Maybe a short term (1-3 month?) topic ban would be in order. However, I would also address Stellarkid's own actions:

• Stellarkid's list of infractions is exaggerated and misleading. Many of the diffs listed are not a violation of anything, and strike me as someone throwing a bunch of crap against a wall to see what sticks.
• Stellarkid reported Vexorg and three other editors on these very boards not even a week ago. In that discussion, several administrators slammed both sides for using Wikipedia (and these boards in particular) as a battleground. I view this report, rife with exaggeration, and coming less than a week after Stellarkid's previous on the same user, as little more than a continued attempt to exploit these boards as a weapon. Editors need to stop using these boards as a tool to get editors they're in a content dispute with banned.
• If Vexorg is guilty of canvassing, which I believe he is, then Stellarkid is likely guilty as well: [33][34] Notifying users you discuss on ANI doesn't mean you cram a report full of meaningless diffs so you can then notify those editors who were in disagreement with Vexorg on the article in question. Surgically notifying editors who are diametrically opposed to the editor being reported, while at the same time not notifying other editors who agreed with Vexorg's viewpoint in those same talk page discussions with Vexorg is clearly canvassing.

I would suggest a similar, short (1-3 month?) topic ban a warning for Stellarkid, for canvassing and attempting to use these boards as a battleground tool (in contrast to building consensus via dispute resolution), and per the warnings of Georgewilliamherbert, Sandstein, and Malik Shabazz in Stellarkid's previous AN/I report. ← George ^talk 22:24, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Reply to George -- Just to reply to your last paragraph. The two notifications apart from Vexorg were entirely appropriate since I used their diffs in my presentation. That was a courtesy to let them know that I had used them and if they thought I had used them in error or against their wishes they could respond. While other people were involved on the talk page, I did not use diffs related to them (I think) and thus did not "notify" anyone else. I probably should have notified NickCT since I did use a diff of his and apologize for that as it was late and I simply forgot about it until you characterized my notification as "canvassing." As for the battleground accusation, that was what my earlier characterization of Vexrog in the previous ANI with respect to his accusations of a local Zionist lobby--[35][36] and now you are trying to turn it on its head and accuse the accuser. I don't think you will find a similar diff from me, accusing people of an anti-Zionist cabal or some such. I understand this as it has worked in the past, where administrators throw up their arms and ban people indiscriminately. I realize that these accusations are tiresome for administrators, but I still hope that they will find the time to separate the wheat from the chaff here (meaning the issues, not the people), because this is the place where they need to be brought up, and if I am banned as well for bringing what I believe to be disruption forward for examination at the appropriate venue, then so be it. I will at least have been true to my principles. Thank you. Stellarkid (talk) 01:09, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the whole think stinks to me. When filing AN/I, editors are supposed to notify editors they're discussing - you never discussed either Off2riorob or No More Mr Nice Guy, the two editors you notified. You only linked to diffs in which Vexorg was in a content dispute with them (among others), and the fact that you only notified editors supporting one side of the dispute is highly suspicious.

The issue isn't that you reported Vexorg, the issue is the context of that report. You listed eight diffs as "disruptive editing". The first three occurred over a month ago, and you claimed that the misdating was accidental. Looking at the article's edit history, it seems unlikely to me that one would confuse March (at the very bottom of the page) with April (at the top). Of the remaining five edits, three were made one after another - effectively counting as one edit - and two were reverts. So your disruptive editing accusation leveled at Vexorg equates to one edit, and two reverts - I don't see the disruption. You listed Vexorg's comments on Mbz1, a user since topic banned, as talk page "disruption". I see minor incivility, but nothing that I would consider disruptive editing in that diff. You then list ten diffs of Vexorg's commentary on the talk page (the second and third of which are duplicates, by the way). Of those, I see a couple instances of minor incivility (e.g., "your lack of knowledge", "untruths", commenting on contributors instead of content; attributing motives), but most of the diffs are just filler. In a couple diffs, Vexorg is asking if an editor is the same person as an IP editor (I consider it a valid question, if that editor may have been edit warring or violating 3RR using their IP address), and in another, Vexorg sounds frustrated at being the only one discussing the issue, and says he'll take a break from reverting. Any real problems (the minor incivility, and canvassing) are buried in diffs that are relatively meaningless. What makes you think that this requires administrative intervention? Essentially this looks like two problems you've compounded - incivility, which probably belongs at WP:WQA, and a content dispute involving you, Vexorg, and a few others editors, which should be resolved via WP:DR, not AN/I. ← George ^talk 01:59, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry George, but you are maximizing my perceived sins and minimizing the extent of the problematic behavior of this editor. I believe that letting the editors know that I am pointing to them in a ANI is appropriate for the reasons I gave above. I did not ask anyone to comment, unlike Vexorg, whom you defend: [37]- [38] Stellarkid (talk) 04:42, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I think I've made it clear that I think Vexorg's actions warrant a topic ban as well (and probably a stiffer one that yourself). My concerns with how and where you chose to bring the issue up, however, are irrespective of how noble your cause might be. ← George ^talk 04:49, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Further Comment on Vexorg. In the articles Liberal Democrat Friends of Israel - Labour Friends of Israel and Northern Ireland Friends of Israel Vexorg has been adding the categories [Category:Zionism in the United Kingdom] and [Category:Zionist organization]. There is already a [Category:Israel friendship associations]. These new additions are not sitting well with other editors who do not agree that these are Zionist organizations but "friendship" organizations.[39][40][41] His rationale on one or two of the edit summaries was that he was reverting a known sockpuppet. Another is that "Israel is the Zionist State." I don't feel it is right to push your POV across articles like this and against consensus. Not sure what the relevant Wikipedia policy on that might be, but it surely seems disruptive on the face of it. Stellarkid (talk) 05:24, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Vexorg wants to help Stellarkid - Carry on Stellarkid. Any unbiased and uninvolved admin ( and unbiased editors like George) can see your seeming obsession with searching for just anything to denigrate me with. Let's see, I've made 3.944 edits to date. I'm sure there's plenty of non-crimes in there for you to bring up in your personal campaign. Would you like me to help you? There's also real crimes that could help your campaign. How far do you want to go back in time? See, I've got a block history, because in the distant past I stupidly got embroiled in edit wars and didn't stop to think about the consequences of such at the time. Never mind that these events have already been dealt with and I've served my time already for the punishments given out for the crimes, I'm sure they could add weight to your current obsessive and seemingly relentless campaign against me. Anyway, get in touch with me at my talk page and let's see if we can collaborate in developing a real solid case against this demon who goes by the name of Vexorg. I really want to help as you are clearly really struggling in this AN/I and I guess if you are going to be successful in your agenda to get me banned, instead of self-destructively getting yourself banned for wasting admin time, I figured you could use all the help you can get. I've got some real incriminating stuff on myself which I would be happy to divulge if you care to get in touch. This is a genuine offer. Look forward to hearing from you Stellarkid. Vexorg (talk) 06:04, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I would submit that the above is an egregious violation of WP:BAIT and should, even not taking anything else in this discussion into account, be actionable. Seth Kellerman (talk) 08:58, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I would submit that the above is failing to see a little bit of WP:HUMOR in what is becoming an increasingly unenjoyable pastime in editing wikipedia. I would WP:RESPECTfully suggest that some editors WP:SMILE and have a nice WP:DAY. :) :) Vexorg (talk) 17:29, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Stellarkid, regarding "These new additions are not sitting well with other editors who do not agree that these are Zionist organizations but "friendship" organizations", I think it's more accurate to say that the categorization was reverted because WP:V compliance requirements were not met in their view rather than editors having an opinion about the categorization itself. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:42, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps that would have been more a better wording. I would just note however that on March 25 with the first diff [42] the category was reverted with the following edit summary: ("Reverted 1 edit by Vexorg; Uncited and unsupported in the text".) Apparently that lesson was not learned by April 5th when he put up this edit or a minute later when he put up this one. All three have been reverted with the note that it is not sourced. For an editor who has made almost 4000 edits to the project as he notes above, he should know by now that you do not push arguably controversial material into an article(s) without providing a reference. Stellarkid (talk) 15:53, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Vexorg

Leaving the issue of Stellarkid aside or to the section above (with George reasoning convincing imho), the other issue is Vexorg. There seems to be a rough consensus that Vexorg was incivil, filed a bad faith sockpuppet report, edit warred and inappropriately canvassed other editors. There is also a history of edit warring as the block log shows, was given a strong or final warning just a few days ago. The user shows no insight into the inappropriateness of his behavior as is evidenced his replies here at ANI and on his talk page. Given the past history some admin action is needed in order to protect those who actually want to discuss and improve content in collaboration, and not in confrontion. Демоны Врубеля/Vrubel's Demons (talk) 22:04, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Just another note: Apparently, in addition to the above, Vexorg has agreed to stop edit-warring. It was several months ago, but might be relevant to this case, because there's no reason for anyone to edit-war, especially someone who has been warned about it. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 17:14, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Dragging up old issues that were done and dusted in the distant past in an ANI that has already run it's course??? Firstly it's worth noting that I am not actually edit warring. I am actually engaged in a civilised discussion at Rothschild family. Secondly that ancient report was made without even bothering to notify me. Fourthly this report wasn't actually filed about edit warring, but disruptive editing. It might be worth reading the comments by George above who instead of just dragging up old issues to pile on me has actually taken the time to analyse this report in a reasonable and unbiased manner and has shown that I have not been disruptively editing. George is someone who would make a good Wikipedia Administrator IMO Vexorg (talk) 17:35, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I believe you are missing the point. Either you agreed to stop edit-warring to get out of the previous case without a sanction, or you agreed to stop edit-warring in good faith, in which case you shouldn't be edit-warring again now or ever. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 23:50, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Vrubel's Demons

If I can give you some well meant advice, many of us have moved on from this now, I suggest you do too. There has been a lot of civil and good discussion over at the Rothschild family article recently and we are getting somewhere ow we've left the bickering behind. You however, for some reason, insist in keeping this going, and it's worth noting that you are not doing your credibility of commenting in good faith by repeating your comments arguments FOUR TIMES now.

• Vrubel's Demons makes his/her feelings known
• Vrubel's Demons makes his/her feelings known again
• Vrubel's Demons makes his/her feelings known yet again
• Vrubel's Demons makes his/her feelings known yet again and for the 4th time now

From what I've seen over the last few weeks and not just on ANI Disruptive reports against myself, but also against others is that some editors go beyond any reasonable comment on the situation but insist of going on and on and on and on and on to the point of ad nausuem. In your third commentary you've said almost word for word exactly the same thing in your 2nd commentary. [eta] and now for the 4th time. We all heard you the first time.

Look, things got a bit heated at Rothschild family a few days ago, yes I made some comments questioning the motivations of some other editors ( not unfounded IMO, but that's by the by ), my sockpuppet request against Off2riorob was a fair question, as George above has agreed ( note Off2riorob still refuses to answer this reasonable question ), but we're all discussing the article now in a civilised manner. I would also say it's worth noting the civility isn't just restricted to the choice of words one uses. Anyway, I'm off to do something more positive. :) Vexorg (talk) 01:33, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

"got a bit heated at Rothschild family a few days ago", "sockpuppet request against Off2riorob was a fair question" - thanks for proving my point about you showing little insight into the inappropriateness of your behavior. And your recent comments on the talk page such as "Unomi it feels like we are coming against WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT Vexorg (talk) 23:26, 8 April 2010" are not showing that you are discussing the content in a civilised manner. Демоны Врубеля/Vrubel's Demons (talk) 07:40, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I guess one needs a thicker skin than I have to survive on Wikipedia. So much for Wikipedia being about collaboration, and one of the pillars being "Wikipedians should interact in a respectful and civil manner". Great job Vexorg, the last reply with the section header Vrubels demon was truly your masterpiece. I will leave the field to tendentious editors such as Vexorg (and Stellarkid and others). Eventually, very eventually they might be topic banned or blocked, but in the meantime they have free reign to drive away productive editors. Демоны Врубеля/Vrubel's Demons (talk) 08:05, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

My understanding is that Vrubel's Demons, who as far as I know does not edit I/P dispute articles, had no way of knowing the implications when the Rothschild article (where this argument started) became a focus of interest for some opposing I/P editors. As is well known on AN/I, the editing between partisans in the I/P articles is so polarized, and so mean spirited, that few editors can take the stress of editing those articles - and the non I/P editors become like deer in the headlights and tend to wind up as wiki road kill. It would be nice if a solution the larger problem could be found. 173.52.124.223 (talk) 21:33, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Reiteration

I dunno, I think my proposal's looking better and better all the time. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:50, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I once again encourage uninvolved administrators to take stronger action in enforcing the ARBPIA discretionary sanctions. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:15, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

The ARBPIA sanctions are being used to encourage some very poor editors (of which Stellarkid is just one) to drive away good editors with accusations of antisemitism. It's no wonder so many of the articles are a laughing stock while this is allowed to continue. 81.111.91.170 (talk) 13:07, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

81.111.91.170 (talk) has posted all of 2 comments on WP. One on my talk page and now this one. However, it appears that this is the same person as User:Urbane23(Special:Contributions/Urbane23) who has made all of 6 edits on the 10th of April, and I think I can safety say, appears to be "stalking" me, as his edits are all at places that I have recently edited. I haven't looked, but I will bet 10 bucks that those edits are all directed at me as well. Stellarkid (talk) 16:50, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

This user is continuing to harassing me at user talk page. [43] Stellarkid (talk) 17:01, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Urbane23's edit summary for his post here claims that "Picture of monument for terrorists in userpage" which is absolutely false. I have never had a picture on my userpage. His accusations that I am accusing other editors of antisemitism is unaccompanied also unaccompanied by any diffs because he cannot point to this. Although he is apparently a very new user, he certainly knows how to harrass other users, reverting and using ANI templates that I have no idea of how to use! Perhaps it is just a coincidence that he is here at this time and bringing in Protocols of the Elders of Zion in such at other article pages.[44] Stellarkid (talk) 18:13, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken, I will continue to oppose any unconstructive suggestion. I can't see how you suggestion, which you push eagerly, would make the articles on the I-P more balanced and more neutral. And oh, there is severe problem of neutrality on so many of the I-P articles (even on articles that are not namely related to the I-P subject) largely because there is not systematic treatment and because many times admin don't have the time and/or the will to dig it to the roots. I can't see how what you wrote, to block automatically and base on nothing, will make it any better. It's just an order to shoot anything that moves, great idea, indeed it will solve all problems when one side will lose all of its "soldiers" first. There will remain no one to complain (or that the on who will remain could speak only in the fashion your suggestion allow).--Gilisa (talk) 22:08, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Whether my suggestion is "constructive" or not can only be determined by putting it into action and seeing what effect it has. I certainly intended it to be constructive, bearing in mind that I base "constructiveness" on what's best for the project and not what the editors in these two groups would prefer to have happen to them. As for my supposed "eagerness" to "push" this proprosal - balderdash. I posted it, I waited for some days while the situation worsened, then I mentioned it again here, and once at AE. My only eagerness is stop the disruption of the project by two warring groups of editors, broadly construed, who seem more interested in their own ideologies than in the good of the encyclopedia. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:08, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I quote "..Whether my suggestion is "constructive" or not can only be determined by putting it into action and seeing what effect it has...". Sorry, but there are many things you can know only by taking them into action-for example, what will be the results of nuclear attack on place X, or what will happen if the temperature will rise in 2 degrees. I'm against this kind experiments in wikipedia. And after you have posted your proposal twice, I would say that you are pretty eager about it.--Gilisa (talk) 05:55, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

So Nothing?

No uninvolved administrator will take a look at these edits that so many of us have found offensive and even give a 24 hour block? This will be allowed to scroll off the page despite numerous editors who have found Vexorg's edits problematic , and no action will be taken and this behavior will be permitted to continue with not a word? I am appalled. I thought WP had standards. Stellarkid (talk) 19:18, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Why don't all of you just argue at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Arbitration_enforcement_action_appeal_by_Mbz1 instead of trying to play us through forum shopping? You people are acting like children. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:19, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

This request is not about Mbz1 but about User:Vexorg. Why are supposed to be talking about this here, not something else. Always pointing the finger away at others seems to be the way certain people like to handle things, rather than honestly dealing with the question at hand. Stellarkid (talk) 23:46, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Being snarky isn't an ideal way to get uninvolved people interested but keep on going with that tact if you'd like. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:12, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Being snarky? And what would you call accusing others of "forum shopping", "acting like children", and suggesting we all go migrate to an unrelated appeal? Personal attacks? Stellarkid (talk) 15:58, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. I don't see what kind of response you are expecting when you suggest that a user go discuss Vexorg's misconduct at an AE about Mbz1 appealing a topic ban. Breein1007 (talk) 16:07, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Both Stellar and Ricky came across off. I suggest letting that bit go since it is only more back and forth which caused this request to be put on the back burner. So should Vexorg be warned or not? Are any other steps necessary? I see in that AE referred to by Ricky that Vexorg and Mbz1 or squabbling over something else after the conversation has been closed[45] which leads me to believe something is wrong. If an admin wants to pick through Stellar's report then it would be appreciated. If not, it could be recycled over at AE or here but it will more than likely just devolve into bickering that won't accomplish a thing.Cptnono (talk) 17:15, 12 April 2010 (UTC) Well it is at 3rr board now.Cptnono (talk) 17:34, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, the locus of the dispute was at the Rothschild article, the content seems to be accepted for inclusion at the article now. Which should indicate that we might want to look at why it was sought excluded in the first place. I don't think there is much that can be done here, remaining concerns should probably be presented as a RFC or AE request. Unomi (talk) 17:43, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

The present content is now quite changed from what Vexorg wanted. Also, as usually happens in I/P edit battles over such articles, the content of that section (on Rothschild support for Israel) is now large out of proportion to its importance in the context of article. One might now think that support of Israel was of major importance to the whole Rothschild family. Rather it is important to a few WP editors. 173.52.124.223 (talk) 18:15, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

That is an issue for the article talk page, WP:NPOVN, Content Noticeboard and all the other means of dispute resolution on offer. Unomi (talk) 18:41, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Au contraire. It is the issue of Vexorg violating WP:Battle to achieve editing goals. 173.52.124.223 (talk) 18:53, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Continue flippant disregard of civility, personal attacks and disruptive behaviour of User:Rademire2

Resolved

 – Userpage de-soaped, final warning given then indefinitely blocked. –MuZemike 19:51, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Despite our many attempts at communicating with him (→ Rademire2 (talk · contribs) ←, his previous account of Rademire (talk · contribs) leaves much to be desired as well), he has not shown any humility or willingness to listen to reasons. A small warning to anyone who tries to post any ANI notice at User talk:Rademire2, they might get their system frozed because of the unusually large NAZI swastika flag he had posted there. Thoughts anyone? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 17:57, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

• Correction: On his talk page, he just had Wikipedia associated with Adolf Hitler in his latest edit. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 18:00, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

• He has referred to me as a Wikipedia Nazi here. I tried to assume good faith but he's clearly without any remorse and appears to happy to insult others, including his commentary on Polish pilots not long after the Tu-154 crash at the weekend. My AGF has expired with this particular contributor. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:13, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

• He has made some constructive contributions to Wikipedia, but sadly he seems unable to listed to constructive advice. His latest behaviour shows again that he isn't prepared to listen, and that he believes that it's the rest of the army that's out of step. David Biddulph (talk) 18:25, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

• And this trollish edit by him seem to be steering our opinion towards that. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 18:37, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the soapboxy images from his user and talkpages and given a warning. He can be a productive contributor; if he can't do that from now on and edit collegially then sanctions can be applied. Black Kite (t) (c) 19:02, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

• BK, I don't suppose it was sufficient to keep him at bay with those words... look again at his pointy behaviour here and here. With that, I don't think I can extend anymore AGF here. The rest is up to you now... I rest my case. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 19:32, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked for disruption. I'm sorry, but [46], [47], and [48] are completely unacceptable. –MuZemike 19:49, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

 Confirmed by CheckUser is also Bro5990 (talk · contribs), who posted an un-autoblock request. –MuZemike 21:33, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

:: Great work! Thanks!--Dave ^{♠♣♥♦-11-1985♪♫™} 22:35, 12 April 2010 (UTC) ←←← Impostor alert~! --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 06:41, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

სანდრო (talk · contribs)'s image uploads

Hey all. This user has shown an ongoing pattern of uploading non-free images in violation of policy. They've received a plethora of automated notices on their talk page, as well as a message in the past from auser offering to help them understand policy. Despite these, სანდრო has not asked for assistance and continues to violate image policy despite the warnings. The user is now filling the Rustavi 2 article with practically more non-free images than text, in violation of the WP:NFCC. Given that the user has not responded to notices and polite requests, I think it may now be time for administrator intervention. --Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 18:34, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

• I've removed all the non-free images from Rustavi 2. They all fail WP:NFCC, anyway and will now be up for speedy. He's been informed now on his talkpage; if he continues to upload copyright violations, then we can think about preventative action. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:50, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Retrieving deleted text

Resolved

Could some admin please send me the text of the deleted article Atmospheres of gas giants, brown dwarfs and low-mass stars? Thankyou. Qurq (talk) 19:04, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Now at User:Qurq/Atmospheres of gas giants, brown dwarfs and low-mass stars. Peter 19:10, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Qurq (talk) 19:11, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Block request for User:209.18.49.93

User:209.18.49.93 has repeatedly vandalized several articles, including the Miss America site(http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Miss_America&diff=prev&oldid=355594442). User:209.18.49.93 has already been repeatedly warned and blocked, so I'm requesting a permanent block at this time. Thanks! Rapier (talk) 19:23, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Look; up in the sky! HalfShadow 19:24, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Sentry gun

Resolved

 – user:Tnxman307 has blocked the most recent IP, and semi-protected the article. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:10, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Sentry gun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The article for Sentry gun has an issue with an IP (actually a group of IPs) who is upset that his company's link has been blocked, and is blanking the external link and repeatedly re-adding mention of his company. Some telling edits by two of the recent IPs:

• edit summary "my company can't be here so no one's can" [49]
• message "i got a million IP address. you haven't seen s**t." [50]
• message "i know about all of your tools and bots and they are nothing." [51]

I've already submitted a RFPP request, but there's a bit of a backlog over there - was wondering if an admin could look into this as the recent IP seems to be escallating in aggressiveness. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:01, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive editing of Channel 3 (Thailand) and Myanmar Radio and Television by IP range

There is an ongoing pattern of disruptive editing on Channel 3 (Thailand) (history), Myanmar Radio and Television (history) and MRTV-4 (history) (and minor changes to other related pages as well) by a range of IP editors and one registered editor. The user and said IPs are, but perhaps not limited to:

• Tw3435 (talk · contribs)
• 118.172.189.233 (talk)
• 118.174.84.134 (talk)
• 125.25.208.219 (talk)
• 125.25.235.62 (talk)
• 125.25.34.117 (talk)
• 125.25.41.162 (talk)
• 125.25.76.202 (talk)
• 125.25.81.129 (talk)
• 125.25.81.96 (talk)
• 125.25.82.102 (talk)
• 125.25.213.35 (talk)
• 180.180.108.170 (talk)
• 125.25.209.116 (talk)
• 125.25.209.137 (talk)

Although claiming to be at least three different people, said IPs share a common pattern of disruptive editing, which is radically changing said articles to that discussing an almost entirely different entity, and page moves performed by the registered user. Reversions by other editors are constantly reverted back, at least twice in violation of 3RR, and which have resulted in the temporary protection of Channel 3 (Thailand) and Myanmar Radio and Television.

The IPs claim that Channel 3 is actually something known as "National Broadcasting Network" and Myanmar Radio and Television "Midnight Radio and Television", claims of which no where in the Internet (as far as Google's reach is, at least) could any evidence be found to support. When pressed for sources, both in edit summaries and on talk pages, the IPs simply "promise" to provide those sources "later", while continuing to restore their (unsourced and almost blatantly hoax) edits.

The IPs have also accused another editor (me) of vandalism, which I consider to be a personal attack. Although the IPs' manner of editing don't appear to constitute classical vandalism, and they do appear to have some constructive contributions, it is my belief that it would be futile to any further assume good faith, as it is clear that the intention of this editor/these editors is/are to insert falsified information into Wikipedia. --Paul_012 (talk) 19:48, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

PS Midnight Radio and Television was copied-and-pasted in order to split the IPs' edits to Myanmar Radio and Television into a new article, and is currently at AfD. (Note though that the IPs continue to insist that it is the original article which should be renamed. --Paul_012 (talk) 20:09, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I will check if any is me.

My IPs in this example are:

• 118.174.84.134 (talk)
• 125.25.208.219 (talk)
• 125.25.34.117 (talk)
• 125.25.81.129 (talk)
• 125.25.81.96 (talk)
• 125.25.82.102 (talk)
• 125.25.213.35 (talk)

• Can you show any points of all being the same?
• There is only two, i think, only me and him/her. The points are:

1. Both edited Myanmar articles
2. Both said that they're from Thailand
3. Same IP range (I am also same, but I am different people)
4. I have checked MRTV's talkpage, and he/she said that he/she never edited Channel 3 (Thailand) article, and NBN4 isn't called Earth.

For registered (Tw3435), isn't me, wait until someone confirm.

How can I leap the problem of others using same IP range and confuse with me?

--118.174.84.134 (talk) 20:42, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Well a rangeblock would knock out over 50,000 IPs, so WP:AIV would be your best bet as long as you have warned them properly first. Then again, I could be wrong so you might want to seek a second opinion. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:49, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Seeing as the involved parties appear to be willing to discuss the issue, and that there is still the possibility that I am actually mistaken, I didn't think that AIV was the proper venue. --Paul_012 (talk) 20:53, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

But can you please show me a points of being the same person?--118.174.84.134 (talk) 21:11, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Of course, we can't definitively prove that since none of you have used registered names. But having gone through all the incremental changes that these addresses made to Myanmar Radio and Television (MRTV), Myanmar International, Myanmar Television and Television in Burma articles, I can say that the writing styles are very similar, if not the same. (And it's not just because of the edits' less-than-perfect English grammar, which they all share.) I see that the changes were made incrementally at first to stay under the radar, so to speak. The changes themselves look innocuous enough; E.g., in the Myanmar Television article, the hoaxer(s) put in Burmese television was founded in 1969, (it's 1979) and even put in elaborate program schedules from 1969 from on! If that's not a proof of a hoax, I don't know what is! The casual reviewer of these articles couldn't have known that a hoax was going on. I personally didn't notice these changes until MRTV was moved to Midnight Radio and Television. At least with the Burmese TV articles, it's clear the editor has put on an elaborate hoax, and acted in bad faith. Hybernator (talk) 00:22, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I am 125.25.41.162, so I will no longer help my friend with the same IP range? I do not know either that TV in Burma started in 69 or 79. Because I was born in 1998 (I'm 12 years old) and I'm from Thailand. And Paul_012 makes me don't want to create account, or I will get blocked for making sock-puppets while it's the different! I have found two users discuss about thought that they're socks on Thai Wikipedia but I didn't help or join the problem. Can you block Paul_012 because he always said that I am another IP user. I see one of these talkpages and I see that Paul said that Boing! said Zebedee assuming good faith.

PS:Is Paul_012 a sysop? If yes please unpromote him. Let him read the rules first.--125.25.237.103 (talk) 02:15, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Creating an account will help solve the problem of being confused with other editors; I don't know what else there is to recommend. I don't see why (any of) you should fear being blocked for sockpuppetry if you are not engaged in the activity. --Paul_012 (talk) 06:40, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

No, you won't be blocked for sockpuppetry if you stop editing from an IP address and only edit from your new account - people move from using dynamic IPs to registered accounts every day with no such problems -- Boing! said Zebedee 12:10, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments by User: Boing! said Zebedee

I don't think any admin intervention is actually required at the moment. Since several of us have been getting involved, reverting bad changes, teaching these IP editors about WP:RS and asking them to provide sources to back up their claims, they have stopped editing (other than on Talk pages, which is fine), and the relevant articles have been quiet (other than the excellent work of Hybernator, reverting old bad changes). Midnight TV and Radio has also now been deleted via WP:AfD. What I see here is the Community working the way it should, and a couple of kids who have hopefully learned something about how Wikipedia works. I have all the pages watched (as I expect the others do too), and will soon spot any new attempts at subversion - and we can ask for admin help if it really becomes necessary. But for now, I'd say things look cool. Also, I'd strongly oppose an IP range block, as it is a very large range used in Bangkok by TOT, one of Thailand's major ISPs. If any action should be needed in the future, I think semi-protection would be the way to go. -- Boing! said Zebedee 12:25, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

PS: Sorry, the above was all about the Myanmar TV articles, and I meant to also speak of Channel 3 (Thailand). It does appear to still have a problem, but it looks like a separate issue to the IP changes discussed above, in that a new editor has recently tried to reinstate a move to the article without discussing it first, and the article has now been semi-protected. We do have a registered user here too, but we can deal with them via the usual warnings/block route -- Boing! said Zebedee 12:35, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm new to Wikipedia, sorry if I placed my comment the wrong place.

Not fair to make it an AFD if Boing! said Zebedee already said that I can take 24 hours, or 24 weeks, or 24 years on editing Midnight Radio TV article, if I continue editing without leaving more than 7 days.

My former IPs listed above are:118.172.189.233, 125.25.235.62, 125.25.76.202.

Who are the "couple of kids"? (I assume you mean the boy claimed to be 12 and that American boy, not me) But not me, I'm an adult. Sorry if that American boy is not a kid

I don't want to help that American, it's too hard to do, let someone help him later, I'm 99.99% sure that he will ask to unprotect it since it is protect for sysop and it is forever.

I remember that I went to Sweden or Germany or Poland (i can't remember what country) (its part of my work) on 26 Mar. 2010 and came back on 29 Mar. (As they see there's OK already, but they planned to go back on 24 Apr.). And on TV have about 20000 channels, including free TVs of Thailand and Myanmar and Laos and Cambodia (I selected "Asia" so I can see many Asian channels). And then I see MRTV, which I watch it at home everyday, but it is said that it is in Burma in the channel info. So when I come back to Thailand and I checked Wikipedia if it is Burmese or Thai, and I do good faith edits. As I see the station ID "MIDNIGHT RADIO AND TELEVISION - MRTV" everyday, but remember, the signal I got was weak, while the 6 other channels are strong, its probably a DX (But I'm not a DX-er. I maybe get the Myanmar one.--180.180.108.170 (talk) 13:11, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, as I know Tw3435 is a move bot created by YouTube user fun17092008, but I can't remember really, maybe the wrong person.

Tw3435's scripts is in fun17092008's computer, not Wikipedia so if the computer is formatted then Tw3435 can't move anymore.

They also did on other languages Wikipedia, about 10 languages but now its all ceased and only English is remaining for Tw3435

I confirm only 70% on this, because I got this information from my friend, so he maybe told the lie. But I haven't seen Tw3435 do more than moving after 2009 (But before that Tw3435 also editing).--180.180.108.170 (talk) 13:20, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I didn't mean to suggest everyone involved is a kid, so sorry if it came across that way. I really just meant the one who says he's 12, and possibly User:Tw3435 who has some stuff on their Talk page that suggests they might be young. Regarding Midnight TV and Radio, that has now been deleted as being unsourceable. Something that I think might be causing some confusion here is satellite TV channel designations - satellite broadcasters, which carry TV from a number of different countries, often adopt their own designations in order to disambiguate between similarly-named national channels (re the TV3/NBN3 confusion), but these are often not the official names of the channels in their counties of origin. Anyway, as we have discussed (and, as I hope, we are all now clear on), Wikipedia requires verifiable sources and cannot accept "I've seen it" or "my friend tells me" as sources for article content-- Boing! said Zebedee 15:17, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

IDK about who is Tw3435 but fun17092008 on YouTube is 20 years old and is from Burma, now I know that internet isn't illegal in Burma. But for NBN3, I don't know because I can't watch NBN1 and NBN2, but people call it Chhòng Sám or in Thai ช่องสาม. In Europe that I went, the satellite was about 2000 channels and only my room have it. I remember it was fun to look at foreign channels and I see that MRTV is also in Burma, and I remember the logo was yellow, not white. And I remember that it close almost all the day. At home in Thailand I don't have satellite or cable, so I have to watch only free TVs, but I have 8 channels, the two more channels are MRTV and some channel I can't remember (Its no longer available)--180.180.108.170 (talk) 15:51, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

And "Chhòng Sám (ช่องสาม)" means "Channel 3", not "NBN3" -- Boing! said Zebedee 16:19, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, after this whole pile of unsourced additions today (some of which are blatantly false - I've commented on the Talk page), I've changed my mind, and I think some Admin action probably is needed - possibly semi-protection of all relevant articles? -- Boing! said Zebedee 16:24, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Chhòng Sám means channel 3. I know that. I'm Thai.

What is more reliable between personal blog and Thai Wikipedia article? If personal blog, I will have to wait until anightoffun posts one about this. PS:Can you upload Thailand TV3 clock from Thai Wikipedia?

Also please DO NOT LOCK ARTICLE OF NBN!!!--180.180.108.170 (talk) 16:50, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I see that it's going up, From 32nd setion to know 17th section, and I see older ones going to be deleted, and where will this located after it's reached 1st?--180.180.108.170 (talk) 16:51, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

"What is more reliable between personal blog and Thai Wikipedia article?" - NEITHER! (sorry for shouting, but sometimes there actually is no alternative) -- Boing! said Zebedee 18:47, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Considering this (as above), I've done a quick bit of research, and have added a further comment at Talk:National Broadcasting Network (Thailand). I'm starting to find it hard to continue to AGF here, and am reluctantly coming to the conclusion that this may well all be a deliberate hoax -- Boing! said Zebedee 21:24, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Getting worse

One of the IPs and User:Tw3435 have now been engaging in Page Move vandalism at Vietnam Television - see history. -- Boing! said Zebedee 23:32, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted Vietnam Television to what looks like probably the last reliable version. Lots of changes since the by the same IP ranges have covered the same trivia we have seen in so many articles, including details of logos, specific program timings etc, and were completely unsourced - and we have seen from other articles how much of what this/these IP editor(s) have been adding has been false. -- Boing! said Zebedee 00:38, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Please assume good faith--180.180.108.170 (talk) 01:42, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

And more

Same sort of stuff at Magyar Televízió too -- Boing! said Zebedee 07:22, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

And Hanoi Radio Television -- Boing! said Zebedee 07:29, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

• I've added a couple more IPs to the opening list -- Boing! said Zebedee 08:13, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

The editor that edited Magyar Televízió today isn't him, it's me, and It is already sourced.

There are NO sources that justify any of the trivia you have just added again. -- Boing! said Zebedee 20:14, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Reverted Magyar Televízió and Hanoi Radio Television again, and added another IP to the list above. (And to reply to now-deleted comment from my Talk page, I don't care if you're Thai, American, or Martian - if you keep adding lots of unsourced trivia to these articles, with your track record of making up nonsense, it will keep being removed). -- Boing! said Zebedee 20:27, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Not fair

I remember last year I was requesting for the page protect Magyar Televízió, and an adminustrator decline and removed the "Closing and Opening Times", I think that was too much, and now I see the more revert, and I see that the revision before you revert is the best (most correct) revision, within 24 hours I must finish this.--125.25.209.137 (talk) 00:14, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

How can I keep watching without getting someone protect or delete or revert it as I will go to Laos for Thai new year (Songkran) with my parents and brothers and sisters.--125.25.209.137 (talk) 00:16, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

All you have to do is stop adding unsourced, non-notable, non-encyclopedic trivia - simples -- Boing! said Zebedee 01:17, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Unilateral redefinition / article moves

Last year, User:Radiojon moved numerous articles en masse to change their titles' parenthetical disambiguation from "(TV channel)" to "(TV network)," an application of the term correctly defined by our Television network article as a misnomer. I reverted the moves and posted this on Radiojon's talk page. He never replied.
Now Radiojon is once again moving the articles without discussion or explanation, and he has edited the aforementioned Television network article in an attempt to redefine the term in a manner justifying this unilateral change. I de-archived October's thread and asked Radiojon to stop, but he has once again ignored me and continues to move the articles and edit them to replace "channel" with "network." I request an uninvolved administrator's intervention. —David Levy 22:44, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Radiojon apparently completed his moves. He then posted a message on my talk page in which he cited the belief that his definition is correct as justification for unilaterally reinstating disputed moves without discussion or even summaries (and continuing to do so when asked to stop). —David Levy 23:12, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

This seems to be counter to both WP:MOVE#Before moving a page and WP:RM#Requesting potentially controversial moves. Continuing to do so after being warned might be considered disruptive. Also, I don't see where you informed Radiojon that you had opened this ANI report, I've done this for you. -- Atama頭 23:35, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

It could be a good-faith misunderstanding (or disagreement) of the definition of "channel" v "network" and I believe that the terms may be sued interchangeably in certain contexts. We need to encourage Radiojon to engage in discussion before doing anything else. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:42, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't doubt that Radiojon sincerely believes that his definition of "network" is correct, and I'd be more than happy to discuss the matter. I've encouraged him to self-revert and seek consensus for the changes. —David Levy 23:52, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Based on his talk page and move logs, Radiojon has done a lot of moves that have been objected to in the past (e.g., moving titles without hyphens to titles with hyphens, even after he was asked to avoid doing mass-moves of that sort. The channel/network issue seems to be just one recent item - and in any case he knows that editors have objected to his moves before, so it's his responsibility to avoid being disruptive. — Gavia immer (talk) 23:57, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

And as I noted on his talk page, there was at least one instance in which he reinstated a disputed move and immediately performed a dummy edit to the resultant redirect to prevent non-administrators from moving the article back to that title. The page in question is Calle 13 (TV channel) (which he just moved yet again), and sysops can see the dummy edit (a change from "REDIRECT" to "redirect") in the deleted revisions.

This type of behavior illustrates that he's far from ignorant of his actions' nature. —David Levy 00:10, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I did forget to do that. —David Levy 23:52, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

The impression that I get (from an admittedly quick look over Radiojon's contributions, user talk page, and sparse communications with others) is that he sees something he thinks is wrong and "fixes" it, without regards to procedure or anyone else's opinion. Why bother with such trivialities as consensus if it delays the correcting of errors, especially when there are so many to correct? Unfortunately this unilateral approach is in conflict with Wikipedia's collegial environment. I don't doubt that Radiojon's intentions are good, but nobody is allowed to completely ignore other editors in their actions. -- Atama頭 00:46, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Racist attack by IP, requesting immediate ban

First diff, original text in Chinese, translates to "You should not be Chinese, your Chinese is a bit strange. You kinda look more like the Vietnamese, I see a lot of Vietnamese in Australia, right? Vietnamese refugees are probably right, no way, who told of their country backward and dirty. Why change the page in the East Asia part of the Vietnamese culture, next time, in the sauce slightly ~ ~" I strongly take offense. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 07:46, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Also refer to troll-related behaviour at Special:Contributions/116.199.112.113. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 07:53, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for reporting this -- this sort of abuse is never acceptable. I've temporarily blocked the IP in question. If this sort of behavior recurs, it can be re-blocked for a considerably longer period. Similarly, if the user in question tries to evade the block, let us know here, and more effective measures can be taken if necessary. -- The Anome (talk) 08:12, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

The translation is a bit off, but I agree with the block. Tim Song (talk) 05:52, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

"You don't seem to be a Chinese - your Chinese sounds weird. It seems that you like the Vietnamese quite much - many Vietnamese in Australia, eh? Probably all refugees... Well, no wonder, their country is obsolete and filthy anyways."

"Why did you change the Vietnamese Culture section of the East Asia page? Please do not do this again."

Above is the correct translation - well, its actually not a personal attack (not claiming the User to be a Vietnamese, lol). While it was a racist comment, its more a friendly (friendly to Benilsquare, insulting the Vietnameses) and casual joke than an intentional attack, so I'm afraid I have to say 31 hours might be too severe a punishment.

Benlisquare - Sorry, I mean no offense but your Chinese does sound a bit strange to native Chinese speakers. :p Blodance the Seeker 07:38, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

To make it clear, I'm merely stating that the IP did not have the intention, nor did he say anything to offend Benlisquare. If making a casual racist comment alone would justify a 31hr block, then I withdraw my statements above. However, Benlisquare's response(in Chinese) to the IP is outright cursing and insult. I'm concerned about the apparent "I dont need to remain civil because others cant read Chinese!" attitude. (Well, I happen to be a Chinese editor.)Blodance the Seeker 07:47, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Sneaky (or not) date change vandalism

I've posted this at AIV, but I think perhaps a closer look and a longer-term block is appropriate. This is especially disruptive, mainly because it's targetting historical targets rather than the usual popculture ones. The IP hails from Korea, but I seem to think in the past having some reason to believe this was an english speaker, although I don't remember exactly why. Specifically: 119.65.93.72 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

I haven't done an IP range search although that might be useful in addition to any other similar edits. Shadowjams (talk) 07:49, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:AIV Backlog

Bit of a backlog building up at AIV. Shadowjams (talk) 08:09, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Strong insult

A recently registered red-link user active at Bruce Lee has left this encyclopedic note on another one's talk page: 19:38, 9 April 2010. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 10:51, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Long-term abuser; blocked the newest farm. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 13:52, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Continuing disruption on article on probation

I posted a large thread here about a behavioral pattern.

I am in this section only gonna focus on the recent continuing disruption of the Asmahan article that is on probation.

I asked the drafter of the arbitration case Wizardman if I could present points of corrections for a neutral editor and he said that I could, after this another arb also said that [52] that we should discuss sources, arguments and let other experienced contributors help. Well I presented the corrections at the talkpage and got a neutral editor to take a look, look at nr 4 in corrections: [53] I presented my suggestion and linked to the source in the book and Nishidani came with a suggestion following the source and added it to the article, now the Newer Tweety account who is involved in the arbitration case: [54] has changed that sentence to "stopped in" against what we talked about, and against what the source say, [55] Nefer Tweety has done this without participating at the talkpage, he just changed what me and Nishhdiani talked about typing "corrections" in the edit summary. This is the same old behavior that Arab Cowboy and NT did repeatedly which led to arbitration, anything that was talked about at the talkpage they just changed against what had been said on the talkpage. And NT is still continuing with this now.

It also needs to be noted that AC who is now topic banned from the article had 7 months earlier removed the sentence because he believed: "I removed Beirut and Palestine because 'Alia did not "move to" them. They were merely stops on her way to Egypt.". That edit NT did and the entire editing history of NT is performing same edits as AC as showed here --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:12, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Block evasion

Resolved

 – Blocked by User:Peter. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:55, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Block evasion by 86.172.190.60 (talk · contribs) who is currently blocked with the IP adress 81.155.22.183 [56] and his account KirkleyHigh [57]. The user has a long history of disruptive edits (controversial changes, improper capitalization, removal of references, factual errors...) and sockpuppetry (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/KirkleyHigh/Archive and the various accounts talk pages [58][59][60][61]). --Europe22 (talk) 17:41, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Deleting content in Criticism of Judaism without prior discussion

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

This is a content dispute. Please take it to the proper venue. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:28, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I am attempting to add content into article Criticism of Judaism, to bring it up to the same level of detail and coverage as Criticism of Islam, Criticism of Christianity, and Criticism of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Before making any change, I propose it first on the Talk page. However, there is an editor User:Avraham that objects strongly to virtually every change, and reverts many of the additions, usually without any discussion. His two most recent reversions are:

• [62]
• [63]

He recently solicited help from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism here: [64] and as a result, two additional editors are joining in the deletion activity, again without prior discussion on the Talk page:

User:Chesdovi deleted content here [65] without discussing on Talk page

user:Bus stop deleted content here: [66] without discussing on Talk page

I always discuss all my proposed changes to the article on the Talk page first, and I ask the other parties to do the same. We all understand that this is a controversial article, and to avoid edit-wars, WP policies require that discussion happen first. User:Avraham especially should be chastised, because he is a very senior Admin, and should be setting an example of civil editing practices. In addition, I remind everyone of the WP:NOTCENSORED WP:Censorship policy. --Noleander (talk) 19:56, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Policy? Looks like an essay to me. –MuZemike 20:09, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out .. I've corrected the link. --Noleander (talk) 20:52, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

That was easy, but you'll probably find it more difficult to make your edits to Criticism of Judaism seem less polemical. The material being removed here, for example, is not the stuff an NPOV encyclopedia is made from. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:58, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, that content that was deleted was already in the encyclopedia in another article Reform movement in Judaism. A summary of the "criticism" content was simply placed, summary-style, into Criticism of Judaism. The criticism is exceedingly important. The large number of footnotes/sources was because another editor insisted on copious sources. But you are missing the point: the issue is not the content, it is the behavior: on articles like this, editors must engage on the Talk page. --Noleander (talk) 22:54, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Noleander, WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE, WP:NOR, and WP:SYNTH are all policies and guidelines too. Removing material that is incorrect, or unduly weighted to a particular minority viewpoint, or is excessive for a summary style article, or is a synthesis or original research violation is not censorship, but proper editing. Moreover, major changes to articles, including major additions of sections, need to have consensus, and one person (yourself) doth not a consensus make. Adding inappropriate (see the above list of policies/guidelines) material to an article needs to be corrected, and adding material that may be contentious to an article without consensus is also inappropriate. -- Avi (talk) 21:01, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I concur on those policies. However, the deleted content was all proposed and discussed on the Talk page prior to insertion. The deletion actions were not discussed on the Talk page. I'm simply suggesting that the involved editors communicate more and engage in rational discussions on the Talk page. --Noleander (talk) 22:56, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't see this as an issue requiring admin intervention. It appears to be purely a content dispute, and the reversions in the provided diffs include explanatory edit summaries. There is no absolute requirement to discuss or justify every edit or every reversion on talk, although it would help to do so to achieve a consensus. That some editors are admins does not change anything unless there is an allegation of admin misuse of tools, which does not seem to be the case here. Crum375 (talk) 21:14, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

No, this is not merely a "content dispute". The biggest problem with editing WP is the battling and edit-warring. Taking steps to pro-actively encourage civility and discussion is A Good Thing, especially on articles involving contentious topics like religion. Although admin action may not be needed at this point, dismissing this as "content only" is misunderstanding the underlying issue. Sometimes editors have to be dragged into the Talk page. --Noleander (talk) 22:59, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

It amazes me the people who think that edit warring is something only done by the other side. I haven't looked at the article, but it strikes me that Crum375 is correct, this is a content dispute. It needs to be worked out on talk page. Kindly head there and engage your fellow editor!--Wehwalt (talk) 23:03, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Such is the nature of contentious and controversial topics! Of course, the changes should be discussed on the talk page. If it cannot be resolved there, subsections within the article titled 'Alternative view' or 'Opposing views' should be created as needed. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦-11-1985♪♫™} 23:10, 12 April 2010 (UTC) ←←← Impostor alert~! --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 06:48, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

More relevant to this section would be these previous AN/I discussions:

• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive571#user:Noleander_and_antisemitism-related_articles
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive572#User:Noleander
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive597#Noleander_redux

Since that time, apart from a small break, Noleander has spent the vast majority of his Wikipedia time essentially trying to dig up negative information about Jews, first at the Antisemitic canards article, and more recently at the Criticism of Judaism article, with a brief foray into creating the Judaism and violence article. Noleander is correct that dismissing this as "content only" is misunderstanding the underlying issue. And I think we would both agree that the issue is editor behavior. However, I suspect we would strongly disagree on exactly which editor's behavior is the issue. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:19, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Noleander points to my deletion here, but misses my earlier two posts on the talk page here and here. The material I removed was an excessive POV which I merged into Kashrut. Chesdovi (talk) 11:18, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm beginning to think that it may make sense to ban Noleander from all religion related articles. While his problems have been primarily involving articles about Judaism, it isn't the only one which has been treated to his POV pushing. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:23, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

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

This noticeboard is 117 GB uncompressed

I'm not sure if this has been noted elsewhere, but according to research by Erik Zachte, this hellhole's page history is 117 GB uncompressed. Some other interesting stats at the link. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:14, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Even more worrisome is that total edits to Wikipedia have been trending steadily downward since a peak at about April, 2007... --Jayron32 06:19, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Maybe because a lot of subjects have already been covered sufficiently? Regarding the total size, 6-something terabytes is a healthy chunk. 117 gigs for ANI is not so much. It could fit on my laptop with plenty of room to spare. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:33, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

(interjecting) I believe it is due to the continued decline in pirates, tho we may be seeing a recovery what with somalia. Syrthiss (talk) 12:39, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

What's astounding to us old farts is that those 6 terabytes will be able to fit in your laptop probably by the end of the year (if it's not there already.) I mean, 1TB drives for $75 on Amazon right now. Sheesh. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 06:40, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

So let's supposed someone had 7 terabytes on his home PC. How would he go about downloading wikipedia to it? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:51, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Using segmented restartable FTP on the 7z version, which is only 32G. Not unachievable at all. And yes I do have the disk space :-) Guy (Help!) 08:12, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Very reasonable wiki-snapshots are around 25 gb. If you want the whole thing... go to college... they just give away bandwidth :) Shadowjams (talk) 08:23, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about that... last I heard our school has to pay like a dollar per megabyte or something along those lines... So just downloading ANI uncompressed would cost my school $117,000. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 15:03, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

$1 PER MEGABYTE?! Is the school's entire network tethered to a single Blackberry? --King Öomie 15:12, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Lol, no, the school's internet is a fiber connection I believe. The speed is extremely high, around 8 Megabytes per second (Yes, bytes, not bits). One could theoretically download a Debian ISO in about 10 minutes. Also I appear to be mistaken... it's $1.50 per every megabit of bandwidth made available according to the network's website. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 17:34, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

This board is 117gb (and the full history dump is 6tb) only because the dump has a complete copy of every single version of each page, rather than just the diff from one revision to the next. That's why the 7z file is 1/200th the size of the uncompressed dump. Unpacking the whole thing on your pc would be useless anyway, since it's just a huge monolithic xml file. I'd be interested to know how much space it would take to import all the revisions into your own mysql database and mediawiki instance. The xml for just the current revisions of all pages is about 55gb uncompressed, if anyone cares. (The Lucene indexes are probably a bit smaller, like maybe half, and you'd want to build those too if you ran your own instance). I think it's not yet really practical to do the most obviously interesting things with the full history dump using just a pc, even a powerful one with tens of tb of storage, but a modest size cluster that a typical working programmer might have access to would be enough. Examples would be things like fulltext indexing all the revision so you could find that one edit you remember from years ago (but you don't remember where) and that was reverted sometime later. But revision-indexing specific interesting sets of pages, producing blame maps of single pages, importing the revision history of a page into something like git so you could browse it with a fast graphical tool, all should be doable on a typical laptop. I'd do it myself but I'm too lazy. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 09:19, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Turian

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

Turian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Turian is closing discussions prematurely at WT:PW and has violated WP:3RR. Most importantly, he is vehemently ignoring the guidelines of WP:NOTDEMOCRACY, WP:CONSENSUS and WP:POLL. He is not allowing the community to discuss on a certain topic and has reverted every single warning I left him on his talk page. I kept cool and Assumed good faith towards him and explicitly stated on his talk page that I did not want to report him to ANI. However, he reverted every single warning and continues to disobey Wikipedia policy. RaaGgio (talk) 04:42, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

He's allowed to remove any warning you leave without comment or response. I'll make no other statement on the merit of your complaint; just that he can delete warnings all day. You may also want to read WP:DTTR. Leaving "warnings" with established users sets up an accusatory tone and is rarely useful. Instead, try establishing a rapport and take a more conversational tone. --Jayron32 04:52, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I am not assuming it is not allowed to remove warnings, I was just pointing out that he did so on every occasion. And I didn't violate WP:DTTR. I did not use a template, I explained in my own words. RaaGgio (talk) 12:20, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Please provide diffs that show I have violated WP:3RR, as I am pretty sure that I have not. The above user is upset because he did not get his way. There is clear consensus among the active WP:PW members that the page should be moved. It does not take a genius to figure it out, just someone who won't be getting his way. Also, per WP:TPO, I am permitted to remove all comments from my talk page as I wish. Speaking of which, notification is not a suggestion, it is mandatory.

Now, if there is actually a violation here, please state it. Otherwise, stop wasting my time. –Turian (talk) 04:54, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, this appears to be either a misguided ANI filing or a personal attack.^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 05:01, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

In no way on this page have I insinuated that reverting your talk page is not allowed, I just mentioned that Turian reverted every single one of the warnings. Turian continues to fail to acknowledge Wikipedia policy and his actions have even been questioned by another editor, GaryColemanFan. GaryColemanFan explicitly stated that archiving discussions is not a substitute for consensus. Turian has yet to understand the problems with closing a discussion that is 4 days old (its last post is but a mere 1 hour old) prematurely without achieving a proper consensus. He also fails to understand that voting is not a way of achieving consensus. I am not here seeking a block or punishments of any way, I am here seeking admin assistance on how to handle the situation. Thank you, RaaGgio (talk) 05:08, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Point out examples or stop wasting our time. I can revert every edit you make on my talk page, and I will revert all of them in the future. I didn't close it per the vote count, I closed it because only two editors opposed it (where one just happens to be you...!). You handle the situation by getting over yourself and bowing to consensus. A decision has been made, now WP:GETOVERIT. –Turian (talk) 05:16, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

• Actions deliberately trying to sabotage consensus by Turian:

1. He closed the discussion early before achieving a proper consensus. (He closed a discussion that was 4 days old, only participated by 8 editors, and the last post was but mere minutes old) [67]
2. After being informed of the proper protocol by User:GaryColemanFan, the discussion was reopened, and he ignored the guidelines and he re-closed the discussion anyway. [68]
3. After being informed on his talk page of the proper protocol while citing each guideline by yours truly, I reverted his edit and reopened the discussion. He decided to re-close the discussion again for the third time. [69]

• Proof he was informed of proper protocol, and he still decided to engage in his disruptive editing

1. Comment by me in the discussion's thread.
2. Post by me citing the guidelines and explaining why his actions are compromising consensus.
3. Second threat informing him to detain from this disruption, but still assuming good faith.
4. Edit Edit summary by GaryColemanFan
5. User:3bulletproof16, the above commenter, also engaging in same violations to WP:CONSENSUS [70]

This is not the first instance concerning User:Turian that he decides to ignore Wikipedia guidelines. He reverted a move citing "wrestler articles go by their names not their gimmick" until I clarified the guidelines for him and acquainted him with WP:COMMONNAME. Turian has been informed various times to cease with his disruptive editing and stills persists in doing so. RaaGgio (talk) 11:54, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Stop being disruptive. Claiming that closing a discussion three times equates to reverting three times is nothing but a desperate call to see something happen to me. I call for a block be made on Raagio on the grounds of disruptive behavior by bringing in a false report. –Turian (talk) 14:30, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Let's see. There's a discussion on a page move that has activity today at 00:35, 1:02, 1:42, 1:49, and 2:05.

• At 3:10, User:Turian archived it.
• At 3:21, Raaggio reopened it and continued the conversation, following which at 3:46, a different contributor also commented.
• At 4:06, User:3bulletproof16 archived it.
• At 4:21, User:GaryColemanFan reopened it.
• At 4:24, Turian reverted him with a note: "Do it again if you wish to be reported." (for? Not explained.)
• At 4:30, Raaggio reverted Turian with a note: "Turian, if you repeatedly continue closing move discussions whose posts are minutes old, you will be reported to ANI. You have to give time for the community to respond during discussions."
• 4:32, Turian reverted again, describing Raaggio's actions as vandalism and inviting ANI participation: "Rvv; Be my guest."

There's been no 3RR here yet. Turian has only reverted twice, but referring to Raaggio's actions as vandalism is a policy violation. Don't refer to the contributions of other editors as "vandalism" unless you can demonstrate that they meet Wikipedia:Vandalism; such accusations frivolously made are personal attacks.

Edit warring (which this clearly is, whether it crosses 3RR or not) over archiving an active conversation is just bizarre. If participants don't feel the conversation is complete, leave it alone. If you don't want to talk about it anymore, you don't have to. Even if consensus exists for the move, the conversation can keep going if necessary. It's great that your project is so orderly, but closing a conversation off in a pretty box is not important enough to generate drama. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:59, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

If I believe something is vandalism, then it is vandalism. It doesn't matter whether you agree or not. Once I believe AGF is broken, then I can see vandalism. Also, the discussion was over; we just have some members who decide to throw a tantrum because they didn't get their way. –Turian (talk) 14:30, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary, community consensus has determined the definition of vandalism and nicely encoded it in a policy. You are required to deal civilly with other contributors. This is also policy. Labeling the contributions of other vandalism outside of that policy is disruptive, and per policy such behavior may result in sanctions. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:40, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

When they start to annoy me and continually revert a discussion close... when they are the only ones who disagreed with the outcome... I can view it as such. It is by no means a personal attack. I'm not calling him stupid... I'm not calling him a big 'poopie head'... I am saying he is being disruptive. This isn't fourth grade where you tattle because someone hurt your feelings. –Turian (talk) 14:44, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, actually, you are. This is a community in which you've chosen to participate, and it has community decided standards. You don't get to jettison them because you are annoyed. Leaving vandalism templates for a contributor in this situation is a clear violation of policy all in itself. You asked above "if there is actually a violation here, please state it." There you go. You've violated WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA and WP:VAND. That is disruptive. Work civilly with other contributors, and do not cause additional drama by escalating disagreements. Your desire to impose a pretty purple box on a conversation does not give you license to ignore behavioral policies. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:52, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

And for the last time, I will tell you that I am not. Please provide diffs with substantial explanation as to how I violated policy. Just citing three-letter shortcuts does not satisfy the burden of proof.

If I see something as vandalism, regardless of how disillusioned I may be coming off as, means a great deal in terms of my perspective. Also, it is more than just a 'pretty purple box': it is the actually events that follow said discussion that actually matter. I don't give a flying fuck about a stupid box; however, an administrator won't do anything if people are being disruptive and constantly opening it even though consensus has been laid forth. And I can template members as I see fit; WP:TTR.

If you plan on blocking me, go ahead, but keep in mind that I will employ all possible venues to remove the block. And I must make another point, if you do plan on blocking me, then you might want to block Raagio, especially since he has done what I have done and then a little bit more. However, I think if you were going to block me, or had grounds to block me... you would have done that already. Or I just be my ol' paranoid self! –Turian (talk) 15:08, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I had no intentions of blocking you; I actually do believe in our behavioral policies and have always considered that conversation is possible among intelligent adults. Blocking is for when that fails...such as if violating behavior persists. As to the specifics, since the policies themselves don't seem to be clear:

Extended content

From WP:VAND: "Note: Do not use these templates in content disputes; instead, write a clear message explaining your disagreement." & "Avoid the word "vandal". In particular, this word should not be used to refer to any contributor in good standing, or to any edits that might have been made in good faith. This is because if the edits were made in good faith, they are not vandalism. Instead of calling the person who made the edits a "vandal", discuss your concerns with them. Comment on the content and substance of the edits, instead of making personal comments." There's a whole list of types of vandalism. Reopening archived conversation is not on it. From WP:NPA: "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence." Note that WP:VAND is explicitly defined as "a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia". Hence, accusing another contributor of vandalism is an accusation about personal behavior. From WP:CIVIL, which indicates that "It applies to all interaction on Wikipedia, including on user and article talk pages, in edit summaries, and in any other discussion with or about fellow Wikipedians." "Incivility consists of personal attacks, rudeness, and aggressive behaviours that disrupt the project and lead to unproductive stress and conflict." And under "identifying incivility": "For instance, referring to a user's good-faith edits as vandalism may lead to their feeling unfairly attacked."

In terms of moving forward on consensus, it is possible to do this without closing a conversation that multiple other contributors have indicated they do not feel is closed. You can note the admin request without boxing off the conversation so that others cannot express their opinions. Too, there is no deadline. But even if you disagree with unarchiving that conversation, you are still required to behave civilly with others. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:25, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I still consider it vandalism in my book, whether or not WP disagrees with me really does not concern me; opinions are rather wonderful. But for the sake of "going forward"... I see no reprimanding of Raagio, who has done everything and then some. Perhaps I should open a new section. Anywho, consensus was made, and two (not multiple... just two) editors felt like being disruptive. Six editors have told them otherwise, which is enough to close a "discussion". Perhaps I should get an admin to close it. I will admit I was wrong in some areas, but I am allowed to see it as vandalism. Or perhaps I missed something? –Turian (talk) 15:35, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

You can see anything the way you want to see it, but in this case you are wrong. It isn't vandalism. AniMate 15:44, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, subjectivity cannot be wrong. –Turian (talk) 15:48, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Apparently what you're missing is the divide between what you can think (entirely up to you) and what you can say (not entirely up to you). :) I might think User:Example is an asshat, but saying so would be a violation of policy (if he actually existed). (That said, vandalism, unlike asshattery, does have an official Wikipedia definition, though, and consensus determines it just as much as consensus determines what article title is appropriate.)

You should restrict your use of vandalism templates to matters that are vandalism under the community's definition, not your own, and express your differences with other contributors in a manner that accords with WP:CIVIL. I have not "formally" warned you (at least, not as I perceive it, as it's kind of useless to do so without a note at your talk page), but just pointed out the problem with the approach; as I said, I believe in conversation. If User:Raaggio or any other contributor to that thread has stepped outside of the boundaries of WP:CIVIL, then they should also take heed. The policies we've been discussing and WP:BATTLE apply equally to us all. As far as edit warring over the archive box, which has not been solely you, there's no reason for it. The archive box does not make consensus any more or less firm. Sometimes it's better just to drop the stick. Conversations typically drift into silence when only one side keeps talking. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:51, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

In case you have missed it, from my user page: "Most people find my process rather harsh, but I hate wasting time." People sit around and talk about talking about doing. I just do, so sue me. I won't use the templates as such again, but if I see vandalism, I won't hesitate to use it. –Turian (talk) 15:57, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Being civil is not a waste of time. Further it's still not been established that you understand the community definition of vandalism, as opposed to your own private definition (which appears to differ significantly). jæs (talk) 16:10, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not retarded. I understand it; otherwise, I wouldn't be able to form my own view on it. Are you done? –Turian (talk) 16:29, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Your comments pretty clearly indicate you do not understand. "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not vandalism." There's not a lot of reasonable subjectivity allowed there; a lot less, in fact, than what you appear to be seeing. jæs (talk) 16:36, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and I disagree. Now go away and come back when you wish to no longer ignore what I am saying to your face. –Turian (talk) 16:41, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

It's not a question of whether you agree, it's a question of whether or not it matters that you agree. Your personal view doesn't enter into the discussion. The edits made are not vandalism. No one is asking you to agree they are not vandalism, it's a statement: They are not vandalism. And, as such your marking them as vandalism is against policy. You are not requested to agree, your viewpoint is irrelevant in the matter. I'm not trying to be crass, I'm trying to communicate a point that three two other editors have failed at. Padillah (talk) 16:51, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Then why is it being brought up? Anyway, I am done here. You guys can waste your time elsewhere, or you can actually reprimand the vandals on WP that need it. –Turian (talk) 16:55, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Because part of the policy that says what is vandalism also require that people who are vandalizing be talked to and warned that the actions they are committing are regarded as vandalism. You are asking us to stop reprimanding you and reprimand those that are vandalizing but you fail to understand that one of the editors that is vandalizing is you. Padillah (talk) 17:00, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

And with that... your argument has no merit. You have just violated WP:AGF, because that is exactly what you claim that I have done. That is very hypocritical. –Turian (talk) 17:06, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

This [71] is unacceptable. Closing an ongoing discussion is not allowed. Dream Focus 14:06, 12 April 2010 (UTC)]

Says who? Also, it wasn't ongoing. Consensus was made by possibly interested members. Now, provide an actual point or stop wasting more time. –Turian (talk) 14:30, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Let's put it this way, reverting good-faith edits and calling them "vandalism" in opposition to our vandalism policy is going to get you blocked eventually if you don't tone it down. There's no wiggle room for that. Your assumption "if I think it's vandalism, it's vandalism" will probably get you banned someday if you persist. More generally, your willingness to engage in battleground mentality is not compatible with being a Wikipedia editor. -- Atama頭 18:09, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Really? Battleground? Where do you see that? I am not the one who started this joke of a complaint. I would still close the discussion if given a second chance. Want to know why? Because consensus was reached? Oh wait... did you forget why this was started? I guess I can't blame you due to all of the editors derailing this joke of a complaint. But then again, perhaps it was inevitable. –Turian (talk) 18:14, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Why is it so difficult for you to remain civil? Now you're insulting the admins who are just trying to help you understand clear policy. I see you continue your thickheadedness at user talk:jæs. No one is attacking you, everyone is just trying to help you, but you however are accusing everyone of violating either WP:VANDAL or WP:AGF and that should definitely not be allowed. RaaGgio (talk) 22:31, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Kind of like everyone here? Red herring anyone? –Turian (talk) 22:36, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I have just blocked Turian for 24 hrs, for disruption and edit warring. The original issue was probably not blockable by itself, but based on the comments above there is every indication that Turian felt entirely justified in his actions and would enthusiastically continue such behavior in the future, and that would not be acceptable in my opinion. It is regrettably necessary to make the point stick, that this was in fact not acceptable behavior, and that it must not be repeated. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:16, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Based on the battlefield mentality he displays here, I'm concerned that you may be correct. I thought things were calming down, but he has persisted in his conversation here, in his edit summaries, and in questionable use of templates ([72], based on comment above) and his conversation at this user talk page. There seems to be a lot of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:29, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Turian is not a threat to the well-being of mainspace editing, but instead to discussions and to consensus. Even after being blocked, Turian still fails to see the point (WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT). After being encouraged by another editor to let the block pass and continue editing normally, Turian questioned the block and said and I quote: "I assure you I will not be letting this go". It is really lamentable that this occurs with an editor who, although has been evident to have this attitude, does not have any history of such battle ground mentality. RaaGgio (talk) 01:37, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I have to note that Turian's third unblock request had already been declined, and he reverted the administrator's declining of it. I was about to leave a message about why this was problematic under Wikipedia:User page#Removal of comments, notices, and warnings and WP:PARENT, but edit-conflicted with User:Nihonjoe in his granting the request. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:23, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

The edit summary for his first edit after being (temporarily) unblocked shows he really has no respect for any of the issues that have been brought to his attention. The recent revision history alone speaks volumes. While his most recent unblock request sounds calmer, it's still evident he does not (or chooses not to) understand why he was blocked. jæs (talk) 19:05, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

• I'm not sure that further ANI discussion is productive. I'm discussing things with him, and I won't do anything until I hear from Nihonjoe, but I think perhaps a step back from the brink is in order. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:14, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

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

Back in Black

Mr. Black (see previous discussions here and here) has been hard at work crafting an interesting story that makes for an amusing read, however I suggest that these three edits are a clear violation of WP:FORUM, and are simply there to promote Mr. Black's assertions. I'd remove them myself, but obvious reasons prohibit me from doing so. I also recommend we revisit the prudence of my RFCU request and supporting discussion in light of recent events. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:44, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I was reading with some interest until he started griping about "censorship" and having the article about IBM "whitewashed". Burpelson AFB (talk) 03:34, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Read it through the end -- definitely worth the time. He's discovered the software feature where regular users can go and modify previous revisions to "lessen" their impact and otherwise rewrite history -- specifically, I and others "went back into the Wikipedia Discussion logs to amend, backdate, and modify their statements to mask what was really said and when it was said." //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:41, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

LoL Burpelson AFB (talk) 03:53, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Woo, we can do that?! Awesome! *facepalm* Tony Fox (arf!) 03:59, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

• Wow. You mean like...editing? HalfShadow 15:34, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

He's a bit loose with facts. For example, ...after the [Essjay] fraud was exposed, Ryan Jordan was reportedly appointed to the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee." Exactly the opposite; Essjay was appointed just a short time before the fraud was exposed." --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 04:38, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

So he failed to get his fringe theory given the prominence he wanted. That's a feature not a bug. It should not be news to anyone here that Wikipedia has become the go-to site to get your fringe theory promulgated as The Truth™, right? Guy (Help!) 08:15, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

For someone who is so obviously anti-Wikipedia he seems hellbent on getting his book in it. I don't suppose it could be anything to do with prospect book sales? Nah. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 09:57, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Well at least he was nice about me... Stifle (talk) 11:13, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Easy to be nice to you Stifle--you have been quite nice during our exchanges and helpful to the process. Edwin Black

Given the historical and factual challenges to the Black piece, should the multi-article spam of the story (with 10+ links per commit) remain on article talk pages? Also, is anyone willing to take up the RFCU again? //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 12:00, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I think it's two copies each of five links to the same story, actually.

I don't know what useful information, if any, an RFCU would reveal. Stifle (talk) 12:59, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Edwin Black has emailed OTRS to say he would prefer not to have any articles included about his books now. Stifle (talk) 13:05, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I guess we can AfD them but I don't think he gets to choose either way. Guy (Help!) 15:14, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I certainly would object to the unilateral deletion of IBM and the Holocaust (book). which is theoretically about a quite notable book. The woeful condition of the present article isn't a reason not to have coverage of the book at all. — Gavia immer (talk) 15:22, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree the book is notable. A lot of what is in it may be questionable, but the book itself is notable. It garnered a lot of press when it was released. Canterbury Tail talk 19:44, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Harassment by User:Toddst1

Resolved

 – Yeah, no. Tan | 39 20:02, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Over the last hour, I have been receiving relentless messages from User:Toddst1, claiming that I have been baiting, bullying, acting in an uncivil way amongst other accusations. I would like advice with this matter, as I firmly believe this user is breaching the power of Adminship by threatening with blocks whilst unwilling. to provide diffs, links, or other evidence thereof, backing up his accusations. Thank you. Lefty101 (talk) 19:10, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I can see 4 edits to your userpage, starting with a warning about this edit in which you appear to have told someone you were about to block their account. If this was a misunderstanding, you would have done better to explain that, rather than snark at him. Also, you have failed to inform Toddst of this report, which you are required to do. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:23, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, did inform Todd. It's in a dif. Dlohcierekim 19:24, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment "Threatened" editor has been blocked for disruption. See Special:Contributions/Dharmin_87. Dlohcierekim 19:28, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that I made it quite clear on that user's talkpage that the block was brought about through AIV, and that at no point did I say or give the impression that I had personally set the block. Lefty101 (talk) 19:31, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I see it now, so have struck comment. Also, I was assuming the other editor was actually blocked. A third party asked Toddst to advise Lefty101 that he wasn't in a position to tell someone else they would be blocked. Now, since he was reporting the chap to AIV, and most 4th level warning templates say that if you don't pack it in, you will be blocked, I'm not sure the advice was particularly relevant. The problem is, Lefty101 dropped a pile of snark, and neither has let it go yet. Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:34, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I got that impression too. Dlohcierekim 19:34, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I see User:Toddst1 questioning your conduct, and I see you reacting poorly. Even if there may be a dispute, calling a few talk page messages back and forth "harassment" is textbook uncivil. How we deal with people we disagree with is even more important than how we deal with people we do. I think you should consider your own tone and reflect.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:37, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

• This is serious overreacting on the part of Lefty--and mind you, I came here because I saw another rude and premature level 4 warning on their part (I removed that warning). In no way does Todd's note constitute harassment. I could say this more strongly and express my opinion on Lefty's first 100 edits on Wikipedia, but I think there's bait here, and I don't want to take it. Drmies (talk) 19:44, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, please do express your opinion. Lefty101 (talk) 19:52, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

• I suggest this thread be closed with some words of advice to both parties. Toddst1 was less than diplomatic in his warning, though his point was correct. Lefty101, you overreacted and shouldn't have flared up like that and instead discussed it civilly with Toddst1 or ignored the comment if you wanted. If you've reported someone to AIV, there is no need to inform them they are going to be blocked- it doesn't achieve much and gives the wrong impression. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:53, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Four edits over 29 minutes = "relentless messages over the last hour". Give me a break. Resolving thread. Tan | 39 20:02, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, this issue is most definitely not resolved. Lefty101 (talk) 20:04, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

That's fine. For everyone else, it is. Tan | 39 20:05, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

• Concur with Mitchell and Tan and Drmies. Sometimes you can get a better job with Comet or Ajax than with steel wool or sandpaper. Dlohcierekim 20:49, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

London Victory Parade of 1946

I want to be completely neutral and merely ask for administrators to look at diffs and discussion at London Victory Parade of 1946, particularly across the past month. It is mostly the work of three or four editors, so it isn't as large a task as it may sound. Do you detect WP:TE or not? To what extent are WP guidelines and policy being properly understood and implemented? Do you have any suggestions or observations? Many thanks, -Chumchum7 (talk) 19:26, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Future Perfect at Sunrise already semi-ed this page. Padillah (talk) 19:32, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Point accepted. Could you have anything further to add? -Chumchum7 (talk) 19:54, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Umm, I suppose I could. I'd do it on the talk page though. There's already admin intervention so there's nothing more for anyone here to do. See you on the talk page. Padillah (talk) 20:30, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok thanks. Understood. Am just trying to get as much outside input as possible, and respect all of it. -Chumchum7 (talk) 20:33, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

MisterWiki unblock discussion

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

---

MW is unblocked and being mentored for now. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:52, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

MisterWiki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · SPI · cuwiki) has requested a username change here (original request posted by Rdsmith), apparently to match the username changes he's making across other wikis. We do not normally entertain rename requests from blocked editors, and based on the discussion there, we think it would be best to address the block first to see if there is a consensus to unblock the account. Here's a little history:

• In January 2008, MisterWiki was suspected of being a sock puppet of Diegogrez (talk · contribs) (see archived discussion), but there was insufficient evidence at the time.
• In February 2008, concerns were raised on ANI about MisterWiki being the same editor as Diegogrez (see archived discussion)
• Also in February 2008, he was granted Rollbacker rights
• In March 2008, MisterWiki reported Diegogrez (talk · contribs) as a sockpuppeteer (see here)
• He has requested adminship twice: March 2008 (WP:SNOW close at 0/9/0) and December 2009 (WP:NOTNOW close at 0/6/0)
• He requested and received Autoreviewer rights in December 2009 (see archived request)
• Also in December 2009, he was found to be operating a non-approved bot (see archived discussion). He has requested approval to run bots three times, and been declined each time: February 2008, December 2009, and (also) December 2009
• Also in December 2009, he was reported for edit warring (see archived discussion)
• In the beginning of January 2010, MisterWiki was found to be abusing rollback rights and had them revoked (see archived discussion). He then requested them again the following day, and his request was declined due to unsatisfactory answers to the ANI thread where they were removed.
• A long discussion regarding his block was held here, where he was eventually unblocked
• In the middle of January 2010, he was discussed for a long time again and eventually blocked (see archived discussion)
• A block review was made in February 2010, and the block was upheld (see archived discussion)

So, I'm bringing this here for review again. Is the community willing to unblock MisterWiki? ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:42, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

The first item, should be "but there was insufficient evidence at the time" rather than "but there was sufficient evidence at the time" right?  f o x  19:47, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:49, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

My first question, and I think the most important one, is what does MisterWiki have to say that would lead us to believe that, if unblocked, his behavior would be different? He was blocked for reasons, and what statements has he made recently that will convince the rest of us that those reasons no longer exist? Time served isn't really a valid reason for unblocking, and neither is making SUL convenient for him. If he wants to be let back into the fold, lets hear from him explain why it would be better for Wikipedia if he were... --Jayron32 19:48, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I've posted a note on his talk page and requested that he post any comments there. I will then copy them over here for convenience. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:53, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I should note that his new account (Diego Grez) is currently blocked on Commons. His old account (MisterWiki) is blocked on eswiki in addition to here. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:49, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

He was renamed on Commons about an hour ago while still being blocked. [73] I don't post here too much and never really encountered MW until he was approved at WP:ACC and some people started screaming their opposition in the IRC channel but the more i look into this the less convinced i am that his recent activity on Simple is signs of improvement. Nihonjoe's list of community grievances against MW et al. is longer than i thought it to be, and he didn't even list everything. I don't object to the rename if Dan still wants to do it but having read the links Joe posted and what links are contained in those links i do not agree with unblocking at this time. He has been relatively good on Simple; let's see how that goes over a longer term. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 20:19, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Strong Oppose of Unblock He's done nothing to prove that he can come back here and be trusted, he's already blocked on commons and eswiki as well why would we let him back?--SKATER ^Speak. 19:55, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

• Do not unblock for a significant length of time. MisterWiki is a giant time sink. If a 'crat wants to spend time doing an indefblocked editor a favor, I don't care, but don't unblock, and let's not have another unblock discussion for at least, say, 1 year. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:57, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Oppose per this edit, calling the ani thread "a joke". I don't see any point why this comment should be removed, it's not a personal attack or anything like that. Minimac (talk) 19:58, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

• Is this thread anything other than more of his usual time-wasting nonsense? Fair play to Nihonjoe for AGF but I think our chain is being yanked. Guy (Help!) 20:04, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
• Strong support of unblock. I was a participant in many of the threads over the last few months that lead to his latest block and I started the most recent review of his block where the re was some, albeit limited, support for lifting it. I have been in email contact with MisterWiki and I've been following what he does on Wikinews, where he's genuinely trying to be useful. I think he needs a mentor- someone to say "no! that's not a good idea!" and just to help him out and for him to bounce ideas off. I think that with such a mentor, he could become a very useful contributor because, unlike the many, many trolls we have wandering around WP making a nuisance of themselves, he genuinely wants to help. As evidence of this- I cite the article rewrite that he is drafting on his user page. If the community were to allow him back on a trial basis, I would be more than happy to fill that role. Why not let him back for a week, then review that and if it's not working, we can reblock him. Essentially, my question to the community is if you don't trust MisterWiki, trust me. If you want to look upon it as a waste of time, nobody's time will be wasted but my own and I genuinely believe some good can come from this. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:10, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm the one who gave him the idea to improve the article. After trying to sort out coördinates i told him i thought it should be merged or else i might make my first PROD tagging. He pleaded with me and I showed him the article for my neighbourhood in Calgary and told him that if he wanted it kept it should be at least as useful and referenced. I do agree that his contributions of late on SimpleWP and ENWN do show a noticeable improvement however there is a long series of issues here on ENWP (and Commons). He has had trial unblocks before but i don't know if he has had a mentor to guide him, though he has had other users monitoring him. If you really think you can be a successful mentor on a cross-project level and he is agreeable to it then a trial run of it might be ok. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 20:39, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
    • Thank you. From what I see, he's making himself useful on WN and has actually built up good relations with Blood Red Sandman, who blocked him here. I've spoken to him by email and he seems agreeable to mentorship. Like I say, someone to both help him out and keep an eye on him could be a real benefit. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:46, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
• Wait a few months, and then unblock It appears the user in question is trying to be apologetic and is assuming good faith now, as it appears he wants to revamp some articles. Maybe later he could be unblocked. NERDYSCIENCEDUDE (✉ message • changes) 20:14, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - Much, much too soon, considering that his current indef block was originally intended to be a ten-year block, on the assumption that the passage of time might see some increase in maturity. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:18, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Personally I think it's premature to be unblocking at this time, and I am not convinced that he will not continue the kind of behavior that got him blocked in the first place. I'd say give it a bit longer, until December 2010 at the very least, before we start considering unblocking. On a vaguely related note, why isn't MisterWiki's sockpuppet (talk · contribs) blocked yet? Or MisterBot (talk · contribs), Mister Wiki (talk · contribs), SignoreWiki (talk · contribs), MistressWiki (talk · contribs), MisterioWiki (talk · contribs), Bodoque57 (talk · contribs) and MisteryWiki (talk · contribs)? All legitimate alternative accounts for sure, but still alternative accounts of a blocked user. Regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 20:29, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Spitfire, with the greatest respect, that edit summary was 3 months ago. Though I won't claim that excuses it in the slightest, I think MisterWiki has seen the error of his ways and I think we should allow him back on a provisional basis. After all, he's not a troll, he just wants to be useful. I understand why you don;t want to give him a chance, but give me a chance. I will take personal responsibility for both the rewards and the piss-offs of any unblock. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:42, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

My mistake: I had already removed the comment regarding the edit summary, mainly due to the timestamp, which of course, I should have checked before bringing it up. I wouldn't be entirely against an unblock in about a month or two, so long as a suitable mentor could be found, and so long as it was with the understanding that even the smallest infringement of policy would result in an immediate block (and of course, so long as suitable support for such an unblock was gathered). Kindest regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 21:18, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

• I also have to ask why those alternative accounts were never blocked.--Crossmr (talk) 01:30, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Weak Support of Unblock I'm really going against my gut feeling on this one, but I trust HJ Mitchell and believe that he could make him into a god editor. However, I only agree if it's mentorship for Much more than a week, it should be on the span of months or days.--SKATER ^Speak. 21:55, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

• No way. MW played us all for fools, or at least attempted to do so, in previous bouts of drama-infused discussion. I am a fan of AGF, but I am not willing to extend it beyond its own bounds - I am simply unwilling to be played for a fool again so soon. His work on other wikis to date is not exactly a confidence builder. Please, let's not let this get dragged out into another MW fueled timesink and stuff this back under the rug until some date much more comfortably separated from his last shenanigans. Shereth 22:10, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Looks like we're falling for it again. Maybe I was just born AGF-impaired or something. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:52, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

You're both claiming this is a waste of time, but, if you read my proposal below, it actually wastes less of everyone else's time. If he isn't unblocked, this won't be the last thread on the issue. Whereas, if we unblock him on the terms I list below, the only person whose time is taken up is my own and, if he acts up, he can just be reblocked without discussion, making this the last thread on him for quite some time. You don't have to trust him, but I'm asking you to trust me. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:03, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

(ec) I think it's admirable of you to be willing to mentor him, but your analysis of the probable course of this seems out of whack with what's happened in the past. From that record, I would say it's more likely that he'll go off again, he'll be blocked, and then X months down the line we'll be right back here, having the same discussion we're having right now. If he's unblocked, I hope that I'm wrong and that your mentorship is successful, but I do not in any way buy the idea that doing that now changes anything about what may happen in the future. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:20, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

So you're threatening to waste everyone's time more if we don't unblock him? No. I don't think so. It is easy to make this the last thread on him ever as well. For the next 10 years any threads on him will be auto-closed.--Crossmr (talk) 01:18, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

• oppose sufficient time has not passed for him to mature. His block was for 10 years, see him in 10 years.--Crossmr (talk) 01:18, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose No way is he ready for editing. –Turian (talk) 01:24, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose — This is at least a year too soon. Statements, compromises, and restrictions, below, are not compelling. <lulz>Rename to User:MisterTimesink</lulz> Cheers, Jack Merridew 18:37, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose The only reason this thread is here at all is that the contributor in question asked for their blocked account to be renamed for no apparent reason. On the back of that there's talk of the maturity he has supposedly gained in the matter of weeks since he was last brought up on ANI - it doesn't come in a series of injections and I'm seeing no evidence of it here. Someoneanother 00:28, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Statements from MisterWiki's talk page

Nihonjoe said he would move over any statements that MisterWiki has. As there are 4 of them so far i thought i would expedite it and move them over. [74] [75] [76] [77] delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 21:50, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

• • Dear Wikipedians, my block was my very own fault. I'll tell you my history from my point of view. I started editing here, I don't remember why, adding false information about me on Diego Grez. I admit I liked Hannah Montana at the time, but I don't know why that spamming thing. I was 11 and after some time, I decided to back for good, doing good things and trying to fulfill my past. I left the wiki for a year and some, until I've got my own Internet connection on my home. I thought that my case was forgotten and even I tried to appeal my unblock on es.wiki. (Regarding the comment of someone at ANI, I was blocked previously on these wikis and I wanted to request here and so on). I've emailed an steward that gave me an opportunity (an unblock request at the village pump over there). It lasted in the third week of December because no admin unblocked me. The things went fine until my rollback was removed because of misuse, something I admit. I tried to expand the most I would Pichilemu, because I wanted it to get (at least to) GA, as it is one of my most-known topics before the History of Chile and Modern Talking. Piss-on-elmo and calling the admins nazis was the thing that caused this block, and I thought it was going to be shorter, and it was my fault. Since that, I tried to do the things better, on Wikinews (where I am accredited reporter) and on Simple Wiki, in addition to the Spanish Wikinews, the Latin Wikipedia, English Wiktionary and the Chamoru Wikipedia, a wiki that is almost forgotten. Additionally, I saw that my other account, Bodoque57, was not blocked on Commons, and I requested block on IRC. On Wikinews, my contributions about the recent Chile earthquake have been very appreciated and the community has been very, hmm, good. As it is not Wikinews, Wikinoticias, Wiktionary or Vicipaedia, I come here to ask you, Wikipedians, to unblock me, I want to show you that I have matured through all this time and I don't want to get in troubles anymore. The earthquake thing has helped me to mature more than I thought and you'll forget this very, very soon. I won't let you down, I promise as a good boy. --MW talk contribs 20:59, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
  • PD. I don't have bad feelings against those people that blocked me or helped to do this, I know it was for good for Wikipedia and for myself too. --MW talk contribs 21:00, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Forgot that on IRC, I've got a bot running as Pitsilemu, for Wikinews, if that can be considered of help. --MW talk contribs 21:03, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
  • If you let me come back, I will be editing Pichilemu and related articles to make 'em (at least Pichilemu) good articles. You won't see me trolling again. ;-) --MW talk contribs 21:09, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

End of copy of first four messages from MW's talk page. ☯ I fixed links to other projects as the way MW originally wrote them did not work on preview here but were displayed and functional on his talk page. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 21:50, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Reblocks are easy. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:17, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for moving those over, Deliriousandlost. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:01, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

A compromise

As I've said above, I'm more than happy to mentor MisterWiki for as long as is deemed necessary and MW has previously assured me by email that he will abide by any restrictions the community decides are required. I'm suggesting that he be unblocked and given "probation". He would have to agree that the slightest infringement of the conditions of his probation would result in an immediate, indefinite block and such a block may be made by any admin and discussion would not be required. As I said above, I will take personal responsibility for his actions. If he were unblocked on those conditions, the only time wasted, should it not work out, is my own.
Would anybody support that or possibly suggest appropriate restrictions? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:33, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't have any huge concerns with this. MisterWiki has obviously agreed to behave and assume good faith. Hopefully there won't be any more Piss-on-elmos. Afterall, we also have to assume good faith. If after this unblock MisterWiki acts up again, I'm fine with him receiving an instant indef-block. NERDYSCIENCEDUDE (✉ message • changes) 22:38, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm willing to vouch for the fact that MW does seem to be genuinely trying to improve, based on his contributions to enwikinews and simplewiki. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:08, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to leave a message here. I regularly interact with MisterWiki (he's Diego Grez there) on en.wikinews, where I'm a sysop. I think MisterWiki is mature enough now and on en.wikinews he is always trying to improve at editing and article writing. I vouch for MisterWiki and support a probationary unblock. --Mikemoral♪♫ 02:00, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

No. I don't have great faith in the mentoring ability of someone whose argument revolves around "unblock him now or we'll just have to spend more time on this later".--Crossmr (talk) 02:20, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

• Hi, I'm an arbcom member and bureaucrat at en.wikinews, a wiki where MisterWiki [contribs is active]. I'm not going to vote in this, as I don't feel I'm an established user here, but would just like to say I'm willing to vouch that he's been doing a really great job at Wikinews, and has been very helpful to the project. Certainly not in any way disruptive. I'm of the opinion that he's genuinely trying to redeem himself, and wants to do only good for Wikimedia. He's definitely matured, I don't see any problem with unblocking him and giving him a mentor to provide pointers. Tempodivalse [talk] 02:39, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm quite willing to believe your evaluation of his behavior on Wikinews, but find it difficult to accept that "he has matured." I think that particular judgment still remains to be made, and cannot yet be determined on the basis of such a short period of time. After all, he had his periods of relative usefulness here as well.

One of the reasons that he has been such a time sink in the past, is that there's always been someone going to bat for him, for one more chance, or whatever. Given his history, I find these efforts to be mistaken, and because they have been, I personally, would need considerably more evidence of MW's chnage of heart before I felt comfortable about his being unblocked. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:51, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

-shrugs- Well, it's certainly up to you to decide whether or not MW should be unbanned, just thought I'd chime in as this is somewhat-relevant to me. I'm not aware of how many "second chances" he has received in the past, but I still believe he has quite genuinely reformed, although I understand you'd want some more time to make sure. If it makes any difference, he has been recently made an an accredited reporter at en.wn, a position that requires a fair amount of trust and experience. Cheers, Tempodivalse [talk] 03:01, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Tempodivalse, your insights are most certainly welcome. Indeed, it may be a situation where Wikinews is simply his niche, and that should be encouraged. There seems to be no real ability to do self-promotion there, since the site structure is so very different, which may prevent the behaviour that was witnessed here. I have no opinion one way or another regarding his ban being lifted, but just because he does well at Wikinews should not necessarily point to him doing well here, especially given that so little time has passed. — Huntster (t @ c) 03:09, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm Still looking closely at this edit. if he does get unblocked, then I wouldn't allow him to remove notices and warnings from is talk page. Does anyone agree? Minimac (talk) 10:12, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm a firm believer that no one should really be removing anything from their talk page that isn't vandalism and that it should be archived in a way that is actually conducive to an operating community. I don't see overwhelming support for his unblock at this point so unless that changes I don't think it is a concern. If he is unblocked it would need to be with a series of restrictions that should probably include that.--Crossmr (talk) 10:46, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

• Opinions seem somewhat divided; what about a provisional unblock where the first month would be strictly working with HJMitchell; MisterWiki would not be permitted to edit outside his or HJ's user and subspace unless the edit was reviewed and approved by his mentor? –xeno^talk 15:15, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

This from MW's talk page([78]):

Please think well, I'm really trying to change. I just want to comeback, to go by the right way here. Please give me the last chance, I'll accept any condition. --MW talk contribs 14:46, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I take from that that MW would be willing to abide by any restriction. I definitely believe that some restrictions would be required- to keep him on a "tight leash" so to speak, and forbidding removal of content from his talk page seems reasonable to me. If my suggestion above is implemented, then one breach of the restrictions and he goes back to being indef'd. I also think a 1RR and a commitment to edit from one account (with regular checkusers if the CUs will oblige) would be reasonable restrictions. I also think Xeno's above suggestion is sensible and workable. Any thoughts from anyone? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:17, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Given I once blocked MW for vandalism and as I tried to hint above, taking this thread altogether, I see no harm in trying an unblock within some tight bounds that might last a month or two. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:49, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

• IF HJ really, really wants to give MisterWiki a third (possibly fourth, I've lost track) "last chance", I guess you can ignore my comment above when determining consensus. But I don't ever want to see his name on an admin board. He's used up eight lives, and if it ever looks like he's testing the limits to see what he can get away with, I'll block him myself, mentor or no mentor, whether or not a I would block another editor for the same thing. Frankly, I still think this is a hopeless gamble; people don't "mature" in two months. If HJ wants to spend his time on it, more power to him, but MW needs to make sure he doesn't waste anyone else's time. At least put as many restrictions on him as necessary to ensure that. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:31, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposed restrictions

I'd like to request that MisterWiki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) be unblocked provisionally based on the following restrictions, any breach of which would result in an immediate reblock:

• MisterWiki is to agree to mentoring from HJ Mitchell for as long as is necessary
• MisterWiki is to commit to editing from one account only and (assuming the CUs agree) to regular checkusers
• MisterWiki is expressly forbidden from removing any comments from other editors from his talk page except for routine archiving
• MisterWiki is to only to edit in his own or in my userspace where you can draft things and where I and others can keep an eye on you
• MisterWiki is to seek approval for any edit outside of his own or HJ Mitchell's userspace
• MisterWiki is to be subject to a One Revert Rule (1 revert per article per day- not including blatant vandalism)
• MisterWiki is to abide by all other policies and guidelines
• MisterWiki is to agree that any violation of the above will result in an immediate, indefinite block without discussion and that such a block will almost certainly be permanent.
• These restrictions will be available for view on MisterWiki's user page and at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions

MisterWiki may request review of these restrictions after no less than 45 days from the unblock and only with the approval of his mentor. Such a request should be made at the Administrators' Noticeboard.

Do those restrictions seem reasonable? It allows him to start regaining trust little by little while keeping him on a short enough leash that he can't do anything disruptive. Any further suggestions are welcome. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:23, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Confirmation MistwerWiki has read and agreed to the above. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:50, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Good luck! Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:10, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

• I support the proposal by HJ. Perhaps this will end this once and for all.--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 19:16, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose, as above. There's little consensus to lift the current block. Jack Merridew 19:19, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support though quite weakly. MisterWiki has the potential to be a black hole of editor time. He also has the potential to be a decent contributor here. He needs to know he has one chance here- he either contributes productively or is blocked and it will be years before an unblock is seriously considered. At his age, maturity can come rapidly, though, so I can at least support HJ Mitchell's efforts. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 20:02, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
• Weak Support There really is little consensus above to lift the block, but if anyone can make a potentially good editor out of him, it's HJ.--SKATER ^Speak. 20:06, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support One thing- If MW finds blatant vandalism in the article-space, he should be able to remove himself. NERDYSCIENCEDUDE (✉ message • changes) 20:13, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
• With all due respect toward those who have put forth this proposal, it is simply too soon to be discussing lifting the block. I must oppose. Shereth 20:31, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
  • I understand where you're coming from, an d thank you for your consideration in your comment. I will say, though, that, although I'm asking for the technical restriction to be lifted, most of the de facto ban that went with it will remain, since he'll be almost entirely limited to his own or my userspace, per Xeno's suggestion above. Thank you, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:06, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
    • If you would like for me to elaborate on specifically why I feel this is a bad idea, I can do so, but I'll try to summarize. MisterWiki has disrupted the project in the past due to either a willful intent to misbehave or an inability to understand why what he was doing was wrong. I am happy to believe that someone can reform/grow up and become a productive contributor but I do not believe this is something that can happen over a period as short as a few months. I don't think it's sending the right message to MisterWiki to truncate the terms of his block simply because he asks nice and makes promises; I fear it will only encourage either the willful malice or the immaturity that drove him to do what he did previously. Shereth 22:32, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support To be honest, if this was me, I'd rather stay blocked than agree to such a frustratingly binding series of restrictions, particularly not being able to make even one edit in mainspace without prior approval from his mentor(s). But if he's up for it, I don't see any problems. I don't think there should be any gray areas though; if we're saying he can't edit mainspace, he shouldn't be editing mainspace, even to make clearly productive edits, because there is no defining line between what is productive and what isn't, and the lack of clarity could be used by anyone opposing the unblock to show that he's violating the terms of his unban; in other words, it could potentially hurt him more than it would help. —Soap— 21:57, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
• modest support and in agreement with Soap. These are restrictive conditions but they are to allow him to prove himself. Let's not give him the rope right now so that he can hang himself. There is generally enough vandal patrolling that MW doesn't need this loophole in his restrictions. If there is recurring vandalism on something he is involved with then his mentor can deal with it, if someone else doesn't get it first. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 22:39, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. You cannot claim "vandalism" as a reason to bypass the restrictions. In order to appease the opposers, how about MR cannot request a review of these restrictions after no less than 2-3 months from the unblock and only with the approval of his mentor. Such a request should be made at the Administrators' Noticeboard instead of 45 days? That sould be long enough IMHO.--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 22:49, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Apologies for disrupting the thread here, but I'll try to keep it as clear as I can. @Shereth, again, I can understand where you're coming from but (call me a fool if you will) I see a genuine desire to help from MisterWiki and, in light of his positive contributions to other WMF projects, particularly what I've seen of him on enWikinews, where I'm semi-active myself, I don't think there's any malice there. The reason I suggested the mentoring and why I'm fighting so hard for this is because I believe that, with help from someone willing to to work with him rather than write him off, he can become a genuine asset to the encyclopaedia. @Delirious and Soap, I'll strike the vandalism caveat- I should be able to deal with anything he encounters. @White Shadows, that can work if it has to, but 45 days (~a month and a half) seemed a reasonable time period to me. No such request will be forthcoming unless I'm totally satisfied and I will not simply rubber stamp it. Would you be averse to trusting my judgement on that?

General clarification: the "seeking approval to edit outside mine or his userspace" clause is intended to allow him to work on articles in that space and copy or move them to mainspace and to allow him to edit Pichilemu (closely supervised) which I believe he has intentions to revamp. Essentially, I'm saying cut him just enough slack, and if he finds a way to hang himself with the little rope we're allowing him, he can just be reblocked and I'll shut the f**k up (which would probably make everyone happy!). I'd like to extend my thanks to everybody in this thread, for putting up with me if for no other reason. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:52, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Just for clarification when you say you are in agreement with Soap do you mean you also agree that his staying blocked is preferred?--Crossmr (talk) 01:17, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

My stance has eased up a little as HJM has laid out this proposal. If you look at the beginning of this thread, a just after Nihonjoe's series of posts you find my first one, in which i was not in favour of a free-for-all unblocking. When HHJM first raised the idea of himself being a mentor for MW i said that a trial run might be ok. Having seen the proposed conditions of the unblocking and mentor role that HJM is willing to take on i find myself a little more agreeable to unblocking on those conditions. From my brief interactions with him on IRC and in reviewing his recent contributions on a cross-project level as i gathered diffs for my note on his CHU request (which is what brought this entire discussion here) i didn't see anything that would cause me to believe MW is trying to deceive. I am cautious. These are some fairly limiting restrictions and i do see that depending on his real maturity level they could be more harmful than helpful. That being said his actions on other, smaller projects have been better than what got him blocked here. If he has honestly matured then this is a good way for him to show that he can work with a larger group of fellow editors and the more diverse opinions and perspectives that we have. If he has not matured then as HJM says this will blow up in his face and MW will be back to serving out his 10 year block. I see it as granting early parole with a diligent parole officer, kind of like the show White Collar. (Yes i realise you struck your question but in the version on my screen when i clicked [Edit] it was not struck, so i thought to answer it anyway.) delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 02:05, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

• completely 100% oppose You're basically section shopping at this point. You have no consensus for an unblock above, so proposing restrictions as if he is going to be unblocked is premature. I really have to wonder what your motivation is for pushing this so hard especially when you've ignored concerns about your own logic above. Misterwiki isn't ready for an unblock and frankly you're not ready to mentor anyone. You told us above that if we didn't unblock him now we'd just have to keep talking about it. is that your strategy now? Are you going to keep making proposals on his behalf until we just cave in?--Crossmr (talk) 00:27, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
  • You misunderstood my above comment. Please assume good faith. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?
    • Which when asked about it twice, you failed to clarify. I don't assume good faith blindly. That's not a shield for you trying to shop for a way to unblock. Yet again you still haven't addressed at least a couple people who have pointed out that you have no consensus for unblock above. What are you doing even proposing restrictions when you have no consensus for an unblock?--Crossmr (talk) 01:01, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
      • Assuming good faith keeps the project running smoothly, especially in a thread where many people have strong opinions. For example, I automatically assume that you misunderstood me rather than trying to be difficult. I'm proposing the restrictions so that people have a better idea of what they're supporting or opposing- I myself would not support an unblock with no restrictions given MW's history. Thus, I'm trying to establish a consensus rather than trying to force something through unduly- to do the latter would be contemptuous. As to my point above, I meant that, at some point or another, someone else will likely propose an unblock again so it would be good to give him a final chance- many previously problematic editors have gone on to be upstanding members of the community. To my motivation, having spoken with him and followed his efforts on enWikinews, I feel he has a genuine desire to be useful- to the extent that he has agreed, should he be unblocked, to work within such restrictive conditions. If you want to look at it from a cynical point of view, if he blows this chance, his next block (if he's unblocked this time) will almost certainly be his last. Thank you, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:10, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
        • And it still isn't done blindly. at some point or another, someone else will likely propose an unblock again so it would be good to give him a final chance Yet again you're still pushing the idea that if we don't unblock him now we'll just have to do it again later. Sorry, that still is terribly logic for an unblock now and gives me zero confidence in your ability to mentor him. The fact that someone might bring up his unblock again in the future has absolutely no bearing on the discussion here, but you continue to try and use it as justification on why he should be unblocked now.--Crossmr (talk) 00:33, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support unblock. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 01:06, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support Unblock he has done some great editing on WikiNews, he will be a great asset here on wikipediaIrunongames • play 14:32, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support unblock per restrictions and mentoring proposed above. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:31, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose pretty much per Shereth. He willfully misbehaved, attacked admins without real provocation, and received a 10 year block with strong backing. Although I looked over his contribs at wikinews, and they are in fact promising, there are major differences in how the two sites work. He lived in Chile when the earthquake occurred, and this put him in a good situation to get attention which ultimately was the conclusion of a few editors during the various discussions. Although he should be allowed back at some point, it's frustrating to have an editor be imposed with a 10 year turned infinite block, and come back in just a few months. If he is doing well on Wikinews (Which he is) then he can continue there where he will be productive. Another point I have against the restrictions is it is very difficult for any editor to do much productive under said restrictions, so I don't see any real reason to go to editing restrictions. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs/^Vote! 16:52, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
  • I agree that this is very soon after the imposition of the block and I believe I may even have supported the block when it was imposed or in one of the multiple threads on this board. However, the point of the mentoring is to deal with the immaturity and to force him to think before he says or does something and if he wilfully acts out, he can go back to his ten year block with no argument from me whatsoever. As for the usefulness of the restrictions, the idea (or my idea in proposing them, at least) is to allow MW to prove his usefulness by drafting articles in userspace (his or mine, I've no preference) and, closely supervised, making improvements after moving them to mainspace, though without letting him into the project space or anywhere else that he would have chance to be disruptive. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:25, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock at this time. And I do hope oppose votes in the above section will be considered despite this new section HJM has created. Auntie E. (talk) 18:21, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Of course they will be and that is exactly why I created this as a subsection of the above rather than a new section. Would you care to elaborate on why you don't find these restrictions acceptable, since this is a discussion, rather than a vote? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:31, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support I genuinely believe MisterWiki has good intentions. --Mikemoral♪♫ 19:28, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
• Comment @HJ, Yes, I suppose that you are correct, nevermind my earlier suggestion. Now since HJ posted these suggestions to lift the block, there have been 10 !votes to unblock and 5 to keep it at the status quo. There is a 75% approval to lift it. I encourage any admin that may be reviewing this case to look at the facts. MW may not be getting a ton of stuff done over at WikiNews but at least he is "damn well trying". His participation in other porjects (whom I have watched first hand) shows me that he can and will be an asset to this project once more. With these proposals, it would be impossible for MW to cause more trouble unless he commits wiki-suicide on his account. And as for the "opposers", AGF does work, very well in fact. Many people never took me seriously when I first began editing here and look at me now. Coments like " Misterwiki isn't ready for an unblock and frankly you're (HJ) not ready to mentor anyone" are belittleing in nature to the capabilities that HJ possesses. My question is how can you make such a case? Is there any evidense that any of you have that would prove that HJ is not a good mentor. He'll do fine with MW as long as you AGF aobut his actions and skills. Once again admins, look and MW's patricipation in other projects and you'll see that he deserves "yet another last chance".--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 22:36, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
  • You needn't worry White Shadows, even if a lack of AGF is present, I'd rather people say what they mean so at least we can have an open discussion. I also think it's worth waiting a little while longer before closing this- now that the conditions of any unblock are aired, I for one would like to hear a few more opinions. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:01, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
    • Alright HJ. I was just pointing tis out there to any admin who may or may not close this discussion. I hope that your right about this HJ, 10 of us are sticking out necks out there for MW.--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 23:12, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
      • 11- I daresay my neck's out a lot further but I genuinely feel MW can be an asset to the project. I'm also extremely grateful to those who have taken the time to comment one way or another here, but especially to those sticking their necks out to support and I should think MW is, as well. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:21, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
        • I know he is. If you ever need any help with the mentoring (assuming he get's unblocked) I'll be willing to lend a hand as long as MW agrees. Anyway, I know that you have your neck out more than any of us. Good job for being so bold! Now we just have to wait.--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 23:25, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

• 10/15 is 66% not 75%. For the record. Most of the people who comment above (where it was 9-2 in favor of maintaining the block) haven't worded their opinions in a way that would indicate they were particularly open to the idea of an unblock with restrictions. Taking into consideration the above section you're looking at 11-10 in favor of an unblock.--Crossmr (talk) 00:33, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Well thank you for subsidiseing my lack of math skills captain pointy. Regardless, your oppose is based of of the argument that we cannot AGF for MW. Since when does AGF not apply to anyone? It sure did apply to User:Vintagekits (a very good and respected editor who was indef blocked for an argument about the Troubles) for several months on end.--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up}

That response is probably unnecessary, but this line of conversation is going nowhere fast so may I suggest we return to the discussion rather than discussing statistics. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:36, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

If you want to try and count !votes and give percentages to provide a point of view, people are free to correct them. AGF isn't a shield for infinite chances. AGF was assumed before and MW kept it up until he was blocked for a very long time. The time that has passed isn't sufficient to address that concerns that were raised before. AGF doesn't require editors beat their heads against the wall endlessly over another user's actions.--Crossmr (talk) 06:15, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose unblock Misterwiki has come in by the back door otherwise we would not be discussing this. The decision to block him was not taken lightly but he asked for it, time and again. He seems only to acknowledge his errors when repeatedly and specifically told that that is the only way he'll stand any chance of getting things to go his way. His one overwhelming problem here is his immaturity, a problem that needs more than a few weeks' under the proposed convoluted scrutiny. Turning around a dauntless pest like Misterwiki would be quite a feather in the cap for HJ but I cannot it happening in the foreseeable future. This is, I think, only the second time I've commented at ANI in the 3 years I been around but I do feel rather strongly that this is one case where laying out the AGF and one-more-chance lines just don't take into account the problems he caused and the current unliklihood of genuine change. Plutonium27 (talk) 01:15, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. I am aware of the disruption MisterWiki has caused in the pas, and that is why the proposed restrictions are so...well... restrictive. I also agree with your first two points and, as I've said above, I believe I supported the block at the time and I commented in several of the ANI threads on MW. I also agree with your third point (acknowledging his errors) but I believe that is the point of the mentoring. I'm not looking for feathers in my cap, simply to help MW become a useful editor to the project. As has been noted above, MisterWiki has shown on other wikis, particularly Wikinews that he can be useful which is why I believe that allowing him back under very close supervision would be beneficial. Worst case scenario, if MW returns to his old ways, he can simply be reblocked. Permanently. Nonetheless, thank you for your time. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:36, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

If Wikinews had the same level of scrutiny or, indeed, even required the range and type of contributions that WP does, I would certainly consider that promising. But Wikinews is essentially putting together bits off of the news networks and doesn't persuade me that it is evidence of his raising his act to level required here, and permanently so. Your offer certainly is altruistic and made with good intent - there'd be no reason to disregard a cap feather if you succeed: quite the contrary, you'd be deserving of a page-size barnstar at the very least. Plutonium27 (talk) 02:07, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me, but I have to disagree with that assessment of my home project. "Wikinews is essentially putting together bits off of the news networks" = isn't that the same thing Wikipedia is doing, citing things from secondary sources? Except that you have a larger amount of topics that you can cover. Wikinews actually has high standards - higher, I would argue, than that of Wikipedia, as we have flagged revisions installed and every story must be reviewed by a trusted user in order to be indexed and go "live" on the main page and feeds. Under our policies, every article must be gone through with a fine comb for errors, whereas here it is only encouraged. MisterWiki's articles, although sometimes lacking in the best style due to having a non-native grasp of English, have never had any factual or copyright problems in them as far as I can remember; in that regard he is actually doing better than a lot of other regulars at the project. Tempodivalse [talk] 03:06, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support. This appears a reasonable way to enable MW to contribute constructively, and if HJ is willing to mentor him, I can see no reason not to give it a try. Ucucha 01:45, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose If the only way people would consider letting him back is through a huge series of restrictions (and I wouldn't even consider it otherwise), then it's better not to bother. People who act that destructively shouldn't be here, period and if we can't trust him to return point blank, then don't bother. Actions should have consequences. He should at a minimum follow the Wikipedia:Standard offer and wait six months from the January ban. Frankly, nobody should deal with arguments like this (forget the name-calling, it's just a waste of time). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:25, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
• Weak support MisterWiki is a junior teen, and kids can change radically if presented with the right life influences. At the same time, he needs to be aware that this isn't Schoolopedia, and I'm concerned that unblocking him now, rather than letting it run for six months, may be sending the wrong message.Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:02, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

• That sounds more like you don't support an unblock than support one. Wikipedia isn't a babysitter and there are plenty of junior teens who are capable of contributing here positively without the drama. Everyone here gets treated equally. The fact that he's coming here way too soon to ask for an unblock shows he hasn't really matured. A mature person might take the time to reflect on what they've done and approach the community on it's terms. While I don't support standard offer it would have been a good place for him to start and show maturity. Rushing back into things isn't mature.--Crossmr (talk) 12:07, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

• I might be mistaken in thinking that you're overreacting a little bit. But FWIW, I can apprecate where Elen is coming from in what she terms as a radical positive change that can occur over time. I can also appreciate her clear reasons for 'weak support'. Note, neither does that mean my view is identical to hers, nor does it mean that Elen is basing her view on age/maturity rather than fairly treating all appeals. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:52, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support I can see no harm unblocking as long as the restrictions are abided to and HJ Mitchell is willing to give time to mentor this editor. If it doesn't work then the block can be reinstated with a note that mentoring failed. If it does work though, then we will have a useful editor working on articles. I don't see the problem. --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:13, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

* Weak support on the condition that he discusses controversial changes on the article's talk page. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦-11-1985♪♫™} 22:55, 12 April 2010 (UTC) ←←← Impostor alert~! --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 06:53, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Conditionally unblocked

As there is a slight majority willing to give MisterWiki another chance, I have conditionally unblocked him. The conditions may be found here. –xeno^talk 13:39, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

This is silly, for the record. Tan | 39 14:09, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

That list of restrictions is silly. I didn't participate above, but looking at the list... a better move would have been to simply cut our losses and move on here. AniMate 14:19, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I suppose the restrictions should be considered a slight relaxation: "get off our lawn" is replaced with "you may trim the boulevard a little bit under supervision". HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs) is willing to work with the user, MisterWiki should be out of our hair for-the-most-part. If not, the reblock button is a click away. –xeno^talk 14:26, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

And when this goes south, I will be here to point the finger. WP:AGF was lost a long time ago. I am rather shocked to see this when the lines were so close to one another... –Turian (talk) 14:35, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll admit I'm a hopeless optimist and welcome all "I-told-you-so's" if it comes to that. The fact that the lines were so close is part of the reason I chose to unblock: the default position is not blocked so even a simple majority compels us to unblock. The strict conditions should generally save administrative time and keep MisterWiki out of our hair. If he becomes a constructive contributor and doesn't come up at ANI again - mission accomplished; if not, he'll be reblocked without much fanfare and I'll have once again muddied myself in deference to my boundless optimism that people can change. –xeno^talk 14:43, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, the situation is in competent hands. But I am more of a pessimist aka realist when it comes to people. :) –Turian (talk) 14:53, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I think it's safe to say, any needed reblock will likely be swift and without wasted time. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:51, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I certainly hope so, we don't need a wasted week at ANI again. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs/^Vote! 14:56, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

A slight majority is not enough to overturn a 10 year community ban. There is zero consensus to overturn the block at this point and doing so is an insult to the community that had already sent him packing.--Crossmr (talk) 15:22, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

• Thank you to all who have contributed to this discussion. I hope there are no ill-feelings and I hope that people will be willing to at least support this in principle. Thanks especially to Xeno and to all the other editors who have offered their assistance. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:36, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

  Thank you for giving me this chance to prove myself. I have good intentions and I won't let you down. --Diego Grez ^{let's talk} 19:12, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

  I don't think you editing at ANI is allowed as part of your restriction. Seriously. Tan | 39 19:14, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

  It's not allowed, looks to me like a clear breach of the restriction that he "is to only to edit in his own or in Mitchell's userspaces". He's also breached that restriction by posting on Xeno's talk page. That lasted. Spitfire^Tally-ho! 19:20, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

  "You may also contact me on my talk page if necessary." Nothing wrong there. And if HJ approves of his comment here, then there is nothing wrong with that either. I don't agree with the unblock, but your accusations are mired by simply just not reading. –Turian (talk) 19:25, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

  Turian and Tan are correct. The edit to my talk page is fine and allowed per the restrictions, the edit to ANI is technically not unless approved ahead-of-time by his mentor. However, perhaps it can be overlooked - I would point out that MisterWiki/Diego Grez is already happily at work on several draft articles [79]. –xeno^talk 19:29, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

  Struck. Spitfire^Tally-ho! 19:34, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I (think I) understand the worries and the hopes. I've warned him. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:36, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

This entire situation is ridiculous. Of course he shouldn't be blocked for posting a comment to AN/I to say thanks. But then again, of course we shouldn't ignore the community restrictions that were placed upon him with the understanding that any violation of them would result in an immediate block. Of course there wouldn't be such a dilemma if he had just kept to the restrictions. I'm hoping that Mitchell gave permission to him in IRC, if that was the case, then any future permission should be given explicitly on wiki. In any case, no further action should be taken until Mitchell say's whether he gave permisson or not. Spitfire^Tally-ho! 19:42, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

It's your first statement that is 100% correct. Tan | 39 19:48, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

It's stuff like this that makes it difficult for me to take wikipedia seriously. Why would you ever want to unblock a frequently disruptive, and not particularly competent, child? So he can create impenetrable articles like this User:MisterWiki/Ross Balcony sourced to blogs?Bali ultimate (talk) 19:54, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

In a way that's the sentiment I was trying to project earlier. I honestly hope that I am wrong in my assessment of the situation and that MW does turn around to become a productive member of the community, but I do have a hard time understanding why we stick out our necks by giving these kinds of editors not one, not two, but multiple "last chances". Shereth 20:24, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

The only reason the unblock happened is that a single editor is willing to take the time to try and bring MW back into the fold. I've found that in mentoring, the mentor is wontedly the one who learns the most. I wouldn't spend the time mentoring MW, maybe that could be my selfishness or my wisdom as to likelihoods or whatever, but I'm ok with the notion that someone's willing to do that, someone who through whatever outlook, thinks it's worthwhile. Whatever happens, I'll be startled if another long thread about MW shows up here. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:34, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Like this one? GMAFB. Tan | 39 22:20, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

You're the one lengthening it now. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:28, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Then by all means lock it, it's been a meaningless exercise anyway. Someoneanother 22:43, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Done and yes, that may be quite true. I've yet to see mentoring yield the hoped-for outcome for the mentoree. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:52, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

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

and the beat goes on

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

---

Any admin is welcome to reblock MW/DG for the thank you note he left here at ANI, which broke his unblock restrictions. Please take further comments and questions to user talk:xeno. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:07, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Re-closing. One upset editor does not a consensus for further discussion make. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:17, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

now that we've ignored the communities wishes let's archive this and sweep it under the rug as fast as we can right? The first thing he does is violate his restrictions and instead of the block he was promised it is a "warning". I would also point out that Xeno imposed restrictions were not part of the community consensus. The restrictions proposed never allowed for the mentor to give him permission to post to other areas. The restrictions that the community apparently agreed to explicity state that he isn't allowed to post anywhere but the mentors page and his page period. No other pages, and there is no clause there for the mentor to give permission.--Crossmr (talk) 23:47, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't have unblocked MW myself, but I've warned him about that and I'll reblock him myself if he strays again. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:49, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

That wasn't what we all just apparently agreed to was it? Even some of those supported explicitly stated 1 slip up and he was gone. The first thing he did out of the gate was slip up. No one who agreed to anything said "give him 2 or 3 more chances". I mean if we're just going to ignore the communities wishes time and time again, why bother having one?--Crossmr (talk) 23:54, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Majority support for an unblock under very closely bounded mentorship is hardly "ignoring" anything. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:52, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Barely majority is not consensus. Consensus is not garnered by number counting. The community here and previously have clearly shown that he was to be sent packing. This is a beyond brutal call. Unfortunately I didn't see this thread quick enough to contribute. This user should have in no way been unblocked. -DJSasso (talk) 01:08, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

He broke the restriction above, reblock if you wish. –xeno^talk 01:13, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

You're the one who took it upon yourself to unblock without a clear consensus to do so, why don't you fix your own mistake?--Crossmr (talk) 01:18, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Blocking someone for their expressing thanks for being unblocked would be asinine, even for me. –xeno^talk 01:24, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

As asinine as unblocking someone banned by the community without a clear consensus to do so? He isn't being blocked for giving thanks. He's being blocked for violating his restrictions. Which you just admitted he did.--Crossmr (talk) 01:29, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

The clause in the proposal was here: "MisterWiki is to seek approval for any edit outside of his own or HJ Mitchell's userspace". I made it clearer ("Any edit outside his or his mentors' userspace must be explicitly approved by his mentor. This includes reversion of obvious vandalism."). Yes, he made a post to ANI thanking us for our extension of good faith. If you were an administrator, would you have pressed the block button for that? Your vehement opposition to this unblock was and is noted. Perhaps we should give MisterWiki some breathing room now, and see if he can become a constructive contributor under the guidance of more experienced editors. –xeno^talk 01:13, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, MisterWiki is to agree that any violation of the above will result in an immediate, indefinite block without discussion and that such a block will almost certainly be permanent. It didn't say he'd get a warning, it said he'd get a permanent block. You said he broke the restriction. Why hasn't he been indefinitely reblocked? He can barely contain himself for 2 seconds before he violates his restrictions. What kind of maturity does that show?--Crossmr (talk) 01:18, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

"Any violation of the above restrictions may result in an immediate and indefinite reblock, without discussion or warning, from any administrator." Note "may result" - MisterWiki should be thankful that no one is such a stickler as to issue one in this case. Give it a rest, and give him a chance. –xeno^talk 01:24, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

He was given a chance which there was no clear consensus for and promptly blew it. Now are you going to ignore the consensus that you claimed even further?--Crossmr (talk) 01:29, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

And yes, I just noticed how you further insulted the community and changed the restrictions. The restrictions that were agreed upon above clearly state "Will be blocked" not "may be blocked". What was the whole point of this discussion if you were just going to come in and make up whatever you wanted?--Crossmr (talk) 01:32, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

"May" is always more accurate because one can never be sure what "will" happen. –xeno^talk 01:36, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I am not going to block him; if any other administrator wants to, I won't stand in the way, but I won't.

The point that some of you think this was a violation has been made. If any administrators who feel that it was a violation want to block, then block. Non-administrators have made your point, and continuing to beat the dead horse is not helpful. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:40, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Its not the violation I have issue with. Its the original unblock. Xeno did not have consensus to unblock him to begin with. -DJSasso (talk) 01:43, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

The point is that the administrator that unblocked him admitted a violation has been made. It isn't a matter of "think" he said so right above.--Crossmr (talk) 01:56, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

You have failed to convince any administrators that this is something they need to act on; if you want to file a new community ban, or a more formal admin action review request, you can do that; start another section and go for it.

What you're complaining about so far is claiming that admins should not use their judgement, either on unblocks or on judging community consensus or on when to block and when not to block, when it's inconvenient for your preferred outcome.

Admins aren't robots; we don't apply a mathematical formula to behavioral issues here. We're approved based on community approval of our judgement and given some flexibility and encouragement to work within both the letter and spirit of the policy, to make a better encyclopedia. I don't know if the right decision was made here or not; I think only time will tell. I don't see clear and present evidence that it was necessarily and grievously wrong. It doesn't jump out at me as something that I as an uninvolved administrator need to work to reverse, either on my own judgement or by starting a proper focused review or overturn discussion here.

Even if he turns out to be wrong, WP:AGF is an important core value here. AGF eventually runs out in trouble cases, but each admin has their own judgement to look to, and if one admin takes some responsibility to extend a bit more good faith (and if abused, take it back) we generally let them run with it. We do salvage "bad users" every day by working with them and respecting them as people, flawed as their histories may be.

It is entirely possible that tomorrow something will happen that causes me, or another admin, or Xeno to reblock. We're not dumb. We have, as you may have noticed, been getting stricter in general with repeat abusers. This case is clearly along the edge here. But it's also not clearly over it into universal ban-them-and-be-done universal consensus.

If he does something new, flag it. We'll look at it. If it's more than a trivial violation it will probably result in a block. But we're going to continue to use our judgements - because that's what we are here for. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:11, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

People didn't agree to anything but a trivial violation. They agreed to any violation. The problem is an administrator who is basically throwing the communities consensus in its face. AGF already ran out on MW, that is why he was blocked for 10 years. The community already decided that. Administrators are allowed to extend AGF a little further, but not in the face of an already existing and well discussed consensus. It shows utter disrespect for the community and as a member of the community I'm insulted by Xeno's actions. If you want to talk about community approval, Xeno didn't have it, other admins have come forward and stated that. There is a huge problem and blatant abuse of community trust perpetrated here. He's basically said, so what if you guys have already discussed this. I'm going to do whatever I want and change it to whatever I feel like.--Crossmr (talk) 05:28, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

"May" is an insult to the community. That is not what they agreed upon. "Will" stated that it was a guaranteed block. you've now altered the restrictions to give weaseling room to just issue him more "chances". You unblocked without consensus and took it upon yourself to further alter those restrictions to set a lower threshold than what the few people who agreed to had already done so.--Crossmr (talk) 01:53, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I've already convinced myself to stop thinking about this and move on, and nearly managed. The 'thank you' business really should blow over. However, after looking at Diego's talk page I was staggered to see that boundaries were being pushed against before the unblock even happened, and were agreed to by HJ Mitchell before the block was even lifted. Diego should not be setting his own terms and pushing at boundaries, specifically two of the terms stipulated above are "MisterWiki is to only to edit in his own or in my userspace where you can draft things and where I and others can keep an eye on you" and "MisterWiki is to seek approval for any edit outside of his own or HJ Mitchell's userspace". Those are plain, in word and spirit, and reflect that an unblock would mean anything but business as usual. The fact that they were already being undermined before the unblock happened is unbelievable. This unblock is going to go very sour very quickly if the spirit of tight restrictions is going to be swept away in a day or two. I am sorry to bring it up at all, but there's a difference between taking the breaks and taking the piss. Someoneanother 03:58, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Yet further evidence that HJ has no business mentoring anyone. MW has shown no evidence of gaining maturity and HJ seems to have no clue how people feel about this situation.--Crossmr (talk) 05:31, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Crossmr, I'm posting again about this only because you seem so worried and unhappy about what has happened so far with MW. As I said (or at least tried to broadly hint) above, HJ is likely to learn more from this, as an editor, than MW, because that's what most often happens with this kind of mentoring here. I wouldn't have unblocked MW. I don't think MW is being given a way back onto en.WP which will allow him to get into mischief again. For me, the only pith has been that reblocks are easy, HJ is willing to give of his volunteer time to deal with MW, xeno unblocked following a narrow majority of support for that, MW did rashly stray with his otherwise harmless thank you note and no admin was willing to reblock him over that: I'd say this was much more out of heed for HJ more than for MW. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:33, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you should read this diffs someone another provided again. HJ is already suggesting after 24 hours they should start looking at having MW edit outside userspace.[80]. Given that he twice repeated the "if you don't unblock him now we'll just have to talk about this more" logic failure and that he's now suggesting this, I have zero confidence in his ability to properly mentor this user given the situation. A narrow majority isn't a consensus to unblock someone given a 10 year community ban. Other admins have echoed that. You yourself said you wouldn't have unblocked. We have an admin who is acting against community consensus and a mentor who doesn't seem to know what he's doing. Yes, you're right. I am concerned about this situation.--Crossmr (talk) 10:57, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I did see that post earlier, I read it as meaning editing outside your user space with my edit-by-edit permission [as set forth in the unblock restrictions] will not happen for at least a day. I don't know if this is what HJ had in mind with that post, I hope so, I may be wrong, but taken altogether, that's what I think he meant. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:12, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

That's part of the problem. It isn't exactly clear. As someone another already pointed out we had MW pushing to edit outside his restrictions before they were even enacted and HJ already giving an indication that it would happen very quickly. I also take great issue with Xeno rewording the restrictions contrary to what little consensus already existed. As Tan said above, this is silly, but frankly it isn't remotely a strong enough description of what is going on here. There are multiple issues here with basically every party involved, and it is frankly a disgusting situation.--Crossmr (talk) 11:34, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I have clarified the restrictions and boundaries of the conditional unblock to HJ Mitchell [81]. I understand you disagree with the unblock, but I would very much like for us to give HJ Mitchell a chance with this endeavour. If it does not prove to benefit the encyclopedia and the restrictions are broken, I will reblock. Feel free to raise further concerns at my talk page. –xeno^talk 13:28, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately this isn't supposed to be about what you want. It is supposed to be about what the community wants. Perhaps there is where you've gotten yourself lost. Several people have pointed out to you that you had no consensus for the unblock. You've either ignored it or put forth an explanation not remotely inline with WP:CONSENSUS. I've pointed out that you've lessened the restrictions you claimed there was consensus for. Your explanation for that stinks. You admitted that MW broke the restrictions. You refuse to reblock. So why is that I should believe you'd reblock on further violations?--Crossmr (talk) 15:34, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

A majority of the community who opined above expressed a desire to give DG/MW a chance under HJ Mitchell's close supervision. If you'd like to come to my talk page to discuss what should be amended with respect to the restrictions, I'd be happy to look at your suggestions. When I laid them out, I attempted to tighten them up, make them absolutely clear, and prevent wikilawyering. Yes, we are overlooking a minor breach with the "thank you" note that MW/DG left here. I have no issue if an admin wants to block for that, but will not do so myself because that would simply be wonkery as it was so trivial. I will reblock if there is another violation of the restrictions. –xeno^talk 15:46, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry no. This is a community issue that involves multiple editors. This was a community ban and needs to be discussed here, not hidden away on someone's talk page. You in fact didn't change the wording to prevent wikilawyering but to encourage it. Change "will" to "may" changes it from a block being certain to one being uncertain. That doesn't make the restrictions tighter and loosens them. That then gave you the wiggle room to ignore his "trivial" violation. It encourages drama instead of it just being over and done with. If you want to claim you had consensus then you need to follow what you claim you had. They community agreed to "will" not "may". A majority is not consensus. That has been pointed out by other administrators already, and other administrators have already stated that you didn't have consensus and that they wouldn't have unblocked. So once again: What is your reasoning, that is in line with standing policy at WP:CONSENSUS that suggests this individual should be unblocked given the previous community ban? Especially taking into consideration that he's already shown the immaturity that got him banned by violating his restrictions and started pushing to edit main space before he was even unblocked.--Crossmr (talk) 01:58, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

What administrative action are you seeking? AniMate 02:10, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

(EC - resp to Crossmr)

You appear to be the only editor or administrator who remains concerned at this level; with all due respect, you're just repeating yourself here. The discussion is no longer constructive. I am re-archiving it. If there is a violation by the renamed user Diego Grez (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) of the conditions, please open a new section. If there's interest in a renewed community ban proposal, please open a new section. If there's a desire to hold a Admin Conduct RFC on Xeno, please open a RFC. Otherwise, the horse is deceased, inhumed, bereft of functional biological processes, gone pining for the fjords, and seriously lacking gravitas. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:17, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

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

Sockpuppet Removing Templates after "Retirement"

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

IP user is a sockpuppet of indef blocked User:JourneyManTraveler. IP user has claimed he is "retired" but keeps coming back to remove templates from the page. User:JourneyManTraveler also claimed to be "retired" before sockpuppeting. I requested the talk page be semi-protected over at WP:RFPP, but was told by Ronz to bring it to ANI. I have also notified User:Tim Song who blocked the IP for legal threats and told the IP if he/she didn't recend the legal threats, he would prevent the IP from editing. It appears that Tim is offline for the time being. Also, please see this archived SPI investigation for more information. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:35, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I took that retired stuff out. Shared IP addresses can't "retire" for one thing. Burpelson AFB (talk) 02:04, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I didn't think they could, but I wasn't sure, so I just left it be. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:06, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

User:JMB101

Resolved

 – Articles stay. Eagles 24/7 (C) 01:27, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

JMB101 (talk · contribs), who I believe is a sockpuppet of User:Macechap (see investigation), has created a few articles that were previously deleted by User:PMDrive1061. The articles are Battle of the Head of Passes, Battle of Kentuck and Capture of Tucson (1862). They were deleted under A3, and they seem like hoaxes, but I'm really not sure. Any help in this situation would be appreciated. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:58, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Unless the articles were added to a list by a confused user, there isn't anything indicative of a hoax besides the fact that there is no information out there. They are on a list, so I could see why the user would be willing to create pages out of three red lists. `Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:19, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Where is the list you are referring to? Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:28, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Here. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:23, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I see those articles are fine. Eagles 24/7 (C) 01:27, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Continued removal of maintenance templates while there is an ongoing discussion

On the page of City Harvest Church, per this and this, warnings 1 & 2 to Sukarnobhumibol (talk · contribs) went unheeded, he went on to calling me names. Clearly, he is being pointy and disruptive. Thoughts anyone? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 07:40, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Look at the time of the last edit. No reason for this notice. --Sukarnobhumibol (talk) 07:42, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

It has been 5 hours ago since then, so it is a very funny move of the user. --Sukarnobhumibol (talk) 07:47, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

And accusing me of this thing because of a harmless proposition is also very weird. --Sukarnobhumibol (talk) 07:49, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I've been caught in the middle of this disagreement. In my view a) both editors are at fault here and have engaged in name calling and b) no real damage has been done. As such, I'd suggest that they disengage from one another. Nick-D (talk) 10:03, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Nick-D other than to say that Sukarnobhumibol shouldn't be removing the tags. There are obvious issues with the article. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 12:38, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

• Nick, I have disengaged from Sukarnobhumibol like you told us to but this latest edit by him isn't exactly helping to improve the situation... in fact if you look at it again, he is "stalking" me! Thoughts? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 09:49, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I've warned Sukarnobhumibol. Their conduct is getting disruptive. Nick-D (talk) 10:18, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Page protection and removal of edit history

In the article David Headley an IP (from Indian ISP BSNL) has been edit warring for about a month. He frequently removes sourced content. When he is reverted, he reverts back with edit summaries accusing other editors of being "muslim terrorists" and asking "the fbi to take note of terrorist activities". Can someone protect the page and erase the edit summaries.--Sodabottle (talk) 14:45, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Erasing edit summaries is seldom done except to protect privacy. To request page protection, go to WP:RFPP. (Although it's possible someone will do it from here, don't count on it.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:59, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

This edit summary, while clearly disruptive, isn't enough to justify removal. I don't think even this one is that bad. I'm not sure that the disruption here is enough to justify protection - while there was one incident today, the previous one was 2 weeks ago. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 19:25, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

There is one more today. Now i got called " muslim terrorist" for reverting.--Sodabottle (talk) 08:14, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Gemini1962

Resolved

 – Not quite sure what that was about... —DoRD (talk) 02:31, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Gemini1962 (talk · contribs) and Wikipedia talk:Contact us#Edit request from Gemini1962, 14 April 2010, take a look please--Jac16888^Talk 02:16, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Permalink since it has been reverted ("not an edit request and not appropriate for Wikipedia; please use whatever proper channels are appropriate"). —DoRD (talk) 02:31, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

That permalink isn't going to work anymore either, because I have deleted the page and restored it without those edits. There was personal and potentially libelous material included and I thought it best to remove it from public view. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:49, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Extreme behaviour of User:DIREKTOR

After having gived too much time following the WP:AGF, I think now is time to report to you all that I have been going trough in a discussion, and a serie of incidents with this user. Basically, it goes all around a discussion we are having on Talk:Draža Mihailović page, and some other related talk pages.

• 1 - This user clearly monopolizes a series of articles he edits. Admin No such user remembered him of WP:OWN regarding this article [82] , but it seems useless. I am also saying this because after a block that he receved for edit warring on the article, he reverted the article a series of times, as here [83], despite having been both of us advised by admin TomStar81, here [84] to edit the article civily. I supose that means not edit-warring, but he after it even get blocked once more on the article because of it. Resumingly, he reverted the article 20 times since February 13 as seen here [85], [86], and that is only since my first intervention, but from what I see, he has been acting that way for long time now.
• 2 - Since we begin a discussion, he directed to me the following expressions on the Talk:Draža Mihailović: Lack of knolledge/info (7times), Nonsence (5 times), Horrible/faulty grammar (5 times), Me having no idea whatsoever (3 times), childish (2 times), Lying (2 times), Me being nationalist (2 times), unnencyclopedic (2 times), Absurd (2 times), Stupid (1 time), Clumsy (1 time), Silly (1 time), Ridiculous (2 times), Slauderous (1 time), My opinion irrelevant (1 time), me joking (1 time), Missinformed (1 time), Utterly (1 time). Since I confronted him with this, and asked him to avoid the use this kind of expressions, he used again, when refering to me or my comments, the expression Nonsence (2 times), Silly (1 time), when responding to a yet one provocation, he provoke me by saying that "You do not seem to know muc about this war. I keep advising you to learn more on this subject before engaging in these complex discussions" (clear disrespect) [87], or this case, clearly liying when confronted again with his unpoliteness [88], by this exemple you can also see some other unhealthy behaviour, like his constant presentation as some "community", beside the constant unseriousness. This is one of the other great recent exemples [89]. He just called my comment "typical extremely stubborn opposition"! And what is with this language "deal with it!" Are we on the street? Here, he ironically accuses me of speaking about "weather" [90] (because I don´t agree with him?). Here, after a long analisis of the sources, he just calls my arguments "touths and opinions" [91] clearly wishing to poison a normal debate I was having with User:Nuujinn. This was just one more of racial insults directed towards me [92] just because I challenged him to accep+t mediation, that btw, he refuses to, showing extreme bad will. These are some others: [93]. You can also see his following comments at the end of that discussion [94]. Ouragious!
• 3 - Other incidents occured here [95] where I am accused of many ugly things, and, in the recent past, here [96] where he clearly provoked me by calling my quite neutral and logical comment " stupid forum-like discussions where people voice how they "feel" on the issue, as its a pretty abstract subject (plus, this way we'll avoid the obvious danger of this discussion getting clogged by utter nonsense" .
• 4 - Also, once he reported me here, after saying that he didn´t noteced me because I had told him not to adress me in my talk page (trouth), he afterwords had no problems in intentionally provoking me in my talk page while I was blocked, and clearly lied saying that he didn´t knew about me not wanting to post me there (he had said he knew when reprting me). You can see all the provocative attitude he had: [97] How lower can someone be, when trolling with somebody blocked because he exagerated and provoked me before.

This last exemple clearly shows something that has been a constant on Direktor´s side: constant arrogance, agressivity, trolling and provocation towards contrary opinions, besides a constant manipulation of eachothers words and sources making impossible to debate. He also constantly presents himself as some kind of WP authority. I have been editing here for a couple of years now, and I have participated in a great number of discussions in a number of different issues. I know that not all of them are allways pleasent (despite most that I participated really had been), but until this discussion with Direktor I have never experienced anything so unpleasent and "low" here on WP. He also treats all other users that he disagrees with, in same way. Please do something to avoid this kind of behavior here. Thanking in advance, Filip.

P.S.:The worste situation is that after all discussion, a wish to finish with this has come, so a mediation has been asked [98], and he just unviabilized it by not signing, and showing very bad faith in not wanting to say why. FkpCascais (talk) 04:53, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Wait long enough and you can compile a list of "unpleasant-sounding" words this long for any Wikipedian - the important thing is its all directed at "content, not the contributor". Be careful when reading this, its full of manipulative doubletalk ("he directed to me the following expressions") and outright lies (I never called the man "stupid", for example :). This user was never insulted in any way, but gets offended when someone criticizes the (poor) quality of his edits.

To any admin willing to take action on this: beware that this is not the first time a carefully written block attempt was directed against me as a way of winning a dispute. I challenge anyone willing to actually take action on this to find an actual insult/WP:NPA violation. Finally, its a "counter-report" User:FkpCascais is trying to avoid me reporting him for ethnic insults and obscenities similar to the ones' he got blocked for a while back.

All this is so out-of-context it boils down to little or nothing, except an attempt to win the discussion by blocking the opposition with cleverly-worded fake reports. I am perhaps "less-than-completely" civil, but I am very, very careful never to insult other Wikipedians. User:FkpCascais, on the other hand, described my posts as me "shitting out my words", and has most recently commented once again that Croats are unfit to be used alongside proper sources. He was already blocked for this sort of insluting behavior, yet he apparently gets offended when someone comments on his claims as "nonsense", "silly", or "utterly"(?), or calls him "misinformed"? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 05:25, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

It was exactly because of his sort of provocations that I did wrong and said to him "you´re shitting out words" and I was blocked for that (and for reverting). But the constant accusation of being nationalist and disliking Croats is just untrouth and very offensive to ME. I am just challenging a source written by a "Croatian resercher" (meaning Croatian, as "local for Yugoslavia" related articles, thus not completelly neutral) and asking for more neutral sources. But Admins, I don´t have the 1% of experience reporting here as he does, but I really wish all his behaviour on the refered pages is confirmed. And btw, I was just counting the words he directed directly towards me, not counting the other ones he used "indirectly" or to others in the same discussions. Please confirm it all. Btw, I even contribute to Croatian football realted articles, and get along quite well with other Croatian wikipedians. Btw, I don´t get bad with nobody, just oposite to direktor, that seems to be a usual reported editor here. FkpCascais (talk) 05:39, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

(comment from a formerly involved editor) The incident board is ill-equipped to handle situations like this. It's complex and involves complex nationalist feelings on both sides. Having worked with DIREKTOR on articles in the past, I will agree that he can get passionate at times but I can't recall ever seeing his correspondence devolve into flagrant personal attacks. Looking over the diffs you provided, I see nothing actionable. There's simply nothing flagrant enough for an administrator to take action on, and frankly this looks to me like you are trying to use this board to win a content dispute. It's hard not to notice that you do not have a perfect grasp of English. DIREKTOR, I would ask you to take that into consideration. Sometimes it is harder to make yourself understood when you are typing a language that is not your native tongue. However, FkpCascais, this is the English Wikipedia and a certain level of competency is required. Because you just left the phrase "Horrible/faulty grammar" above without any context, I can't really make a judgment call about it. I will say that I had a hard time understanding some of what you wrote here, and I would be highly alarmed if you were editing in article space with the English skills you have displayed here. Perhaps it is better to stick to talk pages until you improve, or find another with better English skills to work with you on any changes on your user talk page. Going back to my original point, WP:AN/I isn't the right forum for something like this. I would suggest filing a user request for comment, and this is advice for both of you. Another venue might be Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Geopolitical ethnic and religious conflicts, and that might draw some administrators who are used to dealing with these types of matters. A word of advice: if you post there, make your case concisely and don't argue back and forth. No one wants to step into the middle of a fight and remember you're going their for help, not to continue the conflict. AniMate 06:11, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I apologise for not having switched my grammar correction programm on, but I didn´t understood that it was my English that it was going to be on debate here. I just wanted to make this report quickly and understandable. I already created quite a big number of articles here, and you are the second person in a million that complains about my grammar (its not perfect, I know, but I can´t discuss on a talk page? or complain about another user?). Also, if you think that my goal is to win a dispute here, well you obviously did had quite a lot of trouble with understanding my English. Thank you for your time and advice anyway. FkpCascais (talk) 07:11, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

(comment from a formerly involved editor) a bad faith ANI that should be dismissed. Advice has been given to both parties as to how to take this editorial conflict further. Polargeo (talk) 10:35, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

SPA only performing same edits as another user.

Resolved

 – This is now at SPI Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:09, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Note: I haven't notified AC or the NT account about this ani thread because of our contentious history.

I had last summer filed a SPI against Arab Cowboy and Nefeer Tweety, the CU showed that they were unrelated. There has now been an arbitration case, it was basically several disputes involving AC/NT against me over several articles. The only thing the Nefer Tweety account was and is used for, ever since it got registered, is to carry out the exact same edits as Arab Cowboy, in edit wars or other instances when AC himself can not. I believe that If AC is not controlling NT directly, then he is controlling him indirectly, and telling him what to do.

I have here below put together some evidence to show on the behaviour alone that NT is controlled by AC. The WP Swedish/English Omar sharif picture part and specially the last part of the evidence is the most astonishing. There is no way that he didn't knew who it was.

This started at the beginning of the summer 2009:

There had been a lot of arguing between me and IP 98/Arab Cowboy for a long time over the Asmahan and Farid al Atrash articles. It started out over the first line of the article, He wanted it to say that she is Egyptian. An RfC was created on the Asmahan talkpage, Everything here below was posted in about 2 hours.

Arab Cowboy started talking about: "15:48, 2 July 2009, is agreed." Meaning that, that article edit is "agreed", It was not agreed, no one ever suggested that, only him, and he kept on repeating this phrase. "Your latest edit of 15:48, 2 July 2009 is acceptable and does not need to be changed further."

HelloAnnyong was a 3O mediator, here Arab Cowboy asks the 3O "Annyong, please explain what is involved in this RfC process."

HelloAnnyong responds: "It gets listed at a central location, and people will come here and read the discussion and leave their opinions below."

Here Arab Cowboy says "Nationality needs to be in lead"

About one hour later a newly created account named Nefer Tweety, showed up and says: "This is my first contribution to Wikipedia, but I have been following the debate for some time. My position is that I support the current version of 15:48, 2 July 2009. And I believe her Egyptian nationality needs to be in the lead.

No one ever mentioned this: "15:48, 2 July 2009," phrase before, except Arab Cowboy.

Nefer Tweety later posts: "A suspicious start"? Why? I find it interesting to read the debates going on here about various topics. I never participated in one before, and I am not sure I will involve myself into this "edit warring". When I saw you opened RfC, and I read the options typed above, I thought of contributing by stating my opinion, and what I typed above was what I strongly supported from the very beginning. I was going to support either of the options anyway. If I had supported SD's point of view, would I have been considered SD's "socpuppet" by Arab Cowboy? What a disappointment!Nefer Tweety

Later Arab Cowboy was banned for three days. Only a few minutes after the block, Nefer Tweety immediately posted and once more declared that they were not a puppet, and did not know who AC was. Following this, an editor noted the short time period and suggested a CU lookup.

Since then, Nefer Tweety offered help to Arab Cowboy to try to help get him unblocked. Following orders from AC, Tweety then asked another admin to review the block. It is curious that Tweety had not made any posts for days until AC started his edit warring again.

If you look at the behaviour of Arab Cowboy, anything he doesn't like, he edits wars to gets his way through, In this edit I made a post that Arab Cowboys obviously wouldn't like. Having to do with Asmahans ethnicity, the whole dispute was about if she was Syrian or Egyptian, but when I posted this Arab Cowboy did not revert, in fact, he did not even say one single word about it at the talkpage, instead the day after, the newly registered Nefer Tweety account posted this

In that post, please pay attention to these sentences:

NT in the above link: "It was a statement, even if true, that was made as a boastful bluff to a "friend" and was taken out of context by SD." a while later, AC says the same thing: Nr 3."It was said by Asmahan as some sort of bluff on one occasion, not a statement of identity."

NT in the above link: "As the sources show, Asmahan had not lived in Suwayda in childhood" - AC, 1C."In fact, other sources show that Asmahan did not live in Suwayda in childhood"

NT in the above link: "Additionally, when it was time for her to choose between Syrian and Egyptian citizenships, as this source (http://ramsesthesecond.livejournal.com/32835.html) shows, she demanded a divorce a second time from Hassan and set on a road trip to Egypt to salvage her Egyptian citizenship” - AC: "I also gather from the sources that this is when the Egyptian government attempted to withdraw her citizenship on the grounds of dual nationality, and that, faced with this choice, she left Syria and returned to Egypt, married to Ahmed Salim, to reclaim her citizenship."

During past mediations, Nefer Tweety has jumped in at certain exact times when AC "needs it" to do the same edits as Arab Cowboy does. After ACs three edits going against mediation: [99][100][101] Nefer Tweety jumps in [102] and straight out lies, same as with Arab Cowoys behavior "all had been agreed in the Discussion page" and more of the exact same ACs behavior: [103] complete reverts to non agreed edits while saying "It is rude to revert someone else's work."

Doing more of ACs edits while claiming I should "stay away from editing Egyptian articles" AC: [104] [105] NT: [106] something AC have also said: (Response to Statement by CactusWriter) [107] NT: [108] [109]

On the 27th July 16:18 AC uploaded a photo [110] exactly 5 minutes later account Nefer Tweety uploads one [111]

When I started the arb case in September 2009, AC said: "This is a huge waste of resources for editors and administrators, all to serve SD's secret "Syrian" agenda. He has called people, "Jews like you..." and they have called him back, "You are a disgrace to Wikipedia, if not the human race..." He has been fooling admins for so long by his constant childish nagging. Go ahead, if you wish, and start another round of "arbitration"... You are wasting your time. (at the bottom of Statement by Arab Cowboy)[112]

Compare his comments with NTs: In February 2010 NT said in an enforcement request: "He's become too crafty at fooling the arbitrators and the system with his "borderline" violations and endless complaints that are a waste of time for all involved." [113] (Nr 1 in Additional comments by editor filing complaint)

In October 2009, at Swedish wikipedia, AC changed the Omar Sharif picture, from a new one, to an old one, he edit warred with an admin over this: [114] [115]

In February 2010, at english wikipedia, NT did the exact same move, he removed the same new picture to replace it with the very same old one that AC had done at Swedish wikipedia: [116] At this time AC was topic banned from the Omar Sharif article.

At the Omar Sharif article, AC removed sourced info based on things he claimed he had seen on TV:[117]

Several months later NT claimed to have seen the same TV show: [118]

NT carries out ACs edits at Omar Sharif: [119] [120] and has continued to do so: [121][122] [123][124][125][126]

On the 25th October, AC had not made a post at wikipedia for almost 24 hours, he makes a post at Arabic wikipedia [127] and NT who had not made a post at Wikipedia for 21 days, makes a post in the same hour at english Wikipedia: [128]

AC created a sockpuppet and used it to repeatedly violate his topic ban and restriction at the Coptic and Coptic Identity articles. He edit warred over this with a user named Lanternix.

At the Coptic article he for example:[129][130][131][132][133] changes the population: from 12,700,000 to 18,000,000 - 4,500,000 to 16,000,000, removes: "most scholars and international observers assume that the Christian share of Egypt's population is higher than stated by the Egyptian government." "The Copts were severely affected by Nasser's nationalization policies", ". Ignorant of the Egyptian language for the most part, the Arabs confused the Egyptian new year's celebrations..." "In modern Egyptian Arabic, the word koftes (pl. kafatsa),..." and "In the same year, father Morkos Aziz the prominent priest in Cairo declared that the number of Copts (inside Egypt) exceeds 16 million." and adds text from the "The 2009 American Pew Forum on Religion and Public" at least to three different places.

He replaces the word "invasion" with "Emancipation" in the title of the =The Arab-Muslim Invasion of Egypt= section. and removes form the text that Arabs "invaded" Egypt, he also removes "Heavy taxation was one of the reasons behind Egyptian organized resistance.." and replaces it with "granted the status of mawali. Mawalis were in turn subject to the Zakat taxation, as well as their obligation to serve in the Muslim armies." Changes "violent persecutions of caliph Al-Hakim" to "eccentricities"

He removes the "The Arabs imposed a special tax, known as Jizya, on the Christians who acquired the status of dhimmis, and all native Egyptians..." he removes the coptic flag part, He removes freecopts.net orderofmaltacolombia.org netanyahu.org/strugaginemc.html from the article and coptsunited.com freecopts.net copts.com from the see also section.

After Arab Cowboys sockpuppet edits had been in the Coptic article for 1,5 months, Lanternix comes back and reverts it, and only a few days later, the Nefer Tweety account who has previously never made one single edit there shows up and removes the strike out comments from ACs sockpuppet at the talkpage [134][135] (and also formats the comments by ACs sockpuppet) and then he reverts the entire article back almost two months back to the same version by ACs sockpuppet: [136] Not caring about edits made by 30 editors and bots, the exact same thing he did at the Asmahan article: [137]

At the Coptic identity article AC with his sockpuppet for example: [138] [139][140] changed the numbers from 15% to 20% to between 5% and 10%, he removes the U.S. Bill Has Egypt's Copts Squirming, Washington Institute and christianpost.com sources, added "though these claims have not been independently verified" he removes these parts: "For instance, while the Arab invaders of Egypt were accustomed to subjugation of women...." "imposed on the Egyptians by the new dictatorship." "Foreigners visiting Egypt noted that Egyptians did not possess any Arab sentiment in the first half of the 20th century." "It looked to Egypt's pre-Islamic past and argued that Egypt was part of a larger Mediterranean civilization. This ideology stressed the role of the Nile River and the Mediterranean Sea." "also known as "Pharaonism"

At the Coptic identity talkpage NT removes the strike out comments from ACs sockpuppet, (and formats ACs sockpuppets comments) [141] Also notice here that a lot of the signatures of different editors are changed. Think about this, why would they change? For example Lanternix signature consisting of Coptic scripture is changed to "?????????" everywhere and also user Seb_az86556s signature is changed everywhere. The reason for this is, this happens when someone copy's text and then sends it through for example email or msn, the scripture is then not recognized and it shows as such, and this is what I believe has happened. I believe that AC knows NT, and tells him what to do through a channel outside of Wikipedia and at instances sends him entire article texts to paste in the article for him.

NT then does the same thing to Coptic identity, ACs sockpuppet edits had been there for 1,5 months, it gets reverted, and only a few days later, the Nefer Tweety account is used to revert the edits AC had done with his sockpuppet [142] Look closely at that edit, he re adds the population numbers, "5% and 10%" he removes the "Washington Institute" and "christianpost" sources.

At the end of last summer, AC had removed a sentence not according to his personal liking, On 2 September 2009, AC said on the talkpage: "I removed Beirut and Palestine because 'Alia did not "move to" them. They were merely stops on her way to Egypt.", I recently asked Nishdiani to take a look at some corrections that I had presented with sources, I had gotten permission from the arb drafter to do that: Nr 4 in corrections:[143] Nishdiani later ads his suggestion to the article, 7 months after ACs comment at the talkpage, NT shows up and without participating at the talkpage, ads "stopped in" according to what AC had said 7 months before [144]. Nefer Tweety has done this without saying anything at the talkpage, he just changed what me and Nishhdiani talked about and typed "corrections" in the edit summary, doing ACs edit. NT is continuing with the same old behavior of AC and NT which led to arbitration, anything that was talked about at the talkpage they just changed against what had been said on the talkpage. And NT is still continuing with this now.

Very Important: And this right here is by far the most astonishing "coincidence": I added a list of corrections at the Asmahan talkpage, the Nefer Tweety account went to ACs sockpuppet, pretended he didn't know who it was, and asked him if he could reply to my comments: [145] NT had before ACs sockpuppet was exposed not made any edits at any of the articles AC edited with his sockpuppet.

Of the millions of Wikipedia users, the account he contacted to reply to my posts just happened to be controlled by the same user NT has exclusively used his account to back for 8-9 months. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:24, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

No offense, but two things. First, tl;dr. Second, WP:SPI. As I investigate socks myself, I'd be inclined to read.. but faced with that wall of text, I don't think I can even bring myself to do so.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 19:53, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

It appears that SD has failed to notify both Nefer Tweety and Arab Cowboy that they are being discussed here, as required by policy. This should be remedied. --nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 04:25, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

It appears that SD has made a habit of doing this, and he is already the subject of a complaint about it here. Breein1007 (talk) 04:32, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Look at the first sentence of this thread.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:04, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

See, that's the problem with posting pages of text at once; users automatically look for the end to assess whether they have the time and patience to go through the lot. The likelihood is that most people won't, which is why editors are encouraged not to post reams of text on ANI. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:50, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Its a lot of text for a reason. Its about a behavioral pattern. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:38, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I've read it; it seems potentially quacky, based on this one side only. And it led me to fixing a serious problem at File:Mes.jpg (User:Nefer Tweety had perhaps inadvertently overwritten the original image, as a result of which the summary and licensing were completely wrong; I've restored the original image). But I don't know why it's not at SPI where the admins who typically work with such things hang out. It seems like a better forum for it. Perhaps you should relocate it there. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:54, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Lontech - ethnic attacks

Lontech (talk · contribs) has claimed that "This article has been created by the editor of Serbian nationality in order to offend Ethnic Albanians living in Kosovo." Since attacking editors on the basis of their ethnicity is not allowed here and he has previously been subject to sanctions under WP:ARBMAC, I would suggest further action be taken. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:03, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

This one is not really an "attack" in and of itself, but it's certainly an AGF violation, and another contribution to the overall battleground atmosphere, something of which Lontech has quite some history. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:14, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this is not the end. Here he asks for groundless privilege removal with words "its not a good idea to advance editors with Serbian nationality". Also, sockpuppet investigation against him was opened. (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Lontech). --Tadija^taking 19:10, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

First if you check my block log you can see that most of my blocks have come from this admin - now editor I think that is personal revenge after my complaint at arbcom regarding topic ban violations of kosovo.

The nationality disclosure of the editors is essential in understanding the conflicts that have these editor among them. serbian-albanian conflicts or greek-albanian etc in wikipedia you can find hundreds of thousands of pages where editors cite nationality of other editors.

Regarding ips tadija. no one in wikipedia hasnt taken seriously your nomination because theres no need to be a network specialist to trace/verify those ip.-- LONTECH  Talk  20:10, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

The accusation of "personal revenge" is groundless, as nothing happened that I'd need to take revenge for, even if I were so inclined. That comment says more about Lontech's participation here than mine.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:31, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Validbanks 34

Alright, I think it's time to ban User:Validbanks 34. He has gone too far. Today he made a ton of ridiculous reverts using several sockpuppets (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Validbanks 34). He has been doing disruptive editing since September of last year. What do you all think? ~NERDYSCIENCEDUDE (✉ message • changes) 03:03, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Ban. Anyone who has any questions can look at my talkpage history.--Terrillja _talk 03:06, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Today's actions are completely inexcusable. Email bombing, trolling, and disruptive editing are not constructive in building an encyclopedia. Elockid ^(Talk) 03:24, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I haven't seen the saga unfold, but shouldn't we wait for the checkuser results, or is it so blatant as to warrant an immediate ban? NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs/^Vote! 04:50, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

If I undertand things correctly, isn't an indefinite block kind of a defacto ban? This thread seems rather redundant. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:57, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Extremely blatant socking, combined with bombing my email using special:emailuser is too much. The contribs are identical and to be honest this is more procedural than anything as the edits are likely to be reverted on sight already due to their harassing nature.--Terrillja _talk 04:58, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

He's indef blocked, and has been since September. Socks can be dealt with via SPI or just as WP:DUCK. Not quite sure what a ban would do, other than generate a !vote here. GedUK  14:30, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Block review/request for suggestions: IP sock of User:Vote (X) for Change

I've blocked 217.169.37.146 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) for 1 month as a sock of User:Vote (X) for Change (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vote (X) for Change for more info). I had previously blocked this IP for 2 weeks on March 30. This IP has an extensive Block Log and comes back socking as soon as the block is released. I guess my questions are: 1) is 1 month appropriate? 2) does anyone have any further suggestions? -- Flyguy649 ^talk 16:46, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

If that IP address hasn't been used productively, and is consistently being used for disruption and block evasion, then I don't see what harm there is in a longer block. If the IP was being used by others recently then we risk losing more such contributions, but I've looked over contributions from this IP from the last couple of months (the only activity this year) and I see nothing but either blatant or borderline disruption. -- Atama頭 16:16, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll see how things go after this block expires. I agree it looks like a static IP. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 17:22, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

User:FreddyPickle

FreddyPickle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 98.239.186.1 (talk)

FreddyPickle was warned not to revert an addition on the American Idol page. He was also told here. I believe the above IP's edit is FreddyPickle, going back to his ways. Frankly, I don't know what to do; he continues to ignore consensus and common sense. I don't know if this is the right venue, but it seems most appropriate, since it is a nice little grouping of many issues. He even decides to post a similar edit using the same link, including yet another personal attack for my enjoyment. Something needs to be done, because he is just not getting it. –Turian (talk) 05:46, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

FreddyPickle and his possible IP sock might just be hopelessly clueless, but look more likely to be trolling. Plus, the name he/they are trying to insert is not backed by the cited Washington Post article cited. I left a note on the talk page but have better things to do than try to edit the article. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 08:36, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

The edits of 98.239.186.1 have not continued since 10 April. I have left him a warning. He is presumably the same person as FreddyPickle. If either one of them resumes the war at American Idol, a block is likely. EdJohnston (talk) 13:44, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay, if it continues I will report it directly to you Ed. –Turian (talk) 15:27, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Continued harassment and patronisation.

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

---

Resolved

 – There is no issue here... again. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 16:17, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

As my last attempt to have this matter dealt with fell through, certain users have taken it upon them to carry on the behaviour that brought me here in the first place. They feel that it is acceptable to patronise me about my actions on my talkpage. If this matter had actually been dealt with the first time, then I would not be here again. Lefty101 (talk) 16:11, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

You've got to be kidding me. Move along. Let it go. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 16:15, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

The first thing you need to understand it that discussing your edits on your talk page does not equal harassment. Your continuing to refer to it as harassment could be considered a personal attack on your part.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:19, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I actually see those comments as sincere, and good advice. And I agree with what Drmies and Toddst1 said, overall you did a fine job of handling that editor's vandalism but made a couple of errors. It's a shame that you're assuming bad faith here. -- Atama頭 16:23, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

There's never an issue when I have a problem. Good day. Lefty101 (talk) 16:24, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

That's because you haven't got a problem yet. Keep up like this, however , and you're likely to find yourself in one. Cut it out, already. HalfShadow 16:33, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Lest this be seen as kicking a user when they're down, but Lefty101 has just removed the edits on his talk page (acceptable) as 'vandalism' (prolly not that AGF'y). [146] Syrthiss (talk) 16:29, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes, Lefty101 needs to lay off the false harassment and vandalism charges. —DoRD (talk) 16:38, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Whatever you say. Lefty101 (talk) 16:44, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Haven't reviewed Lefty's edits today, but yesterday, I was left with some impressions-- 1) he's trying to help by reverting vandalism, 2) if he makes a mistake, he is not inclined to accept criticism, 3) he has a sharp tongue and uses it freely. Anyone who disagrees with Lefty is harassing him. Been doing this a while, And I fear that Lefty will reject anything that says, "you could have done that better, and you are overly critical. We are approaching the time we hold an RFC on Lefty's behavior. Dlohcierekim 17:11, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

We're not wasting an RfC on this. Either he learns how shit works around here, or we show him the door. The rest of us know what the problem is; there's no need to define it further. Tan | 39 17:14, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I suspect that we have a live one on our hands. —DoRD (talk) 17:18, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

That was a personal attack. Lefty101 (talk) 17:22, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Concur. Lefty101 does not appear to be a troll, just reacts very sharply to criticism. If EVERYONE would let the matter drop, that would probably be an end of it. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:27, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

(EC w/archiving) Concur. Everyone would do well to remember to assume good faith.

Lefty - if you cannot take constructive criticism and feedback regarding your actions on Wikipedia, you need to stop doing the things which are getting you feedback. This isn't just an encyclopedia anyone can edit, it's an encyclopedia created and maintained by a cooperative community. You have to participate in that community in good faith.

DRD and others - when an editor is extra-sensitive to criticism and abuse, that is an entirely different issue than them trolling to disrupt. Please do not insult those editors by conflating them with active intentional disrupters. Oversensitivity is a problem, and some people are not able to fit in with the community culture and standards here and eventually leave, but insulting them is the absolute worst possible response and is unacceptable. Please do not do that again. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 17:37, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I retract my observation and apologize to any editors I have offended. No offense was intended. —DoRD (talk) 17:41, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

• Theeee horse is a corpse, of course of course... HalfShadow 17:29, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
• Concur with Elen Dlohcierekim 17:31, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

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

User:Wiki032990

Resolved: blocked for violating 3RR

User:Wiki032990 is trying to keep the article Napoleon Crossing the Alps in Spanish. He was reverted twice by me and once by another user. I tried to explain on his talk page and he responded on mine, but it seems he ignored my last response and reverted the article to the Spanish version again. Svick (talk) 18:23, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I've left a warning on his page about ownership of articles, especially considering what he wrote on Svick's talk page. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 18:29, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

If he reverts to Spanish again, he will have violated 3RR as well. Why on earth doesn't he just cite the Spanish Wikipedia version.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:17, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Two things: 1) It looks like you forgot to notify the other editor about this discussion, and 2) The same edits were also made by them as 98.208.168.126 (talk). —DoRD (talk) 19:37, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I forgot to do that. My mistake. Svick (talk) 20:01, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

<<ec>>This would probably be better discussed at WP:AN3, but I laid on a 3RR warning, and suggested that ES.Wikipedia would be a better place to edit in Spanish. They're close to breaking 3RR if they have not already. Dlohcierekim 19:39, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

They appear to have stopped. This comment is intriguing. I invited them to the discussion here. Dlohcierekim 19:43, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Since I'd already issued a final warning to 98.208.168.126, and since Wiki032990 himself exceeded 3RR after that, and since it was all vandalism anyway, I've blocked both the account and the IP for 24 hours.   Will Beback  talk  20:12, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

He's returned as 98.238.85.154 (talk · contribs), making the same edit. I've blocked that IP for 72 hours.   Will Beback  talk  22:03, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Wow. Weird. Dlohcierekim 22:16, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

To Boing! said Zebedee: Continued

Resolved

 – IP blocked for ongoing disruption. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:32, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Extended content

I see old one is deleted, I will start a new one. I still don't know the real name of the guy who edits Myanmar articles, but I don't like his edit at Vietnam Television article as he wants to test Tw3435 of moving to Very Terrible Video, which I'm 101% 200% 999,999,999,999% sure that it doesn't exist. And then I revert it, and I edit Magyar Televízió article with my stupidity and makes you large revert. And I plan that next week after it's unprotected, I will revert back and provide more references, but I said that making references about test cards or clocks or idents are pointless and stupid and no one make it except on YouTube, which is most reliable for these. Also you can add as much schedule from Archive.org by putting www.mtv.hu, but don't add the schedules before 2000 as the website was not the real MTV's website, it was the test from other TV stations in Hungary. And I see it stayed for almost a year without removing or big reverts. And I see there is only one reference, if only one, why don't delete the article if you need references? I think that you are just trying to discredit me.--180.180.5.26 (talk) 18:56, 14 April 2010 (UTC) I forgot to tell you that click TV-Musor to see the program schedule.--180.180.5.26 (talk) 19:02, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Possible continued incivility

Concerns dispute over 1953 Iranian coup d'état article and editor Kurdo777

I complained about (what I thought might be) incivility at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts a while ago here and later here

Latest problem is here
"BoogaLouie is falsifying sources, attributing his own WP:OR-and-WP:POV-based conclusions to Ervand Abrahamian, the cited source. This is a serious breach of Wikipedia code of conduct and core polices, and what makes it even worse is the fact that he has a history of making false attributions on other articles too. [147]"

... which sound pretty serious except I keep asking him where the WP:OR-and-WP:POV are
here Kurdo if the proposed section is "WP:CHERRY/ half-truths/synthesized/POV-ridden," where are the non-cherry-picked sources? The "balanced set of information" that overwhelms my alleged unrepresentative fact picking? You have accused me repeatedly of WP:CHERRY picking, synthesizing and POV. WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE? --

and here PS: Kurdo I am going to keep asking you, what is the evidence that I have written a "synthesized/POV-ridden proposed section that is a violation of WP:COATRACK"????

....and get no reply.

(One non-etiquette note: Contrary to what Kurdo777 says, if you check my edits you will find I am NOT out to make Mosaddeq (the PM overthrown in coup) look bad or the CIA look good. but the article needs balance (found in almost ANY book that deals with the coup) a without it will look sloppy and inaccurate, and wikipedia will that much worse.) --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:12, 14 April 2010 (UTC)--BoogaLouie (talk) 19:12, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

MatMat1999

Resolved

 – Blocked

This is a bit complex for AIV, but pretty clear-cut. MadMat1999 began his editing career by edit-warring copyright violations into Defeated, and creating copyright-violating images such as File:Anastacia Defeated Text.jpg. He then proceeded to begin creating articles such as A jniopbyojxstuhb;yuenuhyxbunpdrs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and LUNgffkdstttttttttttttttu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Since then, he as been repeated inserting scans of back covers of CDs (a pretty clear WP:NFCC violation, as not even the tenuous "identification" argument can apply to a back cover). Final warning for the NFCC violation is here, repetition is here.—Kww(talk) 19:41, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

• Blocked for a week - the previous block and list of warnings are clear. I've deleted all the back covers of CDs as F7 as they can never be used, and also the remaining uploads that weren't being used properly in articles as F5. Some of them were terrible quality anyway; he either needs a new scanner or he's been eating his lunch off the current one. Black Kite (t) (c) 20:15, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
• Agree with Black Kite, block rationale and length are spot on. This should be taken as a last warning by this user. Guy (Help!) 22:32, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Ghostofnemo

Ghostofnemo (talk · contribs)'s edits and talk on Ady Gil and Peter Bethune have been unproductive and wasting other editors' time since this edit. I think it's becoming too much to tolerate for involved editors and it should be stopped. Especially the Bethune's trial is coming soon, I am worried about the future. I request Ghostofnemo's topic ban on whaling-related articles. Oda Mari (talk) 08:30, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

• That edit is referenced to a BBC news report. I don't see what the problem is here; at the most this is a content dispute. Black Kite (t) (c) 09:49, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry if my explanation was not good enough. It is not a matter of a single content dispute. The problem is Ghostofnemo's talk on disputed issues on the article talk pages. The problems of his talk are repeating the same argument, refusing to listen other editors are saying, understanding/misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is and is not, undue weight, link spam, etc. As for Ady Gil, please see this thread and all the following threads. As for Peter Bethune, please see all threads. Thank you. Oda Mari (talk) 14:20, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Actually, the issue is more than content, it's a larger conduct and refusal to "get it and move on" that is causing problems.--Terrillja _talk 14:22, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I hate to see topic bans. A firm reminder that it can't continue or even a mentor if someone is up for it could work. I've tried a couple pointers but end up getting to frustrated to be of any use. Obviously not my decision and this isn't the first incident. By the way, article needs a good copy edit based on the recent expansion.Cptnono (talk) 14:25, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

The edit war at Ady Gil was reported on 20 March on the 3RR noticeboard. When I closed that complaint I urged the use of a WP:Request for comment. I felt there was some stubbornness going on because the issue was whether a person was 'hooded' during their arrest in Japan, in a situation where he seemed to be wearing a windbreaker over his head at the moment of arrest. It appeared to me that good-faith bargaining could have produced an adequate sentence or two, which was consistent with BLP. The RfC at Talk:Ady Gil only got a few participants, but the majority was against the 'hooding' line. For the record, I don't consider the present ANI thread to be really adequate to propose a topic ban, but editors who have read this far are welcome to review Talk:Ady Gil and form their own opinion as to who should get the most blame for the large volume of frustrating discussion there. EdJohnston (talk) 20:17, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

The edits at Talk:Peter James Bethune are the current concern. Multiple editors are giving him links to guidelines and explanations regarding pictures, sourcing, weight, and other issues but he won't stop arguing. We could simply ignore it but then inappropriate material gets placed in the article.Cptnono (talk) 21:09, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I requested editor assistance regarding this situation several days ago. I've made my case here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests#Possible_WP:Griefing_at_Peter_Bethune_article Ghostofnemo (talk) 06:37, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I think it's quite unfair that I'M being accused of POV! Ghostofnemo (talk) 06:44, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Please go back and weigh the contributions to the article of the editors involved in this dispute. As far as I can recall, Oda Mari and Terrijjla have not added anything, and have only deleted relevant, reliably sourced information. Cptnono's contributions have been a mix of constructive edits and thinly-veiled attempts to smear the subject of the article. Ghostofnemo (talk) 06:55, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Ghostofnemo wrote "The fact there was a lynch mob at the pier waiting for him was not relevant?". First as an IP user [148]. Then corrected the signature.[149] I think it's a PoV to call a group of protesters a lynch mob. Oda Mari (talk) 07:36, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Please check out this news report: "Japanese people are waiting for you, to cut up your body" Ghostofnemo (talk) 11:17, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

If we're going to reopen the "hooding" debate, I ask that you please compare the removed line and the removed reliable sources:

"When Bethune was removed from the whaling vessel in Tokyo by the Japanese Coast Guard, his head was covered with a black hood."

• Sea Shepherd activist faces jail in Japan - Lateline (Australian Broadcasting Corp.)
• Japan arrests whaling activist - BBC News
• Pete Bethune's wife shocked at arrest - TV 3 News (New Zealand)

All of these media organizations thought showing or mentioning the hood was newsworthy. But these three editors trumped them and removed the line and the references. But I'm the bad guy! Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:10, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Please do not drag on the content dispute here. Cptnono (talk) 12:15, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Also, since I'M being accused of POV, please check out this diff. I had to add the balancing material. As it was, it was very misleading. Remember, this is a biography of a living person: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peter_James_Bethune&diff=355742840&oldid=355734891 Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:47, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the issue is less about content, the issue is that you just argue endlessly and refuse to compromise with anyone, instead running around to various noticeboards and claiming you were wronged. The POV comes up because you are so set on getting your views in that you refuse to even consider anyone else's position and instead berate them and bombard them with questions endlessly that have already been answered.--Terrillja _talk 13:16, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

If I was getting real answers as to why apparently relevant and well-sourced material is being removed, I would be open to compromise. But I'm just getting smoke and mirrors. Oda Mari STILL has not told me why she removed the background info on whaling. Was it untrue? Was it irrelevant? Was it POV? Was it poorly sourced? Was it misleading? If so, in what way? In the discussion, I've been getting the kind of answers I listed on the talk page. "It's poorly worded." "It's unfair." "Undue weight." "Doesn't belong in the article." I'm sorry, but I sincerely disagree. It's super relevant, it's super NPOV, it's super fair, and it's super well-sourced. It's only four sentences long. It's not like I'm talking about whales being slaughtered and the pain they experience, and how wicked it is to kill the mother whales, posting pictures of bleeding whales, and so on. I'm just stating the outline of the conflict, because it's not obvious what Bethune is fighting about. People know it has something to do with whales and Japan killing whales, but most readers probably have no idea how things got to this point. And for some reason, a four sentence explanation is taboo. Why? Ghostofnemo (talk) 16:40, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Just to refresh your memory, here is the deleted material. Why is this a problem in an article about a guy who is in prison as a result of disrupting the hunt of Japanese whalers?

"Commercial whaling was banned by the International Whaling Commission in 1986, but Japan continues to hunt whales for scientific research. The meat is then sold in shops and restaurants. Anti-whaling activist faces arrest on arrival in Japan This is allowed under IWC rules, although most IWC members oppose it. Whaling ban set to end Anti-whaling activists reject the Japanese government's claims that this whaling is legitimate scientific research. Why Japan's Whale Hunt Continues. Ghostofnemo (talk) 16:40, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Please do not drag on the content dispute here.Cptnono (talk) 16:43, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I now also support a topic ban or some sort of block based on GoN continuing to add Youtube videos in violation of WP:SELFPUB[150] and his continueing the debate on this page after being asked once not to.Cptnono (talk) 17:20, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Despite the other editors' objection, Ghostofnemo restored the background information. That was why I removed it. That was not the first time he didn't take "no" for an answer and he made a talk page thread unnecessarily long. That was why I brought the matter here. The issue is your behavior, Ghostofnemo. Oda Mari (talk) 19:03, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

He is still at it. Can an admin address the concerns brought up by three editors here and take a look at Talk:Peter James Bethune?

I reinserted the background information after a long discussion, in which you chose not to participate. It was significantly modified from the prior version and I thought we were close enough to an agreement that I reinserted the modified version that seemed to take into account the objections of those who participated in the discussion. But then you just deleted it. Am I allowed to respond to allegations here or not? Ghostofnemo (talk) 07:42, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Of course you are allowed to respond. However, you just said something completely untrue. We don't need to debate this further. We need an admin to take a look at the concerns brought up by three editors and review the talk page.Cptnono (talk) 07:48, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Completely untrue? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Peter_James_Bethune#Removal_of_material_by_Terrillja_from_.22Captain_of_Ady_Gil.22_section_disrupts_NPOV Ghostofnemo (talk) 08:50, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes. You just provided proof for me by the way. My input could also be seen at your reattempt on the page at Talk:Peter James Bethune#Removal of background information on whaling. I would like to assume good faith that you just made a mistake instead of just saying it and hoping the admins don't check. I can start rattling off diffs but would prefer it if an admin would just come and check it out already.Cptnono (talk) 10:08, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

So will an admin take a look? Cptnono (talk) 23:42, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Black Book Block

Resolved

 – Fred the Oyster blocked indefinitely as reincarnation of banned user WebHamster. Stifle (talk) 14:07, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Following this edit and summary: [151], itself after much feedback to the user on the unacceptability of diatribes against identifiable living individuals, I have blocked Fred the Oyster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). This is by way of a "no, Fred, we really mean it" block so if he calms down and shows he's finally got the point then he can be unblocked without consulting me, I won't complain. Guy (Help!) 11:26, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

No objection here -- I've cautioned him in the past to avoid diving into personal commentary when dealing with the current situation(s). I think FTO is just a little frustrated, and I'm sure once he's had a short cooldown period all will be well. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 12:03, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Concur also; the response to the block is essentially trying to fancy-dance around the meaning of words. He was trying to wind-up Mr. Black (and perhaps others), and the suggestion that the post was wordplay is cheap. Stifle (talk) 13:07, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I've protected his talk page due to personal attacks. After the protection expires in three days, he's welcome to submit an unblock request. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 13:14, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Oops, I misread the block log - I thought it was an indefinite block. Chaser has kindly knocked the protection down to 24 hours to expire at the end of the block. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 13:24, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Concur, whilst his actions that led to the article Mr Black posted seem to be justified, comments like that are unacceptable and reflect really badly on Wikipedia. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 14:24, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Responding to a complaint by doing exactly what was complained about all over again is really not the cleverest way of proceeding. Guy (Help!) 14:33, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

• Here's an odd thing. I have an email alerting me to a comment in Another Place that Fred the Oyster is a sock of WebHamster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - and when I went to WebHamster's talk page to look for background the first name I spotted was the same user who is currently debating the block on my talk page. Is that just a coincidence? Guy (Help!) 21:38, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

• I have a lot of trouble believing that. While both editors could at times push the civility envelope, WebHamster did things in a much more juvenile manner and intentionally shocking manner than Fred (nude pictures on his user page, almost constant profanity, etc.). Their personalities seem very different, I'd be amazed if they were the same person. -- Atama頭 23:48, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

• FWIW - this user seems convinced that they are related.  7  00:05, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

• I wouldn't have trouble believing that at all. Look at Fred's earliest contributions. NW (Talk) 00:21, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
  • That looks entirely plausible. SPI, anyone? Stifle (talk) 08:22, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
    • No need, I've blocked. The earliest contribs NW pointed out and the overlap on articles edited is extremely unlikely to be a coincidence. WebHamster is  Stale anyway so nothing would be accomplished from an SPI. Tim Song (talk) 08:40, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
      • Well I'll be darned, NW's evidence convinced me. I guess that WH just learned to not be quite as blatant about things. We're definitely better off without this person. -- Atama頭 00:38, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Weird and disruptive edits by IP

IP 222.64.216.207 is dropping some pretty weird wikilinks and comments all over the place, and they don't like me, which makes me sad. Anyway, it's past my bedtime and I'm at (or past) 3 Rs on Wikitravel, for instance. There's more to this than meets the eye: please see my remarks at User_talk:Gnangarra#Weird_IP_edits, the talk page of an admin who blocked one of the IP incarnations of this editor. Sorry for this sloppy job, but I have to go. I'll notify the editor of this thread and then leave this for all y'all to figure out. Happy editing. Drmies (talk) 05:27, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

• Notified editor, here. Drmies (talk) 05:29, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

See also: WP:AN3#User:222.64.216.207 reported by - Barek (talk • contribs) - (Result: ) and WP:RFPP request. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 05:37, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Appears to have no idea of WP:MOS - apart from wanting to make a WP:POINT - best example of the range of IP numbers used so far is at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikitravel&action=history SatuSuro 08:00, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Now operating at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/222.67.202.174 SatuSuro 02:26, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Iotamikadoshi

I am concerned by the behaviour of User:Iotamikadoshi towards other editors, notably User:Ian.thomson as here. This latest incident may have started with an inappropriate warning from User:Celestialwarden11 to Iotamikadoshi but this does not seem to excuse the lack of wikiquette or the threats and intimidation--Charles (talk) 08:55, 14 April 2010 (UTC).

I did not make any direct reply to the above-linked comment because I thought Ian's reply handled it sufficiently, so I didn't feel it prudent to add fuel to the fire. I did reply at User talk:Celestialwarden11 for a couple of reasons: I felt that user had not replied in a way sufficient to show they'd shrugged it off, I felt there was a situation there that would continue to escalate, and I thought that Celestialwarden11 could also use the constructive guidance back toward improving the encyclopedia.

I share your concern about the conduct of Iotamikadoshi (talk · contribs), and I suggest monitoring on a go-forward basis. The conduct of Rev. Michael S. Margolin (talk · contribs) may also need monitored, though I don't think his conduct on the same user talk pages has not been anywhere as problematic in this regard. —C.Fred (talk) 15:24, 14 April 2010 (UTC) amended 23:26, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello. I am Iotamikadoshi, the one you are accusing. I realize that I have acted harshly, and spoke in haste. I am sorry; I was gone for a long time, and I personally do not appreciate a stranger giving me such a strong warning when I returned to Wikipedia. Please, can this issue not be dropped? I promise that no more contact with Ian Thomson or Celestialwarden11 shall be had if my one request is granted, and I offer my apologies here. Surely, no user is beyond redemption. Please, though, do not be prejudiced towards those with different religions. Again, I will no longer send messages to these users, provided that they no longer continue to harass me. Thank you all, Iotamikadoshi (talk) 20:31, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

The guiding principle here is to assume good faith. Since Iotamikadoshi sees what the issue was with his conduct here, apologizes to those who took offence, and wishes to move forward, I'm willing to move on as well with no further consideration of the matter. (See the amendments to my earlier comment as well.) —C.Fred (talk) 23:26, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Off-Wiki Harassment of Kimberry352 by Ahnan

As seen in [[152]], there is some conflict between Ahnan and Kimberry352. General opinion on the COI discussion show that most editors find nothing wrong at correcting Ahnan's edits, but he continues to take offense. It has come to Kimberry352's attention that Ahnan has been bringing this conflict off-wiki to another external forum where Ahnan goes to[[153]][[154]] under the nick "kojakbt_89". The level of insults being leveled at Kimberry352 is escalating and getting really sexually explicit and degrading, and Ahnan is encouraging it. His identidy can be easily verified by the very same "kojakbt_89" to rally support on the forum [[155]] with regards to another article Lim Biow Chuan, another article that User:Ahnan edits to questionable quality.

This is not the first time the user has done this. When he had a disagreement with another editor Tanlipkeehe attempted to harass that editor in real life, threatening to involve that editor's employer. [[156]].

At the rate that Ahnan is attacking any user that edits in opposition to his views on-wiki and off, he is driving other editors away from wikipedia. As he pays no heed to us "normal" editors, I hope some higher level admin can gently warn him to cease and desist in his off-wiki attacks, thanks!

PS: If the forum somehow ends up being password protected (it was not previously so) do PM me for my account password.

Zhanzhao (talk) 15:41, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

• Moved from WP:AN. Stifle (talk) 10:56, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Ahnan attempting to drum up support for his self declared "wiki war for PAP LBC entry" actually makes him guilty of "stealth canvassing". I've dropped a note [[157]] to warn him about this. Just worried that it may escalate into a whole stream of anonymous IPs rushing in to "help" him "fight the war".DanS76 (talk) 02:07, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

User Ahnan has now threatened to wikihound me here [158]. Things on that Talk page have gotten rather heated and I see no reason to suspect that Ahnan would actually engage in that behavior but perhaps the threat along with the off-wiki harassment, the attempt to canvas, and his admitted agenda (borne out by his edit history), indicate that perhaps Wikipedia is not a good fit for him. SQGibbon (talk) 08:50, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

And here's an example of Ahnan's agenda diff. SQGibbon (talk) 09:25, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I also request that something be done about Ahnan, be it a ban or some kind of probation. In this thread, as well as other comments of his on that talk page, Ahnan demonstrates fairly well that he does not assume good faith on those who disagree with him. As should have already been apparent from his userpage, he is not here to build an encyclopedia. Instead, Ahnan is a crusader for The Truth^TM, with little or no interest in actually learning Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:19, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

User Gabi Hernandez

I am asking the community to review the recent edits of User: Gabi Hernandez. When she first started, TAnthony and I tried to offer encouragement and advice about editing, but she refused to listen and take it. When warned, she even resorted to sock puppeteering. Now, she has engaged in the same disruptive editing, cluttering up soap opera articles with references, placing decortative images in articles here [159] and here [160], when she was warned [161] here about doing so. and removing maintenance templates without solving the problem here. [162] We have asked numerous times for her to read up on the use of guidelines, but she just refuses to do so and even asserts that she "didn't know" here. [163]. She's not engaging in hard core vandalism, but it's just so much work on us editors who actually try and follow rules. I'd hate to see her blocked, but the consistent issues are becoming quite tiresome. Thank you. Rm994 (talk) 01:23, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I endorse the above concern, as I've run into this editor on several occasions. There are many examples of improper uploads and not listening. If this editor is going to remain here much longer, a mentor of some sort is needed. Someone very patient. Jack Merridew 01:50, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Pretty clearly she wants to treat this as a fansite. Someone should point her to Wikia. Anyway, there is a problem, it isn't new, and she does know what she's doing is wrong. Personally, I think a block is in order, and further infractions should lead to escalating duration, etc. etc. etc. AniMate 01:54, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Great idea; it's at:

• http://daysofourlives.wikia.com/wiki/Days_of_our_Lives_Wiki

WP:Editors for Wikia is a concept that's ripe. Casey; Collaborate with people who love what you love.

Cheers, Jack Merridew 02:01, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

A short-term block appears to be in order. It'll at least give the user time to read the relevant policies. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 02:26, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I have seen the user Gabi Hernandez (and her socks) warned again and again but she just keeps on editing and ignoring all advice. I was helping undue some of this user's mess back in January now it's three months later and nothing has changed. Not sure what a short block will accomplice but it's better then nothing. - Josette (talk) 03:51, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I see lots on her talk page that would support a short block. If that doesn't sink the message in, then it may end up being an indefinite one to shuttle her to a Wikia project.--Chaser (talk) 04:40, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Requesting assistance for User:Azure12

Resolved

 – User is blocked indefinitely until they are willing to communicate

I originally posted this at Wikiquette alerts, but ArcAngel suggested it was better suited to ANI. I have copied the notice below in its original form.

Over the last year the editor has made a large number of edits to articles, mainly focussing on Disney/Pixar movies and other fictional works. These edits fall into two groups -- additions of sentences such as "This was the third appearance of [minor cast member X] in a Pixar film, playing role Y" to lead sections, and longer paragraphs of original research and synthesised material.

The editor's talk page contains many notices of content and article deletion, and warnings not to introduce WP:OR to articles. So far he/she has not responded once, on his/her talk page or on any article talk page. One article, which I proposed for deletion through AFD, appears to be building consensus to delete under WP:OR, yet the editor has not responded on the AFD page, and is even continuing to add material to the page.

I have left a personal message on Azure12's talk page, but no response has been forthcoming, even as he/she continues to add WP:OR and have it removed (by other editors). Please advise of the best course of action. Regards, Simon-in-sagamihara (talk) 02:59, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

No response will be forthcoming I'm afraid. I've run into Azure12 before, nominated a few of her articles for deletion, redirected some others, and he/she just keeps on going. Some fresh eyes on this user would be much appreciated. AniMate 03:21, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Enough is enough. This is a colaborative project. I have blocked them indef. Which in this case means no specified time, they just need to agree to discuss issues in future. Here is hoping... Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:56, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Excellent call. AniMate 04:03, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Pope Benedict XVI

I believe a user and and an admin need to be banned from making further changes to this article due to their obvious POV pushing, uncivil behaviour, making the topic very difficult to discuss and ignoring policies. As you can see on my talk page the Admin is claiming authority over the article and non-involvement but that's clearly not the case. They have also made allegations and threats which were not supported by any policy they can cite and deliberatly distorting my position in any response. The user is clearly disruptive and biased and has a history of pro-Catholicism, edit warring and making allegations not supported by any facts. An attempt for editor assistance resulted in being stalked to that page and further accusations made against me. They weren't blocked by another admin when they should have been who seems to share that bias.

This needs urgent attention by an admin who doesn't share that bias to ensure other users can contribute to that article in an appropriate manner.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jeannedeba

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Balloonman

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pope_Benedict_XVI

RutgerH (talk) 08:02, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

• Sounds like you are pushing WP:TRUTH versus WP:NPOV. Guy (Help!) 08:08, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

How? Anyone can make any comment or accusation but I'm pretty sure around here you need to back it up with facts. RutgerH (talk) 08:11, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Good grief, Rutger, perhaps somebody should tell you about WP:CANVASS. First, you try to get a case going at Editor Assistance wherein the person who responds says, "that a one-sided complaint is, in my opinion, not justified." Then you decide to goto Wikiquette and now to Ani.

Rutger wanted to introduce keep a fringe theory in the article on Pope Benedict XVI, wherein two outspoken critics of the Catholic Church have hired a respected British Lawyer to charge the Pope with "crimes against humanity" because of the churches handling of sex abuse case. The case rests upon the notion that the Vatican is not really a nation. This position is a fringe theory that even Rutger admits won't go anywhere. He doesn't want to acknowledge that this is a fringe theory and when he took it to Editor Assitance, the person who responded said, "the whole idea is silly." Rutger fails to understand that this is a fringe theory, just because a lawyer happens to be notable does not mean that everything he takes is mainstream. Everybody, including Rutger agrees this is going to blow over. He also failed to realize that including every fringe theory in the article on the Pope would be a case of WP:Undue. At current there is no case, just a threat thereof (one to which the Prime Minister has denounced.)

I became involved with the article when I noticed an edit war occurring on the page.

When Rutger's edit was rejected, he announced that there was a questionable source that he was going to remove. The questionable source was an article written by one of the most respected journalist on the subject of the Vatican --- John L. Allen, Jr. in the National Catholic Reporter. The National Catholic Reporter is an independent magazine that covers Catholicism. It is not under any ecclesiastical oversight and has actually been condemned by the local Bishop for taking stances contrary to the official church position. Allen is one of the most respected journalist on all thing Vatican. He is the person NPR and CNN go to on the subject. What is his rationale for considering the source unreliable? His rationale is, and I quote, "the hint is in the name." In other words, because the magazine uses the word "Catholic" it is by definition, in his opinion, unreliable.

Rutger then announces, "I believe the matter appears resolved for the removal of the material." He is the only one questioning the reliability of the source (based solely on the magazine's name) and announces his intention to delete the material---despite everybody else who has weighed in disagreeing with his interpretation. I warn him that if he follows through with his unilateral decision, that he will be acting contrary to consensus and may end up being blocked.

He makes the edit anyways previously, which is then reverted by another admin ThaddeusB who concurs with my stance, "I agree with Balloonman's arguments on the reliability of the "Cathloic" sources used."

As for his claim that I'm "involved with the article." That is just laughable. Prior to my getting involved due to the recent edit war that stemmed from your fringe theory, I had ONE talk page edit in November and was involved in resolving another edit war back in June 2009---wherein part of my involvement was to ensure that criticism of the Catholic Church was not removed.

Finally, it is generally considered good form that if you are going to start a wikietiquette or ANI case that you notify the pertinent parties.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 08:16, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

No I didn't want to introduce that theory, I edited someone else's addition of it then objected to it being labelled a fringe theory but supported it being labelled recent. You continue to misrepresent that. You didn't warn if I followed through, you warned for doing it.

I announced that as per WP:RS the use of ONLY catholic sources for such a statement wasn't appropriate and when I asked for verifiable sources none could be found. It doesn't matter how many biased editors are in an article, they're still biased.

I also don't think using humurous articles without explaining the reason or summarising the comment with yada yada is appropriate on this page. RutgerH (talk) 08:23, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

And I didn't make that edit as you claimed and you're again being misleading. I made an edit citing the two policies that were relevant which was reverted by an "independent" admin who said to take it to talk which we did. I did not make any alteration after that. RutgerH (talk) 08:26, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Nor have I accused you of making that edit a second time. As for you making the edit in the first place, if not then my apologies. But you failed to understand that this is a wp:fringe theory and doesn't belong due to WP:Undue. Your belief that because a notable lawyer speculates on the theory makes it not fringe is wrong and we tried repeatedly to explain that to you.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 08:29, 13 April 2010 (UTC) PS I'm going to bed.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 08:39, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

PS, the reason why Rutger put quotation marks around "independent" admin is because he has accused User:ThaddeusB as being involved with the article. As far as I can determine, ThaddeusB made his first ever edit to the talk page/article on April 9. As for the Yada Yada---I have no clue as to what that is referring to unless it's a Seinfeld episode?---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 08:48, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

For clarity, I had never ended or even looked at the article before a few days ago. My attention was drawn to it by someone posting a biased news headline to the daily portal. I figured that, given the biased headline on the portal there was a good chance of a similar biased edit on the article. (My suspicion proved correct.) My only interest in the article is to enforce NPOV/BLP policies. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:39, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

"He makes the edit anyways" RutgerH (talk) 08:57, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the time stamp it does look like your edit was made before my warning, but it was still against consensus. YOu were the only person who took the stance that the word catholic automatically disqualifies a source. I will redact my statement appropriately.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 09:02, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

If anyone needs to be banned from contributing to the Pope Benedict XVI article, it's RutgerH, who has generally behaved disruptive (and has received admin warnings for his disruption) and contrary to the good of Wikipedia by pushing fringe theories in the biography of a living person, and who is now also canvassing as well as stalking multiple editors when he doesn't have it his way. I second the comments by User:Balloonman above. I think it's necessary to stay calm and uphold encyclopedic standards and neutrality in one of our most high-profile biographies. Specifically, fringe theories doesn't belong in what is meant to be a concise summary of the most important facts in the biography on one of the most important living individuals. If someone had repeatedly revert-warred BLP violations and silly fringe theories into the Barack Obama article, they would have been blocked instantly. The attempt by RutgerH to unilaterally remove content because he thinks John L. Allen, Jr. (the leading expert on the Pope's life) in "unreliable" because he writes for a publication with "Catholic" in its title, is clearly disruptive, and he was of course reverted[164] by an admin. Jeannedeba (talk) 08:53, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I won't go so far as to say ban/block him, I think he is making his edits in good faith---albeit with tunnel vision. He fails to realize that an article on a person such as the pope cannot have every fringe theory included on the article as that would be a case of UNDUE. I don't think he understands what UNDUE and FRINGE are all about. He has not re-introduced the edit since getting the warning, if he had, then it could become more problematic. But he does like to cast dispersions on people he disagrees with. He likes to accuse people of bias and pushing bias, but the two issues he's been advocating (the inclusion of a fringe theory and notion that a source that uses the word "catholic" is by definition not-reliable) are pushing a POV. Rutger needs to:

1. Understand that there are respected reliable sources out there that include the word Catholic in them. That he cannot unilaterally declare a source as unreliable simply because it has the word "catholic" in the title especially when written by one of the premiere journalistic authorities on the subject.
2. Understand that not every thing that is pushed by a notable source deserves inclusion in the article. There are a lot more important relevant things that could go into the article than some speculative theory that some lawyer in England comes up with to try to get the Pope arrested. This is a classic case of WP:UNDUE
3. That there are notable individuals who hold fringe theories even within the fields to which they are notable. That a notion which everybody agrees won't garner much traction and is not accepted by the mainstream is a fringe theory. Thus WP:FRINGE.
4. He needs to stop accusing people of bias and POV pushing who point out the above facts.

As for the admin warning, Rutger correctly pointed out that he made his edit before getting the warning not after.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 09:13, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

1 Yes but you're misrepresenting what I said.

2 Yes but again you're misrepresenting the facts. The person we all agree is a fringe dweller came up with the theory, he then agreed to help

3 Yes and no as per below

4 Yes and No. They're not just pointing out those facts but making wild accusations such as BLP violations such as above.

Conversely

1. You need to accept that catholic newspapers are most likely biased towards a catholic perspective and aren't suitable as the ONLY reliable source for making statements of fact of someone's activities/attitude
2. That the above user does have an bias and makes many unsubstantiated accusations such as blp violations which just aren't there
3. That non pro-catholic views aren't biased
4. That you and that user misrepresented my views and actions and crossed the line on acceptable behaviour and makes rational discussion on the topic almost impossible and certainly unbearable
5. That catholics should exercise more caution when editing material close to their heart so as not to be biased and if needed be honest and open about any potential bias

The multiple warnings I've been given which were misleading in their representation have not been for any activity but for things I didn't do or to pre-empt any activity RutgerH (talk) 09:43, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Articles that happen to be written by Catholics (John L. Allen, Jr.) are not any more biased than articles written by non-Catholics. Jeannedeba (talk) 09:55, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I've since put a warning on Jeannedeba's talk page. RutgerH (talk) 10:32, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for drawing attention to your fake "personal attack warning" that you posted on my talk page after I made this comment. Also, the fact that I respond to your accusations as a consequence of you stalking me and an administrator on several pages including this one, doesn't mean I'm "stalking" you. It's the other way round. You seem to use Wikipedia as a battleground instead of contributing in a productive way. The very fact that you pursue your vendettas against two editors on this page after you didn't succeed on Wikipedia:Editor_assistance proves this. I'm not interested in playing your game anymore. Jeannedeba (talk) 10:37, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

My mistake. The above user is not wikistalking me I just felt like they were. RutgerH (talk) 11:17, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

It is time to take off the Spider-Man suit. You are becoming disruptive. Guy (Help!) 11:33, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Rutger, you have levelled a number of allegations, but you have yet to back any of them up. Neither of us have at any point said that non-Catholic sources are worse (or better) than Catholic ones. We have simply pointed out that you are wrong in your assumption that the word "catholic" in the name equates to unreliable---a clear bias on your part. BLP does play a roll when you insist on putting a Fringe Theory on a page---Jeanne was justified in repeatedly removing a fringe theory from the page. The extent to which the case involves Benedict is A) he is the Pope and B) a lawyer has postulated a speculative legal theory on how he might be able to get the Pope arrested. But fails to take into account the fact that nobody else accepts his argument beyond "a fascinating kind of academic, theoretical discussion.... At this point, there's no liability at all."[165] The AP goes on to state, "there are a handful of possible legal scenarios — all of them speculative... [and arrest is] the least likely scenario."[166] Insisting that this speculative legal theory is entered into the biography of the Pope, would be a BLP violation. The fact that a reputable lawyer believes something, does not raise it out of the fringe status. Notable scholars can have fringe theories. As is, this is Fringe and UNDUE. Furthermore, you have not demonstrated a case where we have opposed a non-catholic view without legitimate reason. We have opposed a specific edit of a fringe theory that you wanted because it doesn't belong for multiple reasons. We have also opposed your biased view that a source is unreliable simply because it has the word "catholic" in the name. Please start backing up your allegations with facts.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 12:08, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

This is primarily a content dispute, which ought to be handled through those channels. Only if one editor's or another's conduct is seriously in violation of policies to the disruption of the project should it be here, and I don't believe that is the case. Yet.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:15, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Weh, I don't even think there is a need for the "yet." Unless, the yet is referring to a possible case against Rutger---which I would agree is premature at this juncture.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 15:18, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

That was my thought ... it seems like he's going a bit over the top in insisting on inserting fringe theories.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:32, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, just wanted the clarification as the yet implied that you might be giving Rutger's complaint legs.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 21:13, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment Hope a comment from me is OK here. I'm the editor who responded at Editor Assistance saying that "a one-sided complaint is, in my opinion, not justified" and that the arrest warrant attempt is silly, so I'd like to just expand on that. To make my personal position clear, I'm not Catholic, I really don't like the current Pope very much, and I do like both Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens (I think they're great writers, even if I don't agree with their fierce anti-theist stances). With that said, I think the arrest thing is just a silly publicity stunt, definitely falls into the WP:Fringe category, and it really doesn't belong in a biography of the Pope - if anything were to come of it, then that might be different, but I'm pretty sure it won't. -- Boing! said Zebedee 20:09, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Please see my talk page for further information. I can understand why admins may not want to take the time or deal with other admins but this is just disgusting as are the constant misrepresentation which are still happening of my position, reasons and actions. It's not primarily a content dispute as the user and admin have made false accusations and are constantly misrepresenting my position. They've made the talk for this subject unworkable and show a clear pattern of disruptive conduct. RutgerH (talk) 05:01, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Wehwalt I should have replied earlier but I clearly state why that theory shouldn't have be included the whole way along. It's all on the talk page in black and white despite what others are saying. That is part of the constant misrepresentation by the admin (who's thrown the word bigot into the mix) and the user.

Balloonman shouldn't be commenting on this (as an admin) or other admin actions regarding that user as he's most definately involved (30 edits on the talk page) despite claiming otherwise. He's done so regarding another complaint about the user and that should be reviewed. The other users action (along with someone else) has resulted in the article being locked and they have a history of other warnings for disruptive conduct and does not hide their association with the subject. I'm not sure what other evidence is needed of disruptive conduct. RutgerH (talk) 15:15, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Er where have I commented on this (as an admin)? (yes I did point out that 3 admins disagreed with him.) Have I once used any admin power? Have I once said, *I* will use my admin powers? But yes, you have shown yourself to be a religious bigot. By your definition, a source is unreliable simply because it is Catholic. Despite being shown repeatedly that the National Catholic Reporter is independent with a respected voice and that John Allen is one of the most respected journalist on the subject of the Vatican, you discount them out of hand because they are Catholic.

As for the speculative theory, you continue to fail to understand the policies of UNDUE and FRINGE. Despite multiple people trying to explain it to you.

Both of these points (that Catholic sources can be reliable and that the "crimes against humanity" theory) have been explained to you repeatedly by numerous people. Even people who primarily want to include critical material into the article and people who have come into this discussion solely because of the various forums your have gone to seeking support for your cause. So far, I have yet to see anybody else claim that Catholic newspapers are (by definition) unreliable. So far, I have yet to see anybody else claim that the speculative legal theory being called upon to arrest the Pope for "crimes against humanity" is anything more than a Fringe Theory. So far, you stand alone.

As for my involvment, I am involved now, but prior to this I think I had one edit to the article/talk page in the past 10 months. I still don't think I've actually made any edits to the article itself in over 10 months (whereas most of your edits have been reverted by various individuals.)---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 15:34, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Now, I've gone and done it, I did use my admin powers on this article! A factual error was identified. The wrong name was given related to a letter Ratzinger wrote in 2001, so I fixed it here[167]. Since I said above that I hadn't used my admin powers on this article, I felt the need to come clean about this non-controversial edit to fix the name of the source.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 16:07, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Admin Balloonman has now gone way over the line. I've removed the defamatory statement/personal attack but action needs to be taken. [168] RutgerH (talk) 15:31, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I restored it because it isn't a personal attack. But I've decided that I'm done with dealing with you. Your bias is too jaded.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 16:10, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

This is the admin action well after he got involved. He's reverted my removal of the defamatory statement/personal attack so can another admin please remove it. RutgerH (talk) 16:52, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Wow, that's the best you can do? I made a comment on an open 3RR complaint? Did I close the case? No, I left it open so somebody independent of the debate could do so. Did you know that non-admins can close cases? So not only did I NOT take an admin action that I could have, I didn't even take an action that non-admins could do. I made a comment. What was the comment? Informing Peter that 3RR had not been violated because the 4th edit occurred before the other party was warned---which is required before any action is taken for 3RR. I also said that "I won't close [the case] lest I be seen as involved." Very definitive example of how I am abusing my admin authority there! Wow.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 17:13, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

No it's not. It was also the threat of a blocks and 'warnings' when no actions requiring a block were performed by me as well as the claiming of an admin consensus like it's some higher authority when editing. You involved yourself as an admin in a case where you were clearly involved in the topic and offered 'the solution' but simply let another admin do the actual work. You led the horse to water. Users can be blocked for disruptive editing regardless of how many reverts and the failure to do so on two (or more?) occasions have resulted in the locking of that article. RutgerH (talk) 17:40, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

RutgerH, your edits have been described as disruptive by multiple people, and you have also received an admin warning for disruption. You are abusing Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts and Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests to pursue your vendettas against multiple editors (Wikipedia:Canvassing). Yes, people can be blocked for disruptive editing, and you're the one who's disruptive. You were told by another user here to stop climbing the Reichstag, but you're just going on and on, wasting everyone's time and taking your vendettas against those who disagree with your agenda and insist on encyclopedic standards to new forums when you don't get any support. As for the (fake) 3RR complaint by Special:Contributions/Peter_Ian_Staker, I merely restored the version that had been stable for the last five years and asked him to take his proposed (frankly quite unproductive, bordering on disruptive) changes to the talk page. The 3RR report was fake because I didn't violate the 3RR policy (I only reverted it three times, and afterwards a different user restored my version, then that version was protected, which it still is), while the problem user who reported me made 4 edits/reverts, and refused to discuss his controversial edit first, as I had told him to. As you can see, Peter_Ian_Staker is the one who should be blocked in this case for his disruptive revert-warring in a high-profile biography and failure to discuss his edit despite being told so. Jeannedeba (talk) 20:36, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Cite the disruptive edits if you're going to claim that. There's no disruptive edits, I made edits and when other wanted to discuss it I didn't make further edits. That's yet another false claim among your many including a few WP:BLP violations which you couldn't back up. You haven't provided any evidence to support your claims. That's being disruptive.

There was no 'editor assistance' being given. I started out on wikiquette alerts but when I realised balloonman was an admin then it was clearly not going to be enough so I escalated it. There should also be a COI case but I haven't done that because I don't want to 'canvass'.

The defamatory/personal attack is still in the talk. Is this being ignored for any reason? RutgerH (talk) 04:54, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

RutgerH, I went looking for the alleged "personal attack" against you by Balloonman, and I didn't find any personal attack. He just points out, correctly, that the National Catholic Reporter is not an "unreliable" source as claimed by yourself, but an independent quality newspaper specializing on Catholic issues. The fact that it specializes on Catholic issues doesn't make it "unreliable" in regard to the same issues, as has been pointed out over and over again. Jeannedeba (talk) 11:57, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Peter Ian Staker

This lass has escalated matters. Peter Ian Staker (talk) 18:10, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Please review the section on 3rr I linked. She has now escalated to BLP vios, personal attacks. Note BLP vio calling a living man nutjob. Peter Ian Staker (talk) 18:22, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

You escalated that with the comment "But lets shant allow facts to get in the way.". That level of snarky sarcasm is guaranteed to bring a rise out of someone already angry at you. --King Öomie 18:30, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

3RR has not been violated. Peter warned Jeanne at 17:37 and Jeannes last contested edit was at 17:36.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 18:35, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

The claims by Peter Ian Staker are all nonsense and personal attacks by a user solely engaged in causing disruption, violating BLP, gaming the system, edit-warring and attacking other users.I have never called any named person a nutjob (I have just said a person who wants to arrest/assault etc. a leading public figure is by definition considered a nutjob, as a general statement, some time ago). User:Peter Ian Staker is trying to edit-war POV into the article on the pope and abusing fact templates, I have merely restored the text that has been stable for years. Something needs to be done to stop all the BLP violations and disruption to the pope's biography by the POV pushers. Jeannedeba (talk) 18:33, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Jeanne, as I mentioned on your talk page, this section has NOT been stable for years. It was heavily disputed back in November/December. The discussion is still active on the articles current talk page---which means there has been conversation within the past 60 days.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 18:38, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

As I showed you, the text has been the same more or less since at least 2006, possibly even longer. The edits unilaterally introduced by Peter Ian Staker are unrelated to the recent discussion, they haven't been agreed upon at all, and were not an improvement of the article, on the contrary. It seemed like his intention was to make it look like the pope joined a voluntary organisation, when he was just enrolled by the state as required by law. I encouraged him to discuss his proposed changes on the talk page, which he refused. I also have pointed out that the edits by this particular user have often been strongly POV and inappropriate and have been reverted as "unproductive" by administrators before, which is another reason why I think major edits by this user to a text that has been relatively stable should be discussed, not unilaterally enforced by that user (to be honest, I have not seen a single productive edit by that user). Jeannedeba (talk) 18:40, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

You are correct, I hadn't seen your response where you showed that it was in fact essentially the same. Which does add to your stance as I know that the the sentence in question was under a fair amount of discussion a few months ago.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 19:19, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

A look at Peter Ian Staker's edits and edit summaries is interesting. Not just the abrasiveness at times, but the knowledge of this new account. Peter, do you want to make a comment about this? I was considering blocking you for edit warring but then you couldn't take part here, and the page is protected. Dougweller (talk) 18:47, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

This whole area is getting to be a lot less "fringe". Search Google News for "pope scandal". It's a legitimate content issue now. --John Nagle (talk) 04:08, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Er John, when we are talking about the fringe theory here, we are talking about the notion that the Vatican is not a Country (which it has been viewed as for the past 80 years) and more specifically the notion that the Associated Press called "Speculative" that Pope might be arrested for committing Crimes Against Humanity?---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 07:50, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the United States didn't recognize the Vatican until the Reagan Administration. [169][170]. It was controversial at the time. The National Council of Churches was against it. But "Republican strategists are far more interested in the number of Roman Catholic votes they might gain in 1984." It's not really a fringe issue. It's a content issue. --John Nagle (talk) 15:38, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

John, you said "whole area is getting to be a lot less "fringe"" and then you provided a link to the papal scandals as a whole. Nobody is questioning that---that is not a fringe issue and I agree that it is a content issue and I agree with that. Or are you saying that the theory the Associated Press call speculative and "a fascinating kind of academic, theoretical discussion.... [but] At this point, there's no liability at all."[171] related to arresting the pope is not a fringe theory? If your comment is related to the former and not the later, then we are in complete agreement.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 15:49, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Given the level of press coverage, it's definitely notable. There's so much press right now, from the Vatican and other sources, regarding the Pope, sexual abuse scandals, and related problems, that I just put a "current" tag in the Catholic sex abuse cases article and added some press reports. This is really all about content, though; it's not an ANI issue. --John Nagle (talk) 17:29, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Nagel, you haven't answered the question. Are you saying that sex abuse case and the furvor over that is notable and needs to be mentioned? If so, then nobody is disputing that. (The only question then becomes how much goes into the Benedict article and how much is relegated to the sex abuse scandal case article?) Or are you saying that the legal theory that the Pope should be arrested in England is notable? That is the only piece that others have called a Fringe Theory. Based on what you've written here (and on the Benedict page) I think you are referring to the scandal and not the fringe legal challenge in England.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 17:42, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee departments

User Revws (talk · contribs) has created or edited a number of stubs on departments of University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee and appears to feel he ownes and could well have a WP:COI.

I feel that the pages are nothing short of adverts for non-notable sections of a uni, he won't let the pages be tagged with any article issues. In order to WP:PRESERVE the information I have created a page for all the departments University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee List of Colleges and Schools, and for those that were just stubs I redirect them to the list page and moved ALL the content - he is now reverting "as vandalism" all my edits.

He has said that if I feel that they are non-notable - I should nominate them for delete, which I do not what to do. I see no reason why these stub pages should be preserved when all the information about them can be put in a single simple page.

Please can an admin look this as he is clearly not up for reason. Codf1977 (talk) 11:10, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Further to the above, I can see NO reason for this edit at all. Codf1977 (talk) 11:32, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I see a failure to notify the user about this conversation. Perhaps you missed that big orange box?Toddst1 (talk) 13:23, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Looks like a content dispute to me. Revws (talk · contribs) tried a semi-polite discussion on Codf1977 (talk · contribs)'s talk page but I guess Cod didn't like the answer. I don't see any need for admin involvement. Toddst1 (talk) 13:29, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Editor removed it. [172] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:30, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Good point. I should have caught that. Toddst1 (talk) 13:33, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Dunno if something is up with edit conflict checking but you've accidentally removed comments twice in this thread (check the history or I will provide diffs if you want). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:37, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

and as if to make the point he is now reverting other editors changes with out edit sum see this one. Codf1977 (talk) 13:35, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there appears to be a problem here. Perhaps I need more coffee. Toddst1 (talk) 13:38, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

our normal practice is pretty clear: we do not make such articles except for world-famous departments, but redirect into the article for the next higher division. PI do not see what he is doing wrong, for he is indeed making articles for those higher divisions, the constituent schools or colleges. We do make such articles for major universities. He may need some help in editing, but he is not spamming articles. (Personally, I think i could justify a broader policy for departments, but this is one where so far we've been pretty consistent. DGG ( talk ) 18:53, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

New tactic by Revws

In an effort to open a discussion on the redirect issue I posted on the talk page of each of the stub pages my reasons behind why I feel they are best changed to redirects. However between 12:46 and 12:50 today Revws (talk · contribs) has removed all of the notices. I feel this is an attempt to stifle discussion on the matter and more evidence that he feels he owns the articles. I am not going to revert the changes my self as I suspect he will just revert them as vandalism. Codf1977 (talk) 14:52, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Revws's overall intentions may be good, and I take note of DGG's comment that articles on these university sub-units may in fact be proper. Nonetheless Revws is extremely resistant to negotiation, removing notices of this ANI thread for example, failing to answer here, and responding harshly to all comments by Codf1977. Since he has persisted in removing comments left on *article* talk pages by Codf1977, even after I warned him of admin action due to violation of WP:TALK, I've blocked him 24 hours for disruptive editing. This block can be lifted by any admin if Revws will agree to follow our policies. EdJohnston (talk) 16:10, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Requesting deletion in history

Resolved

 – Deleted - TexasAndroid (talk) 17:17, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Tyler509997 has been trying to create pages giving the phone number of another person. When those were deleted, he posted the phone number on his talk page (now deleted, here's the past edit. Could someone please delete this? Thanks. Sheeana ^Talk 04:05, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Done, though I don't understand the final warning for defamation. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 04:13, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Blocked indef. When someone starts with privacy vios, we shouldn't let them continue to screw around.--Chaser (talk) 04:31, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

• Also, for future reference, you should probably go here with stuff like this. HalfShadow 04:39, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Well Damnation and Bullshit

Resolved

Neelix (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks confirmedsuspected)

I came across some CSD tagged redirects to Bullshit as created by User:Neelix. After deleting pretty much the lot of them (and more than were originally tagged), removing autoreviewer, and blocking due to the possibility that they were either a compromised account and/or using an automated tool to create 4 to 6 pages per minute, I have briefly perused the additional contributions, and found a whack of redirects from created to Damnation. I expect there to be more ... so additional eyes and hands will be appreciated. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:52, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

• I would seriously consider initiating an SPI there - because that looks very much like User:Tyciol. I would be surprised if it was because they co-existed for many years, though a quick contribution view shows no overlaps that I can find, and both accounts are from Canada. Just being safe here due to the situation behind Tyciol's block. Black Kite (t) (c) 11:08, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

The history on Bichery was interesting too. For those who can't see it, mine was the third deletion - one of the log entries is "(Part of a series of nonsense and vandalism by Honeysuckledivine (talk · contribs)" ... not saying that there's a relationship, but it raised the eyebrows ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:03, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Looking at Honeysuckledivine's deleted contribs it looks like a coincidence - he/she created a small menagerie of stupid neologism articles, rather than redirects, and that's the only one that overlaps. I do agree that the resemblance to Tyciol's behaviour is striking, although far from unambiguous. ~ mazca ^talk 12:57, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Tyciol was barely literate - Neelix's english is much better. Unless Neelix is also editing anime/manga articles, I wouldn't have said they are related. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:03, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

• Really, 4 years and 83k edits and a clean block log and a written WP policy of AGF gets you a block approx. 6 hours after you stop, and already explain yourself to another editor? With no attempt at discussion beforehand? You realize that the block button is not the only tool you have in your belt, right? You realize that some people get offended when they get blocked for no reason, and leave, right? Can anyone come up with a reason I shouldn't unblock right now, and ask Neelix politely what's going on? --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:31, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

  Support unblocking. A warning and pointer to the BOTPOL would have sufficed. –xeno^talk 13:46, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

  I've unblocked, and asked him to explain the redirect creation here. Doesn't look automated to me, and i can see how someone might think it would be useful. I don't, but I can see how someone could, in good faith. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:52, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

• Thank you for unblocking my account. I apologize for my indiscretion in creating profanity-related redirects. My thoughts were that if we have an article about a term, it stands to reason that other tenses and forms of that term should redirect to that article. Since the redirects I created were directed to articles about profanity, I thought they would be appropriate for creation. I can see that consensus is against including such redirects on Wikipedia and will not create any more. If when I do a Google search on a term, I find that the term is used in a coherent sentence, I feel that it is a possible term to be searched for on Wikipedia and we should therefore have at least a redirect under that title. That has been my belief since I started editing Wikipedia and I have not been questioned on it until now. While that continues to be my belief, I understand how strongly some editors feel that profanity-related redirects not be created, and the redirects I create in the future will not be profanity-related. To be clear, my account has not been compromised; only one person has ever made edits under the username "Neelix", and that is me. Neelix (talk) 14:07, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
  • I don't have a problem with this; I was just being very careful due to another account, mentioned above, that had an edit history of creating lots of redirects very quickly, was from Canada, and was blocked for serious reasons that we don't need to mention here. As I said above, I didn't think it was related, but you can't be too careful (etc). A lot of those redirects are speediable under WP:CSD#R3, though. Black Kite (t) (c) 14:18, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Neelix, having debated with you on the matter of Sordid, it's not that they are profane (Wikipedia is not censored, it is that they are implausible. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, there is no need to offer a redirect for every single variant on a word. The function of Wikipedia redirects are primarily where there are two separate terms for one thing (eg Courgette and Zucchini) which need to redirect to the one article. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:33, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Bslmaglicensing

Resolved

 – Daniel Case softblocked and another admin made indicating an understanding of COI concerns a condition of any unblock.--Chaser (talk) 14:51, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

This editor has been here for a month. The username (which I have just reported to WP:UAA) is the name of the business of one Bruce Sawford. His/their entire contribution has been about the company

• Bruce sawford licensing was created on 15 March and speedily deleted the same.

• Bruce Sawford Licensing (Magazines & Digital Media) was created on 18 Mar. Same day, User:Airplaneman added a reflist and quick-tagged it for categories but, as it wasn't marked patrolled, it came up on the back of the list and it seems I've been the first to take a good look. I tagged it for WP:COI and references which were unclear and missing footnotes. I checked out the refs - all but a couple were in-house and the others in publications/sites whose reliability I cannot be sure of.

To sum, this is a blatant single-purpose/COI account. The one uncertainty I have is about the notability of the company, which needs a more informed look than I can give. I considered AfD-ing it but can't be sure of the grounds (because of the refs). The username will certainly get banned but what about the user? I'm new at NPP and would welcome someone taking a look at this. Thanks! Plutonium27 (talk) 13:56, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Smoke Illusion

<span class="anchor" id="Smoke Illusion (talk · contribs)"> Smoke Illusion (talk · contribs)
This is a disruptive single-purpose account used solely for adding Armenian and Greek names in bold at the start of Turkish cities and subsequently edit-warring with everyone who reverts it. ܥܝܪܐܩ (talk) 14:24, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Is this part of the ongoing national dispute? Usually city names in other languages common for the place are encouraged in articles (though not in bold). I'm ignorant here, so please educate me.--Chaser (talk) 14:52, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Well yes; not in bold, and when they already appear in the naming section, I think repeatedly adding them is disruptive nationalist behaviour yes. ܥܝܪܐܩ (talk) 15:24, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Please diff where he added them when they are already there. If you agree that names in Armenian and Greek belong in the article (I have no opinion on that), then getting Smoke Illusion to stop putting them in bold ought to be easy.--Chaser (talk) 15:42, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

CSI4LIFE (talk · contribs)

Editor has made 9 edits in the last month or so, and all have been at Lucille Ball inserting a large section of poorly sourced original research. There are 8 messages on this editors talk page - 7 are warnings about the edits, from 5 different editors including myself, and 1 is the standard welcome message. The relevant policies etc have been linked to in these messages. Editor has not responded to any of them and has continued to insert the same material that has been removed by other editors. Could someone please take a look because the warnings are not achieving anything. Rossrs (talk) 14:25, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

User given a final warning to stop. Any admin should feel free to block if repeated, as this user has been advised numerous times about avoiding original research and reliable sourcing. –MuZemike 15:07, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

7mike5000 (talk · contribs)

Resolved

 – Blocked - TexasAndroid (talk) 17:14, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

This user is less than civil [173][174] after a request that he be more civil [175]. He appears to be leaving WP with this account and coming back as someone else. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:53, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Those last couple of edits were very unacceptable. Blocked 3 days for harassment. –MuZemike 15:02, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Unequal implementation of a supposedly bilateral interaction ban

Resolved

 – By striking their report and comments, I assume the user has withdrawn their report. –xeno^talk 16:33, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Withdrawn
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Interaction ban The ban clearly states: Repeated spurious reports to administrators using this mechanism shall be grounds for blocking for disruption. The other party has made at least three spurious complaints about my behaviour to the admins, behaviour that did not involve any violations of the ban and did not result in any blocks. [176]. [177]. [178]. I, meanwhile, have been repeatedly blocked for merely mentioning the name of the other party in the ban and have been treated extremely harshly by the admins in question - Georgewilliamherbert and Sandstein. So when I complained to the admin in question about all these spurious complaints and that they violated the "Repeated spurious reports" clause, I was blocked for "griping" by User:Georgewilliamherbert. This admin has a long history of persecuting me that you can read on my talk page. So am I to accept that another user is allowed to continually criticize me, comment on my behaviour and accuse me but when I protest about it I am subject to being blocked? This is a psychologically abusive situation, and I don't think I will be able to continue to contribute to Wikipedia if I am to be the subject of continual accusations with no means to defend myself. I don't think anyone could and that this so-called interaction ban is being used as an ad hoc means to drive me off Wikipedia for good. No doubt I will be blocked for a very long time by either Georgewilliamherbert or Sandstein for making this report, given how they use the ban to block me for anything they like, so this is probably going to be my final notice to Wikipedia. Factomancer (talk) 15:25, 15 April 2010 (UTC) Hm. My impression is that the community-imposed interaction ban was intended to stop exactly this sort of timewasting drama. It is evidently not working, see the block log of Factomancer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Another approach would seem to be needed, though I can't immediately think of anything useful short of a community ban.  Sandstein  16:03, 15 April 2010 (UTC) Of course, a Wikipedian who has recently contributed a number of quality articles should be banned because they dared to criticize you. Shows your commitment to building the encyclopedia. You can't see that you're the one creating the drama by encouraging users like Mbz1 to make fake reports against me and then punishing me when I, naturally, complain about it. Factomancer (talk) 16:07, 15 April 2010 (UTC) The best thing you can do is ignore these complaints until they affect you. If MbZ1 complains about you and then an administrator decides to take action on it, then you should respond. Otherwise, just ignore it. MbZ1 appears to be breaking the terms of the interaction ban and if they continue to make comments, someone will notice. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 15:27, 15 April 2010 (UTC) (restoring my previous edit) PanydThe muffin is not subtle 16:08, 15 April 2010 (UTC) Panyd is correct. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:26, 15 April 2010 (UTC) Edit conflict --:Just because you didn't get banned doesn't mean that the report was spurious. In the first diff you provide, the admin asked you to remove the offending passage and after awhile you did, though dare I say not very graciously [179]. Your second diff shows a clear violation of the topic ban by you and you were simply lucky that you did not get blocked or banned for it. You made a snide personal attack on an article she created, and Mbz1 avoiding responding personally to you as she was required to do. Her comment on the admin's talk page to clarify was exactly the right thing to do. The last diff is also correct. It looks to me as if the one making spurious complaints here is you. You are on an interaction ban that was implemented because of your interaction with Mbz1 every bit as much as vice versa. This comment [180] to an admin should have been sufficient for you to be banned on grounds of (obliquely violating your ban, or at the very least for crude, rude and unnecessary personal attacks. Stellarkid (talk) 16:34, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Oli thorpe

Resolved

 – Deleted - TexasAndroid (talk) 17:14, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Is this BLP-"article" for real or just a bad hoax? --Túrelio (talk) 15:15, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I've nominated it for a speedy deletion as a G3 and explained why on the talk page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:26, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Sarabeth Tucek

Resolved

 – Moved to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. — Satori Son 16:08, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

There are current issues on this article, relating to the subject's date of birth. The only verifiable information I have found is a late 2007 interview, referring to her age as 34 and implying a DOB circa 1973. However, several editors (or perhaps one), currently identified as Mjo5650 (talk · contribs · block log), is attempting to insert a claim that she was born several years earlier, based on personal knowledge. I have asked for sources, but the editor has not replied to my messages except to add a hostile message on my talk page here. In addition, the subject of the article (or someone claiming to be her) has sought to remove any mention of her DOB from the page (and at one point asked for the article to be removed). My reaction to all this, apart from seeking fruitlessly to engage the editors in discussion, has been to remove the contested DOB info from the article per WP:BLP, and revert changes which re-insert it. I'm not sure whether to go for protection of the article, blocking of Mjo5650, or both. Advice, or suitable action, welcomed. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:38, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't think that the ref to WP:BLPN has resolved the issue. I now have an unhelpful (and almost incomprehensible) reply there, plus two more hostile messages on my talk page, by the editor who has now also reinserted the contested birth date info on the article page. In my view his latest addition is contrary to WP:BLP (unverifiable primary source), but am not sure if WP:3RR rules apply. There is also the issue, if you check back the article history, of the article subject actively seeking not to have the DOB information included - which is her right, I think. Unfortunately I will be offline for most of the next 24 hours or so, so I would be grateful if further action is taken by an admin. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:56, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

An admin left a talk page message. I don't think a block is yet justified, so I'm unclear what further action you want.--Chaser (talk) 18:09, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

More eyes are on the article so problem edits will be reverted and the user warned and perhaps blocked if necessary. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:24, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I didn't mean to say the underlying issue had been resolved, only this thread at ANI. The editors at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard are the best equipped to handle this content dispute. — Satori Son 18:30, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, all. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:32, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Wtshymanski vandalisme on talk pages and articles

User:Wtshymanski vandalisme on talk pages and articles pls look into this.

Wdl1961 (talk) 15:42, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

There's definitely some content dispute stuff, but I don't see any vandalism by this user. Your recent edit here, though, doesn't seem all that productive. — Satori Son 15:50, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Another block for Gilabrand?

Gilabrand (talk · contribs) was topic-banned in March for three months (later restarted toward the end of March) from pages related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, in accordance with the 2008 arbitration case on the Israel and Palestine. For further background, Gilabrand has been blocked three times -- on March 8 (48h), March 11 (7d), and March 26 (14d) -- for violating her ban. And now, in response to an arbitration enforcement request filed by Factomancer (talk · contribs) (formerly known as Factsontheground (talk · contribs)), Tim Song (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) blocked Gilabrand for a month and restarted and extended Gilabrand's ban to last six months after the end of the block ends (i.e. so as to expire on November 13, 2010). Now, I know Gilabrand's past record is hardly endearing and, on the face of things, it seems difficult to give Gilabrand the benefit of the doubt in this latest tussle, but I urge people to look at the evidence surrounding the current case rather than [just] the previous three (which I wholeheartedly agree constitute clear violations of her ban).

The two edits which Tim Song highlighted when applying his sanctions were to the Mossad article, where Gilabrand removed a trivia section, and the Eilat article, where Gilabrand changed a section title from "Modern settlement" to "Since Israeli independence". Neither of these two articles are related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, unless one were to consider any article on Israel off-limits (something, which, as I understand it, was not the intention of the ban). Other articles highlighted in the request include Neil Lazarus (an Israeli author), Yosef Shalom Eliashiv (an Israeli rabbi), and Religious Zionism (probably the article closest to the line).

But in all cases, I feel the justifications provided by Factomancer constitute nitpicking in an effort to get Gilabrand blocked, rather than a serious effort to address problems with Gilabrand's editing, which, while adequately on display previously, is not on display here. As anyone following WP:AE will no doubt attest, there has been a recent spate of overzealous, dare I say frivolous, requests regarding Israel and Palestine; since the beginning of the month, there have been nine requests (one for three users) regarding Israel-Palestine, a large number of which ended in "No action" or simply warnings. Indeed, rather than indicating an uptick in conflict on Wikipedia's Israel-Palestine pages, I see this as an indication that editors are choosing to request blocks and bans more often than they are willing to make valid attempts to resolve disputes with other editors. While I understand Zero's and Tim Song's suggestion that Gilabrand should not be "gaming the system" by seeing how far she can go, I see little evidence that that is what was done in this instance; the way I see it, she is continuing to edit in an area she enjoys editing in -- Israel -- in a manner that does not violate the stipulations of her current ban.

If people truly feel her actions in this instance were within the at-times unclear scope of her ban, a notice warning her of that would have been sufficient at this stage. The month-long block and topic ban extension seems excessive, especially when it was not after the request was given due process; only forty minutes passed between request and the block and not even Gilabrand had a chance to say anything. -- tariqabjotu 17:00, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to start off by saying I fully support harsh sanctions for disruptive editing at IP related articles. I think Sandstein has been doing an excellent job and that Gilabrands previous blocks were deserved.

That said, I see several problems with this recent block:

• Only 40 minutes from report to block. There was little opportunity for anyone to weigh in.
• Gilabrand did not get a chance to explain her edits.
• Factomancer did not even edit most of those articles ([181]). She went through Gilabrand's contribs looking for things to report. This sort of behavior should not be rewarded IMO. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:13, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I was blocked for 48 hours to enforce AE for the edit about Wikipedia policy only that was found useful by at least one administrator. I do not mind topic ban, but the absurdity of it implementation ought to stop!--Mbz1 (talk) 17:20, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

You are very likely violating your topic ban by inserting yourself in this discussion. Unomi (talk) 17:47, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: I often block vandals within seconds of seeing their edits. I ask no one. I discuss with no one. ArbCom enforcement doesn't always need an endless discussion by committee, especially if, as in this case, there already was one - which resulted in a topic ban - and that ban was broken. The line in the sand was bright and clear. Breaking it led, naturally, to a block. There is nothing to see here. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 17:34, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

  None of these edits are vandalism, so what you do with vandals has zero relevance here. Unless you are saying you think TS handled Gilisa as a vandal, which would seem to be support for undoing that block. Momma's Little Helper (talk) 17:44, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

  (ec)This is not a case of obvious vandalism., and Gilabrand with over 20,000 article edits is not a vandal. I'm not sure these edits were crossing the clear bright line in the sand as you put it, and at a minimum Gilabrand should have a chance to explain why she made them if only so she can understand what she did wrong and can avoid similar edits in the future. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:51, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

  It was an example. It has relevance; read the rest of my post. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 19:35, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

  It was a very poor example, then, because it does not have relevance. The edits in question are not nearly as clear as blatant and obvious vandalism, which are the only things that might, possibly, warrant blocking within seconds, and even that's questionable. If you are doing that in other circumstances, I suspect you will not hold on to your bit very much longer. Tzu Zha Men (talk) 19:44, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

  The point was not the nature of the blocks; it was that discussion for clear cases is not necessary. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 21:25, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Bright and clear? Topic bans are almost intentionally unclear, and that is no different in this case (pages related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, "broadly defined", whatever that means). This isn't as obvious as when someone blanks an entire page and there is no doubt the person had to know they were being unconstructive (and even then, most users get warnings), and this isn't even as obvious as some of Gilabrand's other edits that led to her previous blocks. We're talking about a series of edits to articles that may or may not, especially depending on who you ask, be within the scope of the foggy "broad" definition referenced in the ban request. I loathe your dismissive nothing-to-see-here attitude toward my appeal and your cavalier approach to sentencing someone to such a long block and ban simply because you're on the "may" side, but then again I didn't come here looking for friends. Before I pressed the "Save page" button here, I was fully aware that you and some of the usual suspects had already endorsed this block and thus of the slim chances of this appeal's success. But I still cannot stand by while the banhammer is so forcefully applied, even if it's against someone with whom I have often disagreed. -- tariqabjotu 18:05, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Tariq, how could I possibly make "a serious effort to address problems with Gilabrand's editing" or "make a valid attempt to resolve disputes" with her? From the moment I first encountered her and she spammed hate material into an article I had just created ([182], [183], [184], Gilabrand has been openly hostile towards me and treated me with utter contempt and incivility. She has also refused to acknowledge that she did anything wrong. There is no way I can communicate with her about anything; she always deletes my comments to her on her talk page. Here are some examples of her incivility and hostility:

• "Are you manipulating Wikipedia for your own ends" - [185]
• "This is false and hypocritical" - [186]
• "This has nothing to do with the Israeli Palestinian conflict (except in the mind of the person who created it)" - [187]
• "These did not change the political message that Factsonthground is so anxious to convey. Factsontheground is stalking and harassing me (and not only me, as you can see from the numerous administrators' pages that are taken up with his complaints and back and forth reparte, feigning innocence but gaming the system... users like Factsontheground are playing a major role in turning Wikipedia into a battleground and a forum for their personal agenda." - [188]
• "He and his friends, like Supreme Deliciousness, Ani Mejool, and a host of others, are doing all they can to scare away editors, get others blocked and insert information about Palestinian grievances in every article they possibly can, including those that have nothing to do with the subject. This is so transparent that it is almost laughable." - [189]
• "The vindictiveness and hostility is growing by the day and users like Factsontheground are playing a major role in turning Wikipedia into a battleground and a forum for their personal agenda." - [190]
• "Mr Falsifier of Facts" - [191]
• " Every trick in the book then sics her buddies" - [192]

She also has accused me of being racist with varying degrees of directness:

• "I hate to think there might be some darker purposes at work here, but this is really going over the top." - [193] -
• "If you think the three month topic ban and editing block imposed on me through baiting, harassing, stalking, hounding, stalking (and possibly racism)" - [194] -
• "You manipulate and falsify material in articles, altering quoted material and rephrasing it to suit your goals. You have added nothing constructive to this encyclopedia. You wallow in self-pity and get your kicks from hate-mongering. " - [195]

And Tariq, I did not file that AE request simply to get Gilabrand blocked. I don't enjoy any of this. But it's necessary. I've said this before but it bears repeating: A major problem with the I/P field in Wikipedia is the extremely combative and non-collegiate atmosphere that has developed. The result of this is that uninvolved editors who might otherwise provide much needed neutrality and an outsider's perspective are driven off leaving only the battle-hardened POV warriors who thrive on insulting each other. The best way to change this state of affairs is to remove the unapologetic repeat personal attackers from the topic area because they poison the debate for everyone else by lowering the accepted standards of civility. If the cost of improving the civility of the I/P topic area is banning repeat offenders, so be it. And if Gilabrand could accept what she did was wrong and agree to change her ways then it would be a different matter. But she has never done that. It's always somebody else's fault (and usually mine) that she is getting blocked or banned.

And Tariq, in future when you single me out for criticism on WP:ANI can you please let me know about it? Factomancer (talk) 17:46, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Considering you reported her for articles you never edited, her accusations of stalking seem to have some merit. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:58, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I believe that the phrase "wikihounding" is the one that is now in vogue, and that stalking is no longer preferred.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:30, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

The arbitration committee noted that topic bans also cover "any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics;". If you've been banned from editing articles on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and then you edit topics about religious/political figures in Israel, that seems to qualify as closely related topics. That being said, it does seem unfair to not let the editor make her case regarding why she edited the articles. Maybe an uninvolved admin should review her case and enforce/decide/clarify what is and is not acceptable under this ban. Looking at her past history I can't say that I expect much to come out of that but it would at least be in the interest of fairness. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 18:00, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I respect it as your view. But really? So, if you were banned from editing on World War II and closely related topics, you would believe that banned you from editing an article on a Cardinal in New York, and a Pope in Rome? That strikes me as an unusual read.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:30, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments by Epeefleche

• Tariqabjotu's objections are well-reasoned. And upon looking at the actual cited diffs, well-founded. I therefore support them.

For example, Tim (whom I respect, but who I think happened to get this one wrong; something we all are capable of) hung his hat on this. Going so far as to call it "a clear violation" of the topic ban. There is nothing there that relates to the I/P conflict. It relates to Israel's independence -- which, as we all know, is Israel's independence from the United Kingdom.

If someone tells me I can't cross the U.S.-Canada border without getting a ticket, it's not appropriate for them to give me a ticket for crossing the U.S.-Mexico border. And then, to make their error really clear, write on my ticket, in Spanish -- "this ticket is for your clear violation of your ban on crossing the U.S.-Canada border".--Epeefleche (talk) 18:45, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

This prosecution must stop. There are some editors (Factomancer) with obvious agenda purposes that are completely devoted to destroy and hush any user that is opposed to them, while not contributing any positive value. Gilabrand did not violate her topic ban, as it was described on the block notification, and it's clear that this swift block was done without reasonable consideration. --Hmbr (talk) 20:12, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

This is not the right venue, the proper venue would be WP:AE where you can open an appeal. Unomi (talk) 20:15, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I consider the removal of a trivia section that contains a reference to the P/I conflict to be within the scope of the topic ban. As I said in the AE thread, if you're topic banned, stay away from the topic, and don't test its limits. Tim Song (talk) 20:41, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Due to the fact that those limits were obviously not clear to the user, I firmly believe that you can settle it with a warning before blocking him for such long periods. --Hmbr (talk) 20:52, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Do you realize that this is the 4th block for topic ban violations? Unomi (talk) 21:11, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments by George

This is a borderline case. Gilabrand was editing articles that were related to Israel, and in some cases those same articles, or the sections he edited, could be "broadly construed" as being related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I don't see anything in the diffs that makes me think that a block was necessary, but it's close enough that a judgement call could go either way, so I don't fault the enforcing admin either. In general, I'm glad that administrators are taking a tougher stand on problem editors in this topic area, and encourage it, though I think Gilabrand could have been given a shorter, equally effective block as a "final warning" of sorts.

In any event, I would encourage editors to step back and think about their goals here. Wikipedia is ginormous - there are plenty of articles that need your help, articles unrelated to Israel, Palestine, or the conflict between them. If editors are dedicated to the goals of Wikipedia, they should have no problem improving articles on other topics. Look at topic bans as a vacation, an opportunity to go off and read about something you might have never known about otherwise, and help improve Wikipedia. If you're an editor only interested in editing a single, specific topic, odds are you're inherently non-neutral on that subject, but you could be a neutral, useful contributor to a topic you're less personally attached to. ← George ^talk 20:33, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comments by Shuki Is a topic ban a punishment or a tool to prevent disruptive behaviour? Here, in 40 minute 'judge, jury, and executioner' WP court and 'me too' WP appeals court, it is evident that it has been used as a punishment. The alleged violations deserve a discussion and a topic ban in I-P broadly construed should not include all Israel-related articles unless that sanction is updated explicitly. This knee-jerk reaction does not help WP. --Shuki (talk) 05:21, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

• I agree with George - this is a borderline case, and I think deciding whether to block or not is within admin discretion. PhilKnight (talk) 14:38, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
• I reviewed the AE report, the article edits, and the comments in this thread; and I support the enforcement as being sound. Topic bans needs to draw a bright line to stop editing from pushing the limit. In this instance the topic ban was made by an experienced admin, the blocking admin understood the issue, then saw a problem and dealt with the issue promptly. I see no reason for change the decision. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 15:34, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
• Gilabrand emailed me and asked me to review the block. I did so and formed the opinion that the block and duration are appropriate. I noted this at Gilabrand's user talk page. CIreland (talk) 16:28, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
• I agree with George, PhilKnight, FloNight and CIreland. Editors violate or skirt topic bans at their own risk. After three blocks Gilabrand should have gotten the message that a topic ban does not go away when it is ignored. The block and ban extension are within administrator discretion.  Sandstein  17:24, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
• It is extremely hard to view these edits as anything other than deliberately gaming the system and disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Guy (Help!) 19:28, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
• I came in here preparing to object to this block, but having read this thread and the associated threads it seems like the correct call. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:54, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Long term sock puppet and ducker.

User:Brexx is a long term WP:SOCK. He/she has an extensive history of creating accounts dating back to January 22, 2009 which to date includes about 58 reports of sock puppetry. He/she has also been involved in WP:DUCK. Today there is another report pending. The archived reports can be acccesed at: Brexx Archive. Now whilst i recognise that User:Kww is doing an excellent job of keeping an eye on the editing patterns of Brexx and managing to regularly identify suspect socks i'm asking whether its time to see further action. I am only raising the issue because the last two sock puppets left messages on my talk page (one tried to start an edit war [196] whilst the other attempted to disguise himself as a new user [197]. The diffs shown in the various cases at the Brexx Archive also show on occassiont that Brexx has at times spoken very rudely/harshly to editors and had been involved in edit warring. Is there not a long term solution that we can now persue? Also i did not leave an {{ANI}} notice for Brexx as i wasn't sure it was allowed with his/her account being banned.Lil-unique1 (talk) 19:48, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Believe me, I wish there was more to be done. The problem is that blocking the range that Brexx uses has collateral effects throughout the entire UAE, so people are obviously very disinclined to do so. That means the question on any given day is not whether Brexx is editing, the question is only how he is editing. He has a large sock drawer (Lucas tkof (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for example is a 3-year old account that got blocked last week).

The only solution I can think of is to disable account creation across his range for a couple of months. The truly anonymous edits are easily detected (and most of his targets are semi-protected, anyway). We could potentially exhaust his supply of socks. I'm not sure I like the side effect of basically blocking UAE account creation, but I am sure that I don't like the current situation.—Kww(talk) 19:59, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Note that the problem has actually been ongoing since March 2008: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Brexx.—Kww(talk) 20:05, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I suspect Brexx uses a range of IPs and from some of my previous editing experiences he appears to use public as well as private IP addresses. Whilst i accept that blocking the UAE would not be preferred i also dont like the current situation. I mean there are times when i've unknowingly removed Brexx edits without knowning and almost engaged in WP:3R (i probably did some occassions) at the same time as knowing that the edits i was reverting were completely nonsense. and now Brexx appears to have began lacing my talk page with comments. I am slightly concerned in that i wouldnt want to get blocked/banned for reverting edits which later turned out to be Brexx anyway and also i don't want to get trapped in the middle of Brexx reports because he's left comments on my page etc.Lil-unique1 (talk) 20:16, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Person seems to edit the same general class of articles across the sampling of SPI archive reports that I glanced at. Maybe an edit filter can be applied to block that IP range from those articles or categories, or some of the edit patterns can be added to Cluebot. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 21:06, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I've thought about that for the purely anonymous edits. That actually wouldn't be too difficult if we could live with a smattering of false positives (in the IP range, article contains "single", "album", "film", "Lohan", "Paris Hilton", "Rihanna", "Jay-Z", or "Ugly Betty" would get 90% of the anonymous edits). Main problem is that the edit filter cannot see the IP address that a registered user is using.—Kww(talk) 21:41, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

We have few options for sockpuppets. We can play "whack-a-mole" and block individual accounts and IPs as they appear, which has practically zero collateral damage but doesn't do anything to prevent future disruption (unless the sockmaster gives up) and is a lot of work for editors. We can block an IP range, but if the range used by the editor is too wide (as in this instance) then it's not worth it (why should a large number of good editors get restricted because of one disruptive person). We can semi-protect the articles that the person edits, but aside from the problem of blocking legitimate edits from new or anonymous editors, if the person is editing a large number of articles that's unfeasible. The last option is an edit filter, but that only works if they are pretty consistent and specific with their additions (like a person who is repeatedly adding the same diatribe on multiple pages), otherwise there are too many false positives. So "whack-a-mole" is probably all we can do. -- Atama頭 21:49, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

The edit filter is a good idea. It could just be applied to any editor not auotoconfirmed making certain types of edits if the pattern is regular enough. It wouldn't catch any autoconfirmed socks he has in reserve, but at least the accounts can be indef'd on sight. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:59, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

There really isn't any fixed pattern to his edits. He's basically a really bad editor, with poor choices of content, no capability of distinguishing a good source from a bad one, and an obsession with musical artists that get heavily covered in tabloids (think Lindsay Lohan, Paris Hilton, Lady GaGa, Rihanna). He has his tells (or I couldn't spot him easily), but it has more to do with his choice of topics, edits to user talk pages and the rhythm of multiple edits to a single article than it has to do with a recognizable phrases that the edit filter could catch. You edit Lindsay Lohan articles pretty heavily: try to think of a filter that would have recognized Anywhere But Home (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I think the edit filter could only work by effectively blocking anonymous editing of music and celebrity articles from the UAE. I would find that acceptable collateral damage myself, but I've been the lead whack-a-mole player with Brexx for a long time, so I may be getting bitter.

Currently, my strategy is simple: I scan 86.96.0.0/16's anonymous edits a few times a day to pick up anonymous edits, look for socks. I revert all edits, report to SPI, and request 3-month semiprotection on every article he edits. The last part is new, and seems to be working. At least he's having to work harder, and his efforts to persuade other editors to edit semi-protected articles are beyond obvious, because his style on talk pages is readily recognizable.—Kww(talk) 22:48, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

In terms of the breadth of the problem, User:Kww/Brexxcomplete is a list of all articles edited by Brexx socks.—Kww(talk) 22:59, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

It seems you are doing as good as can be expected in the situation. Blocking the whole UAE range would just result in the sock coming through in a new range anyway. I'm not aware of any other options without a complete rethink the sock situation. User:SunCreator(talk) 23:27, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

86.96.240.0/20 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) blocked for a week as a test. NW (Talk) 00:49, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Kww, are you sure the edit filter can't see logged in IP addresses? It seems like a reasonable thing for it to do. The filter does recognize an ip_in_range option (not mentioned in the documentation but apparent in the code), but it's not immediately obvious whether it only applies to logged-out users. You deserve our kudos for all the work you're doing managing this issue, but if one lousy troll is able to create so much ongoing hassle, we need better tools. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 02:06, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

The edit filter has the ability to show the underlying IP address of any logged-in editor, but that particular feature is disabled on this wiki, and probably every other wiki that has an edit filter, because if enabled it would make information that is normally available only to checkusers to a much wider group of people. —Soap— 10:20, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

If all it is doing is matching against IP ranges and preventing certain edits from those ranges from being saved, that doesn't actually reveal the IP addresses. The accounts associated with such actions could be logged in a place viewable only by checkusers. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 20:07, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Look, I've made a new friend.—Kww(talk) 14:17, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Threat?

Should I consider this a threat? Woogee (talk) 05:58, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Looks more like b.s. and bluster. What part of it do you see as threatening? Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:09, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

It's empty junk. Ignore it. :) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 06:12, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

we don't take shit like that sounds like a threat to me. Woogee (talk) 06:13, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

It's empty, nationalistic bluster. We don't take kindly to that sorta talk 'round here, mister. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:53, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Hm. And what's he gonna do? Find your address and swim over from NZ? (btw, he's already gotten a level 4 incivility warning, so...) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 06:14, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

One never knows.  :) Woogee (talk) 06:16, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I asked if he meant a legal threat. If he did, we all know what that means :) — Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:23, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you have much to fear from a guy named after these... rʨanaɢ (talk) 06:53, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Let's not try to guide people into violating no legal threats, please. The first diff did not even approach one.--Chaser (talk) 14:49, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I've self reverted.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 22:28, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

It's the same level of "threat" as the warning not to remove a tag from a mattress. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:22, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Those warnings scare me so much, I sew extra ones on my mattresses. Due to a spelling error, I once sewed one to my mistresses too.  :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:53, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, not a bad idea. Although a tattoo might work better. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:13, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I made a similar mistake when reading porcupine for concubine... Boy, did I ever feel a prick? LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:57, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Then it may be time for you to remove your hands from your pants pockets.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:16, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Slow-moving edit war at National-Anarchism

Unresolved

 – Discussion continues at talk page, page protected for 1 week by Cirt (talk · contribs) after RFPP request. Additional eyes/voices always welcome. Cheers, –xeno^talk 02:20, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

National-Anarchism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I would like some opinions on how best to handle a slow-moving edit war at National-Anarchism.

The executive summary of the dispute is that Paki.tv (talk · contribs) and Harrypotter (talk · contribs) feel that the words "far/radical right" or "right wing" should appear in the first sentence of the lead. Users Loremaster (talk · contribs), Gnostrat (talk · contribs), Pollinosisss (talk · contribs) on the other side of the dispute feel that these words should not appear in the first sentence as they require contextualization (National-Anarchism is asserted to be a synthesis of left-wing and right-wing politics), but seem amenable to a compromise whereby the words appear in the first paragraph of the lead with appropriate contextualization. See Talk:National-Anarchism#arbitrary break - 12 april compromise suggestion for more.

An informal mediation request was filed, but by the time a mediator volunteered, we had already arrived at the the present deadlock.

I'm kind of at wits-end here. I'm not sure that page protection is a worthwhile way to resolve this, as it would stall work on the article altogether (and of course one side would no doubt feel that the wrong version was protected). Outside voices were invited from several venues including WT:PHILOSOPHY and the Content noticeboard but have been in short thrift. –xeno^talk 13:15, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Xeno's assessment is accurate. Since it is now clearly impossible to resolve this dispute due to the intransigence of Paki.tv (talk · contribs) and Harrypotter (talk · contribs), action should be taken to protect the National-Anarchism article by either giving them a stern warning or preventing them from editing the article rather than blocking the article itself. --Loremaster (talk) 13:33, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

User:LeeSeem

Resolved

 – Blocked indef, stalking and quacking

I have already filed an SPI report about this user, but in the meantime the user LeeSeem (talk · contribs) has been going to pages I have recently edited with the sole purpose of reverting me. See [198], [199], [200], [201] and most of the users other recent contributions. nableezy - 01:07, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Why would I be "after" you?, I can see that you are follwing me around. I did make edits that include (maybe yes or not) you or others, according to the recent changes I see or to subject. LeeSeem (talk) 01:16, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Since pan-Arbaism was fully protected you went to the following article I had recently edited to revert my edits: [202], [203], [204]. nableezy - 01:26, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

And very much the edit-pattern of User:Terminologistic earlier tonight. Guys and gals; is there no way we can just block these highly disruptive socks, who come here for the sole purpose of reverting 3 times? Seriously. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 01:10, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Looks like a content dispute. Dlohcierekim 01:16, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Except this "content dispute" started at pan-Arabism and since then the user has followed me to 4 or 5 article to revert me. That is hounding, not a content dispute. nableezy - 01:17, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

And take Deir Yassin: "Irgun" and "Lehi"-supporters have tried for years to get it to be a "Battle" (instead of "massacre")..there has even been an arb.com ruling on it; and "massacre" it is. But every now and then, both here and on "commons", we get these "new editors" (read: socks) who try to rename it as "battle". This, eh, battle, has been going on for years. Still, the consensus for "massacre" is clear. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 01:25, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Not the prettiest looking set of user contributions. Is that 5 reverts to the Pan-Arabism article round about the 15th?     ←   ZScarpia   01:38, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Huldra, Banleezy & the sock method

I have seen that argumnent (sock???) by Nableezy and by Soman on the talk page of Pan Arabism, amazing how this syndrom is in this group of one opinion minded team. hmm.LeeSeem (talk) 01:16, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't ANI much. Is there a way we can put these two 3 threads together. They seem entwined. Dlohcierekim 01:17, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Nableezy

Nableezy and Huldra (in case they are not sock puppets of each other...) follow me around and revert my nedits. see his edits April 16 2010, 00:53 1:04 LeeSeem (talk) 01:09, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Heh, this is great. LeeSeem has already been told that "Nableezy" is a guy in the US (who understands Arabic), I´m a woman in Scandinavia, (who understands Danish, Swedish, Norwegian and New-Norwegian). Sock indeed. ;D Huldra (talk) 01:12, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

The reason I don't ANI much is 'cause you get a user sometimes claiming another user is following them around when it's really vice versa. Seriously folks. Do you really need this drama? Dlohcierekim 01:20, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

• Leeseem. You seem to be the one who's come in like gangbusters and reverted abunch pf pages. WP:AGF and all, but some might find it odd that such a new user found way to ANI so readily. I was here a long time before I got to ANI. Nableezy and Huldra. This looks like an edit war with a lot of POV pushing thrown in. Ya'll know the drill. I find LeeSeem's cries of hounding a bit disingenuous. Shall we leave at that, or do have the ANI regulars weigh in? They're better at this than I am anyway. Dlohcierekim 01:30, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Easy, I just copied what Nableezy edited on my page. true I wanted to use wikipedia a long time, followed material here from outside... didn't have the time. LeeSeem (talk) 01:33, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

One edit in February, then just getting going within the last day. Be careful about labeling users as socks without evidence. You could "Plaxico" yourself. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:36, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Which you did. Surprise, surprise. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:45, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, well I suggest you edit collegially in future, or your time here will be seriously limited. Black Kite (t) (c) 01:37, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

3 minutes, to be exact. Is there any connection with a user called "Toothie"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:47, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I think so. nableezy - 01:49, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

...followed by yet another revert of User:Huldra, goodbye. Black Kite (t) (c) 01:42, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

...Hmmm, you didn´t check what "new" user User:Terminologistic did earlier tonight, did you? The identical twin of LeeSeem? Cheers, Huldra (talk) 01:43, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Blocked that one as well, clearly the same user. Black Kite (t) (c) 01:45, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Tusen, tusen takk! (That is "thousand, thousand thanks" in native laguage ;)) I have really spent far too much time on this joker today. Hope he stays away...Cheers, Huldra (talk) 01:49, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

In these times of huge spending and huge debt, "Thanks a trillion" would be the new catchphrase. I've added Terminologistic to the SPI, as he likewise seems to be especially interested in the Hitler stuff, as the other blocked editors were. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:58, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

American, eh? We genuine trolls don´t really have such a problem with huge debt (or any debt, actually;) but "Tusen, tusen takk" is still valid currency here.. We don´t have much inflation either, ...and the way this night is going; we don´t have much sleep, either!;D Thanks for adding him to SPI, and "God natt", Huldra (talk) 02:17, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Okip creating battlegrounds

Okip (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks confirmedsuspected)

Continuing from the section entitled "Block Review" above, regarding Pookzta (talk · contribs): Several people (myself included) posted suggestions on his talk page to learn our policies and guidelines before requesting an unblock. However, I'd like to know is why is Okip (talk · contribs) now soapboxing on this blocked editor's talk page, claiming that "9/11 Alternative Views have been silenced on Wikpedia" [205] essentially making accusations of a censorship cabal, and then stating that he's now on an "enemies list"? Weren't we about to block Okip a few days ago for his disruptive behavior (canvassing, as I recall, wasn't it?) This is really getting too much. Is Okip here to build an encyclopedia or to soapbox, treat Wikipedia as a personal battleground, make unfounded accusations of cabalism and trying to stir up blocked editors? I am notifying Okip of this discussion right now. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 04:10, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

He didn't violate any rules then or now. And he stated the truth. Many articles for those conspiracies have been erased, and mention of these things removed from articles. He states at the start he believes most of these theories are bullshit, but if enough people believe them, then perhaps an article should exist for them. Is there any rule violated here? Do you just want to silence someone you don't like? Dream Focus 04:19, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

He is violating rules. WP:SOAP, WP:BATTLEGROUND, and probably WP:CANVASS. So you feel that it's ok to go around recruiting people pushing conspiracy theories to join groups to fight for "the truth"? Nothing quite like building an army of meatpuppets out of conspiracy theorists who were blocked for pushing their conspiracies here. I'm not the one who has been the subject of multiple AN/I discussions. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 04:27, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) To Dream Focus: It isn't really about the 9/11 conspiracy issue. The substance of Okip's comments are irrelevent, its the manner in which he wanders around Wikipedia, trying to stir up drama, and to turn the place into a WP:BATTLEGROUND. This is the latest in a long string of such overtly disruptive incidents. Any one of these such incidents, taken in isolation, do not amount to much. The body of his work, however, shows little effort to improve the encyclopedia and lots of effort to stir the pot and watch conflict follow in his wake. --Jayron32 04:28, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

The body of his work includes thousands of edits. He was originally called Ikip, then lost his password or something, so became Okip. Was he ever found guilty of any wrong actual wrong doing? And can someone complain about something without being accused of stirring up something?

To <>Multi‑Xfer<>, I looked up Meatpuppet and Wikipedia says "Wired columnist Lore Sjöberg puts "meat puppet" first on a satirical list of "common terms used at Wikipedia," giving its supposed Wikipedia meaning as "someone you disagree with". So, he is recruiting people you disagree with, to somehow do what exactly? Find others with viewpoints like themselves to discuss things with? Dream Focus 05:32, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, we are all well aware of IKIP/OKIP's history. He didn't lose his password, he just requested a name change. No real issue there. The issue is his constant attempts to turn Wikipedia into a battleground, as evidenced by any of these 50+ threads at ANI. I could go on. But its all there. He's been sanctioned, short term blocked, discussed ad nauseum. Nothing has altered his disruptive behavior till this point. --Jayron32 05:40, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

And, he's been formally warned by arbcom to stop doing exactly what he is doing now. See [206]. --Jayron32 05:44, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

(Aside: Ikip used to be User:Inclusionist, he requested that username change then. The Okip name came about due to a password mishap that Ikip wasn't able to correct, forcing the new account name. Just to keep the history right). --MASEM (t) 05:54, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Dream Focus, I won't be falling into any Monty Python-esque logic traps intended to put a carrot on me and label me a witch. Okip not only had the account Ikip, but another one called Inclusionist and I think one or two others based on the last lengthy thread I recall reading about his behavior. I'm in the right here and I've listed several pertinent policies. And now, I am off to bed. I'm sure the discussion will be more enlightening in the morning when more people have had the opportunity to see it. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 05:55, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Travb. Hipocrite (talk) 05:55, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Blocked indef

I've had enough of this. Not only the comments at User_talk:Pookzta#You_had_no_chance.2C_and_a_way_forward just poisoning the well and encouraging poor behavior that is unlikely to improve that editor's chance of returning, but I find the comments by Okip at Wikipedia:Editor_review/Multixfer vindictive and not that surprising. I'm going to sleep but I authorize any admin to unblock if they actually feel like it'll be a net improvement to the encyclopedia having him around. I don't care about his views about the encyclopedia, he's not allowed be disruptive. Period. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:07, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

And yes, I'm aware that this is a sort of a block and run, and I'm awaiting the editor who will go through my history and call me a deletionist or whatever, but following my last interaction with him, take his response for what it's worth. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:10, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

• While an admin can undo this, if we treat this section as an exercise in community consensus I support such a block. Ironholds (talk) 08:11, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
• The comments at Wikipedia:Editor_review/Multixfer are not in themselves a valid reason to block. Editor review invites opinions.
  I can't see that the stuff at User talk:Pookzta serves any useful purpose for Wikipedia (or for either editor) but is it really that disruptive?  pablo_hablo. 08:58, 12 April 2010 (UTC)( edited   pablo_hablo. 10:34, 12 April 2010 (UTC))
• Indeed. While his comments to Pookzta may be unwise - it depends on their truth, which would demand serious investigation, there is nothing wrong with his comments at the editor review, and neither is vandalism in any way. A healthy institution or encyclopedia can and should allow unjust criticism. Conversely, action against critics for criticism, which may well be unfounded, is a sign that something may be seriously wrong. Many other editors agree with Okip that hostility to newbies is a very serious problem. Tolerance is more than a virtue here, it is a necessity for a respectable intellectual work, a respectable encylopedia. A very bad block.John Z (talk) 09:28, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
• But to go there three hours after the editor under review has started an ANI section about you is basic retaliation, not a genuine effort at editor review. Anyway, the edits he made at User talk:Pookzta are so over the top that they can only be described as "trying to create disruption". I am glad to reinforce his paranoia about veteran editors (luckily, according to DGG, Okip is despite his tens of thousands of edits still a relatively inexperienced editor, so his comments about veteran editors don't apply to himself), and support any length of block on him. Can I get my invitation for some "secret wiki communication" now? I feel left out... Fram (talk) 09:32, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
• Sigh. Okip has descended into Wikipolitical activism, we have seen other users get into trouble for bad advice and advocacy on behalf of fringe POV-pushers. Bringing Thomas Basboll in is more likely to inflame rather than help, I feel. But let's not be in the business of banninating people when what they really need is a friendly hand. I don't think Okip is evil, I think there is an issue of having lost the sense of perspective. The root of the problem with Pookzta was never about the POV he advances, though fringe POV-pushing tends to be more problematic than mainstream for obvious reasons, it's about forum shopping and throwing around accusations of bad faith. That can be fixed, but not by comments like Okip's. It's all strangely reminiscent of the "Brews Cabal" where the advocates actively impeded the chances of dispassionate review. Guy (Help!) 10:07, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

• For the avoidance of doubt, I do not consider the comments at Wikipedia:Editor review/Multixfer to be at all problematic, they are reasonable concerns stated in a calm manner at a venue where such feedback has been explicitly invited. Is there a complaint from Multixfer that references something actually evil? Guy (Help!) 12:40, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

• An incredibly bad block. The block tool is not a toy, blocking an established editor on such a flimsy basis is terrible way for an admin to act. The comments at Multixfer's editor review are bland (particularly when compared to the bile accepted routinely at RfA). I don't agree with his view on Pookzta, but Okip defends the underdog and tries to counter what he sees as admin abuse - mature admins will see the value in a critic. I would unblock now, but I don't fancy getting dragged to ArbCom. Fences&Windows 10:23, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
• Whilst Okip is clearly - yet again - acting disruptively here, I'm not convinced that an indef block is appropriate even after the long history of issues mentioned. Whilst the comments on Mulitxfer's editor review are not in themselves disruptive, they are clearly in retaliation for the exchange linked above. The comments on Pootzka's page are more problematic. Telling a new editor that Wikipedia is one big 1984-style conspiracy and cabal where anyone with dissenting views is "removed" by a shadowy group of off-wiki-linked "veteran editors" is particularly unhelpful - linking to the 9/11 conspiracy RFAR with "they have been silencing editors like you for years" for instance. We cover 9/11 conspiracy theories in detail here in multiple articles like these and others, so to claim this is plainly incorrect. Dragging up for the nth time the fact that JzG told an editor to fuck off? Pointless (and hey, he's not the only one). Posting " I will soon be getting threatening messages on my talk page, and if I continue to help you, I will be thrown into the dispute resolution process, where these close net group of editors will throw all manner of false and trumped up accusations against me"? Pointless and assuming bad faith. Sigh - Okip really should know better by now. Whilst it would probably turn into a prolonged he-said-she-said wikilawyering TL;DR mess, I would have thought that an RfC would be the way to go here. Black Kite (t) (c) 10:48, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
• I agree with Pablo_X and Fences and windows, and largely with Black Kite too. I also don't agree with the assessment that this is comparable to the post-case issues that resulted from the Speed of Light arbitration. Improvement in Okip's conduct is needed, but an indef block is the wrong way to go about it. Sorry, but I strongly feel that this eventually needs to be cut down to time served. Note Okip, that you should not ignore the fact that improvement is also needed from you - and if/when you are unblocked, a wikibreak would be a good start! Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:53, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
• It seems like this is now descending into performance art as Okip has now posted the extract from Blacks that refers to copyright on his talk page. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:11, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
• support when is enough enough with the inexperienced (as DGG puts it) editor Ikip/Okip/Inclusionist/travb? Wikipedia is not supposed be some radical governance experiment. It's supposed to be a free online encyclopedia. Ikip/Okip/Inclusionist/travb has long been a net negative.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:06, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
• Indefinite does not mean infinite. I think Okip is unbelievably disruptive, but if his energies can be harnessed into productive again, he can come back. However, all he seems interested in these days is loudly and disruptively finding ways to rally people to his inclusionist cause. AniMate 13:17, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Ricky81682 you did not give him time to respond, and also seemed to have just blocked someone you don't like. That is a severe misuse of the blocking tool. Concerning other editors I see up against him all the time: I'd like to know what uninvolved people say about this. I don't really trust the opinions of deletionist who argue with Okip and others of the Rescue squadron constantly, in large numbers of AFD discussions, trying to delete what we try to keep. Dream Focus 14:00, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
  • So I guess your opinion should be discounted as well. AniMate 14:04, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
    • My comments are sincere. I doubt that certain others are. They are just going up against someone they had a disagreement with in the past. Dream Focus 06:24, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
      • Assume Bad Faith, much? Jack Merridew 06:43, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - I don't see the alleged vandalism. Immediate blocking without discussion. Why? Seems more of a personal disagreement. Thinks fondly of the possibility of blocking anyone that disagrees with me(Joke). Statement likes "I've had enough of this" and "Period" suggests emotional involvement in decision not a detached reasoned response. The bases of this indef block suggests possible misuse of the admin tools or at least a rushed reactionary response. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 18:16, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse block - Violations of WP:BATTLEGROUND, trying to feed the martyr complexes of blocked editors, and a long history of disruptions. A net negative to the project. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 18:29, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

  You can't have a battleground without having someone to battle with. The nature of the posts here and the titles of the section don't shed other editors in a good light. 'Okip creating battlegrounds' is an emotive title which is self defeating. It's not okip creating battlefields, as he alone cannot do that. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 20:36, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

  Nonsense. Okip's "enemies" are of his own creation and mostly in his own mind as he continues to flaunt WP:DISRUPT and other policies by engaging in problematic behavior that then results in him being taken to AN/I, ArbCom and various other venues for discussion. Nobody baited him. He makes the choice to behavie in a disruptive manner. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 04:58, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support a block - Honestly, enough is enough. Giving bad editors "advice" such as this doesn't do anyone any good. O/Ikip is brought before AN/I again and again for a wide variety of reasons and problems. Tarc (talk) 18:39, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support Block — Yet another disruptive incident. Is this alone blockable? No. There is, however, a long-term pattern to consider. There's last week's ANI thread, and the one the week before that... and there are many more. O/Ikip is, and has been, in full-battleground mode for several years. The prior canvassing thread that led to the current mentorship arrangement had only a few public bits and they weren't encouraging, as he basically is intent on minimizing the letter of that guideline while entirely ignoring the spirit of it. It's all agitprop. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 19:38, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
• I obviously have used the wrong word when I said "inexperienced" -- what I meant was "unskilled" at the sort of controversy involved in these discussion. I think I explained this previously here, but I am not surprised at people continuing to use one of my rare erroneous wordings against me--they get so little opportunity :) That Okip engages in these controversies to the extent he does is an indication of his lack of skill, skill much less than some of the people who are accusing him. I see no sign that he will ever develop this specialized talent. (Perhaps it is a good thing, for I am not sure that the skill to engage in interpersonal fighting effective at Wikipedia is a desirable social or psychological trait.) That he engages in them right now, and goes out of his way to provoke new conflict when he is still engaged in dealing with the consequences of the old ones similarly indicates his lack of skill. Nobody can say these are wise moves, from the point of view of his own interests.

But a block for the two instances here is absurd. The first, the remark on Editor Review , was polities and appropriate. Someone who asks for a review should expect a review. What was inappropriate was removing it from the page. Te editor should have had a chance to see it, and either object to it or earn from it. The comment on 9/11 was a little hysterical, nor was it helpful to encourage a new user who seemed intent on being a spa. But it was on a user talk page, and I dont see how a comment that there was an attempt a suppressing a certain POV here worth blocking. Indeed, to block people who say thing like that, rather seems to prove them correct. Some commented above he should be blocked indefinitely for being "a net negative to the project", and some others feel that an indefinite block is justified by the overall experiences. That's an instance of Give the Dog a Bad Name, and Hang It. It's not the way orderly processes proceed.

I would very strongly oppose any block for this. Rather, I see this entire instance here as an attempt at provoking someone who has shown himself all too easily provoked. And its the same people are provoking him again. I earlier suggested a ban on mutual interaction, and I continue to think it a good idea. DGG ( talk ) 21:13, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps, rather than attempting to suppress criticism and blame everyone else for Okip's "conflicts" (which go back as early as 2005), it would be more productive to encourage him to stay out of such controversial areas until he gets adequate experience? Mr.Z-man 21:31, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I have been trying repeatedly to do just that. He doesn't need experience exactly, but skill in working here and some common sense. DGG ( talk ) 22:34, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Do you honestly think he's going to do that? People are tired of his actions time and time again. He's had plenty of chances to amend his ways or stay out of areas that get him in trouble, but as that's essentially the sum of his editing scope, it's pointless to encourage other avenues in that manner. I'm in support of the block; I mean, his actions after the block[207] don't encourage me he'll respond to either a carrot or stick. He's a drain on others time, with no meaningful positives. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 21:42, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

• I should point out that editors/admins need to review "okip's" history as "Ikip" and "Inclusionist" before making claims about disruption being novel or out of character. He has been on wikipedia with a singular crusade for years now, a crusade which has permanently damaged a once great wikiproject. A block is long overdue. Protonk (talk) 21:50, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
  • "singular crusade for years...which has permanently damaged a once great wikiproject"? Speaking of melodramatic.... Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:18, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
    • Hardly. I wish it were so. He actually did take a reasonable and neutral wikiproject (ARS) and thoroughly politicized it and effectively eliminated its reputation as a place where editors could converge on an article that needed to be saved and save it. And he has spent the bulk of his time (what wasnt taken up by self requested blocks or non-self requested blocks) across now *four* account names (Travb, Inclusionist, Ikip and Okip) railing against what he saw as a vast deletionist campaign to ruin content and deter potential editors. I don't want to hang an albatross around his neck, but it needed to be said amidst the hang-wringing about how Okip was merely a victim of fucking circumstance. Protonk (talk) 02:46, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose indef block. The user should be unblocked. Crusades and POVs are OK here, it is the disruptive behaviour that is a problem. The disruption was not bad. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:35, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose block. No doubt, Okip has strong opinions. But he is very dedicated to the project and has only the best intentions. I have improved hundreds of articles in the past year, turning crap that was understandably nominated for deletion into good sourced articles, but would have never even tried to contribute to the project without the encouragement and spirit of a few editors including Okip. Offering advice to newer and inexperienced editors is not done nearly enough. Even if the advice is not always what others might say exactly, these newer editors rarely have anyone willing to tell them how to "open the book" to learn how rules and policies and apply and such. Though Okip will occasionally appeal to emotion more than other editors, his comments create no more of a battleground than do editors who snarkily cite to policies without explanation in a professorial fashion, and refuse to back down even when confronted with evidence that suggests a reconsideration of viewpoint is compelled. I fail to see how Okip's deleted comments, for example, at Wikipedia:Editor_review/Multixfer are vindictive. We all know that new-editor-created articles get nominated for speedy deletion at times that could be turned into a worthwhile article if someone with experience worked on it instead of immediately putting it on the chopping block. See, e.g., [208] to [209]. Okip simply shared his opinions, the project is not harmed by any demonstrable evidence i can see.--Milowent (talk) 06:24, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
• Sadly support block. I/Okip has been extended every chance, tolerance, indulgence, and opportunity to stop antagonizing people and I have no confidence his behaviour would change. Second choice would be a ban from user talk space (except his own) and project space (except FAs and deletion discussion). Stifle (talk) 13:10, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
• Another great hearted and friendly editor blocked without due process. I would oppose, only an unblock would probably only delay the inevitable. The way this community is heading it soon wont have any place for the best passionate and positive people. FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:01, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
• Comment People keep opposing the block based on an inclusionist vs deletionist argument and saying that Okip "speaks the truth" and does what he does because people do not offer to help new editors enough. There is no excuse for disruption (by telling someone who was blocked indefinitely that he was actually in the right and that he was only blocked becayse Wikipedia is biased against him), no excuse for all the things he's been brought here for. I'd like to see a policy based rationale for unblocking Okip, not attempts to excuse his behavior as that of someone who is "emotional". This has nothing WHATSOEVER to do with whether articles are deleted or kept, it is about trolling on talk pages. I have grave doubts that Okip even likes Wikipedia, since he seems to intent on telling everyone how awful it is here, how most veteran editors are big meanies who just love to delete anything and everything out of hand and kick "the underdog" when he's down. This is all complete bullshit. For example, I've never deleted a single article (as I'm not an administrator) and I've actually helped several newbies improve their articles. I guess I'm really secretly just a power-tripping bully who wants to beat up on people. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 19:09, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

• Well, did you think that his comment on your editor review was so uncalled for as his opinion that it justified a ban? I just don't see the proof that Okip is so unduly disruptive as to merit this draconian block. If you want a policy based reason, I guess that's it, I don't believe the case for an indef. ban is proven.--Milowent (talk) 00:16, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

• It's the compendium of everything over the months (and years, apparently), not just one hasty choice on his part. Personally, I didn't really care about his bad faith edits to my editor review 2 months after it was completed, I just reverted them knowing that they were far more damaging to him than they were to me. If that were all he had done it would have been nothing. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 05:16, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support as per Stifle, enough is enough. I also agree that a second choice would be a ban from other user's talk page and project space with the exceptions suggested. Dougweller (talk) 20:04, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Mentorship

I suggested this at the last okip ANI thread (on canvassing) and while there was no declared action, it clearly had support for the purposes of okip's handling of mass communication (whether within the bounds of appropriate canvassing or not). I will reiterate this suggestion again, based on the ideas mentioned above that Okip, despite a large # of edits is not an experienced editor, that mentorship seems like the best course of action here, now no longer just of his communication/canvassing, but for all his actions. Okip seems well intent when he's editing mainspace, but not in WP space, and that's where the mentorship needs to be focused on. I do believe at least one person offered to mentor Okip in the last discussion.

And to reiterate: if there is consensus for mentorship but Okip refuses to accept it, then that should be considered as a warning on his actions, such that if he's at ANI again, more significant measures may have to be made. --MASEM (t) 14:18, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Okip has a mentor. User:Jclemens had stepped up and was working with him. See here. AniMate 14:22, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

This is the only other interaction I can see between them since Okip agreed to let Jclemens mentor him. AniMate 14:27, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I've notified Jclemens, he/she may wish to chip in here.   pablo_hablo. 14:25, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Support - His post on pook's page really looked like "Poisoning the well".

KoshVorlonNaluboutes,Aeria Gloris 16:33, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

• I agree we should hear from Jclemens, who seems to me to be a person of sound judgement. The questions to be answered are: did Okip discuss this with Jclemens either before or after the event (it is not necessary for mentorship interactions to be on-wiki) and does Jclemens think that future drama of this kind can be prevented through their influence as a mentor. Guy (Help!) 16:50, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
• FYI, I've deleted Okip's retaliatory post to my Editor Review (which was completed and closed 2 months ago anyway), as well as his accusations from my talk page (which really only support my assertions anyway). Okip has a lot of edits and does some helpful stuff (the article rescue squadron is a very good thing), but his constant politicking and wiki-activism for his particular brand of inclusionism seems like a net negative to the project. I also find it suspicious that he would try to butter up and recruit someone who has been blocked indefinitely. Deliberately looking for conspiracy-theorist newbies who may now hold grudges against the project because their article was deleted and trying to recruit them does not strike me as beneficial whatsoever. More like trying to build an army of disaffected radicals. This is not about deletionsim vs inclusionism but WP:BATTLEGROUND. I recall the last time a group of people who wanted to push an agenda formed a group. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 17:15, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Mentor Jclemens' response

I have no special insight into this. I've been watching Okip's talk page, but as others have observed, we haven't talked in a few days, and he didn't consult me on a best way to approach such a topic. I haven't had time to review the substance of the accusations against him this time, but if Black Kite (an administrator with whom I have historically disagreed on many things) thinks it's a bad block, it's probably a safe bet that I will too. Jclemens (talk) 15:43, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

At this point, I'm going to have time to review the specific allegations and will comment further after I've done so. Jclemens (talk) 17:10, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok, here's my comments, looking in particular at three specific series edits of edits from Okip:

• Okip's posts to User talk:Pookzta Can we all be honest for a second here? Okip is, in fact, correct. There are assuredly groups of people who use N and FRINGE in a concerted effort to keep unpopular viewpoints from being described on Wikipedia. They will call it different things, like avoiding UNDUE weight, not letting wikipedia be used as a promotional vehicle for fringe theories, or something of the sort. Okip has called the same behavior censorship, either violating AGF or embodying WP:SPADE, depending on one's point of view. He expressed his honest opinion about Wikipolitics on a blocked newbie's talk page in a way that at least one took to be offensive, but I will note that I have found nothing actionably ad hominem or incivil about his post. Had I been consulted beforehand, I would have advised against this participation: once someone is blocked, as Okip himself noted, they're pretty much shot in the foot. The likelihood that Pookzta would ever become a net positive contribution to the project at this point was sufficiently low that I would not, personally, have bothered, and would have actively counseled Okip against posting something like that. When there are plenty of people looking for your head (and many of Okip's detractors have already posted here), the optimum solution is to be above reproach, not just above a technical violation.
• User talk:Multixfer Again, poor choice to even engage on the matter, but no technical violation. You'll notice that while Okip is clearly agitated, he does keep the focus on behaviors and their impact to the encyclopedia and new editors, and generally off discussing Multixfer's motivation.
• WP:Editor review/Multixfer Tacky to tag on here, especially on a de facto dead discussion, but nothing blockable here. Okip posted his honest opinion in an appropriate venue in a way that was not a personal attack. Advisable? Not a chance. Blockable? I just don't see it.

Nothing I've seen here seems to remotely border on CANVASSing, the behavior Okip has most recently been brought to ANI for and the topic on which I specifically agreed to mentor him. I really don't see how a block is justified at all, unless solely for the purpose of silencing dissent. I don't believe editors who are on notice for public declarations should then be penalized for subsequent private correspondence on an entirely different issue. Jclemens (talk) 17:34, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

• The problem is that Pookzta was blocked for running round asserting that the reason for deletion of his article was suppression of the WP:TRUTH, and Okip wnet along there and said that Wikipedia is infested with admins who want to suppress the WP:TRUTH. Was that likely to make things better or worse? The Multixfer comment is no big deal and should be discounted, the issue is whether his rather blatant WP:ABF on Pookzta's page is demanding of a sanction given his recent history. Arthur Rubin seemed to be engaged in rational debate with Pookzta, trying to get him to take off the Spider-Man suit as it were, and Multixfer dropped some good advice on his talk page as well. What Okip posted there was not good advice, was extremely unlikely to result in a de-escalation of things, and was also highly unlikely to get Pookzta unblocked; it was more likely to feed an existing martyr complex and result in the block never being undone. So, do you think you can fix that kind of thing? Guy (Help!) 17:59, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

• I was about to add to this but JzG says it better than I ever could. This isn't so much a violation of WP:CANVASS as it is a violation of WP:BATTLEGROUND. There are many differing viewpoints on Wikipedia, and in the end we have policies and guidelines as a means of managing all these opinions and the bad behavior that sometimes results as a consequence. Additionally, comments like If you are going to push editors off wikipedia because they don't share your view on certain topics, don't expect kindness and thankfulness in return. are completely bogus and a deliberate sneaky attack. I was, in fact, attempting to advise and even offering to help the blocked editor write his article if he could come up with reliable sources to substantiate the claims being made. Then Okip showed up telling Pookzta that he was blocked because we were all against him and that he should contact someone from Okip's group of, no doubt, totally unbiased and objective editors. Give me a break. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 18:05, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

• Can I fix Okip? Most assuredly not. I signed up to give him good advice, not control his behavior, and I would have advised him to never start down this particular road at all. I admit that I didn't look at the other contributions to Pookzta's talk page, just Okip's. WP:BATTLEGROUND is really a pretty subjective guideline, and I try to honor it more scrupulously than Okip has done in this case. I would not be opposed to unblocking him and allowing him to defend himself, because I have no clue what prompted him to think making those statements in the manner they were phrased was a good idea. Jclemens (talk) 18:13, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
• Re the WP:TRUTH argument... go through and read his initial posts to Pookzta's talk page again. I don't think Okip is a truth'er, I think he sincerely thinks that FRINGE is applied too restrictively, and that there should be more room for articles to discuss theories that he personally doesn't hold. That seems to me as perfectly consistent with his self-admitted inclusionist bent. Jclemens (talk) 18:22, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

• What is the purpose of this mentorship if Okip isn't going to consult you before doing things that might be controversial? Mr.Z-man 18:49, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

• In all fairness to Ikip, I don't see this as a CANVASSing issue, and can see how he might not have thought to consult me on an unrelated issue. As I said above, had I been consulted, I would have counseled against his entire line of argumentation. Jclemens (talk) 19:04, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

• Canvassing is not the problem. It's a battleground mentality. I had no care about the earlier canvassing/not canvassing dispute except for the fact that Okip couldn't respond at all without making the issue personal. I really don't care if he's right or wrong about WP:FRINGE, that's his view, but going to indefinitely blocked editors with "hey, there really are a lot of others who support you" accomplishes what? Then to follow that with an editor review on the person who reported you to ANI? Two months after it's been discussed? Does WP:HOUND mean anything? Does WP:HARASS mean anything? Should I be expecting that people go through my edits and revert them just because of my block? Okip or otherwise, is that appropriate? That's the question I ask everybody: is this the sort of conduct we want to encourage? I truly do not care about arguing inclusionism/deletionism/whatever on AFDs and policy pages and even within user space within reason (and no, I truly do not care at all about that) but randomly going after everybody is just plain disruptive. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:19, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

• Canvassing IS the problem on which Okip and I agreed that I would provide advice to him. I agree this isn't canvassing; thus, it's not obvious that Okip was out of line for not pre-clearing his actions with me. That's all. Jclemens (talk) 21:35, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

• Fair enough, I thought that mentorship was about both parts of the ArbCom caution not only canvassing. Guy (Help!) 22:48, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

To put this in perspective, Okip himself clearly thought that Jclemens was his allround mentor, not just on canvassing, as evidenced by the text he put at the top of his talk page[210]. As I replied to him[211], when you have a mentor and you believe that you are making posts that will get you into trouble, discuss it with the mentor before posting. At the moment it looks like he is just using the mentorship to hide behind when things go wrong, but not to actually improve his chances of a fruitful discussion. Fram (talk) 06:49, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Just throwing this out there

Rather than an indefinite block, might a namespace restriction be effective? Practically all the issues that Okip/Ikip etc. has been criticised for are either canvassing (i.e. usertalk pages) or in the project namespace. Might a restriction to articlespace both (a) allow him to concentrate on what he does best, i.e. cleaning up and improving articles that are in danger of deletion, and (b) prevent him from being tempted to do something else disruptive - which given this thread, most probably will end up with an indef, because the community's patience appears to be strained, to say the least. This could be tweaked a bit, i.e. he would still be allowed to comment at AfDs as this is his main raison d'etre, or he would still be allowed to edit user's talk pages who had sent him a message, etc. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:44, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I could live with that. Actually, I'd rather Okip be back without restrictions; any editor should be perfectly able to act like a reasonable human being. But has he shown an interest in coming back? A serious interest in at least acknowledging a possible problem? If this isn't more of the same battleground problems, I don't know what is. Is he going to continue? Does any of this look like an attempt to be unblocked or just more complaining about editors he doesn't like? Is any of that helpful? Yes, people can say I "baited" him into venting by blocking him but under that logic, we should unblock Willy on Wheels to keep him from venting by acting out. There's a certain level of decorum that should be expected here and I know it can be done. I don't care if someone unblocks right now but all that's going to do is encourage this mindless drama. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:21, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

So you'd let him tag all the articles he wanted for rescue, and add to them himself, but not let him participate in any AfD discussions or the ARS for the duration? Interesting. Again, still not entirely sure it's justified, but it's a novel solution and somewhat less intrusive than a block. Jclemens (talk) 04:58, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

alternatively, simply ban from user talk space for a few months (except his own). That's where the real problem is. If it doesn't help, the scope can be extended. I am concerned otherwise about people baiting him where he can not respond. That deals with the overall problem; drastic action based on these particular incidents is over-reaction. DGG ( talk ) 05:07, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Have these kinds of editing restrictions ever worked? I mean, have they ever resulted in someone not eventually being blocked anyway? I think he should remain blocked, but if he's unblocked and allowed to resume editing he should just be allowed to edit normally. This is one of those cases in which the editor will always find a loophole or some way to wikilawyer his way out of further sanctions if and when he violates his restrictions. We all have to follow the same rules, I'm just one opinion but I say leave it at that and see what happens. I guess I basically agree with Ricky, to make a long story short. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 05:41, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

There's always a first time... though in most cases we are, indeed, usually just paying out more WP:ROPE. Per the below, a general ban on ARS canvassing on user talk is a good idea. Interested parties can watchlist the relevant page. Guy (Help!) 11:57, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

This proposal has been made before multiple times in relation to the use of ARS banners (not just by Ikip but by anyone) over the course of the last year (when Ikip essentially co-opted ARS for his own purposes). Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:44, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Okip is a clearly productive user but clearly also is fanning the flames of a lot of conflicts in an unhelpful fashion. I think a ban on commenting on other individuals talk pages unless they initiate a discussion with him would work fine. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:19, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I have seen much abuse from Wikipedia admins, left unchallenged and unsanctioned - I mean just so much worse than what Okip has ever been accused of - that I cannot support any sanctions against Okip. Rather, I suggest that Okip represents the original values of WP. From a "damage to the 'Pedia" point of view, there is no reason whatsoever, to implement sanctions on O/Ikip. Net contribution absolute positive, not what I could say about a number of admins Power.corrupts (talk) 21:08, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:NOTTHEM. If you have concerns you should raise them in the proper way, that does not undermine the problem with Okip's current behaviour. Guy (Help!) 21:49, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Since Okip hasn't requested an unblock, this is all rather pointless. So far he's posted a note saying we have to discuss things with his mentor followed by a huge copyrighted block of text. If he wants to come back, he knows the process. AniMate 02:08, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

A dignified editor like Okip might not want to post a grovelling unblock request for such a blatantly out of process block, and a non grovelling request just gives a hostile admin the chance to reject it, thus underscoring the indef. FeydHuxtable (talk) 10:04, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Next Steps

OK, so Okip has been blocked for a couple of days now. I haven't tallied lately, but things are running about even between people who support the block and those who do not, with a substantial minority arguing for a partial topic ban. No one has lifted a finger either way--me for the purpose of not appearing to be a partisan or using tools to help "friends"--but there's a time for discussion, and a time for resolution. Okip not asking for an unblock shouldn't be held against him--as you can see by his current talk page, I advised him to cool it and he appears to be taking that to heart. One other issue that hasn't been brought up in this particular discussion before is WP:SPI/Okip, where it appears most likely to the SPI Clerk (NW) that someone has tried to get Okip in further trouble, as anyone can see from the IP address's contributions. What are the next steps here? Jclemens (talk) 15:24, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Why not wait until he requests an unblock (when he's sufficiently "cool" or whatever), see what he has to say then, and then have a discussion about it? Seems the ball is very much in his court. It's not that his failure to request an unblock is being held against him, it's just that he hasn't made one. Any discussion if/when he does request one certainly won't be colored by claims that "he shouldn't be unblocked since he didn't request an unblock sooner." Instead, it will be colored by what he writes and how people respond to it.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:31, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Probably PBMLOL again. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 16:34, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Probably. Some obvious troll anyway, unlikely to be Okip   pablo_hablo., sometime on the 14th of April unsigned at the time, sorry

Unblocked

I reviewed this thread and some of the problematic contributions. Clearly Okip needs to rethink some of their editing policies but, without commenting on the initial block, I think that he/she is willing to make an attempt to work on those issues. The support/opposes seem equally divided and, with the view that it is worth the effort to keep a productive editor, um, productive, I've unblocked Okip. --RegentsPark (talk) 16:50, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

You write: "I think that he/she is willing to make an attempt to work on those issues." What has the editor said lately that led you to that conclusion?Bali ultimate (talk) 16:56, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

My apologies. I should have made it clear that that is my general impression about the user and is not based on anything specific in this case. Either way, I feel it worth a shot. Blocks can always be remade but the long term damage from extended blocks is not easily undone. Regards. --RegentsPark (talk) 17:02, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Assuming "no consensus" defaults to unblock, this seems in keeping with procedure. Hopefully Okip will stop engaging in these behaviors so we don't all have to come back here again. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 18:44, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

• This may not have been a very prudent decision. Was this indef block issued under the auspices of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/A_Man_In_Black#Ikip_warned ? Tarc (talk) 19:00, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

  The block log doesn't indicate as such. –xeno^talk 19:05, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

  The AMIB case doesn't place Ikip/Okip under an "editing restriction" so this block doesn't qualify as "arb enforcement" per se. It's still part of his history and absolutely valid to discuss it, but that means that a block doesn't necessarily need ArbCom's input to undo it. Jclemens (talk) 20:30, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

  I'm befuddled by the log. Future Perfect at Sunrise blocked in order to relate this to A Nobody's arbcom problems. Is there now a suggestion that the two are more than just allies? Or what?—Kww(talk) 20:38, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

  I think it was just a mixup. –xeno^talk 20:41, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

  (edit conflict)I assume that was a mistake on Fut. Perf's part.   pablo_hablo. 20:44, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

  Yes, FP said as much when he undid his block. Jclemens (talk) 21:08, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Going forward

Now that Okip is unblocked, I would like to propose the following: Moving forward, Okip must thoroughly discuss ANY potentially disruptive or controversial action (not just potential canvassing) with his mentor, Jclemens, and obtain his approval BEFORE he continues with said action. Jclemens is a reasonable and thoughtful editor and this seems better to me than trying to place specific restrictions directly on Okip. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 18:51, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I sincerely wish that Okip had indeed done precisely that in this case, and will do my best to advise him rapidly and appropriately when asked in the future. Jclemens (talk) 20:31, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

With the history, I should say that this is entirely reasonable. I also think the comments above about ARSe canvassing messages should be carried forward to resolve that such messages are not acceptable by anyone; if they want to come up with a project subpage that people can transclude then fine and dandy. Guy (Help!) 22:37, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it should be mandatory. He was unblocked without any indication of restrictions. I would suggest that he consider that but I would not require it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:38, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

It shouldn't be mandatory, but given that it is not an intended outcome of unblocking that the same disruption occurs again (ever), unblocking without restriction virtually guarantees recidivism, which means another block, which means more drama. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:50, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure there is such a thing. Every time Okip is brought here, there are fewer editors willing to speak in his defense. Jclemens (talk) 14:28, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I am one of his victims, to be sure - and still I am willing to defend him. Indefinite blocks rarely serve WP well, and frequently serve WP ill. I would suggest, in particular, that any CANVASSing of whatever sort be off his menu, as well as any initiation or participation in dispute review processes on his own volition. I would also suggest that he be encouraged to write encyclopedic articles (not stubs) as a positive sort of act. Collect (talk) 14:46, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

If Okip is interested in doing just that, I have a list of articles & needed materials -- electronic copies of JSTOR articles, pdfs, etc. -- for him to contribute to Ethiopia-related topics. (I'd be doing this myself, but I seem to be struggling with a bout of writer's block.) -- llywrch (talk) 21:07, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Bot editing as IP

Resolved

 – Cobi seems to have this under control - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 10:09, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

It appears some person or thing has eaten ClueBot′s cookies, see Special:Contributions/128.174.251.49. One might consider blocking IP-nonymous edits from that address, and/or advising the operator to append &assert=bot to his or her urls. ―AoV² 21:49, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

It's now against bot policy for bots to edit from ip accounts, so I'll leave Cobi a message about this, better not to block the ip address at this point, it'll do more harm than good. Best, - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 00:04, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

This may be caused by a security fix to the mediawiki module that bots log in with. A lot of other bots also got broken and need(ed) code patches. See: bugzilla:23076. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 03:35, 14 April 2010 (UTC) --- someone has already left a code patch at user_talk:ClueBot. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 03:40, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

The following will prevent editing as an IP, next time it breaks (by telling the server to reject the edit if the client does not have the stated access level):

			$params = Array(
				'action' => 'edit',
+				'assert' => 'bot',				
				'format' => 'php',
				'title' => $page,
				'text' => $data,
				'token' => $this->getedittoken(),
				'summary' => $summary,
				($minor?'minor':'notminor') => '1',
				($bot?'bot':'notbot') => '1'
			);

Unflagged bots and out-of-browser experience interfaces should use &assert=user. ―AoV² 04:08, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

That IP has been blocked several times before and I just blocked it earlier. Then I see this. something lame from CBW 07:28, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I had earlier changed the disable page, but the bot has been running despite it. Cambridge's block expired earlier. I have since blocked the IP anon. only (Cobi's other bots appear to work fine) and told Cobi (in the block summary and on his talk page) to just unblock it himself once the issue is resolved. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 04:26, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Snowolf, I hope you don't mind but I've unblocked the IP to try something. I created User:128.174.251.49/Run, with the same data at User:ClueBot/Run - I'm not sure how the bot works, but it might be that the /Run has to be on the user account that the bot is using - It would make sense as changing User:ClueBot/Run didn't work. No worries about reblocking if you want to though even without anymore edits. Might be worth seeing what happens though. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 09:21, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

If Cobi isn't around to deal with this, it may be best to seek help from WT:BAG or someplace like that. It looks to me like 2 or 3 bots have edited from that address. The following is pure speculation since I haven't looked into it carefully, but the server side change that stopped the bot from logging in was on April 7 or thereabouts. I suspect that bots were able to keep editing logged in after the change, because of already-good login tokens they had, but those tokens eventually hit 30-day timeouts causing the bots to edit logged out. If that's the situation and if Cobi has more bots running, we may see more of them editing logged out over the coming weeks. Shouldn't highly active bots like these be running from toolserver anyway? That would allow other people to patch the bot if Cobi wasn't around to do it. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 19:56, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Seems Cobi has fixed it, so I've marked this as resolved. 66.127, there's no reason for Cobi to run his bots from the toolserver if he doesn't want to. Besides which, ClueBot source is here here etc.., so it would be possible for someone else to use it, if Cobi wasn't around to fix it (you have to allow a few days for us bot ops :D). - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 10:09, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

New topic - parthenogenesis??

User:Ari, began a discussion about Virgin birth (mythology) and before the discussion was really underway, he deleted that article title, moved the article to Miraculous birth, and rewrote and reorganized it. He has given it a Christian emphasis, but that article is in a 'religions' project. He will not answer questions--always draws you into a personal exchange. This could go on forever. He is threatening to block me and won't be civil.--Hammy64000 (talk) 19:39, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Diffs. Links. Anything really, so we know what on earth you are actually talking about....and why it is a problem that might need administrator intervention. Has he been rude to you? He's not an admin, so he can't actually block you. Does that help? --Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:24, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Recommend close. This also appears on WP:WQA and User:Ari does not appear to have edited. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:18, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

He means User:Ari89. A quick check of the page history shows both of them are active there. --SGGH ^ping! 21:47, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you missed the the note, so I have taken the liberty of notifying the other editor. —DoRD (talk) 22:47, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Which editor?--The Phantom In Church (talk) 22:49, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Ari89, that is the account that has been editing the same articles as Hammy64000. --SGGH ^ping! 23:17, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

The article is Miraculous births. Hammy64000 seems to have taking my merging of the articles personally, and across multiple pages he has attempted to attack me with ridiculous claims about a personal conspiracy against him. His main attack against me seems to be that I have edited "his article" and I should cease to edit his article. He has been warned numerous times about ownership. For example:

• "I still have issues with your moving my article to a previously messy and unfinished article--especially in the way you did it--without talking it out.--Hammy64000 (talk) 15:11, 14 April 2010 (UTC)" (bold mine)
• "Give me the article back and if you think you can, you can work with me. But you may not have it. You are not suited to such an article--you are big-picture challenged."

Similarly, adding fact request templates and tags seem to offend. After adding the afformentioned tags to uncited content I was attacked by Hammy64000 on the basis of a conspiracy theory he has created. After removing the tags he said: "You think this will work because I told you I returned my library books". This was followed with a number of rants on the talk page including:

• "Ari, you requested citations for the Egyptian article and I provided them. Now you have marked that they need page numbers. That is a bogus way to justify your re-write. Anyone here? Why does this person think he can do this? --Hammy64000 (talk) 01:31, 15 April 2010 (UTC)"
• "I told Ari on the article history page that I returned my library books and so he is asking for page numbers to justify changing the article without discussion.--Hammy64000 (talk) 01:37, 15 April 2010 (UTC)"

It has been explained to the editor that all content must be verifiable. I am not quite sure what the 'incident' is; but if there is one I am surely the victim here receiving personal attack after personal attack by the above editor. For more documentation of his confusing behaviour see User:Ari89/Hammy64000 --Ari (talk) 03:57, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Legal threat by IP

Resolved

 – Blocked 72 hours. Tan | 39 16:56, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

64.134.238.142 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) added a legal threat into the Homelessness in this edit, stating "REMOVE THE PICTURE OF THE HUMAN BEING IN A SEWER OR YOU SHALL BE IN COURT ." --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:53, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

• Crazy fool, it's in Vienna, not Trenton, NJ!—Preceding unsigned comment added by JzG (talk • contribs)

This type of block looks over-pedantic and bitey. So you advised them of our policy, which they obviously weren't aware of, and they didn't repeat their observation. They made a fair point with their second comment though, don't you think. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:00, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

More likely fruitless, as 64.134.23.160 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to be the same guy and 64.134.20.5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) might be also. Probably an IP-hopper. Based in L.A. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:10, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Not sure if it is the same user as the other IP - given the other post a few days back - the two might be through the same location/network, but given the elapsed time they could easily be different users of that connection.

I was in the process of posting the initial notice here when they made their follow-up post to the article (ie: I hadn't seen a follow-up until after the notice was posted). Given that the IP was trying to tone down their subsequent post, a better step may have been to request that they acknowledge the problem with the legal threat and agree to retract it (making clear to them that they're free to follow that path - just not to use it as a threat to try to control content). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:05, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify: I still support the block - but the block notice, to me, isn't clear enough on how to proceed to get unblocked, so I supported giving them more guidance on that aspect as they had shown evidence of being willing to tone down their wording. I posted more info to their talk page earlier today, but by that time it was likely too late for them to notice - and now that the user has hopped to another IP, any unblock instructions became meaningless. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:24, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

2nd Amendment rights? I fully defend my right to keep and bear arms!! –MuZemike 18:16, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what his comment about 2nd amendment has to do with anything, but if he's threatening to shoot wikipedia, that's not allowable either. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:27, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Might make a good essay to back up WP:BATTLEGROUND, complementary to WP:FREESPEECH. Physchim62 (talk) 18:35, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Somewhat ironically, I think the "pedantic" part of this issue is somehow thinking that this editor is a little baby bird in a nest, that we need to coddle and woo into our ranks. They shouted a legal threat, they get blocked. Simple. It's the way legal blocks work. If they want to post an unblock request acknowledging that they've read the applicable policies, they can. As they IP-hopped anyway, talking about unblocking them is a giant waste of time. Tan | 39 19:16, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Agree 100 percent. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:18, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Likewise.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:40, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Yep. This is the type of bullshit that is most frustrating about wikipedia. Fully support Tan's actions here. Toddst1 (talk) 01:01, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, completely agree. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:33, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree also. While I respect zzuuzz a great deal, our culture here has become much too tolerant of antagonistic and boorish behavior. Wikipedia is not for everyone, and those persons who lack the proper temperament should be shown the door sooner rather than later. — Satori Son 14:49, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

He's back Dlohcierekim 02:16, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

He's dropped the legal threat, which is good. Someone want to point him to the talk page, where such a comment would be acceptable (though probably ignored)? Buddy431 (talk) 05:12, 16 April 2010 (UTC)