Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MiszaBot II (talk | contribs) at 10:35, 30 August 2009 (Archiving 4 thread(s) (older than 24h) to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive560.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

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

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

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

    ThuranX

    I was told on WP:WQA to bring this here if it continued. Thuran X has been uncivil and downright impossible to work with on the Glenn Beck talkpage and doesn't seem to be able to WP:AGF at all. This behavior has also taken place at the Carly Fiorina page, as was brought up at WQA. In the initial WQA report I included the following examples: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], Carly Fiorina talkpage,Carly Fiorina the last of which earned him a warning. His reply to the warning: shows that he learned nothing, and has been supported by his edits to the Glenn Beck page after the WQA was put up (he was notified on his talkpage of it being there): [6] [7] [8] (With reply: [9]), [10], [11], [12]. Finally one editor snapped, and ThuranX continues to accuse everyone of having an agenda. I ask that something be done so that civil editing can be resumed. Soxwon (talk) 22:29, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Minor, but there also appears to be a clear-cut instance of WP:CANVASS: [13]. Soxwon (talk) 22:35, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm leaving the canvassing thing to the side because I see that as minor and not relevant to the main point. I've been monitoring the Glenn Beck page for a little while now, and did recently have to warn ThuranX about civility (it's not the first time I've done that unfortunately). Obviously his block log points to an ongoing problem there (I have blocked him, recently, for a 3RR violation but not for incivility), and I believe there was a recent ANI thread about this very issue though I'd have to check. ThuranX arrived at the Glenn Beck article angry about the content, which I think was understandable since there were/are serious problems, but his editing style has not done him any favors there, and indeed has proven a significant hindrance to collaborative editing.
    From what I've seen, ThuranX is a conscientious editor who has made a lot of good contributions to the project. But he (I believe "he" is correct) is also often a bit of a bull in a china shop, and tends to inflame situations unnecessarily.
    History has shown that we simply do not deal with these situations, and I think we can all think of any number of examples where a good contributor is disruptively uncivil, repeatedly so, and we simply cannot come up with a good way to handle it. I don't think ThuranX will appreciate this thread or care much what is said here, but I'm wondering if there are suggestions (assuming others agree in seeing this as a long term problem) for how to proceed. A user-conduct RFC would be a logical step at some point, but I'm not sure we're there yet. If Thuran would simply agree to chill out/tone it down there would not be a problem, but I don't think it's likely that will happen given past interactions I've had with him. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:18, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    In the general sense of what do we do with good contributors who are too abrasive, we do the same thing we would do with a so-so contributor who is too abrasive. There is no provision in any of the policies that say "If you contribute X good edits, you get a free pass on Y civility or personal attack violations". Editors who feel that way absolutely boggle me. a single incident of incivility might be enough to drive 1 or more contributors from the project. This concept of "net benefit" is also ridiculous. Because the moment they make another editor unhappy with editing here, I don't care how many good contributions they've made, they are not a "net benefit". This is a huge problem on wikipedia. I've seen editors complain about this before, and I've seen news stories and other social media stories pick up on this as well and the complaints it generates there. There is a general perception that some editors are protected no matter what they do, and it has a grain of truth. Think about some of the wheel wars and drama we've had over certain users. In pretty much all of those cases they were in clear violation of policies, yet they were coddled, snuggled and given cookies by some editors for months or years before they were finally (if ever) cut off. Yet another user doing 1/10th of what they did was indef, the key was thrown away, and unblock requests or appeals were quickly shot down and everyone carried on with their day. Wikipedia is a big project and if people can't work with the project and discuss things civilly then the community needs to do something about that. There are lots of existing editors and new editors everyday to do the job. The project doesn't live and die on a single editor but it does live and die on how the community feels.--Crossmr (talk) 01:44, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure it's time for an RfC so much as it is for an indef block, or maybe a six month timeout contigent on this user firmly agreeing to mend his ways. His block log shows many instacnes of incivility but, as far as I know, he has apologized for few -- if any -- of them. That other users annoy him is reason enough to write (as a mild example) "Drop dead and keep the fuck away from me, you smug jerk." [14] Alternatively, as ThuranX has been complained about again and again and again and nothing is ever really done, perhaps it could be made clear that he has special dispensation to act as he does without consequence. IronDuke 02:06, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe we should start WP:Protectedusers so people can refer to it before they file a complaint to see if there is any point? It might cut the drama down significantly. It would also be a handy one stop for news organizations. In all seriousness, if short blocks don't do the trick, do we have an admin who can make the hard block and take the next appropriate step?--Crossmr (talk) 02:16, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure ThuranX falls under the "protected" editor category. He's been blocked eight times by my count and unblocked twice, with neither of those being drama-inducing "wheel war" blocks from what I can gather. Editors who are "protected" generally get away with incivility without being blocked, or if they are blocked someone swoops in and unblocks. I don't think that's really the case with ThuranX, and I'm not sure he has any particular protectors. The fact that he is not an admin removes one possible layer of protection, since administrators are (regardless of protestations to the contrary) far more protected from blocks or other sanctions then are non-admin editors.
    I don't think general comments about "protected editors" are particularly helpful to this thread. I fully agree, and said above, that we have a problem dealing with veteran editors who also have issues with civility and the like. The problem stems largely from the fact that people disagree about how to proceed in those kind of situations. I'm afraid I can't do anything about that. I have no idea if someone has brought ThuranX to ANI before and said generally, "what do we do about this behavior?," rather than specifically complaining about one incident. If a previous general complaint did not result in any sort of attempted solution, perhaps it will be different this time, but that would require us to discuss the specific issue before us. IronDuke puts forward the possibility of an indef or otherwise lengthy block, and that would be one option. If others have specific suggestions that would be great, but if there are general complaints about our ability to deal with long-term editors who don't abide by certain guidelines then I'm not sure this is the place for that. For example complaining about the "net benefit" argument does little good when no one here has invoked it, implicitly much less explicitly. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:43, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    FWIW, there are many previous AN/I threads regarding this user (with whom, I should say, I have interacted negatively in the past). A sampling of the complaints: [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23]... There's more, I think, but, well, nuff said. IronDuke 04:11, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, that's very helpful, and obviously the notion of giving ThuranX a long term block or starting an RFC or ArbCom case has been broached before. I'd like to hear from other (particularly uninvolved) editors and admins on this, and also of course from ThuranX, as to what can be done about this long-term problem. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:34, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I have just read through the August part of the Glen Beck Talk Page--I try not to get involved in these topics, but I couldn't escape knowing. It seems clear that Thuranox , while trying [to bring some degree of NPOV to a previously biased article, has gotten overinvolved. I'm not sure I blame him--the POV pushing done by most notably BigTimepeace Bytebear is some of the most outrageously biased article editing I've seen here. I think we can deal appropriately with this issue by banning BTP Bytebear from this article & talk p. and all other articles and talk pages related to GB) indefinitely --or, if indef is out of fashion, 6 months, I generally think than an angry response to provocation is as wrong as the provocation, but in this case, the provocation is so great that I think I'd be prepared to say that any reasonable person might have gotten upset in dealing with it. But the language Thuranox used was out of control, and I don't know any way of impressing this upon him that would be effective. If BTP Bytebear is gone from the article, that'll certainly help things. There will still be some fighting there, and if Thuranox continues editing there, he'll have to do it with more restraint. If not ,we should take the preventative action of having him stay away from the articles also. DGG ( talk ) 06:38, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    ← That's a pretty strong accusation DGG. — Ched :  ?  06:48, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Apologies for the interruption. Upon clarification I strike my comment. — Ched :  ?  15:01, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I have a feeling, indeed I very much hope, that DGG (whom I quite respect) is confusing me with another editor whose handle also begins with a "B," namely User:Bytebear. ThuranX and that editor have gone toe to toe at the Beck article, and Bytebear's editing has indeed been very problematic, as I have pointed out on the article talk page and on that editor's user talk page (I also blocked them for edit warring). I have only been acting in an "adminly" (as opposed to editorial) fashion at Glenn Beck (trying to put a stop to the edit warring and calm the waters a bit), and while I have the article watchlisted and have made a number of edits there in the past I have not edited the article since March. So I think this is just a case of mistaken identity and if so then no worries at all, but I would hope DGG could clarify that, because I certainly don't think "outrageously biased article editing" remotely applies to anything I've done over there.
    Operating on the assumption that DGG meant to refer to Bytebear (right-DGG) , I would also be willing to consider some sort of topic ban. Indeed I was working on a formal proposal along those lines a week or so ago (gathering a bunch of diffs to show what I took to be a seriously problematic pattern) but decided to shelve it to see if Bytebear's editing improved. If we are having a conversation about a possible topic ban I can present the diffs I put together (no one else should bother gathering them, what I put together is pretty comprehensive), though personally I'd like to see if progress can be made on the article talk page first.
    I don't think Bytebear's problematic editing means ThuranX gets a free pass, and as mentioned that editor's civility is a longer term issue, though a recent comment by Thuran is, to me at least, encouraging. If we our going to talk about Bytebear (or about me!) we might want to start a subthread just so this doesn't turn into a complete muddle, as Old Stephen would say. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:00, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    sorry, I did indeed mean Bytebear. I apologize for the confusion. DGG ( talk ) 08:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    To BTP, since we've out dented already, Actually I got that impression from the mention of how many times its been brought up at AN/I and nothing really being done. This is the second thread on this page dealing with a long-term editor who has civility issues that no one seems to want to do anything about. See the bungie section up above as another example. While no one has wheel-warred over him, no one has rushed to deal with him because he's a veteran. DGG suggests excusing it because there was apparent POV pushing, but I still fail to see that exception in the policy. When we get into that thinking, where do we draw the line? This user was really really really annoying so it was okay for me to chew him out. How many "really"s makes it okay?Do we need 3? how about 2? what if its only 1? We get down to a subjective interpretation of how annoying some user was and who thinks the other user was justified in snapping. Sorry no. This is exactly the kind of behaviour that poisons this community. It will always be the people with the buddies who gets the pass because the other guy was more annoying. Subjective application of these policies doesn't help a single person on wikipedia. There is a reason those kinds of exceptions aren't in the policy. I don't care if the other party is talking about what he did with your dead relative's corpse last night, its the internet. Report them and move on. If someone is supposedly POV pushing, start DR, get third opinion, report it to the relevant projects, and move on. There are millions of articles out there. Conduct the debate civilly, though passionately if you want, or don't be involved in it.--Crossmr (talk) 07:16, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    normally I'd agree with you, Crossmr, and very strongly. I think this case is an exception. the initial state of that article was so much of a panegyric that the subject would have been unrecognizable. Bytebear wasn't the only person getting it that way, but he as a major and continuing and very persistent influence. A number of people tried, and I think it actually took Thuranx's intervention to get things going sensibly. Strong medicine, in this case needed. Maybe a little too strong, but the only other way of handing it would have been to topicban Bytebear at an earlier state--and we didn't do it. I think that ThuranX should take great care he doesn't do this again, when they probably will not be so well deserved. DGG ( talk ) 08:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but a majority of the comments have been directed at myself and Morphh who have tried to be cooperative and act for the good of the article. There's also the matter of his comments at Carly Fiorina as well, which seem totally unjustified. If Bytebear was the problem, he certainly missed the target. Soxwon (talk) 08:26, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately I can't see that at all. There still aren't any exceptions, regardless of what he thought he was trying to accomplish. The ends doesn't justify the means when it comes to civility. In addition his comments at Carly Fiorina completely invalidate that argument. If this was a one time issue with no priors and no other issues on other articles, you _might_ (in the smallest sense of the word) have a case. But this is clearly not a problem restricted to this article in this case.--Crossmr (talk) 12:05, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm embarrassed to say that I'm the editor that snapped (not my proudest moment, but I did redact the profanity and clarify it). I've been personally labeled by ThuranX as "disingenuous", a "fanboy", "whitewasher", "pov pusher", "pretender", bad faith editor, and essentially Bytebear's meatpuppet. I don't think I've deserved any of the labels, but that's beside the point to this discussion. The uncivil behavior was unacceptable and created a hostile environment. I don't agree with DGG that he really helped this article move along, in fact, I think his discussions have been disruptive and created more conflicts and issues than needed to move the article forward. I got there a couple weeks before ThuranX, who arrived on August 15th[24] and at that point we were already moving toward some good progress in including the criticism.[25][26][27] I think it was primarily the work of civil editors working together that moved things along. I think these changes would have happened with or without ThuranX, and likely faster without. I'm conflicted as I would like his perspective and opinion, but we can't get there if he's always leveling attacks and avoiding the policy discussion. Morphh (talk) 16:11, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Give ThuranX and Bytebear ultimatums: Any further incivility (broadly construed -- in fact, so broadly that it would be safer not to comment on editors at all, just on edits, and comment carefully on them) or edit warring at Glenn Beck/ Talk:Glenn Beck will result in both a one-week block and a six-month topic ban on the article. If BigTimePeace wants some kind of different solution, it would probably be a good idea to give it to him. If Bytebear is POV-pushing, too bad for Wikipedia, because AN/I has no tools to address that, but sanctions on incivility and edit warring can be ratcheted up. This is a "solution" in that it makes the admin's job easier, but it is no solution for the article or the editors: they are allowed to game the system by baiting the other side into edit warring or an incivility violation. The editor who blows his top first loses the game. It's a sport, not a solution. There is no solution, and I started a section below to start groping for an answer. But in the meantime, without a solution, let's make BigTimePeace's job easier: Give 'em ultimatums. -- Noroton (talk) 16:39, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to clarify, since you're considering equal punishment, I don't know that I've seen Bytebear be uncivil or issue a personal attack (could be wrong). He's just been very strict with policy interpretation, so it makes adding content more difficult. ThuranX calls it the Civil POV Push. On the opposite end, ThuranX has been very loose with policy. So aside from politics, you can see where we get the huge clash between these two editors. I don't know what the best course of action would be, but I thought I would clarify what I'm seeing. Morphh (talk) 17:27, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi all. I really didn't intend to cause such a stir. I have apparently been to strict with my interpretation of WP:BPL relying on the exception for 3RR on such articles, thinking my reverts were in compliance with the rules applied. Rather than applying the rules to facts, I applied them to POV. The edit war in question was an issue of WP:SYNTH where two facts were presented side by side and a direct conclusion was heavily implied. I reverted in the hopes that someone would reapply the information more fairly avoiding POV, but it didn't happen, so I continued to revert assuming the 3RR did not apply under the rules of BLP, and eventually modified the text to a more fair version, which was promptly reverted. I think I have edited in good faith, if not misguided. Since my ban, which I take full responsibility, I have been discussing the issue at length trying to gain a more complete understanding of how BLP applies in this case. I still disagree with some of the assessments by Bigtimepeace, but I am willing to discuss them. ThuranX on the other hand dismisses every suggestion and comment I make with accusations of conspiracy and protectionism, even when other editors agree with me. I think my points are valid, and I admit to having strong convictions about them, but I don't think I have demonstrated a inability to discuss and work with other editors, other than the unfortunate butting heads with ThuranX. Bytebear (talk) 17:33, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, ThuranX is by no means the only person who takes Bytebear's editing behavior to be protectionism. Sometimes this seems to take the form of a WP:TAGTEAM with other like-minded users who, like Bytebear, have received warnings and bans related to Glenn Beck and/or other US Politics topics. This obviously does not excuse any of ThuranX's behavior, but it is certainly a frustrating experience trying to improve this article. There is a larger problem here. MichaelLNorth (talk) 21:10, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Going back to the original post in this thread: As the admin. who issued the "warning" to ThuranX I suppose I should say something here. Yes, I saw his reply. No, I didn't feel a need to respond and inflame the issue. I know the rules fairly well thank you, and I suspect that ThuranX does too. American political articles are going to elicit emotions here, everyone has their own POV. I suggest that all parties simply stick to the facts, the reliable sources, and address the topics and not the editors. All ya'all just need to cool it. — Ched :  ?  17:43, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I haven't seen any provide any diffs of Bytebear being uncivil. If they have been, someone should provide those diffs, if they haven't, then why put this odd restriction on them? Thuranx's behaviour extends beyond this article.--Crossmr (talk) 00:29, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think Bytebear has really been all that uncivil, or if so only somewhat. The issue with that editor is POV editing, not incivility, and that was not why the thread was opened which is probably part of the confusion..
    This thread has gone pretty far afield from where it started, jumping over to the editing behavior of another editor, and moving into a general discussion below. I doubt anything will come of it now, but that's fine. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:50, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Wider picture: a new set of rules is needed for this widespread problem

    I've said this before and I'll risk sounding a bit like a broken record and say it again: Wikipedia has a problem with its Wild West atmosphere on articles with controversial content (mostly politics, nationalism, probably religion, I think). We treat them like we treat any article in terms of what guidelines and policies editors are supposed to follow, but our rules are inadequate. POV pushers are attracted to these articles and inevitably offend editors who also have strong views on a subject, and there are plenty of these editors when a subject is very controversial out there in the world beyond Wikipedia. There simply aren't enough BigTimePeaces to try to keep the peace, or enough admins like DGG to even recognize that there may be more than one problem. As a result, Wikipedia articles on controversial subjects are, frankly, a disgrace. And that's after many editors have wasted their time on them and many admins have wasted their time dealing with the problems.

    We'd lose a lot of good editors if we ban all of the ones who have a difficult time with civility, but who mostly keep it to a minimum. It's extremely hard to identify a POV-pushing editor unless you are also well-acquainted with the issue, and it takes not just you but a consensus to do it. That's hardly ever gonna happen. Article probations are complicated to set up, involve too much work to maintain and can be gamed by POV pushers.

    What needs to be done is to have some kind of different set of policies and guidelines for editing on articles & talk pages where we find we have excessive fighting and a lack of constructive consensus-building. The rules should involve how editors treat each other and how consensus is formed, they should encourage calm, rational, cordial discussion and encourage more editors to participate (overwhelming POV pushers with reasonable editors from the broader community who are interested in thoughtful participation that actually improves an article in an NPOV way -- this is not really too much to ask: it's what we're asking now), and the rules should be very easy and clear for any admin to enforce or editor to understand (unlike the rat's nest of an explanation we have for WP:CONSENSUS and related pages and WP:CIVIL and related pages).

    AN/I threads are fingers in a very leaky dyke. Instead of this problem coming back to AN/I over and over, with different editors at different articles, the dyke needs to be fixed. -- Noroton (talk) 15:52, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    You raise good points here, but I worry it's impractical. And you'd get a lot of pushback from editors about two sets of rules, how we determine which article goes in what cat, etc. I also think we lose more editors due to the toxically uncivil environment that prevails here than the few who would storm off in a huff after being told no, they really can't tell other editors to "fuck off." I'd also note the editor in question has made no move at all to suggest that there's any kind of problem with his approach, and it bothers me when people take a sort of "Hey, let's move on" attitude as if the person in question had actually said he was sorry and promised to be better in the future. IronDuke 19:00, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    AN/I already decides on article probation, as does Arbcom, so we could let them decide whether to put a contentious article into this probation-like status. You'll get no more pushback than we get now, another avenue would be to let a consensus of editors decide at an RfC. All three avenues should be available, just as we would do now for article probation. You don't set up the new rules for any particular article until we see problems with the article and get complaints. This isn't a plan or even a proposal, of course, just an idea of the type of thing that might be done. The real point is that some different kind of set of rules is needed. I would think admins would be happier with an easier system. IronDuke, if you scroll up to my proposal for this particular case, you'll see that I'm not excusing any conduct. POV pushing does not excuse incivility, but solving the incivility problem does nothing to solve the POV problem (by removing editors you may make the POV problem worse). I think the real trick is to channel discussions into calm, reflective, civil exchanges that won't be distracted by comments on editors and where editors will decide on content and decide what to say based on what they really think a neutral article would look like. That's the hardest environment for a POV pusher to succeed, for edit warring to succeed and for incivility to seem right. It's the kind of atmosphere that happens in civil, even cordial discussions, but even in hot, contentious discussions when there is some force or authority, understood by all and seen as fair. You get that kind of atmosphere when you have rules and enforce them consistently, Wikipedia doesn't do that and doesn't get that atmosphere. Editors know that POV pushing and edit warring can succeed, and incivility may or may not result in sanctions. If we can attract more editors to take part in civil, focused discussions, POV pushing will be much harder, and we're more likely to get better articles. -- Noroton (talk) 01:02, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Noroton, we have loads of guidelines on how to behave, and an escalation policy. The lack of structure on this particular page makes this problem a recurring one. I am not thrilled about the layout of RfC but it is a logical next step. One can also make a community proposal here, or refer to the arbitration committee. We did have a good run of getting through cases in a timely manner for part of the year, and hope to be timely later on :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:17, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    And what we don't have is effective enforcement. Who the hell wants to spend a month (or two, or more) in front of Arbcom until all else has failed, unless the editor is already stark, raving mad and the case is no longer about saving the article but has instead turned into a feud in which the goal really is to get the other side punished? By the time something gets to Arbcom, Wikipedia has already failed, often in numerous ways. The articles are what this website is supposed to be about, and they need much more than some Arbcom judging. AN/I is inconsistent. RfC is an enormous investment in time and effort. None of these avenues provide editors clear, consistently enforced regulations for conduct in contentious-article discussions, nor do they encourage good conduct -- they just discourage bad conduct in the sanctioned editors you're watching. Really, Casliber, this system sucks. An analogy: At a busy downtown intersection the authorities have set up four stop signs. But the intersection is so busy, and enforcement is so light and inconsistent, that plenty of people ignore the signs, plenty of accidents result and good drivers come to understand that using the intersection is dangerous or maybe a waste of time, so they use other intersections. Drivers seldom call the cops, sometimes even after an accident, because they see little good coming from that. Should the judges say "we have loads of stop signs telling drivers what to do, and laws in place to sanction traffic violators. We did have a good run of getting through cases in a timely manner ..." I have a personal metric (I think it's an easy example to understand): On Wikipedia, Bill Ayers can't be even said to have been called a terrorist -- the thing he's famous for -- despite his being called a terrorist by every reliable source in creation (New York Times, Encyclopaedia Brittanica, dozens of scholarly and other sources, in fact, just about every source, regardless of political outlook and going back decades -- I've got the proof). The only time "terrorist" or "terrorism" appears in the Ayers article is when we quote him denying it. And it's not as if we didn't have an RfC, an AN/I report and have it brought up in front of ArbCom. I should not have had to go through Wikipedia's clunky dispute resolution system to enforce a 2/3 consensus. Nor is it my fault that after months of effort, followed by weeks of anguish, I gave up. It's only one among many, many POV problems where Wikipedia has failed. We don't need any more guidelines in how to behave, and it's not just a problem of whether authorities will enforce -- it's a system that runs off the rails because it doesn't now have the means to encourage good discussions and effectively, quickly discourage bad behavior on discussions that are inevitably contentious: something like a closing admin, perhaps a better definition of consensus (and possibly a lower bar for consensus), an easier way to canvass more editors, stronger incentives to propose compromises. That's a pretty long list of changes, but they're essentially based on what we already do and tweaking it. Just don't tell me we don't have a problem when we have articles looking like Bill Ayers does, even after the contentious discussion and 2/3 majority. This is just one failure of the system, which has resulted in widespread POV-related failures. -- Noroton (talk) 01:02, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You're right, we don't have effective enforcement. Far too often are veteran editors allowed to insult people willy nilly because they think they're "right". They have a group of friends who will back/unblock them if anyone questions them, or have found the admins to be indifferent to their antics. We really need a page which describes how many edits it takes to trade in for a pass on the various policies.--Crossmr (talk) 04:28, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Civility applies to all articles. There are many editors who can edit controversial articles without becoming uncivil. If an editor can't do that, then they should go do something else. If they persist in putting themselves in situations where they become uncivil, then they damage the project. Uncivil editors push away other editors and at times cause some editors to leave the project. I don't care what they think justifies the behaviour, nothing does. We don't need another set of guidelines. Use dispute resolution, get third opinions, ask for a wider consensus. if you can't do that, go to other articles. If you still can't calm down on other articles, go do something else entirely.--Crossmr (talk) 00:29, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Some article topics will be more contentious than others. This often results in lousy, biased articles on Wikipedia. In fact, bad discussions go hand in hand with biased articles, which should not be the case when numerous editors have been involved in editing and discussing an article. Civility enforcement does not always apply to each article. There are not many editors who can edit controversial articles without becoming uncivil if they are constantly confronted with POV pushers. You want the most committed editors, the ones who have a passion for explaining a topic in an intelligent, neutral way, to be productive, but they are precisely the editors who will be most driven away by POV pushers or who will turn to bad behavior because they are the ones who care the most about a particular topic -- along with the POV pushers. Drive away the good, passionate editors and you're left with the passionate POV pushers. It happens a lot. It happens because Wikipedia's set of rules and enforcement of them encourage it. It's systemic. You should not be complacent about it because it hurts the encyclopedia enormously. (I know, this is really not the place for this thread. I need a blog.) -- Noroton (talk) 01:17, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    There seems to be some confusion here, perhaps this clip from scrubs can clear it up [28]. Civility not only applies to every article but it applies to every single page on wikipedia. Why is it that passionate POV pushers can be civil and passionate "good" editors cannot? If POV pushers are being uncivil, deal with them equally. If they're not being uncivil, why can they argue their side without that? There are many people who are good editors who can argue their point without resorting to personal attacks and incivility. There is nothing wrong with passion. There is a problem when passion degenerates into personal attacks and insults. If "good" editors can't explain their side of the debate without using insults, they have a problem. that isn't systemic. They need to walk away and form a larger consensus and deal with it appropriate. Incivility is never acceptable just because you think you're right. Right is very subjective and we don't apply rules like civility subjectively.--Crossmr (talk) 04:26, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Having a civility policy on a Wikipedia page doesn't work by itself. And it isn't just a problem of inconsistent enforcement (although admins have found by experience that the policy can't be enforced with absolute consistency -- an unwritten policy that Wikipedians can only know through familiarity). For you to say that we should simply deal with POV pushers the way we would with anyone else is fine by itself, but you've ignored the fact that POV pushing is one of the prime instigators of incivility. It also happens to be the prime instigator of biased articles. Much of this is concentrated on contentious articles (often on very prominent subjects), which also happen to generate a large number of complaints at AN/I and ArbCom, although the problem goes far beyond administrator/Arbcom workload. With our current set of policies, contentious articles generate a huge amount of problems and at the same time the huge amount of time and effort that goes into them generates incredibly little good content. The waste is simply enormous. So is the stress.
    In the real world beyond Wikipedia, there is a reason why some people have had a longstanding ban on conversation about sex, politics and religion in dinnertable talk they want to keep polite. There is a reason why certain spots on the Internet are notorious for their toxic manners, and a reason why we have Internet-era words like "flame wars" and "trolls". The reason is that when you combine a lack of clear rules and inconsistent enforcement even of them with contentious topics, you get nastiness and a breakdown in necessary consensus building. It is simply not true that we have an unlimited supply of editors for any topic who are capable of long-term civility in the face of constant POV pushing. (And don't forget that even editors who can remain civil are put under quite a bit of strain by having to put up with POV pushing.) The good editors not only find that their facts and reasoning falls on deaf ears among POV pushing editors who are simply determined to bias an article, but they find that Wikipedia puts up roadblocks to dealing with POV pushing: WP:CANVASS makes it difficult to recruit non-POV pushers to discussions; discussions can go on forever and be difficult to read for newcomers; there is no clear, bright line showing editors when consensus has been reached (or exactly what the consensus is) or where civility is breached or where edit warring begins and ends or where discussions should end -- this informality is fine for noncontentious articles (it usually works best), but it is toxic for contentious articles. Think about it: a casual lack of rules is never the case outside Wikipedia when there is no hierarchy of people (who have the power to enforce ad-hoc order) and where the goal is to get something done regarding a contentious issue. Instead, we appoint chairmen, secretaries, etc., and adopt Roberts Rules of Order (not that I'm proposing any of this). At Wikipedia, enforcement of what few rules we have is often left up to the editors on the page who are already debating the substance, so one editor's citing of a policy like WP:CIV or WP:BLP isn't trusted by the editors he is arguing with (and it's often a strained application of those policies anyway). We have a few areas of Wikipedia where discussions are more structured: deletion discussions (XfD), ArbCom cases, Requests for Adminship and elections. They all have their creaky faults, but they all work better than our more contentious articles. Something similar should be set up for articles identified as so contentious that normal talk-page regulations and other policies aren't enough to keep them orderly and productive. This would improve the articles, make editing an happier experience (or at least avoid some of our sadder experiences) and, overall, be easier on admins. This discussion has gotten too long for AN/I, and I think I'm straining the good will of people who come to this page for its main purpose, so this will be may last comment. At some point I suppose I should come up with a proposal, or at least an essay, or maybe find another place to discuss this. -- Noroton (talk) 13:29, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    POV pushing is one of the prime instigators of incivility Here is your problem. You are responsible for your behaviour. Not POV pushers. You control how you react to them. If you feel so out of control that you cannot control what words you type on a screen, then wikipedia isn't for you. The rules are very clear. Discuss the content, not the editors. Don't resort to personal attacks and insults in an attempt to make your point. There are plenty of steps to DR, and none of those are disallowed by CANVASS. You can use third opinion, posting on relevant projects also shouldn't be an issue for CANVASS. Posting on individual talk pages, coming to AN/I for content disputes, going to the village pump, help desk, other article talk pages, etc. may be. The problem here is that you seem to find fault with the POV for making you or anyone else uncivil. They don't make you do anything.--Crossmr (talk) 14:48, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You are responsible for your behaviour. Not POV pushers. You control how you react to them. That's not what we're disagreeing about. Obviously, many people are baited and many take the bait. POV pushing acts like baiting to anyone who cares about an article. I've said repeatedly, including repeatedly here, that it isn't an excuse for somebody else being uncivil. When the same problem crops up again and again, it's time for Wikipedians to look into the causes and try to do something about it. Your position is simply to let certain editors get into tangles that could be avoided. But of course, reducing the temptation to incivility is not the only reason to try to make Wikipedia more difficult for POV pushers to influence. There is that other concern we have, the actual articles. I've explained all that, and you've ignored all that while personalizing the discussion, and even described my position as the exact opposite of my position, even after I've pointed out the difference, so it's time to stop replying to you. -- Noroton (talk) 00:28, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    My solution is to let them seek DR. If there is a problem with the DR process deal with that appropriately. A problem with DR doesn't excuse civility. Whether POV pushing is the cause, a cause, or some cause all boils down to the same thing, it isn't a cause at all. The only cause of incivility is the user failing to control themselves. In a brand new user we issue warnings and work with them. An editor who has never before been warned for a problem also gets a warning. like baiting to anyone who cares about an article it comes down 100% to personal responsibility. If someone is baiting you, don't take the bait. If you agree there isn't an excuse for incivility then there is no reason for Thuranx to get a pass on this. This is a long term problem he should be well aware of the issues he's had in the past and stayed out of those situations.--Crossmr (talk) 00:40, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Crossmr - POV is not the cause. Everyone is POV pushing somehow whether they realize it or not - in the above for example you certainly have stated your POV about Bill Ayers and that you are sorry that consensus didn't allow it to be represented in the article. No one can say - my POV is the neutral point of view and you people are all biased. That is why we have policies to determine as objectively as possible how to weigh viewpoints in articles. However one can argue in favour of a point of view without being incivil, and that is what we all have the responsibility of doing. PArt of being civil is standing back when one sees that the majority does not agree with one's arguments, and to recognize when better arguments are being made. I don't mind people with agendas as long as they engage in civil discussion, try to reach a compromise and do not stubbornly stick with one particular way that they want things to be.·Maunus·ƛ· 15:00, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    POV pushing is not the cause, but it is a cause. Isn't there a definition of POV pusher somewhere on Wikipedia? Maybe in an essay? You're confusing having a POV with pushing one. Of course I have a POV, but what we're supposed to want in articles is an accurate reflection of what the reliable sources say on a subject. That's the difference. Is my estimation of that affected by my own POV? Sure, but it has a limited effect, especially since I try to keep the two things separate in my mind. It isn't that difficult to deal with an editor with a different POV and also different idea of what a neutral article would be. For one thing, both of us will want just about the same thing, usually. We can also direct the discussion toward the facts (that is: What do the best sources and the "consensus" among the reliable sources say?). Discussions about facts can generally reach a consensus. After a while of assuming good faith, you know whether or not the other party is looking for a neutral article or pushing a POV. If the other party is a POV pusher, that should offend the rest of us. And that's a temptation to incivility, and it's more of a temptation when the good editors often don't have effective means to counteract that POV pushing. What matters in the Bill Ayers article is what the sources say, not what I personally think. It's a good example because it's very clear, it seems to me, whether or not the WP article reflects what the reliable sources say. (Having a goal different from pushing one's own POV allows an edditor to add positive information about a subject the editor generally has negative feeligns about. I've been able to do that with Bill Ayers, his wife and Obama in Wikipedia articles -- I want that information in the articles if it helps the readers understand the subjects better.) -- Noroton (talk) 00:28, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I think Noroton & Crossmr both have parts of the answer. First, there are people who can't be reasoned with effectively: although they may come across as polite & willing to work towards a consensus, they still are pushing for content which does not accurately reflect the subject in a manner which is useful to the average reader. (One case I recently encountered was an anon IP who objected to my adding some text to the article on Ethiopian Christanity which incidentally mentioned local pagan influences -- although various pagan [or non-Christian] influences have been identified & are commonly accepted in almost every branch of Christianity, & the material in question was taken form the Library of Congress website. His POV was that Ethiopian Christianity had no paganism in it, QED. The conflict was resolved simply by outlasting him -- not an optimal solution.) Sometimes article parole is the right answer.

    Then there is the problem of dealing with POV-pushers for too long a time; Nietzsche's words about "beware fighting monsters, for you may become on" is appropos here: deal with too many people who are clearly editting in bad faith, & you start to assume everyone is -- or are naive to the fact many are. WikiBurnout then affects for the person, which can be uglier in some cases than others -- but is almost never pretty. This is not a healthy solution in the long run.

    On the other hand, I don't think the problem is so much civility, but respect: it is not that hard to learn how to be disrespectful without be incivil, so only the newbies & the careless get caught up in civility problems. And many volunteers here are not confident enough about being "real" Wikipedians to no never see sarcasm or condescension where none is meant. And we can respect other Wikipedians without agreeing with them, or even liking them: part of the secret is to disagree with an attempt at politeness, not being by being snide (even though that can be a lot more enjoyable & fun to read). Yet to talk about civility, assuming good faith, & respect, one has to acknowledge that there are some who do not deserve it.

    (Crap. I tried to explain this as a polar situation, with Noroton's & Crossmr's statements as the two opposing points, but I fear I am rambling here. I only hope something of my intent came across. I'm not going to post here until I've had a couple of nights where I average much more than 5 hours of sleep.) -- llywrch (talk) 18:11, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, I'm sure people who argue with people they don't like for too long will sometimes end up being uncivil. However annoying they are, that still is no pass on civility. No one made them do that. It should be clear to many people fairly early if one side is going to compromise or not. If not the good editor needs to step back and engage DR and other editors. If someone is trying to push a non-legitimate POV giving the discussion a larger audience should solve that problem. We may understand why the user became uncivil in that situation. If it is the first or second time, a strong warning may be warranted, but if the user has a history of getting in debates and becoming uncivil then they no longer get a pass. I would never call for a block on the first civil offense, but if its a 3 year old problem with many warnings, a reasonable editor should have realized he has trouble in certain situations and stay out of them before he gets too hot under the collar to apparently control himself. The editor is responsible for his or her actions. We may understand them in the situation of a new editor who is learning or an editor who has never made that kind of mistake before, and offer guidance, but when faced with a long term problem, we can't chalk it up to inexperience at dealing with those situations.--Crossmr (talk) 00:32, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Good points. -- Noroton (talk) 00:28, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    USER:BLUEMARINE, aka Matt Sanchez

    This has degenerated into more heat then light. Removing the source of much of this drama just to have it pop back in from other angles is absurd. If this is going to continue, move it to User_talk. --Mask? 21:04, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

    Someone can go on and block me for reporting this but since no one has seen it or done anything about it, contrary to all the claims during my topic ban circus that someone else would handle any violations by this user, I'm reporting it here.

    Per Wikipedia:Editing restrictions#Placed by the Wikipedia community, User:Bluemarine is in violation of his topic ban for recent edits to Talk:Matt Sanchez. Here and here. Per that topic ban, Bluemarine's community ban is modified to a ban from the Matt Sanchez and Scott Thomas Beauchamp controversy article pages. He can't claim ignorance this time as it was fully explained to him on August 3rd here.

    Kudos to whomever gets the honor of blocking me for making this report. See you when I see you. -     allstar▼echo     22:48, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Article pages. Not talk pages. This is exactly what we ask article subkects to do. Stop this wikihounding and honor your topic ban. --Mask? 22:55, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It says pages, plural.. that means all pages related to the article. That's obvious. -     allstar▼echo     23:14, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It is indeed plural. The matt sanchez article, and the beauchamp controversy article add up to two article pages. When we mean talk pages we say talk pages, not article pages. --Mask? 23:23, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    As I read the full discussion, he is allowed to edit the talk page of Matt Sanchez but is prohibited from other LGBT articles and talk pages. However, there seems to be no clear statement of the conditions posted to his own talk page, which is an oversight. I am prepared to impose the ban as previously discussed
    with the clarification that it does not apply to Talk:Matt Sanchez. Should an extension of the topic ban be needed, we can always discuss it later. Thatcher 23:25, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually if I remember correctly, it was if no one reports the issue (something Matt Sanchez did) then ASE would be allowed to do so after a set amount of time. I think the set amount of time has passed and this is a good ANI report. Let's not turn this into something about ASE and stick with the subject at hand. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:27, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not talking about ASE. There are two factors here, 1) if you read the whole discussion, it seems that it was intended that Bluemarine be allowed to edit talk:Matt Sanchez but was banned from other LGBT talk pages. 2) he was never formally notified of the terms of the ban on his talk page, so even if he is banned from Talk:Matt Sanchez, he can't be blocked for it now. Thatcher 23:30, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    He was notified August 3rd here on his talk page. And when that discussion was had, it was with the understanding not to touch the article or its talk page and if he had any issues with the article, to raise them on his own talk page but not to touch the article or article talk page. Now others want to interpret it differently. -     allstar▼echo     23:35, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I note a conflict between noting the ban regarding the specific article pages, and the terminology of "LGBT.. talkpages, broadly construed", as regards Sanchez and the understanding that this talkpage editing is permissible; The Sanchez talkpage has a LGBT portal box on it, and I would then consider it falls under "broadly construed". If this were an exception, I should think it needed placing prominently in the wording rather than being something tagged in a (subsequent) discussion. If "uninvolved admins" are to be expected to act upon ArbCom wordings then I would strongly suggest that the relevant findings and directions are placed only in the released wording - I am not going to be happy that I was expected to review an entire discussion rather than the notice in acting upon a ArbCom decree. How can sysops be uninvolved if they are going to have to read case histories rather than AE wordings - and how quickly will they be able to act. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:59, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Just as a note this is being discussed on the Functionaries-en mailing list (and was started before ASE raised it but he wouldn't have known that...) ++Lar: t/c 23:38, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Could be because of my discussing it with User:Keegan yesterday? As much more time had passed, I figured it was dead, so I brought it here. -     allstar▼echo     23:43, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it could. You asked for a review as this is a long running and complicated issue for Wikipedia functionaries. Unfortunately, you did not give us time to adequately review what the implications related to ArbCom decisions were and how should be handled. This could have been much more quiet and less intrusive for you. Keegan (talk) 22:30, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why are we dealing with this Bluemarine/Matt Sanchez character anyway? He is allowed to run roughshot around Wikipedia, violate the rules, is under restriction from editing certain pages (which he doesn't follow, obviously), is creating disruption...why don't we just outright block him indef and move on. I recommend at full block for User:Bluemarine. Enough is enough, time to move on. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:41, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • He's under an edit restriction - and though there's disagreement, there are long time experienced admins / former arbs / etc who are indicating that they read the restriction as not covering what he just did. I am not sure, personally, having looked stuff over once. Whatever is finalized (yes/no on article talk page) needs to be reinforced to him and logged on the editing restriction as an amendment. If whatever it was confuses Lar and Thatcher, then we should probably give Matt some benefit of the doubt.
    If the community felt that he was beyond hope they would have indef'ed him rather than the edit restriction, last time. There was no support for that, at the time, and given widespread confusion now I don't see blaming him for it now and responding more harshly as reasonable. People can exhaust the community patience, but this was not blatantly pushing that. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:56, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, we can't blame him for doing bad things, it must be someone elses fault. When are we going to stop covering our eyes and blinding disregarding people's actions. An edit restriction means something. Bluemarine clearly and blantantly violated it and he is still allowed to edit....but we blocked the reporting editor. What sense does that make? I think a couple people need to hand in their adminships and find something else to do. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:01, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I see Matt Sanchez and Scott Thomas Beauchamp controversy article pages and I see LGBT article topics and related talk pages. And this is in a discussion of a proposed ban. Allstarecho proposed topic ban from the Matt Sanchez biography and its talk page but ChildofMidnight took out the reference to the talk pages and Allstarecho said Looks fine to me. Other than Allstarecho, I don;t see a strong feeling in the prior discussion for a ban from the Matt Sanchez talk page. If the community wishes to clarify that, do it now. Thatcher 00:03, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Past experience has demonstrated that Allstarecho's assertions with regard to Bluemarine and potential violations of editing restrictions should be read with a skeptical eye. For example, Allstarecho misidentified a sock of Eleemosynary as Bluemarine in an SPI filing. Anyone with experience in the dispute would recognize that those two users have the opposite POV. Durova306 00:09, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    There is nothing wrong with the edits that ASE pointed out. Thatcher 00:37, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    A*'s edit restriction

    Allstarecho - this was a self-acknowledged violation of the topic ban imposed on you earlier, for which you were just blocked for 24 hrs a couple of days ago.

    Even assuming good faith that you noticed a violation which needed attention, I believe that you taking this to ANI as opposed to asking an uninvolved administrator in private was a knowing and reckless violation of your topic ban.

    You and Bluemarine need to stay apart, period. If you cannot do so, and stay so, for real seriously, you need to stop editing here. If we have to enforce that with a long block or indef, that may happen. Please step back and stay there. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:44, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    replying to myself - While I was posting this and mulling it over, Viridae blocked A* for 31 hrs. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:47, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nice. We have turned another thread about another user doing something bad into a thread about the reporting user. So, what are we going to do with Bluemarine...or did you all forget about that? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:57, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Clarify whether the community supports the topic ban covering his article's talk page or not; if yes, then amend the topic ban on the editing restrictions page and notify him of that.
    I can see that your patience is exhausted at this point. Either you represent the community writ large and community user ban will fly, or not. That many experienced admins seem to be wanting to clarify not club to me indicates that a community ban won't fly right now - however, I could be wrong. If you feel like proposing one start another subsection and propose one. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:09, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The last to hear

    (after ec's) Since no other mentor has stepped forward yet through this long drawn-out mess, it would have been nice to have gotten a heads up about the talk of the day. Was being a good Wikipedian and building content editing a photograph of a president shaking the hand of a baseball player. How can quiet intervention make this situation better rather than worse?

    Offering one solution: in future Allstarecho is welcome to abide by the terms of his ban and email me. He is welcome to cc any willing administrator to ensure proper handling of his complaints. Durova306 00:05, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I would suggest NOT encouraging that. The topic ban is an effort to get him to disengage from BM, having the ability to to stalk his edits (and he pretty clearly does that) and then get satisfaction by email an admin is not to be encouraged. Better off that minor violations from BM slip by unnoticed, than to encourage the sort of behaviour the topic ban is supposed to stop. If there is a major violation of BM's part it will be noticed. ViridaeTalk 00:13, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    So, you are saying that if ASE sees Bluemarine doing something bad and no one notices (and that happens with other users too) then he can't report it even by email? I am going to request you check your pillow for your brain, I don't think you woke up with it in your head this morning. Come on. We can't have Bluemarine running roughshot around his edit restriction and blocking the reporting user. Makes no sense. If ASE can report what he sees by email, I see no harm. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:17, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec, to Viridae)If you say so. At the time when Allstarecho's restriction was imposed one of the principal concerns was how it might restrict him from filing legitimate reports. Most of his reports during the past half year have been either baseless or misleading (by omitting relevant information or providing information out of context). So the question is what to do. I strongly encourage any administrator or functionary who receives a complaint to consult me, due to the strange and quite serious turns this particular BLP issue has taken (including impersonation, hacking, and spoofing). Durova306 00:22, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry Durova, I wasn't sure about your current feelings on mentorship. Thatcher 00:37, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you; understandable. Durova306 01:33, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Durova - you have set yourself up as one of Bluemarine's main enablers - why on earth would ASE want to have any more contact with you than he absolutely has to? DuncanHill (talk) 14:56, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    People who mistake "mentor" for "enabler" are among the reasons it is becoming harder to find Wikipedians who are willing to mentor. This hard work exposes the volunteer to gratuitous insults which sometimes come from Wikipedians of experience and standing who ought to know better. Durova306 22:50, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Enough is enough

    Allstarecho isn't getting it. He violates his ban again in the edit summary here.[29] In addition he responds to the offer with two personal attacks against me: both name calling and an unsubstantiated allegation that I am a habitual liar.[30] This adds up to a total of four times in less than a month that Allstarecho has violated his restriction. The first time was a blatant BLP violation at RFAR,[31] for which he received a warning.[32] During the original restriction discussion Allstarecho repeatedly and vehemently declared his intention to ignore the sanction,[33][34][35][36][37] finally calling it "horseshit".[38] His actions now demonstrate that these weren't just heated words; he was perfectly serious.

    For nearly two years I have undertaken the thankless task of attempting to normalize what is arguably Wikipedia's nastiest long term BLP problem. Every time an evenhanded assessment favored Allstarecho's POV he accepted the advantage, but when things haven't gone his way he has been quick with insults and allegations of bias. The latter has been difficult to endure, because for religious reasons I would no sooner discriminate against Allstarecho for being gay than against Matt Sanchez for being Puerto Rican. Most of this summer I have sought to pass the mentorship to other hands; Allstarecho's persistent interference has brought endless delays. My last effort at extending an olive branch was the restoration of Noel Coward's portrait shortly before his featured biography ran on the main page. It was intended as a good faith example of how many LGBT topics are far more important than Matt Sanchez. Now there are three novice image editors who need coaching; please give us breathing space from this nuisance so we can return to content work. Durova306 01:29, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Just a note, when ASE made this comment, he was already blocked. I think the issue of Bluemarine needs to be addressed. No Bluemarine, no problem with ASE. It actually works itself out. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:43, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    BM isn't ASE's only problem. He was very closed to being indeffed recently. ViridaeTalk 01:44, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Bluemarine hasn't violated his editing restriction since his return, and he hasn't sought contact with Allstarecho. It makes no sense to sanction somebody based upon a frivolous report. Allstarecho was causing the same problems before Bluemarine's ban expired, so even if one's sense of wikipolitics could stomach that proposal it would make no sense. Durova306 01:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (EC)You do realize we are making this whole thread about ASE when it is about Bluemarine. We need to get back on subject and stop blocking others for other people's behavior. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:48, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Il ne viole pas son interdiction. Er hat nicht gegen seinen Bann. No se violen sus prohibición. I thought perhaps you might get it if it were presented in a different language? ViridaeTalk 01:51, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, don't speak the funny different languages. Let's stick with English, since this is English Wikipedia. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:54, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    私は日本語で話している！これはすごい！ハーフ影の 02:27, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The original complaint has been investigated; it appears everyone other than Neutralhomer agreed it was baseless. The filing editor violated a restriction, and since getting blocked for it has repeated the violation with multiple personal attacks. Please address this problem so it wastes no more of my time; three people are waiting for assistance with image restoration coaching and no one else can help them. Durova306 01:58, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    AllStarEcho restricted

    Let's make it very simple then. AllStarEcho is not to mention, in any way, shape or form, User:Bluemarine, Matt Sanchez, or User:Durova. AT ALL. If he does, the next block will be 1 week. After that, 1 month. Then indef. Too much drama and noise created by ASE. He's as much (if not more) of the problem in this situation as User:Bluemarine. SirFozzie (talk) 01:59, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Feel like putting that (and this) under a new subheading? I support that proposal. ViridaeTalk 02:08, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Sim-Salabim!. Your command is my wish.. or something like that. SirFozzie (talk) 02:20, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems sensible to me as well. IronDuke 02:23, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Support as well. Exponentially growing drama helps no one, and Bluemarine has shown a willingness to accept and work within his sanction, ASE has shown nothing but derision and contempt with his while openly flaunting it. --Mask? 02:25, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I support that proposal. It seems like the best way to deal with the situation. hmwitht 02:28, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Restriction Posted

    I have notified Allstarecho of his restriction from this discussion. [39]. SirFozzie (talk) 21:44, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    And the response, was, well, I think we all saw it coming. [40]. Do we consider this to be a violation of his restriction, or consider it venting while blocked, and wait till the block expires and see how it turns out? I don't think it'll make much of a difference, myself... SirFozzie (talk) 00:36, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    He didn't specifically name any of the forbidden names. Grumping that we're all evil gorillas is venting while blocked. That's about the limit of how far he can go without being in trouble again, but I don't see any good would come of further followup just for that. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:49, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Cool. I saw it as following up on his accusations on Durova, but, I'm willing to let it slide. :) SirFozzie (talk) 01:53, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Bluemarine

    I have restated and clarified the scope of the topic ban. The restriction can be extended to the talk page of Matt Sanchez if necessary, but hopefully it never will be. Thatcher 02:49, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I support extending it to the talk page and also support the new clarified scope of the topic ban. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 03:30, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thatcher has not made a proposal to it to the talk page. Durova306 03:41, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    He said it "can be extended...if necessary", I support that. I also support the clarified scope, so I put it all in one sentence. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 03:52, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thatcher also hopes that it never will be. If there were a basis for doing so I would raise no complaint, but consensus agrees he has abided by his current restriction. Durova306 03:57, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Y'know, while we're chewing this particular bone... Durova, it might behoove you to step back from ASE. Your statements on the subject are growing increasingly... forceful. → ROUX ₪ 04:00, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's just say tired. This thread keeps interrupting this restoration, which is done now (easier than expected) but turns out to have been from the New York University campus in the Bronx (not Greenwich Village), which got converted into Bronx Community College). A bit discombobulating. Durova306 04:07, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would like to make a note here, that I realize I am in the losing end of this whole discussion. I am trying, my best at this point, to defend my friend ASE. I don't think this "don't edit here or here or here" is the way to go. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:10, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I understand and even in a way consider it laudable, Neutralhomer.. unfortunately, we've been here too many times, and his crusade against User:Bluemarine has generated enough drama and bad feelings for a month of sundays. He's seemingly expanded his targets to those who mentor or support Bluemarine. We're all united, we don't want to ban anyone, he doesn't want to be banned, therefore, it's time to see if he can live with being on WP but not commenting on or about Bluemarine or Durova. It's really simple, either he can or he can't. SirFozzie (talk) 04:46, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I know and I understand, I wish it wouldn't have to come to this, but to be honest, I don't see any other way. :( - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:50, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Hopefully I'm not butting in here unwelcomed, but feel that I have to say that I think SirFozzie is right. I've run across ASE a few times on Baseball related topic pages, and I've always respected him and his contributions, but all of this is getting... well, would describing it as WP:LAME fit at all? It's not just ASE, of course, since it takes two, but... there seems to be a building feeling of "let's just eject the distracting troublemakers", if you see what I'm saying.
            — Ω (talk) 04:54, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Right university; wrong campus. This used to be New York University, now part of Bronx Community College.
            • Nothing against ASE on a personal level. He's done good work with Mississippi and most LGBT-related topics. Please understand; this type of thread becomes a distraction. Wanted to do an NYU-related restoration tonight and forgot to check whether the image was from the campus that's no longer part of the university. Got pulled away too many times; didn't double check. Now starting over with a portrait of one of the old NYU chancellors. Will gladly initiate a motion to lift restrictions if ASE settles down. Durova306 05:03, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could someone please explain to me how wikipedia benefits from the extraordinary tolerance extended to the self-promoting bigot going by the username of Bluemarine? He is only here to polish the article about him and attack gay editors. I would particulalrly like to know what Durova's motivations are. DuncanHill (talk) 14:51, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hear, hear. Why is he being tolerated? Are we afraid he'll go running to the national media to complain about how Wikipedia is picking on him? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:02, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Why is he being tolerated? Because he hasn't violated the sanctions on him that was put there by ArbCom/community, unlike others. And regarding Duncan's insinuation about "Durova's motivations", how about this.. She worked hard to mentor users who can be of benefit to Wikipiedia (ScienceApologist, amongst others) without having them edit in areas that led to problematic behavior. Instead of being thanked for the work she's done, instead she apparently has to put up with blatant attacks on her character and her good name. It's no surprise to me she's decided to stop mentoring folks.. after all, no one will call you a habitual liar or cast aspersions on her person for restoring a jpg file. SirFozzie (talk) 20:23, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thank you, SirFozzie. It's good to know that AGF hasn't withered entirely. Nearly two years ago there was a content an RfC about the Matt Sanchez biography. Supposed the input might do some good, especially since the underlying dispute regards a topic that few of the site's predominantly male heterosexual editors would want to address. Mostly since then it's been a matter of follow-through. Things were already bitter: one editor had been community sitebanned. Other sanctions have followed including sitebans on both sides. I supported Matt's siteban when it was proposed in 2008; afterward mentored him at Commons where he made encyclopedic contributions. As stated above, this has been one of the site's nastiest BLP disputes. Half a year ago I announced a decision to stop accepting new mentorships due to the increasing politicization of mentorship by non-mentoring parties. Afterward I became the target of severe offsite harassment in retaliation for assisting SA with the optics article improvement drive. The individual who harassed me was someone I had never interacted with before who held a grudge against ScienceApologist. At that point I wrote to the Arbitration Committee announcing the intention to retire from mentorship and graduate/hand off all five mentorees. Bluemarine is the only one remaining. Under these unstable and difficult circumstances it has been hard to find a replacement (offers are welcomed). Durova306 20:43, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    New Proposal

    I personally don't think anyone will support it, but I feel, as ASE's friend, it is worth a shot. I tried to incorporate some of what is being discussed above into this along with my own ideas. Please excuse the length of this post.

    • ASE is banned from posting on the Matt Sanchez article and talk pages and User:Bluemarine user and talk pages. ASE is banned from discussing Matt Sanchez or Bluemarine anywhere on Wikipedia with the exception of the below.
    • If he sees a violation of policy, vandalism, etc. by Bluemarine and after 12 hours has elapsed (giving time for other users and admins to report themselves), then (and only then) would ASE be allowed to report it to ANI or AN.
    • One instance of a violation of the "No Report for 12 Hours" rule and the rule is rescended.
    • ASE may email an admin of his choice before the 12 hours is up and let them know what he sees and allow that admin to look into it and if they see fit to take it to ANI or AN. It would be recommended that ASE go this route before taking it to ANI himself.
    • ASE would have no contact with Durova since he appears to have a conflict with her, with personal attacks being flung around. If contact were needed, a neutral party could pass the messages along or take care of the issue themselves.
    • If any violation of the terms were to take place, ASE would be blocked for 72 hours, then 1 week, then 1 month, then 6 months, then indef...in that order of progression.

    I feel this is the best that allows ASE some freedom, but also reels him in and keeps the BM/ASE "feud" to a minimum. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 09:55, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • I personally believe that Allstar shouldn't even be monitoring the article now. He should knock it off his watchlist and never look back - leave it to others that aren't emotionally involved. If he does this, he'll never have a reason to make AN/I reports so I don't support this. He seriously needs to move on to another part of the wiki and remove himself from this area completely. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 10:16, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • That is a good idea, but sadly we can't control what is on user's watchlists, else I would add that to the list above. Good idea though. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 10:30, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • The point I was trying to make is that Allstar needs to recognise that he's not needed (and frankly not wanted) in this area anymore. We shouldn't be going out of our way to allow him to still edit there or even make reports - there's plenty of other people and his obsession with Matt is slightly unhealthy. He's been told what his restrictions are (no mention of Matt on the site) - if he doesn't like it then he can go somewhere else. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 10:53, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I understand what you are trying to say. Kinda part of the reason I don't think this proposal will do well is I am giving ASE that freedom to report BM to ANI (after 12 hours or before to an admin via email). I guess I am just trying to help a friend keep as much freedom as he can get. Like I said, that is part of the reason I don't feel this proposal will do well, but I do understand what you are saying. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 10:59, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This is where wikipedia often goes wrong - we aren't here to help users modify their behaviour, we don't provide a social working service. If people can stop themselves in engaging in certain behaviour after being told by the community to stop, then that is their problem not ours. The message here has been fairly consistent, he leaves the editor alone, he leaves the area alone. The easiest way to do that would be unwatchlist the stuff - if he's unable to do that or refrain from holding his tongue, that's his problem not ours and should be managed as such. --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:16, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "We can always see what who he writes in the email archives setup" huh? If this says what I think it is saying (that we can review email sent via Special:Emailuser), it's plain wrong. –xenotalk 13:04, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • It does say "A private log of this action will be retained for the purpose of preventing abuse, and can be viewed by certain privileged users", but it also says that "This log does not identify the recipient, title, or contents of the e-mail", so I guess that is out. I was trying to cover all the bases, but I guess I didn't read things very well. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 13:07, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, and that is only used in extreme and severe cases of abuse. –xenotalk 13:08, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yeah, my goof :S I removed the section in question cause I was obviously wrong about it. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 13:10, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • No worries. As per my comments above, I don't think ASE has had a history of issues with Durova, and the present issues appear to only be because of her mentorship of BM. Without supporting or opposing this new proposal, I think the explicit Durova mention should be removed. The other restrictions wrt to BM would cover him commenting on anything related to Durova's mentoring of the same. –xenotalk 13:20, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Amended per [41]. –xenotalk 02:23, 28 August 2009 (UTC) [reply]
    • This is too complicated and unnecessary. It's pretty clear what everyone is asking ASE to do and what we need to remember is that this isn't a negotiation with him. Following Cameron Scott, we aren't here to help people develop themselves emotionally: if ASE simply refuses to follow what is asked of him (or offer a reasonable alternative that is agreed upon), then screw him and we move on. If he wants to follow the guy around and comment on him all day, he'll be blocked and he can continue to rant on his own space. There are plenty of jerks and jackasses in our midst and we cannot follow a policy of "I know you told me not to interact with them but they deserve it." That are a million quieter ways of doing this and ASE knows it. He's just putting himself out there so he can play martyr. To me, this is no worse that numerous editors' logic of "I know you all told me not to do these things but it's SO crucial that I tell everyone that it doesn't matter." -- Ricky81682 (talk) 15:11, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - ASE was restricted, he knew he could contact any admin privately, instead he decided to ignore the restriction (as he had previously announced he would) and play the martyr (as usual). Frankly I don't understand why we are wasting our time. The endless copyvios (and lies about them), the bullshit about the glory hole photo, the bullshit about the cross-namespace vanity shortcuts, the Bluemarine stuff--which he was just blocked for a couple days ago, and now again... why are we wasting our time with him? He's not here in any capacity that includes behaving in a reasonable manner or fessing up once caught; the repeated martyr complex and the--I'll be charitable--disingenuous claims of innocence are ridiculous enough. → ROUX ₪ 16:20, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • To be quite frank, I really don't care who is "gay", "straight", "conservative", "liberal" ... whatever. Guidelines were put in place in an attempt to limit the disruption here. ASE willfully chose to test those guidelines. ASE does some damn fine work here, but the emotional outbursts, and refusal to accept the community's will simply has to stop. I think it's time for ASE to sit down for a bit and consider his approach here. No "kick-him-to-the-curb" thing, just a time-out for reflection. This project is an encyclopedic effort ... not an emotional discharge station. ASE ... THINK before you hit that "Save page" button. Stick to the facts, the references, and the topic at hand. The community is not a foolish one, and it is quite capable of dealing with the inevitable errors that happen here. Take a break, admit when you're wrong, and come back with a dedicated NPOV purpose. — Ched :  ?  17:32, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Bluemarine must be laughing. He has a tame editor prepared to edit the Matt Sanchez article for him and he has prominent defenders and enablers to ensure that legitimate concerns about his behaviour can be dismissed solely on the grounds of the person reporting them. The community is not a foolish one? Pull the other one. DuncanHill (talk) 17:41, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Duncan, given that there is consensus that Bluemarine did nothing wrong here while ASE did, your hyperbole is even more off the mark than usual. → ROUX ₪ 18:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe that Bluemarine's behaviour was in clear breach of at least the spirit of the restriction, but as was to be expected, discussion of Bluemarine was rapidly, deliberately and misleadingly turned into a chance to beat ASE with a stick. Your opinion is just as valued as usual. DuncanHill (talk) 18:56, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Woah. I see no such consensus, since it's clear the he did violate his restrictions, but is allowed to get away with it over and over again. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:05, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It's fairly clear in reading this discussion that the consensus is that he did not violate his restriction. He was not prohibited from commenting on the talk page of Matt Sanchez, only from mainspace editing on that article. --Vassyana (talk) 19:10, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I think we already have a clear restriction and ASE was told clearly how to report infractions by BM off-wiki when he lodged the declined RFAR. That ASE chose to ignore that instruction and put their opinion over that of BMs appointed mentor is frankly, well, stupid because ASE must have known it would get them blocked. 31 hours is pretty generous for a block if you want my opinion, I would have gone for a minimum of 72 hours given the recent block and the deliberate nature of the infraction... The enxt one will be much longer I'm sure. I'm tired of the disruption and ASE needs to stand back now and stop precipitating drama. Spartaz Humbug! 18:40, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Who is Bluemarine's mentor? I thought Durova had resigned. ASE did report by email and had no response, and there is no facility for ASE to get community feedback on such matters without getting a further block. The problem isn't ASE, the problem is Bluemarine and ASE. Attempts to fix things by picking on one editor are bound to fail, and to fail in a way that leaves the situation worse than it had been before. DuncanHill (talk) 18:49, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Isn't it BlueMarine's behavior which precipitates the drama? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:05, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    (outdent) (ec) To DuncanHill: Bluemarine did nothing wrong in this instance or recently and did not violate his restrictions. On the counterpoint, ASE has crossed far over the line here and recently. This is clearly supported by the general consensus here and there is no evidence that Bluemarine is gaming the system. That is not a defense of Bluemarine's views, purported or actual. We're not here to debate who has the more palatable views. This is simply a matter of basic conduct expectations. Muddying the waters with personal accusations, debates about the desirability of certain views, and so on is simply disruptive. On a related point specific to you, many of your comments in this discussion have been not only counterproductive, but in explicit violation of two core common sense policies (no attacks and "BLP"). If you continue to violate either or both of these principles, you will be sanctioned to curb the disruption. --Vassyana (talk) 19:04, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Woah, woah, woah. Wait. You are threatening people for daring to disagree with your opinion? May I suggest a similar threat to Vassyana, that any such action result in Vassyana being "sanctioned"? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:19, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't really know what our standards of behavior are any more. It seems that unless you tell another editor, "fuck you and the horse you rode in on and if you don't shut the fuck up I'll rape your sister" then you are pretty much free to say anything. DuncanHill's recent comments ("Bluemarine is an outspoken homophobe", "self-promoting bigot", "enablers") are far outside the bounds of what I would consider decent conversation. Editors ought to treat each other with respect and decency, and find civil ways to express disagreements. Imagine if we were professional encyclopedia editors sitting around a common conference table in a real office. Would people dare say some of the nasty things they write if they knew they might run into their target in the parking lot or at the market? The only thing wrong with blocking DuncanHill for being rude and making personal attacks it that Wikipedia's standards are so far out of whack that a block would be considered too controversial. Bluemarine will be dealt with if he continues to act out. Name-calling is for children. Thatcher 19:34, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Your conjunction of "fuck you and the horse you rode in on and if you don't shut the fuck up I'll rape your sister" and "outspoken homophobe" reveals much about your confused state of mind, as you say. And in reply to your question "Would people dare say some of the nasty things they write if they knew they might run into their target in the parking lot or at the market", the answer is an unequivocal "Yes, of course. To do otherwise would be cowardly." --Malleus Fatuorum 19:41, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Whatever. I am saddened and somewhat depressed that calling another editor an outspoken homophobe and a bigot is taken as a sign of courage. Although, since Bluemarine's last block was for calling Allstarecho a "pervert" and an "idiot", wasn't he being courageous too? Thatcher 19:55, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It saddens me to see that "signs of courage" are met with threats of sanctions. Calling someone what they have demonstrated themselves to be would only considered a "personal attack" here in the wikiwonderland of fluffy fantasy. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:02, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No. Bluemarine is a homophobe, or at the very least a very confused person given to homophobic utterances. That is a label that he has brought upon himself by his own actions and comments; courage doesn't enter into it, since it is likely he sees nothing wrong with disparaging somebodies orientation. Calling someone a pervert because their sexuality is not one the same as the majority, even though in these enlightened times it is legal and nominally tolerated, is a scandalous breach of NPA and civility which seems to have been pushed to one side. I consider that calling Bluemarine a homophobe is simply attaching an appropriate label that the editor has deserved by his comments - calling AllStarEcho a "pervert" for his orientation/lifestyle choice is a violation of policy. Very different things. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:09, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (To Thatcher, after ec) If you can't see the difference between calling a gay man a "pervert", and calling someone who has made many public homophobic comments "an outspoken homophobe", I feel truly sorry for you. DuncanHill (talk) 20:12, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Someone close these threads. Calling people names is inappropriate and unhelpful to this discussion. The comments Bluemarine made some time ago were wrong, but have not been repeated recently and there was no violation of his editing restrictions in this instance. His restrictions and Allstar's have been clarified. Let's get back to POV pushing editing articles. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:37, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Matt Sanchez biography has been abused as part of a wide-ranging campaign of Internet harassment. An individual runs a spoof site that purports to be Matt's personal website and also maintains a noticeboard for the purpose of making Matt's life difficult. Matt has been impersonated at various websites including Wikipedia, and there have been times when those impersonations have been cited at Matt's Wikipedia biography as if they were self-published sources. During the Bluemarine arbitration case Matt's personal computer was hacked and his bank account was emptied. Other offsite harassment has followed which remains very serious and ongoing. None of this exonerates Matt's past conduct; he was banned with good reason. When people attempt to reform they get another chance after a while. Matt speaks four languages fluently, travels to Europe and Asia regularly, and has an Ivy League education. I have encouraged him to rise above the provocations and earn respect within the Wikipedia community. This should not prevent him from seeking assistance to correct the real problems at his biography; experienced Wikipedians are welcome to help achieve the appropriate balance there. Durova306 22:09, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think we're all done here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:51, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Not done

    Actually, no, we aren't all done here. It's great to have a lynching party when the person being lynched is blocked and can't participate in the discussion, to defend one's self or defend the lies that have been stated in this thread...

    • Fact: I did report the topic ban violation to an uninvolved administrator off-wiki. Ask User:Keegan. As nothing appeared to have been done a day later, I then reported it here at ANI.
    • Most Important Fact: The topic ban was violated.. it said he was banned from the article pages.. plural. Aside from that, the ban also says he's banned from LGBT related articles and talk pages "broadly construed", which the related article is - LGBT categories, LGBT project tag.. but no one cared to look at the facts, they just wanted more blood from me.
    • Fact: Aside from me calling Durova a liar yesterday, her and I have never had a fight or any other bad blood. It was stupid and jackassery to add her to my topic ban. While it may seem like a personal attack calling someone a liar.. when they are lieing, that's what you call them, period. I called her a liar because of this comment she made in this very thread. She conveniently left out the fact that another user tagged the IP as a sock of Bluemarine. All I did was file the SPI case to make sure.. to prove it's him, or clear him of socking allegations. I'll provide diffs as proof upon request. But of course, as I said, Durova leaves out this fact, knowing full well while I'm blocked, I can't prove her wrong in this ANI thread. Reminds me of when she blocked User:!! - screaming that user was a sock but no proof. Well, now the proof is present for what really happened with that SPI case I filed and for her lieing. If she feels that's a personal attack, then please accept my apologies here and now but I stand by it.
    • Fact: It would have been much more simpler and we all got on with our lives if people had said "OK, we recognize you reported this privately to an admin. Nothing was done in a day. Now you've reported it here at ANI. No, we don't think that's a violation of Bluemarine's topic ban, thanks for reporting it. Now move along"? But naw, that wouldn't be the way things are done on Wikipedia. Instead, we have a lynch mob circus who instead of dealing with the message, want to shoot the messenger.

    Well, I've said all I'm going to say on the matter. If you feel this is another violation of my own topic ban, then by all means, please see who can cross the finish line first to block me.. frankly I don't give a shit. Sorry to come off like this but if you wanna treat me like a thug, I'll act like one. -     allstar▼echo     07:36, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I wonder if everyone feels good about themselves now. You all have placed more unneeded restrictions on a user, you all have allowed another to run rampant unchecked, you essentially have acted like bullies on a freakin' power trip. When you start putting unrealistic restrictions on a person, you are taking this WEBSITE waaaay too seriously and need to take a nice long wikibreak and come back with fresh eyes. This is sad...very sad. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 10:58, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Bluemarine, Possible Violation of Restrictions

    With regards to this striking edit of another users text, I believe this is in clear violation of his "prohibited from editing LGBT article topics and related talk pages, broadly construed" rule. Since the the subject of the post is LGBT related, that would be a violation in my eyes. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 11:26, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Since his talkpage makes it clear that he *can* edit the talk page of the article on him, I guess you need to head back to the ranch and ask the voice what to do next. --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:33, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh nice, a schizophrenia joke. So, he is allowed to strike other users comments? When did that become allowed? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 11:36, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I was not suggesting the voice was in your head. I mean.. come on.. AGF does not require us to be stupid. --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:39, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You are over-reacting and acting as a bad-faith drama-queen because your friend was restricted on the voice of community consensus and blocked for violating prior restrictions. seicer | talk | contribs 11:44, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly who are you refering to? If it is me, I just report 'em like I see 'em. You want to let Bluemarine run rampant around Wikipedia, you be the hypocrite. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 11:47, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Seicer made a homophobic personal attack - proving I think a point I have tried to make before. DuncanHill (talk) 11:48, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    What? where? --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:50, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Pretty obvious - "bad faith drama-queen" combined with the unnecessary emphasis on "friend". DuncanHill (talk) 11:53, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Everyone, please assume good faith, tone it down and don't escalate this so that another case is needed amongst yourselves. DuncanHill, I didn't read it as a personal attack - I think you're adding meaning where there was none. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:03, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Cameron, pull your head of your...and look at the big picture instead of going after me. BLuemarine struck comments made by another user, even if he didn't violate his restrictions, that is still silencing a desenting voice and should be addressed. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 11:52, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It appears that ChildOfMidnight has advised him of this and the edit has been reverted [42]. I'm not sure what you're after - would you like an uninvolved admin to give him a formal note about it on his talk page so that it doesn't happen again? Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:10, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe one of those harshly-worded letters from the United Nations? DuncanHill, can you please provide citations where my comments were homophobic, and where I have made them in the last few years that I've been here? You are the first to call me out for that! Here are two definitions for your reference. If you can retract your bovine comment... This in no way offends steers, bulls and calfs. They are very delicious. Kthxbye. seicer | talk | contribs 12:12, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Just that he (Bluemarine) knows he is not allowed to strike others comments he doesn't like. If no one sees a restriction violation, then a formal note on the striking is fine with me. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 12:14, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, I'll write a note. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:29, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I would particularly like to draw editors' attention to the comment by Bluemarine "The comment directly above this one are from a very strange detractor of mine at cplsanchez.info--a fetish fan site authored by a somewhat disturbed individual who has an unrequited attraction to me", and remind them of Bluemarine's previous history of personal attacks based on the sexuality (stated or assumed) of other contributors. I am sorry that Cameron Scott feels that this sort of language is acceptable.DuncanHill (talk) 11:35, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The attack on the IP is most definitely not in order... MLauba (talk) 11:40, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    ASE's first substantial edit after his block ended was to yet againbring up the blue marine nonsense, and edit Durova's comment, both of which are violations of his topic ban, and kicked this thread back up after the whole situation had died down. Why do we need to keep adding drama to this situation? Let it die people. He got testy with an IP, but it wasn't anything beyond the pale. Leave him a note if you have a problem and things might get done. It certainly worked when I did. Running to tell and jump on anything are unproductive. Drama is considered harmful. --Mask? 12:11, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • In my opinion that wasn't a violation of the ban, but he should be instructed not to repeat it. NetralHomer please be aware that repeating the behaviour that got ASE the topic ban will likely get you the same. The point of it was to stem the flow of "teh drama" surrounding BM ASE and now apparently you, you would do well to disengage from the situation as well. ViridaeTalk 12:38, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Un-archiving because this segment was not resolved. The people who watch this situation should be aware that Matt was referring to Pwok, who has been sitebanned for two years and apparently continues to evade that ban in attempts to degrade Matt and occasionally to impersonate him. There actually is an impersonation site dedicated to Matt Sanchez under the domain cplsanchez.info. It appears to be operated by this banned user Pwok, who for over two years has demonstrated a hostile and persistent interest in Matt's former pornography career which would be difficult to describe without the word obsessive. In short, what Matt was attempting to do was the policy-compliant act of striking an edit by a banned user. His accompanying words were not well chosen--he didn't consult me about it--and the circumstances are so unusual that a plain description can be mistaken for attack or hyperbole. Situations like this are why mentorship exists. To both Matt and the other editors who involve themselves in this matter: please make use of it. Durova306 23:32, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I think the only unresolved issue in this segment was that the banned user was not specified until now. Although I can't speak for others interpretations or misinterpretations, prior to making my note, I looked at it again and noticed BM trying to refer to a banned user in his comment. Accordingly, I did not touch on his choice of words in my note. However, I did note that he knows that he should not be modifying others comments, particularly due to the current climate surrounding him, among other reasons. I don't believe substituting this with any other step would have efficiently resolved this segment in the way it needed to be, given the progression. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:42, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Allstarecho in obvious and unambiguous violation of editing restriction

    Enough drama on this. ASE has already been warned, several admins reviewed the edit cited and declined to block. Take it to your talk pages if you want to bicker and argue amongst yourselves. –xenotalk 14:24, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

    As AKMask pointed out above, Allstarecho has violated the terms of his editing restriction. I know, I was as surprised as anyone. Can someone thick-skinned please issue the block? Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:03, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    He's already been sternly warned by an admin - can you just for one day stop your despicable behaviour? DuncanHill (talk) 14:10, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Um, this might not be the place to discuss it, but what part of my behaviour is "despicable"? Far too much time and energy is being taken up by this drama (on all sides). There were several long discussions about this. I didn't happen to agree with the addition of Durova to the restriction, but it was enacted, so it should be enforced. Allstarecho knew what he was doing when he decided to violate it. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:22, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    If the goal is to reduce drama, follow up on all the bluster and noise of recent days by actually enforcing the terms of the editing restriction. Otherwise, it just sets up the next round of accusations, evasions, and arguments. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:32, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Xeno, who first deleted the entire thread and now seems satisfied to simply move my comments into the collapsed section so they won't be seen, moved my last comment about reducing drama with the edit summary "moving hab lower. replying in edit summary only: i believe the reasoning was to give ASE a little break to allow him to settle into the new , more stringent , editing restriction, which will likely be strictly enforced". I'm adding it here so that it will be visible as part of the thread. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:32, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    You don't find it ironic that you're pleading for a drama reduction by insisting on re-doing dramatic messages here? You're being dramatic about dramatic removal of your previous dramatic postings about AllStarEcho's dramatic postings. You're going to collapse in on yourself and become a dramatic black hole soon. Wknight94 talk 15:36, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It's always a danger. I don't intend to add anything else here, but since the thread has been started and Xeno offered a rationale of why there was no block, it seemed like it should be here. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:41, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Forgive me for commenting on the apparent tail end of this, but what Wknight94 just said is both well said and very amusing at the same time. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 15:44, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Treatment of an IP

    There's no proof that 24.18.136.188 (talk · contribs) is a sock of anyone yet this user's comments are being removed with the rationale that it's a banned user. Someone have proof for this? Not just "I believe it is.." and not "I know it is.." Proof people. If not, the user's comments at whatever articles they have been removed from, need to be restored and I would suggest an SPI case be opened instead of the bad manners that's been shown. The user's page isn't even tagged as a sock. -     allstar▼echo     04:23, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Why not ask the user who removed it? wodup 04:43, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    ASE, I'm not sure if you're testing the limits of this, but whatever you are doing please just stop it. If Wikipedia had physical geography, you should be about 50 million miles away from the place where that IP made her or his edit. If your objective is to get blocked indefinitely, then by all means proceed as you are. But I don't think you want that, and a lot of other people don't want that, and there are so many other useful things you could be doing around here. I wish you would just pick a few of those and go do them, or sign off for a little while and go do something else that makes you happy. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:08, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed, seriously, leave the drama to those who have allowed it to remain; if that article is compromised? So what. Let it go and invest your energy in subjects worthy of your time. If that user gets away with crap and you're maligned instead, well Wikipedia is not fair quite often. Let the justice wheels grind without you under them - getting yourself sh*tcanned is not helping any long-term goals here. -- Banjeboi 05:23, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not even talking about an article or any person that is part of my topic ban. Only talking about an IP that is being accused of being a sock without proof, not even WP:DUCK proof. Geez, I'm just not allowed to say shit, am I? Ridiculous. -     allstar▼echo     05:25, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    This was, sadly, too flimsy of an excuse for violating the recently reinforced topic ban. I have blocked Allstar Echo for 2 weeks under the most recent community editing restriction.

    I have requested that A* consider simply leaving now, if he is unable to restrain himself from interactions with Sanchez that the community have determined are terminally disruptive. I do not wish to see all of A*'s good deeds on Wikipedia undone by a legacy of pathological inability to stop obsessing on this particular topic, leading to a permanent ban. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:48, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Have to agree. The fact that he didn't discuss this with the admin who removed the comment, but instead came here shows that the intent is drama and boundary-pushing, not resolving an issue. --Mask? 05:53, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with this as well. Camw (talk) 05:54, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't have done that George, but it's an understandable response, and one could certainly view the above report as violating the topic ban (it skirts right on the edges of it, perhaps intentionally). I wish a wiki-friend of Allstarecho could convince him to do as Benjiboi suggests above, i.e. just say "fuck it," chalk this all up to injustice if he likes, and move on to something else. Unfortunately ASE seems pretty locked in on this issue. I would have let this one incident slide, but I'm not surprised that we ended up with a block here. I'm certainly not going to reverse George's action. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:57, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I hope I am a wikifriend of sorts of his - I've respected his good contributions and said so several times - and I have sincerely asked him to walk away from / unwatchlist / etc the topic. But this is the third time he's pushed the limit on the topic ban this week - and even as someone who I think gets along with him well and respects him, what he's still doing here is directly contrary to the topic ban's intent and letter. He covered it in a very flimsy tissue of "focusing on the IP", but that does not fly - it's transparently an excuse, and it demonstrates clearly that he will not leave the topic alone. He needs to stop - community has clearly telegraphed its exhausted patience - and he does not understand or acknowledge that. Until he understands and acknowledges that he's digging himself a hole. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:03, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Good block. I'm sure there are plenty of other editors like myself who are sick lately of seeing constant threads concerning this subject. Drop it already.Heironymous Rowe (talk) 06:00, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (lots of ecs) I was about to make a request for enforcement of the 2 week ban; it seems Georgewilliamherbert has beat me to it. This is exactly the sort of thing that falls under "indirectly commenting about". Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:00, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    A* has rejected comments by myself, Viridae, Sir Fozzie, and Spartaz' unblock decline, and posted another unblock request.

    I believe more uninvolved administrators commenting there may be helpful to communicate the point, but please do not do so if you are inclined to be abusive to him. I think that type of treatment will simply drive him further into his denial over this and be ineffective. If we can continue to reason with him and be respectful we have a chance of convincing him that the topic ban is real, necessary for his own good, and to respect it. I would much rather not drive him away in spite or cause him to simply not believe any admins anymore. Kid gloves... Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:44, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    He has now blanked the talk page and requested we blank his user page and protect both. I hope whoever does so offers that should he decide to return, that unprotecting/unblanking could be done. I wish he had just understood why everyone found his behavior frustrating.. SirFozzie (talk) 06:57, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I blanked and protected his user page and protected his talk page. I had a think before the second as he can't edit anywhere else while he is blocked but ASE is more then capable of contacting someone off wiki to fix it. Spartaz Humbug! 07:07, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not sure this will make any difference with anything, but I'm always curious about things, so I went ahead and asked the editor (the admin User talk:Horologium) who did the reversion, "which banned user" he attributes that IP address' lone edit [43] to - since ASE apparently did not ask the editor that question directly. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 07:11, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Apparently it has to do with a user named Pwok, referenced in a previous section. Thanks to Ncmvocalist for pointing that out. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 07:21, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If this is Pwok, what does that have to do with [44]? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 07:39, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Just FYI, there are socks on all sides of the Matt Sanchez drama, some, who apparently have lots of time, imitating each other so as to build sympathy or disdain. In hindsight I wish we had deleted the article as a drama magnet. To be clear ASE was more correct than not on the problems there so it's unfortunate they devolved into letting the, how shall I put this, clusterf*ck get to them. As an upside we might finally see that after years of abuse from the subject of that article that even BLP subjects should be held to stricter civility threshold. It's a good test case for how not to treat good Wikipedians. Sometimes messy people are good for bringing out the fun in others, in this case the community has been subjected to all manner of nonsense and Sanchez/Bluemarine playing us all for fools ... for years. -- Banjeboi 07:42, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Not to comment upon any other element, but vigorously agreeing with Benjiboi about wishing we could just delete this article. It meets the dead trees standard--or to put things simply, more trouble than it's worth. Durova306 15:09, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I would think that deleting the article as you suggest would only be appeasing Pwok (if he is behind all the disruption). According to Bluemarine, Pwok runs a fetish site that is the #2 ranked result for Google search = "Matt Sanchez". That fetish site would jump to the top if we give in to Pwok's demands. The most responsible thing to do would be to retain the Wiki bio and allow Bluemarine some limited access in order to verify its content. In previous cases of this type of multi-user targetted range point/origin IP, the SPI or backlogged BPS was restored in favor of increased credibility. In light of Bluemarine's previous compliance with staff actions, I think it proper to restore his profile authorization. At a time when our country is still at risk from extremist Islam, I think the least we can do is show those in uniform a modicum of respect. Those like Bluemarine who defend our freedoms overseas and put their lives on the line, deserve to be given the benefit of the doubt by those who hide behind cute user names. Semper Fi and God Bless!
    Actually it would give relief to the entire Wikipedia community from Sanchez's/Bluemarine's relentless campaign to promote ... himself. That he "reports" on US troops is yet another red herring. If we get rid of the article then Sanchez and his peeps and those who oppose him all have to scurry back to blogland and leave the encyclopedia writers to work on articles that are actually worth reading. -- Banjeboi 05:38, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think we should let Google's rankings influence what articles we keep or delete. It's our job to manage wikipedia, not to manage google. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 05:46, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Good block, it's sad that he simply could not leave it alone and had to pushed out of the door. --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:53, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • I would like to thank Baseball Bugs for alerting me to this thread, since ASE didn't have the common decency to let me know about it. There is a fairly comprehensive rationale for my removal of the comments on my talk page, but suffice it to say that the duck was quacking very loudly. Four IP addresses from the same ISP, all resolving to the same city, and focused on the same (marginally notable) individual's alleged activities, is enough to convince me that we are dealing with a banned user, whose edits may be deleted on sight. Horologium (talk) 13:07, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Bad block that is over the top and discouraging to an editor trying to obey the rules

    • I think it was a bad block. I'm constantly surprised by the lack of restraint shown by our admins. Yes, it was a gray area. But expressing concerns about how an IP was being treated wasn't a particularly outrageous or disruptive issue to bring to the community's attention. I think ASE was trying to abide by the restrictions and that the best response would have been to simply answer his concerns or even to ignore them. But to block him for it for two weeks seems like a particularly absurd example of over the top enforcement. Things were dying down (maybe) and this just added an enormous amount to the drama. Sometimes people need to be given some latitude. There wasn't a personal attack involved in this instance and the concerns expressed were quite reasonable. I actually share some of them. The duck test is convenient and easy, but I don't see a reason why due process couldn't have been followed. None of the anon comments were particularly outrageous. If investigation showed them to be a banned or blocked user fine, but I think our admins need to do a better job resolving disputes instead of hammering away at them with sledgehammers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:00, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is also ironic that the civility police patrolling Wikipedia so aggressively are the ones showing such a lack of civility and empathy for good faith editors. Clearly the issues involved are emotional for Allstar and others. Granting them some latitude and consideration would be a humane and respectful way to go about our business, just as we are asking, expecting and enforcing toleration from them for editors with whom they vehemently disagree. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:13, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I've spent all of last night trying to figure it out, but I still don't understand.Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 20:20, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Suggestion I encourage those with the power to do so to unblock Allstar and to apologize, noting that while it may have appeared that he was flagrantly violating his recently imposed restrictions, they now realize and understand that he was not intending to do so and that he meant well. This good faith report where he expressed a reasonable concern wasn't worth blocking over, especially when there was no effort to diffuse and resolve the issue in a collegial manner. GeorgeWilliamHerbert as Chairman Emeritus of the civility police seems a particularly good candidate to lead by example in reaching out with an olive branch. A similar effort should be made with Duncan Hill, some of whose recent comments were unhelpful, but whose emotions and feelings deserve consideration and whose contributions and dedication to Wikipedia should be recognized and appreciated with an expression of goodwill. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:38, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 20:42, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)CoM, I'm just as gay as ASE and yet somehow have managed to avoid causing intense disruption around Sanchez/Bluemarine. Due process was followed here; ASE had already been restricted, it was reiterated to him, and he very deliberately decided to nibble at the edges of the restriction, as usual. For once, an admin grew a pair and said "Not this time, sonny." ASE has a long history of significantly bad behaviour, disingenuous claims of innocence, and deliberate envelope-pushing. The blocking admin--and the admin denying the unblock request--decided that enough was enough (as should have been done ages ago with ASE) and it was time for a vacation. He has now left the project (my bet is for a week, or possibly as much as two), which means all of the craziness he instigated here is now over. Should Sanchez/Bluemarine continue in his objectionable behaviour, something will be done about him. Until then, your posts here are more inflammatory than useful, and one might almost go so far as to say they are aggressively clueless--that is, if one weren't to say based on the evidence that they are quite deliberately disingenuous and disruptive. It would behoove you to drop the issue and let--as you claim you want--the drama die. → ROUX ₪ 20:45, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    After ec: hahahaha. AHAHHAAHAHAH. There is no way on God's green earth that is happening. You know this, of course, and that tilts the obvious interpretation of your comments here rather more to the second one rather than the first. → ROUX ₪ 20:45, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    replying to CoM - I think we have a strong consensus above that he did break the topic ban. He disagreed, but "the community" seems to feel otherwise.
    If I believed he would accept and work within the topic ban going forwards I would have offered an unblock last night. But his responses last night indicated that he didn't see anything wrong with what he'd done. To summarize the community position, I think we feel that he needs to truly have no interaction with Sanchez going forwards - no comments on article or talk or user pages, no ANI comments about anyone else's participation or comments there, etc. I think everyone else intended and perceived the topic ban as an absolute stone wall - nothing shall pass. A* seems to disagree that it's illegitimate for the community to impose such an absolute ban, and that he has no reason to respect the ban as written as a result.
    I did't want this to happen; when he sticks to other topics A* is a productive and cooperative editor. But every time he comes near Sanchez a disaster ensues. He does not seem to understand that, or feels it's Sanchez' fault. I and the community disagree and feel that it's his fault, which is why the topic ban was imposed. He tried to wiggle past that, repeatedly, and that can't stand.
    I was hoping that it being an administrator who thought well of his contributions that blocked him would help convey the message. I contacted him extensively on his talk page before he blanked it, trying to reason with him further.
    As with anything else - build a bigger consensus here and you can override the block, appeal it to Arbcom if you can't do that and still feel that this was an abuse of policy or process or behavior on my part. But I think that from above, the community consensus is that he's exhausted community patience. If he won't listen to an admin who likes him telling him that, he at least needs to go take an enforced break for a bit, and may not be able to contribute in a constructive manner at all anymore. It sucks to have to tell someone whose contributions you generally admire and appreciate that - but I really don't see any other alternative now. If he accepts the topic ban and abides by it, his block is over in 2 weeks and he can come back. If he wants his talk page back he can email myself or any other admin and we can unlock it for him. If he wants to talk offline in the meantime, he can email any of us. We can't force him to talk to us though.
    The situation sucks. I hated doing this last night. But I remain confident that it was necessary and have not yet seen signs that he will accept the community issued topic ban going forwards.
    You and others have asked for more admins willing to sanction longtime contributors or friends, or fellow admins, when people cross the line. I think I count A* as a longtime contributor and someone who was widely respected by myself and the community as a whole. But he repeatedly and relentlessly crossed the line and has so far not shown an inclination to stop. I would like to see him get past this and come back - but that has to be on the communities terms, without involvement with Sanchez in any way. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:01, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    GHW, I'm sure you're aware of the assume good faith protocol. ASE's response, my comments, and ABCE's (sp?) make clear that ASE did not intentionally violate his new editing restrictions. So his comment was made in good faith. It's not appropriate to block people for two weeks for making a mistake, without first trying to alleviate the problem through collegial discussion. Several editors disagree with how the situation has been handled. If the consensus is that his comment was unacceptable fine. Tell him why and not to do it again. But basic courtesy and civility suggests that there was a better way to resolve this than wielding your mighty banhammer to teach someone a lesson. You freak out if someone calls another editor an idiot, but appear to be okay with treating someone who makes a mistake like a piece of crap. That's discouraging, but in this case it's fixable. I hope you will take the opportunity to make it right.ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:16, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    CoM: ASE was fixated with this whole situation, and had been told in plain language that the community wanted him to disengage completely and totally. This was not an isolated incident, in the less then 36 hours since the topic ban had been applied, he had engaged in testing the boundaries of his topic ban in three seperate areas. He was aggressively trying to game the boundaries of it. We reached out a hand to him several times during the discussion. If he had agreed to abide by the terms of his topic ban, GWH has stated above that he would have unblocked him right then and there. I offered to copy any Arbitration Committee request to review the community topic ban to the proper page for him. I'm saddened that he decided that he could not obey the rules and instead apparently from Wikipedia, but to pretend that this is a situation is not of his own making is foolish. SirFozzie (talk) 22:47, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a huge difference between "someone who makes a mistake" and "someone who deliberately pushes the boundaries of his restriction three times in five days". I was the first blocking admin - you can look at ASE's block log for the reason - that one was probably the most flagrant violation of his ban and he even tried to claim that there was no reason for a block on that one, either. I like ASE and have worked with him in the past blocking and reverting homophobic socks and IPs on articles he was working on - but I can't defend his inability to just leave this situation alone. It wasn't difficult, but he couldn't do it. The community only has limited patience for editors that can't comply with a very simple restriction, and so, unfortunately, we are left here. Black Kite 23:22, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, it's certainly possible you gentlemen are correct. But you'll notice that I haven't contested any of his previous blocks. I'm well aware of the history. The question Allstar posted was in a gray area that he clearly believed was within his editing restriction. There was no discussion or warning before the block based on that particular edit. He was not offered an opportunity to withdraw his comment. It's obvious that he was upset over the restrictions and felt that an abusive editor and the article about him are being unfairly protected. I completely disagree with him and I think it's good that we give second chances to people even when they aren't likely to succeed, but I do have empathy and I understand that sometimes things take time and people who are upset need to be given some leeway. The disruption caused by his query seems minute to me (and the concern fairly legitimate) in comparison with the impact of an aggressive 2 week block. If you guys think this is the best way to handle editors in a civil and collegial manner then I disagree. Maybe I'm missing the big picture, maybe this will turn out to be helpful, but I notice there are several others who share my concerns. And whether the block was right or wrong has nothing to do with making an attempt to reach out to Allstar after the fact. Maybe y'all are planning to do that soon anyway. I have no idea. I hope so. I'm okay with this tread being archived unless someone has something more to say. Thank you for your responses. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:44, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed. He was testing the limits of his own sanctions and got burned. All-Star Echo should heed the advice of others and simply unwatch these pages and forget about it. Resolute 04:45, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Documentation of the drama?

    I realize that this whole saga isn't actually complete, but is there an article or a log of what has occurred so far, anywhere? There are articles about other notable Wikipedia drama, so I figure that it couldn't hurt to ask. I'm kind of bored and curious, I guess.
    — V = I * R (talk to Ω) 06:07, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Sweetfornow copyvios, no communication

    *see previous AN/I thread here Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive558#Sweetfornow.C2.A0.28talk.C2.A0.C2.B7_contribs.29_new_account.2C_edit_warring.2C_no_communication.2C_copyvios.2C_many_issues

    Sweetfornow (talk · contribs) I reported this user before, because of an IP editing a similar page I suspected sock-puppetry. It was determined that sweetfornow wasn't related to the IP, however the user still engaged in numerous problem edits 99% of which ended up reverted. The account didn't edit for a few days and I just thought to check. First edit back, was reinserting a copyvio [45], and most recently here [46]. The user has a serious problem with copy and pasting and their only response is to blank warnings.--Crossmr (talk) 12:28, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Er … what? The edit to Paris Hilton that you point to is nothing but the insertion of two paragraph breaks that turns one paragraph into three. There's no change to the prose at all. Where is the copyright violation? Uncle G (talk) 13:48, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oops, a bad google search mislead me. Normally it seems these days that google filters wiki mirrors when you search for text, but for some reason it didn't this time and I saw a facebook and a couple paris hilton domains in the search results and thought it was a copy and paste off a press release or something. I misread the breaking up of the paragraphs. I thought the second paragraph was a new insert, but their first edit back was still a reversion of a removed copyvio and still no communication over it.--Crossmr (talk) 14:05, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Wikipedia mirrors come up all of the time on Google Web for me. You're right about the other edit being word-for-word identical with the source cited. I've looked over the other edits made since the 23rd and nothing leaps out at me. You've reverted the copyright violation, and there don't appear to be others. Is there any other problem that you have seen? If not, there seems to be no basis for any action. Uncle G (talk) 19:40, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Really? Lately when I've done searches for text, google has been collapsing all mirrors into a single result. Only when I click "see similar" on the wikipedia entry does it then turn around and list tons of mirrors. The editor has also been using bad sources (imdb repeated times) or otherwise inserting bad info into some articles. This edit to Lindsay lohan [47] inserts info known to be bad several weeks ago[48], and info that is even corrected on IMDB[49] which the user seems to often be using for source. Both before and after the break they've tried to change info in one article with bad sources [50], [51], reverted both times, but at no point has this user ever acknowledged the warnings, or said anything to defend themselves. Given that the bad edits are still going on as of a couple days ago, I see that to be a significant issue with a new account.--Crossmr (talk) 00:46, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Yes, really. I put "user crossmr" into Google Web, and the first Wikipedia mirror of your user page is result #17. Other mirrors are listed as results #46 and #49. That was from just a quick skim of the first five pages of results. Uncle G (talk) 02:09, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • Interesting, I'm not sure why some of my previous searches have resulted in google collapsing all the mirrors to a single result (obviously not this time). In the meantime we still have a user who has under 100 edits, has engaged in an edit war, inserted multiple copyvios, BLP issues, restores a fact tag from months before their account was created, blanks warnings, and refuses to respond to any concerns about their editing.--Crossmr (talk) 07:39, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • Since then the editor has gone on to try and push some POV text into two articles (both reverted) [52] and [53]. The editor is was using the second source falsely. Nothing in it supported the text the editor was trying to claim. The source is just a list of accrediting bodies with no links. There is no way for any editor to check that loaded text with what they were claiming as a source.--Crossmr (talk) 06:42, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • and after being told that material was inappropriate, they reverted each article a couple times to try and force it in [54], [55], [56], [57]]. In a very short time the editor has shown a willingness on 3 occasions to edit war if they can't get their way. On the plus side they actually used an edit summary, but rather than take the issue to talk, they just reverted over and over. But hey if no one else sees a problem with a new account doing this, so be it.--Crossmr (talk) 23:53, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Sbakuria

    Further information: [[:Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Claim of libel at Alexander Mashkevitch|Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard § Claim of libel at Alexander Mashkevitch]]

    Background of problems with this user: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Sbakuria and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive558#User:Sbakuria(talk) and Alexander Mashkevitch. One version of Alexander Mashkevitch(Talk) was deleted for copyvio, so a lot of the history of this dispute has been lost. Requests for user to discuss before making significant edits (content and reference removal, poor formatting) continue to be ignored, user has also resumed behaviour after temporary blocks from editing.

    I'm wondering if a ban and/or some kind of page protection (in case Sbakuria resorts to using IPs) would be appropriate.

    Involved Parties - User:Sbakuria(talk), User:Bricklayer (talk), User:PhilKnight(talk) and myself. Rtdixon86 (talk) 15:53, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Ok, this is ridiculous. This user was blocked twice revert-warring in support of copyright violations, continues to revert war, and has had an RFC against him/her and still has effectively never responded to any message. I'm in favor of a long temporary block (say 1 week) to make the point that this user needs to start talking to people. Not to mention this user is probably editing an article on a family member. Mangojuicetalk 16:16, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It gets worse. The account has uploaded several images with the claim that they are xyr own work. But xe has declared at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2009 July 10 that the images are the work of someone else.

      However, the charges of continued prose copyright violation, along the lines of the now-deleted edits, are not borne out by the recent edits. As can be seen from this diff, the edits are simple, and somewhat inept, content blanking. The repeated edit summary is that this content is "libellous". The charge of non-communication is also not borne out. This account has communicated with PhilKnight on xyr talk page, here, stating again xyr assertion that xe is removing libellous material.

      I recommend taking the libel charge seriously and checking the content for neutrality and verifiability. I have taken the administrative action, based upon the fact that several prior "Dr. Mashkevitch with …" image uploads by this account have been deleted as improperly licenced and having insufficient/misleading authorship information, with no attempt by the uploader to remedy this continued problem despite requests on xyr talk page, of speedily deleting all of the suspect "Dr. Mashkevitch with …" images, on the grounds that it wasn't true before, several of the images are just re-uploads, this person's track record with copyright is clearly not a good one, and xe has even acknowledged the improper authorship statement in one case.

      By the way, given the account name, given that this account created Tsotne Bakuria, and given the "I made this." at File:Tsotne 3.JPG, File:Tsotne Two.JPG, and File:Tsotne One.JPG, there's a far more likely and straightforward possibility than that this person is a relative of M. Mashkevitch.

      I repeat, for emphasis, that the libel charge on the living person biography should be dealt with seriously, and not casually dismissed just because this is an edit warrior who violates copyright. Uncle G (talk) 03:39, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      • Thanks, yes, of course we should take the libel issue seriously too. I think there might be some real cause for concern: I left a comment on the talk page about the material Sbakuria was removing. I'd appreciate someone else taking a look and seeing what they think of my comments, soon, so that if a change is necessary it can be made quickly. Mangojuicetalk 14:00, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I understand the claims made in the article are a problem, but its difficult to check the claims made and decide which sources are reliable and which aren't if Sbakuria won't communicate. Are there any guides for checking reliability of sources? Rtdixon86 (talk) 14:42, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Tendentious discussion at Talk:Speed of light

    A bunch of us are (at the least, I am) getting rather annoyed by one editor who makes a series of bizarre claims such as that the speed of light is not defined as 299 792 458 m/s, that the speed of light ceased to be meaningful after the 1983 definition of the BIPM as being exactly 299 792 458 m/s, that the speed of light defined by the BIPM is not the "actual" speed of light but rather some "unrelated" conversion factor between lenghts and time, and so on. For scale, the long talk page you'll see is the result of 9 days of these discussion, which are now simply repetitions of old ones (which are now archived, even if they are 2-3 weeks old at best). This is related, although different, to the recent topic ban of User:David Tombe. Looking for advice (wheter admin action is necessary, I'll leave up to the admins to decide). Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 16:11, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Sometimes things around here travel at the Speed of Smell. Anyway, WP:Consensus is key - and article content disputes are rarely actionable 'round here. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:50, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Having encountered him on these pages a few days ago, you certainly have my sympathy. Jehochman told him that he was from that Talk page back on 19 August, so if he continued to edit it after that date he should be sanctioned per WP:ARBPS -- unless a later discussion on that page reversed Jehochman's ruling. (I stopped following the matter a couple of days ago, so I don't know what the situation is with him currently -- beyond the fact he is contributing under borrowed time.) -- llywrch (talk) 19:01, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the complaint concerns Brews ohare (talk · contribs), who seems to be continuing User:David_Tombe's fringe arguments and has made close to a 1000 edits on the talk page over the last 45 days. Abecedare (talk) 03:31, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Shortly after posting the above, I had a look at the actual discussion, in disbelief that David Thombe would so brazenly ignore that ban -- only to find what Abecedare described: David Thombe had not posted to the thread since Jehochman's page ban, & Headbomb had confused Brews ohare with him. (Or else he knows something about the two that none of the rest of us do; if so, I suggest he share it for the rest of us to evaluate -- or admit his mistake.) On the other hand, these accusations below of a "lynch mob" orchestrated by a Wikipedia cabal reminds me of the first corollary to Extreme Unction's first law. -- llywrch (talk) 05:14, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    A proposed lead to speed of light by User:Abtract found here is technically correct and yet conveys all that other editors wish to say. However, under the leadership of Martin Hogbin no attempt is being made to discuss this proposal, but instead Martin Hogbin is calling for a lynch mob to railroad his own incorrect wording into the article. Numerous explanations and reputable sources challenging Martin's wording have been presented and quoted on Talk:Speed of light, and Martin and his colleagues simply refuse to deal with them. Headbomb should have a better understanding than he indicates following a recent (brief) technical exchange with me at Talk:Speed of light concerning a different subsection.

    The point for Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents is not this argument over content, but that there is no argument over content. I have repeatedly tried to get some consideration for my opinion that the present wording is contrary to published experts, and provided sources, and no discussion of sources takes place. What happens is hectoring and attempt to impose majority rule (majority of editors, that is). My repeated attempts to get consideration of sourced opinion is being steamrollered by a lynch mob that cannot deal with it. What is needed is enforcement of WP protocol to address published sources, and to avoid repeated hectoring as a method to squelch ideas.

    Discussion of the lead proposed by User:Abtract found here should be mandated. The excitement of mob rule should be squelched. Brews ohare (talk) 14:54, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Once again, here we see a malicious allegation in an attempt to get another player sent off the field. Until a few weeks ago, I didn't even know what Brews was arguing about. So I decided to investigate the matter. The first hint I got that Brews was right and that Martin Hogbin was wrong, came when Brews was eager to explain his position to me, whereas Martin refused to discuss the matter with me. Martin clearly didn't want to reveal his agenda. It took a while for me to work out the subtlety of the argument, but I eventually realized that Brews is absolutely right. The 1983 definition of the metre has had a significant impact on physics, and that needs to be elaborated on in the speed of light article. Brews is not pushing any fringe theories. Rather, those who are trying to prevent Brews from clarifying a very delicate point, are actually engaged in trying to hide the history of the subject. It's time that the editors who bring these malicious allegations to AN/I are themselves subjected to closer scrutiny. David Tombe (talk) 19:28, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    This seems to be another attempt to create an imposed consensus by eliminating the dissent. That isnt what a consensus is about. Frankly, I never would have thought to examine the speed of light article except for the fact that the lynch mob seems to think it is in danger of being overthrown. Then after seeing what they are protecting, I understand the need to squelch any dissention. It is a gigantic mess. So, instead of looking for new people to behead, I suggest that you fellows take a close look at yourselves and get busy fixing the article that at present is a morass of confusion.72.64.63.243 (talk) 21:52, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Literaturegeek

    Resolved
     – Neurofish indef block as sockpuppet of Mwalla Toddst1 (talk) 18:28, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    This user placed a template on my talk page that does not apply to me. I view this as an unpovoked attack. I do not know this user nor has he ever contacted me directly. I would like this user to be blocked from editing my user page. Neurofish (talk) 18:00, 28 August 2009 (UTC)Neurofish[reply]

    It is funny a brand new member knows all about administration noticeboard and the wiki projects. Some admmins will here will recall another episode where I accused a sock puppet of mwalla, a permanently banned user they created an admin noticeboard notification. Please see this page, User_talk:Tiptoety#Mwalla_is_back_on_3_socks_in_as_many_days and also this page.Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Mwalla/Archive--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 18:18, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    How would you know what other editors know? I guess you are the judge. Neurofish (talk) 18:23, 28 August 2009 (UTC)Neurofish[reply]

    I know what quacks. Toddst1 (talk) 18:28, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Two in a row...the section above was another PLAXICO (does that have a wikipage yet?). It's so convenient when they come straight here to be dealt with... Auntie E. 16:30, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Aye, it does. -Jeremy (v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!) 06:24, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Not sure if it is resolved

    Unresolved

    Thanks Toddstq for blocking. There are two other accounts. User:Abcdohrayme and User:Punctuallylate If you review the ip address blocks Tiptoey only blocked them for 3 months so mwalla is now back mass producing sockpuppets again now that the 3 month ip block has expired. See bottom of Mwalla sock investigation archive. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Mwalla/Archive Toddstq, did you just block the username or the ip addresses as well? It might be worth reinstating blocks on the ip addresses in the Mwalla archive. But will leave the decision up to you. Thanks. :-)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 18:47, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I would feel a little more comfortable if somebody would run a CU on the Neurofish account. I usually turn out to be wrong about these things, but there are enough differences from the usual behavior that this doesn't quite quack for me. Looie496 (talk) 19:02, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    A checkuser would be great Looie, I have requested one on WP:SPI. Maybe Looie it is this edit, where one sockpuppet reverted another sockpuppet,[58], this was done only after I had added templates to all 3 accounts accusing them of being sockpuppets, so they were just trying to divert suspicion in my view.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 19:07, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    An SPI has been filed by myself here.Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Mwalla--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 19:26, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruption, incivility on Haplogroup R1a (Y-DNA) by tendentious editor

    User:Cosmos416 has been highly disruptive in this article lately by making tendentious edits, edit warring when other undo them, and showing extreme bad faith and incivility. Examples:

    Tendentious editing: He is particularly focused on promoting the POV that R1a originated in South Asia, rather than elsewhere, and labels everything agains this POV as "bias": [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64]. He is particularly insistent on placing "south Asia" subsections on top of every section, claiming it is "alphabetical" when it is anything but.

    Edit warring: Got into a major edit war with User:Jamesdean3295 on August 26 [65] [66] [67] [68] [69], and has broken 3RR today: [70] [71] [72] [73] [74] [75].

    Extreme incivility: Virtually every single one of his edit summaries is a personal attack against some editor, getting more and more shrill lately. Displays extreme bad faith, accuses users of being sockpuppets or being "connected". Rarely participates in talkpage discussions, and when he does, it consists of statements like this: [76] [77] [78] [79] [80].

    This behavior is extremely disruptive and has got to stop. --Athenean (talk) 18:25, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Just wanted to point out, while he has certainly been edit-warring he hasn't broken 3RR. Per WP:3RR, "A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert." I see a total of 3 reverts in 24 hours: this on the 27th, this today, and this just after. Another revert and he can be reported to WP:AN3 but he's not there yet. -- Atama頭 19:35, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, he has not actually edited since a recent series of warnings left at his talk page (warnings left 18:12 and 18:17, last edits at 17:20). I don't think a block would be appropriate UNTIL he edits again. However, the very next personal attack, or the very next time he attempts to edit war at the article in question, he should be blocked for either. This has gone on long enough, and I think we can call this his VERY last chance. Also, since no one else did, I notified him of this thread. --Jayron32 19:36, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I would also like to comment here. Cosmos words that he left on my talk page were also very uncivil. Please make note of these for the case. Thanks.Geog1 (talk) 21:23, 28 August 2009 (UTC)Geog1[reply]
    Cosmos has been uncivil, and his edit summaries are not really correct or helpful. If that is what is being discussed I leave it to others. But keep in mind that at least so far the substance of the edit war he is involved in is this matter of alphabetical order. Cosmos is not one of the editors currently pushing non-neutral and non-consensus POV in the content, like Jamesdean certainly is. Furthermore as I pointed out to Athenean on the article talkpage I don't see that reacting to such a thing by ALSO moving things around based on (another) alphabetical order is any less tendentious than being the first to do move things around by alphabetical order. I do think this case could be considered for Wikipedia:Lamest_edit_wars. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:30, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually check out his 23:07, 24 August 2009 edit on the R1a page. We were trying to keep the Oppenheimer info in the right place(s) but he kept putting it back in the Eastern Euro section after myself and other editors tried to keep it in its rightful relevant place numerous times. I believe this constitutes as a non-neutral POV maneuvering of sorts...I think all edit wars are lame but there were some things seriously wrong with this article as well as many other topics related to R1a but the pushing was done consistently by Cosmos.Geog1 (talk) 10:37, 29 August 2009 (UTC)Geog1[reply]

    Why are most pages on subclades of haplogroups just sitting there, while we are geting silly edit wars on the R1a one? Because that is the one associated with "Aryans". Cosmos416 is the typical kind of editor we get there who is interested in Indigenous Aryans, not genetics. Keep that in mind when assessing the situation. The task of admins in this case is clearing the air for an editing-friendly atmosphere for editors with expertise and interest in human genetics which means putting a leash on the "Aryan" tourists popping up at the article. --dab (𒁳) 16:50, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked for two weeks. Tan | 39 16:55, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Help please

    A thread archived before these three articles were moved, I moved all the other ones I was able. If someone would be so kind to migrate them to more MOS compliant titles I would appreciate it. -- Banjeboi 20:28, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Just for some background context, could you please link to the discussion involving these pages? –Juliancolton | Talk 21:25, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, here is the original thread. -- Banjeboi 00:38, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Pretty pretty please!?! I know this is boring but we really do need to move these. -- Banjeboi 22:06, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    What exactly did I access?

    I was trying to get to Lupin III, but found myself redirected to Lupine for some reason and a very jumbled mess of a page. Anyone can figure out what just happened, if anyone can humor me?--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 07:55, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Lupin III does not redirect to Lupine. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 08:01, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    But it did for me. So I wanna know is, what the hell did I just access?--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 08:41, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it didn't for you.
    It doesn't.
    You must have made a typing error, or something. And what you just accessed was our page on Lupine.
    What's complicated? ╟─TreasuryTag►without portfolio─╢ 08:46, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I typed in Lupin III, and "something/someone/some link" redirected me to Lupine and the mess of the page instead. No Mistyping as TreasuryTag has wrongfully assumed. TreasuryTag, Wikipedia:Assume good faith please.--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 05:29, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Click on the Lupin III link that you just created, and it takes you to the right page. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 05:42, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thinking someone made a typo is ABF??? Anyway, Lupin III has never been a redirect to Lupine as far as I can see from the page history. You can check for yourself. Did you follow a link from another article? If so, the problem may be with that link. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 05:37, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The Lupine article is meant to be a disambig, but recently someone copied the contents of an article about lupin the plant to it. There was some confusion about what was meant to be there, but I've reverted it back to being a disambig again. The page was definitely a mess. - Bilby (talk) 08:50, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Unapproved bot

    Resolved
     – Bot task is finished, no further runs are planned, user is now aware of bot policy, kittens are wonderful ~ mazca talk 12:46, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • User:Ohms law appears to be running an unauthorized bot. diff User A1 (talk) 10:27, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Well, was running an unauthorised bot. I agree that he shouldn't have been, but it was a fairly minor task that has now completed, and per his talk page he does not intend to run the task again. Any further usage of that bot outside of his userspace needs approval, but I do not see any admin intervention as necessary at the moment. ~ mazca talk 10:31, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      I saw that. He was using it to change his signature from an "Ohm" to the formula for "Ohm's Law". Kind of obsessive, frankly, but apparently harmless. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 10:53, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks guys... now I know what it's like to be wikistalked, at least. Sheesh! I'm not sure what all of the excitement was about, to be honest. It was a one time task which remained completely clear of the mainspace, it only touched my own signature (which actually took a bit of testing, you know), and I felt that it was important. I guess that is a little obsessive, but I thought that it was important to ensure avoiding the appearance of trying to impersonate User:Ω, who I didn't even realize existed until Jafeluv brought the issue to my attention a couple days ago. Anyway, back to work for me!
      — V = I * R (talk to Ω) 11:20, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Just try to understand that most, if not all, of the talk pages you edited are watchlisted by people. Hence, hundreds and hundreds of people will happen to notice an unusual edit from a user account called "bot" but not marked as one, and a minority of them will raise the question. It's not wikistalking, you just drew some unwelcome attention to yourself! In any case, no harm done - happy editing. ~ mazca talk 11:28, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Humm... good point. I did mark the edits as minor, but... it felt as though I was being followed, certainly. meh, anyway...
      — V = I * R (talk to Ω) 11:52, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Actually, running an unauthorized bot is a bit serious because of the problems it can cause (see the bot policy). As mentioned above, it was harmless so I'm mentioning this to make sure you'll be aware of that in the future. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 12:10, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Oh, I'm very aware of the bot policy, no worries. The whole reason that it's not approved for anything yet is that I'm working to ensure that it's up to spec. Anyway, I came back here just to (re)remove AN/I from my watchlist. Carry on, folks! File:Smily.png
      — V = I * R (talk to Ω) 12:36, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Hooray. Marking resolved. ~ mazca talk 12:46, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Mephiston999 using AWB to change the spelling of book titles

    Resolved
     – Some typo fixes will be wrong, they should be checked and antiquated spelling restored using {{sic}} tags where appropriate... Thank you to User:Reconsideration for volunteering for this task. –xenotalk 22:17, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't know where else to go to complain about this or even where to start a discussion about this because it involves multiple articles.

    Mephiston999 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is running the WP:AWB bot and fixing spelling errors, including in "[year] in poetry" articles that have come up on my watchlist. Mixed in with this good work, his edits are damaging the articles by changing the original spelling used in the titles [81] [82] [83] [84] (often antique spelling or alternate spelling that the author chose -- here's an example: (M's edit) [85]; (what the source says) [86] crossed out -- as Uncle G noted, I'm incorrect here and the edit was a good one). This means Mephiston999 is using the bot to introduce errors in Wikipedia articles. The information on the books and poems is sourced with footnotes, and the spelling of titles is the way it is given in the sources. Using the original spelling also helps readers who do an internet search under that spelling (the original spelling and title is usually the way the book is known -- if not, both the best-known and the actual titles are listed, for example "Songes and Sonettes, written by the ryght honorable Lorde Henry Haward late Earle of Surrey, and other, now better known as Tottel's Miscellany" -- 1557 in poetry).

    I politely asked Mephiston to stop on the editor's talk page. [87] (02:15, 27 August)

    Without replying, the editor has continued. [88] (22:35, 27 August 2009) crossed out -- as Uncle G noted, I'm incorrect here and the edit was a good one). So far, this is the only edit to a year-in-poetry article after I asked the editor to stop. But there are hundreds of these quirky spellings.

    By continuing, Mephiston goes against Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser#Rules of use: Don't do anything controversial with it. If there is a chance that the edits you are considering might be controversial, consider soliciting comment at the village pump or appropriate Wikiproject before proceeding.

    If Mephiston999 wants to make the case that we should update the spellings of book titles in Wikipedia, that's a content question we can discuss and reach a consensus on, maybe at Talk:List of years in poetry. (Some sources do use updated spellings, but we use the spelling that the source uses.) But the editor is silent when it comes to justifying this, and he or she is just continuing to make controversial edits across Wikipedia with the bot. Those edits are going to be very difficult to sift through if the damage continues. Please tell him to stop and get consensus first before continuing. If I'm the one that needs to get consensus to get this to stop, tell me and I'll go do it.

    I put a lot of work into getting the proper spellings into these pages and getting footnotes for information (footnotes are rare in year-in articles). Why should I continue if my work is going to be wrecked by someone who won't discuss the problem? If I just revert, the bot will do it again. (Incidentally, Mephiston999 seems to be doing the same thing in "years in literature" pages, but there are no footnotes there, so it's hard to prove that the edits there, like this one [89], are creating inaccuracies. I could actually look up this example in an instant, but I can't easily look up a hundred bot changes.)

    Here's what I'm asking:

    1. Tell Mephiston999 to stop using the bot to change book titles; or
    2. Tell Mephiston999 to stop using the bot to change book titles until consensus is reached to do so; or
    3. Tell me I need to go get consensus and,
    4. If I'm the one that needs consensus, tell me either that I can come back here to ask for enforcement of consensus or what I should do if Mephiston999 ignores consensus with this bot.
    5. Can I do anything to prevent this from happening again? Reconsideration (talk) 15:11, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I told Mephiston999 that I posted here. [90] Reconsideration (talk) 15:17, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • It looks like he is running typo fixing without actually examining whether said typos should or need to be fixed. –xenotalk 15:23, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • You can start by explaining why the diffs directly contradict your claims. Mephiston999 changes "Brebeuf and his Bretheren" to "Brebeuf and his Brethren"; you link to a book that quite clearly gives the latter spelling; and somehow this is "introducing errors in Wikipedia articles"? Your own pointers to sources are contradicting your claim to have got "the proper spellings into these pages" before these corrections. Uncle G (talk) 15:30, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have left him a follow up message to your messages. It looks like this may not be the first time he has used AWB without the necessary due care (see prior sections on his talk page). Are there still non-fixed errors he made? I am considering a mass-rv of his recent typo-fixing AWB edits. –xenotalk 15:29, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Consider carefully. The spelling of the John Beaumont poem title that Mephiston999 used is the spelling that is given on page 495 of Robert S. Miola's Early modern Catholicism: an anthology of primary sources (OUP; ISBN 9780199259854). Uncle G (talk) 15:40, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • It looks like his edits have only been correct when AWB's preferred spelling is used in the original. In any case, this is still a haphazard way to go about using AWB. –xenotalk 15:43, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I agree. It's a foolish move to apply a 20th/21st century English spelling-correction tool to the titles of 17th century works. But it's also true that some of these titles weren't as correctly spelled in the first place as was being claimed by Reconsideration. And titles like Brébeuf and his Brethren are titles of 20th century works. Uncle G (talk) 15:52, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Fair enough. I personally don't have time to comb these one by one. But as you note, some were correct to be fixed, so perhaps mass-rollback isn't the best way to go about this... –xenotalk 15:55, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would like to take a closer look at what Uncle G has pointed out, but I also note that when his access to AWB was granted he was specifically asked not to use it for fixing typoes: [93]. –xenotalk 15:38, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Uncle G is right about Bretheren, Brethren -- Mephiston999 actually did good work on that one, fixing a mistake that I had made. He also fixed a typo I had in a John Donne work (changed Aniversary to Anniversary as in the original). He's also fixed many other typos/spelling mistakes on the year-in-poetry pages. I'm not complaining about actual corrections to actual spelling/typing mistakes. I've praised him for doing that. Now that we've narrowed down the problem by one edit, please tell me what I can do. Keep in mind that the edit that Uncle G identified is the only one to a year-in-poetry page after my comment on Mephiston999's talk page, so maybe he's stopped. -- Reconsideration (talk) 16:09, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Uncle G says Consider carefully. The spelling of the John Beaumont poem title that Mephiston999 used is the spelling that is given on page 495 of Robert S. Miola's Early modern Catholicism: an anthology of primary sources (OUP; ISBN 9780199259854). Uncle G (talk) 15:40, 29 August 2009 (UTC) Is Mephiston999 changing the spelling of a title because that editor has found a source? If there is a reason to change it to the new spelling, then at least the source should be cited and the old source in some cases removed. That's a content question we can discuss on an article talk page. Is that the kind of editing that AWB is used for? There are sources that give modernized spelling, and I've used them myself (but only when I couldn't easily find a source with original spellings, and I plan to change them when I find those sources). Wikipedia editors shouldn't be deciding on book title spelling, we should be using the spelling that we find sources using -- or explicitly tell the reader otherwise. Unless the editor is relying on sources, this is a kind of spelling WP:OR with a bot. Reconsideration (talk) 16:38, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Notwithstanding Uncle G's astute observations, my gut feeling says that Mephiston is taking AWB's typo fixing suggestions at face value without consulting the sources. The best thing to do would be to examine each edit and check it against a Google book search as has been done above and make a firm determination one way or the other. When you restore an antiquated spelling, you can wrap and obfuscate it in a {{sic}} template (probably using hide=y to suppress the [sic] display e.g.) to prevent careless typo fixing in the future (i.e. {{sic|Libel|ls|hide=y}} results in: Libells). –xenotalk 16:44, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you. I'll look into doing that immediately. Will that definitely hide it from AWB? Is there a Wikipedia page on that? It'll be a lot of work, but I'll do it. The diffs I cited at the top, other than the one I got wrong, were cited after I double-checked by looking into the original source I used when I first inserted some of those titles into the articles, The Concise Oxford Chronology of English Literature. Justification can be found for some of Mephiston999's title changes, and some works today seem to be better known by what looks like updated spelling (example: Deffense to Defense [94] seems justified by comparing Google searches, with 10 times the hits for the latter, both versions having reliable sources [95] [96]; yet that edit was one of seven the editor made from 18:16 to 18:18 that day, and it's hard to believe sourcing was looked up beforehand). Thanks again for your help. Reconsideration (talk) 17:29, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    i am sorry for the mistakes i have done and i now understand them and i promise it won't happen again. Mephiston999 (talk) 21:43, 29 August 2009 (UTC) these pages were suggested to me for typo fixing by a bot within AWB and i was initially thinking that it was because there were actual mistakes to correct. i now understand it is only a bot that gives article which could contain some mistakes without a deep analysis of each case, i am once again sorry for the misunderstanding. Mephiston999 (talk) 21:46, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    No problem. Helping check through them for errors would probably be appreciated by Reconsideration. –xenotalk 22:17, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I appreciate your comment. Yes, reverting the changes to the titles would be helpful. I also appreciate the typo- and spelling-fixing in the other parts of the articles. Bot spellchecking of the titles would have happened sooner or later, I think, and I'm glad I now know how to prevent it. Reconsideration (talk) 00:50, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Bret Hart

    Dear All,

    I would like to bring to your attention the page of wrestler Bret Hart. Over the last few days (and indeed the same incidents occured months earlier, through posters who are now banned - using the exact same language) the accepted, and time tested page has been edited to hide / buffer certain incidents. The editors in question are content in leaving the page to look like a fan page for this wrestler.

    The Bloodstained Memoirs section seems to be the focal editing point. Although the facts originaly listed are accurate, and cited, (and can be looked up independently) they are constantly trying to be changed to infactual accounts, or altered to be "pro Hart".

    The same goes for the Greg Oliver incident. I cited evidence which paints the incident in a far more unbiased fasion, and this was labbled "vandilism" by the trouble editors. I also took down uneccasary and very one sided information from the article lead to the same response.

    The entire article is written in a "Bret hart Favoured" tint which is obviously against Wiki policy, and the majority of the information does not even contain cites for what is stated. Its all very one sided.

    The editors in question are constantly being foul in discussion, and reverting things to name calling, and trolling etc. The article has gone untested for far too long, dispite myself, and others giving multiple warnings for this to stop. It seems they have no regard for the policies here, and are content for things to go around in circles. I even tried to compromise with this editor, but they wanted it all their way, and again reverted my edits to his/her version of events.

    I would appreciate immediate action, from somebody who is unbiased, and not even into wrestling, to see things as they are for Wiki policy.

    Thank You. Commoncase (talk) 14:56, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    It should also be worth noting, that a long standing "controversy" section was removed, and its content fit into other sections of the article. This was nothing more than a clever way to phase sections out as "not fitting under the new heading", and these claims are now starting to take on effect. Commoncase (talk) 15:01, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Note that this was transferred here after originally being posted to WP:AIV [97]. — Kralizec! (talk) 15:14, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Article fully protected for three days due to edit warring. Tan | 39 16:48, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Having looked at the situation on the article, it appears that the problem editor involved is very much Commoncase - the one who reported this. Commoncase has...
    • Logged in and out of his IP address to edit [98]
    • Engaged in POV-pushing
    • General incivility [102] [103]
    • Accusing another editor of being "Bret's manager" [104] [105] [106]
    • There's more tendentiousness if you go back a few months further, but Wikipedia is very slow for me and I'm tired of diff-hunting.
    Furthermore, a glance at his contribution history seems to show that Commoncase is probably involved with the documentary Bloodstained Memoirs. He has become a borderline Single Purpose Account since the film was released, has an obvious negative view of Hart, and claims familiarity with Hart's manager, "Marcy Engelstein".
    Suggesting that scrutiny be directed towards Commoncase. McJEFF (talk) 03:46, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Commoncase's problem simply stems from the fact that his pro-Bloodstained Memoirs, anti-Bret Hart agenda is being challenged. The producer's comments were PROFANE (third-and only reliable-cite fully supports this: "THE FOLLOWING BLOG CONTAINS PROFANE LANGUAGE"), they were sourced from a MySpace blog (where's the debate?) and there is no "strong" conflict (major NPOV vio - no reputable third-party sources supporting a "strong" conflict). Quite frankly, this whole thing was started by Commoncase, and now that his biased agenda is being challenged (relentlessly promoting Bloodstained Memoirs and criticizing Bret Hart), he's reporting OTHER editors. What a joke. 81.170.29.43 (talk) 10:31, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Resolved

    I became aware of the Heal the World Foundation article because of a report here. It's relatively straight forward - Michael Jackson run the charity and it was shut a few years ago. Then a new charity sprung up with the same name and an investigation by CBS revealed that they are completely unconnected and they have a direct quote from the Estate saying they are unconnected. This of course is not pleasing to the people running the charity and they would prefer this wasn't mentioned. I (and from the history others) have tried to explain to them about RS and are getting nowhere. They have no reverted to their perferred version and have stated they will take legal action against anyone who changes it. --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:06, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Ingrid4hubby

    Resolved
     – Indeffed.

    Ingrid4hubby (talk · contribs) For a couple of weeks, the above user has made unconstructive edits to talk:Castle, and at one point was blocked for 24 hours for making a personal attack. Ingrib4hubbey has also edited as 66.108.40.200 (talk · contribs) [107]. Since returning from the block, the user has continued to be unconstructive, accusing others of being biased and continued to make personal attacks. There is also a racist tone to her comments (eg: "Americans possess the propensity of not accepting the truth because they think that if it didn't come from them that it must not have been made possible. Again, this is highly discriminatory..."). I cannot take any action myself as after I blocked her the first time I became involved in the discussion. The latest details can be found here, although some slightly earlier stuff to show that this has continued for a couple of weeks now can be found here. Nev1 (talk) 16:22, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I've blocked this editor indefinitely. A quick review of their contributions shows a history of personal attacks and disruptive editing. TNXMan 16:38, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Beat me to it. Resolved. Tan | 39 16:39, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict, meant to add this above) It's obvious that your block did nothing to deter the behavior, so unless they can get their act together, they can sit in the corner. TNXMan 16:40, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the help folks. Nev1 (talk) 16:52, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Harassment by anon IP

    I don't know who this is but they have been clearly wikihounding me and have caused at least one semi-outing problem (now resolved). I think there might be a possibility that this is an open-proxy operated by Google, but I cannot verify it. I also see some peculiar similarities between that account and User:Landed little marsdon. Could an administrator look into this, and maybe give an opinion as to whether a CU might be appropriate?

    ScienceApologist (talk) 16:58, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I am missing the "clear wikihounding". A post to your talk page and a comment to Lar a month ago? Tan | 39 17:05, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Content is what is important here. The incredible level of snarkiness is indicative of User:Davkal, for example. In my experience, users acting like this are some of the most destructive around here. I already lost a mentor in part because of this kind of thing. In the past I would have confronted the IP on their talkpage, but now I think it wiser to get outsiders to handle this instead. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:09, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, unrelated to the actual editing, I blocked this IP as an open proxy; it is used by the Google translator service. Tan | 39 17:25, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    ScienceApologist is right. Any administrator who needs proof of that is welcome to contact me offsite. This is the tip of a nasty iceberg. Durova306 17:27, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there a reason off-wiki discussion is needed? Those two diffs (only one of which is on SA's talk page) don't seem especially helpful to building article content, but I can't see how they amount to a campaign of harassment. Many of us are sarcastic at times. Is there more to this, and if it can't be discussed on wiki then I think soem explanation for that should be provided for those of us not in the loop. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:52, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a reason that Durova's story needs to be left off-wiki. There is a difference, CoM, between accounts that engage in tongue-and-cheek ribbing and accounts that hide behind proxies and anon IPs to attempt to cause people grief. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:04, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I hear you SA. But transparency is also important. Maybe I just don't have the level of trust in off-wiki conferencing that you do. ;) ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:08, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    CoM, this is real enough. Surely you realize that for some things, the less attention paid here the better? DGG ( talk ) 20:33, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, well then close the thread. All I see are two diffs that don't amount to much and a comment by Durova whose track record on secret investigations comes well short of being perfect. But I'm willing to take the word of you and SA on faith. Is there a policy page on how these military tribunals are conducted or is it classified? ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:47, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    ChildofMidnight's slur is entirely uncalled-for. If that user had wanted to see what I had to show s/he might have emailed and put it to the test, or at least have contacted user talk before slamming my character at a public board. Do the words severe offsite harassment lack sufficient meaning? I've referred to this repeatedly and consistently since it happened, although somewhat quietly because I have no desire to be revictimized. One would hope, if such a thing had to happen, it would be at the hands of banned trolls rather than by people who have editing rights and ought to know better. For shame. Durova306 21:03, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    All I said was that your track record on secret investigations isn't perfect. I understand you may be sensitive over that issue, but I think my concerns are reasonable. A lot of decision making goes on behind closed doors which causes a lot of problems. And as far as my comment goes, it could have been much worse. I could have called you darling. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:08, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    ChildofMidnight isn't really talking about you per say Durova, oddly enough, he's angry about this and lashing out on ANI threads as a result. At least that's how I read it, as he has engaged in this exact same kind of behavior before when sanctioned by ArbCom, blocked by an admin, or even warned for something. The best bet is to ignore him, because his gibes are not really about the purported topic of the thread, but rather about the great injustice the Arbs have done him by clarifying the scope of his previously instituted topic ban. I know that's a failure to AGF on my part, but I'm afraid that's the reality. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:18, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • <outdent> I have tried to be circumspect. But if others feel it would be helpful to go into more detail on the history of secret tribunals and black op type operations conducted on and off Wikipedia I am happy to do so. If there is a reason why something can't be discussed on-wiki it is entirely fair and reasonable to expect as clear as possible an explanation as to why that is the case. The attacks and smears engaged in by Bigtimepeace are part of a pattern of abuse engaged in by that administrator, but I have a pretty thick skin having survived this long on Wikipedia while refusing to kowtow to the abusive admins and POV pushers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:37, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Let me see if I understand what you're saying, CoM. Are you threatening to reveal personal information that was discussed off-wiki just to make a point and to scare people off from discussing something which doesn't involve you? If that is not what you're threatening to do, then I apologize for misunderstanding you, but would request a clarification. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:14, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I think my concerns over transparency and process are reasonable and appropriate. I haven't attempted to intimidate or threaten anyone. I tried to discretely note that our history for secret campaigns is not a good one. This issue has come up before and I hope we don't repeat the same mistakes. My question is pretty simple: when do use secret processes and what protections are in place to make sure that there is really a need for secrecy and that those processes are not abused? That is all. The original report seems to have been resolved. My concerns over off-wiki discussions and procedures that aren't transparent remain. I've answered your questions, but no one has answered mine. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:36, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    James Caan (entrepreneur)

    Please can someone help me on the James Caan (entrepreneur) page? There's some disagreement over whether his previous name was "Nazim Khan" or "Nazim Khant". The evidence is overwhelmingly in favour of "Khan", and I've set this out on the Talk Page (before my IP changed just now :P), but it's still getting repeatedly reversed, without explanation or engagement in discussion.

    There has to be a possibility that this is simply vandalism. Clearly false former names have been added in the past, and (whilst of course I don't have a Wikipedia account myself) the vast majority of the "Khant" edits are made by anonymous editors. One non-anonymous editor has also supported the "Khant" change, but they've only made one edit not to the James Caan page (also to a biography of a living person), and this seems a bit suspicous too. However I don't want to jump to any conclusions, which is why I've come to this general page.

    I hope someone more experienced will be able to help!

    Stephen 81.129.2.220 (talk) 17:06, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    This is not the place to discuss it. You might wish to try WP:3O if you feel no consensus can be achieved on the article talk page. Oh, and welcome to Wikipedia! Aditya (talk) 18:30, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree. As far as I can determine, there's no good-faith dispute at all here - the "Khant" changes are simple vandalism. I'm not sure what the motivation is, but I can't see any decent sources that support that spelling. If this behaviour continues, I'd generally suggest semi protection of the article, but that would prevent all IP editing, including the original poster here - have you thought about creating an account? ~ mazca talk 19:34, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The IP making the changes seems rather static. If the behavior continues, we can simply block it. — Jake Wartenberg 19:51, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    "I was called Nazim Khan, and it suddenly struck me that I could spell my surname in a different way". No dispute here. – iridescent 00:15, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

     Admin PhilKnight blocked the IP for 48 hours

    An anon editor keeps adding a commercial website as an external link in the black garlic article even after repeated explanations, reversions and a warning. [110]. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:04, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:DBZfan29

    I managed to step in this when I swung by the vandalism-in-progress page and saw that an established user had been reported there as retaliation over content dispute. User:Collectonian, who this user was in dispute with, pointed out that this young man's userpage contained a great deal of personal information, perhaps too much. I deleted it for his protection, but sure enough, I'm now in the middle of a hassle over it. Would someone else please review User:DBZfan29? If he limited his personal info as claimed on the talk page, please feel free to restore it. IMO, he's listed too much and this is way too visible a site for such sensitive info. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 19:53, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I think it was probably too much info, even though the user claims "It's just a copy of my FanCorps profile and it gives info that any fanboy/fangirl would write on their page.". There wasn't a ton of personal info, but enough that I would feel uncomfortable leaving it up. TNXMan 19:58, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Exactly what I felt. He pulled up just short of using his last name, but I agree that leaving it up is not in his best interest. I'm still trying to get him to calm down after the userpage deletion and the edit warring. Here's hoping he will. Gotta run...thanks for the opinion. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 20:02, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Especially given that DBZfan29 says the information is copied from profile pages elsewhere, this may be a copyvio anyway. Chunks of the userpage (which is too Facebooky to fit the WP:UP guildelines in any case) are from a blogspot.com profile. http://www.blogger.com/terms.g says (under "Intellectual Property Rights") "…you agree that you will not copy, reproduce, alter, modify or create derivative works from the Service." Does this include profile content a member has put there themselves? Tonywalton Talk 23:31, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    As a side note, I was curious when I saw that mentioned on DBFan's talk page since I have a friend who uses Blogger. Looking a bit further down, Google firmly states that you own all copyrights to your blog posts, profile, etc, so I presume they are referring only to the Blogger service itself and its trappings/domain specific language. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:25, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Jclemens on Orly Taitz

    Since 28 August, and for the last several days, I have been discussing the good article nomination of Orly Taitz by User:Jclemens on his talk page. I have not edited the article in question, but have concerns about stability, sourcing, and NPOV. Recently, I took my concerns from Jclemens' talk page and raised those same concerns on the article talk page. (See my comments over at Talk:Orly Taitz) In response to a heated discussion, Jclemens has declared that he has "topic banned" me from this article[111] after I have explicitly stated that "I intend to continue to maintain my neutrality by staying on the talk page" and not get involved in editing the article. To recap, Jclemens nominated the article for GAC, I responded on his talk page asking why I shouldn't quick-fail it, and then I placed several criticisms and suggestions for improvement on the discussion page, noting I had no intention of editing. Now, Jclemens declares I am topic banned. Jclemens is currently the top listed, primary contributor to Orly Taitz, with 106 edits.[112] I have been actively discussing his recent GA nomination, and several issues on the talk page. While I'm sure it is tempting to topic ban critics of our work, I don't think his topic ban declaration against me is legitimate. Could an uninvolved administrator look at this? Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 22:36, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    (EC) Yes, the topic ban is inappropriate. For established users like you, it takes community consensus, not one admin, to impose a ban. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:37, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    In that case, I will voluntarily stay away from the page for 24 hours to let things cool down. Viriditas (talk) 22:39, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It's totally inappropriate. While a topic ban isn't a use of the tools exactly, it's pretty close. He's involved in the article (heavily, as you note) and shouldn't be 'banning' people from it, not least of all for suggesting that it be quick failed. Protonk (talk) 23:23, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Per my message at Viriditi's talkpage and my notice to Jclemens I have unbanned Viriditas from Orly Taitz related pages. As noted in both comments, I express no opinion on the appropriateness of Viriditas' actions but only that Jclemens flawed use of admin authority (as they are involved in both editing the article and interacting with Viriditas' in regards to it). I note V has voluntarily agreed to withdraw from the issue for 24 hours, which will permit Jclemens time to commence a topic ban request should they wish to pursue that course of action. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:32, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Responses

    Well, despite WP:NOTIFY, no one seems to have waited to hear my side of the story before rushing to judgement.

    • User:Viriditas has engaged in unprovoked, repeated and disruptive incivility against me and another editor, (diffs: "wikilawyering and obstruction", "Civil POV pushing and Wikilawyering", "wikilawyering and obscructionism", and "cherry picking sources") despite multiple warnings to cease doing so (diffs: [113], [114], and [115]), has asserted that objections to his conduct are simply "an attempt to change the subject" but despite those protestations, his incivility is the sole reason I topic banned him: (diff: [116])
    • Having said that, this entire evolution raises several questions:
      • Protonk, your assertion that I topic banned Viriditas for suggesting the article be quick failed may coincide with his version of reality, but certainly was not my motivation, and in fact, I told him to go ahead and fail it if he wanted about 16 hours before his attacks began on the article talk page. I'm no stranger to WP:GAN as a nominator or reviewer, both before and after becoming an administrator, and it seems quite illogical to presume that I'd try to use a topic ban to boost an article's chances of passing. I'd appreciate it if you'd care to qualify your statement in light of my explanation.
      • Per KoH's comment, is it within the purview of an individual administrator to impose a topic ban, or not? Practice seems to have been that admins could do so per their discretion, subject to community or arbcom review, even though no such mention is made at WP:TOPICBAN.
      • I am unclear how my editing of an article restricts me from acting in an administrative capacity to enforce appropriate policies. WP:INVOLVED doesn't say anything about "if you edit an article, you can't take action against someone who is incivil on the article talk page"--rather, it says quite the opposite. I doubt a full reading of the record will find my actions objectively unreasonable: ("When you're ready to discuss problems, rather than editors, simply drop a note on my talk page asserting your desire to so focus in the future. Note specifically that you are not expected to change the content of your objections for this topic ban to be lifted, merely their presentation. Dissent is absolutely welcome, assertions of cherry-picking, wikilawyering, and the like are not"). If such interactions are now considered by the community to be "totally inappropriate", then may I suggest WP:INVOLVED be updated to reflect such?
      • Speaking of community involvement, I provided what I believe to be a perfectly reasonable, policy-based condition (WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL) condition for the removal of the topic ban. Is there a particular reason why this remedy was deemed to be inappropriate, and another admin unilaterally reversed the topic ban without waiting to hear my side of the story? Isn't this discussion substantially moot, in that Viriditas has agreed to essentially the terms of the topic ban anyways? Topic bans, like all tools, are designed to promote collegial editing. If Viriditas is going to return to the talk page and present his arguments in a logical, dispassionate manner and cut out the accusations of bad faith and misconduct, then my entire goal in enacting a temporary topic ban has been achieved. I still view temporary topic bans as a more appropriate and lower-level response than blocks for repeated incivility which doesn't rise to the level of vandalism. Jclemens (talk) 01:17, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • There's a continuum of problems that we deal with in articles. I consider myself 'involved' in about 3 dozen articles (give or take). If I revert vandalism and block the user on Adam Smith, I am neatly in the right. It is (almost) literally impossible to imagine a reasonable person who could view "Adam Smith eats poop" as anything other than vandalism and see a block for a named account with no contributions save blatant vandalism as anything other than a VOA. It is another matter entirely if I see an editor who is editing tendentiously or disruptively on Adam Smith or being obstinate and disputatious on Talk:Adam Smith and I block/ban them from the article. There are no shortage of different views on what might have been going on there. Perhaps another outside observer would see the situation as a dispute between two editors. Perhaps another observer would see the editor I viewed as disruptive as correct in their interpretation of sources. It is impossible for me to disengage my perspective of the content from my judgment of the conduct. More importantly, it is impossible for me to show to others that I have done so. You are involved in the Orly Taitz article. If you don't see yourself as involved, then others do. As such, you shouldn't be taking any admin actions there which could fall into gray areas. If you don't see your action as being well within the gray area, then accept some feedback: it was. I may be wrong in my quick summation as to the impetus for the topic ban. If I am I'm sorry for jumping to that conclusion. But I don't feel I'm wrong about my interpretation of INVOLVED. Protonk (talk) 01:46, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Apology accepted, thanks. If I implied that I thought I was not involved, then that was not my intent. I most certainly am involved in the article and any assertion from anyone that I'm not is laughable. Having said that, I believe where our viewpoints diverge is that I haven't interacted with Viriditas in any administrative capacity: there's no history that could be construed as historial bias against the user in question. Thus, if I am uninvolved with the topic banned editor (Viriditas), and the topic ban has nothing to do with the content of an article with which I'm involved, there's no particular reason for me to avoid dealing with a problem. I realise that the last clause is important and disputed, but maintain that both my words and actions demonstrate that the topic ban was related to incivility rather than article content. Jclemens (talk) 02:24, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • The problem is that your involvement with the article precludes you from being able to judge situations like this with any great deal of nuance. The appropriate response to perceived incivility on the article talk page would be to get some input from another admin. They might disagree with your read and suggest that you too seek some dispute resolution. If you were just two editors involved in a dispute you would have to go through some route like that. But because you are an admin you 'can' (distinct from should) skip that and remove him from the page. IMO INVOLVED was written to proscribe a course of action like that. Protonk (talk) 03:35, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • So there are two assumptions which I challenge: 1) that my involvement "precludes you from being able to judge situations like this with any great deal of nuance". Really, I've been around Wikipedia long enough to know the difference between civil discourse and personal attacks. I dislike unprovoked accusations of any sort, and I don't think you'll find my actions in this case inconsistent with those in any other. I see no logic in the presumption that I am incapable of telling incivil users to take a time out until they can comport themselves civilly. 2) That INVOLVED supports the recusal of admins in all situation in which they're involved. In fact, it says absolutely nothing of the sort--there are no prohibitions in that section, just a recommendation that administrators may want to seek others to perform blocks. The clause that you're probably referring to, "Administrators should not use their tools to advantage, or in a content dispute (or article) where they are a party (or significant editor), or where a significant conflict of interest is likely to exist." is up the page a bit, but there's still nothing applicable there: one has to seriously torture the definition of "advantage" or "comflict of interest" to include simply expecting civility in a dispute. Jclemens (talk) 05:11, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • The first one wasn't completely an assumption. In my opinion, you topic banned someone with whom you should have entered dispute resolution. Obviously you and I hold differing opinions about it, but I imagine that your involvement with the article might have led you to undertake an action you otherwise wouldn't have undertaken. That said, it is also possible that you felt WP:TOPICBAN applied neatly and also felt that literal involvement with the article didn't preclude the use of the tools (broadly). I also am going to repeat my charge that this falls well away from obvious problems on the continuum of unpleasant editor actions. The diffs you provide above are either garden variety wikilawyering, warnings from you to him, or responses to warnings. Where is the clear and actionable incivility? Protonk (talk) 06:14, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Next steps?

    So, two questions remain, and here is as good a place to discuss them as any:

    • Those don't seem to be relevant, as these aren't actually in dispute; these, in fact, seem to be framed less as a way of discussing any actual issues as they seem to be a way of steering towards a pre-determined conclusion justifying your actions. --Calton | Talk 03:48, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Xandar

    Xandar (talk · contribs · count). The main points are:

    • The issue in question is whether we must use the name which an entity prefers for itself in its article title instead of the common name of that entity. Xandar's interpretation of the naming conflict guideline is that the preferred name must be used, rather than the common name which is suggested by our WP:NAME policy.
    • Xandar is involved with the Catholic Church article (top-edited pages: 498 - Catholic_Church; 61 - European_wars_of_religion), and is editing Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conflict to remove changes that may 'restart disputes' at Catholic Church. This includes reverting of basic cleanup.
    • I assert no conflict of interest. I am uninvolved in the Catholic Church discussions, and my position on the Naming conflict guideline was initially the same as Xandar's, until good reasons against it were provided by other editors.
    • There is a Straw poll to help figure out some of these issues. Xandar has notified at least 11 biased editors of the poll (see contribs), using language like "Those wishing to radically change the WP:Naming conflicts guidance" [117]. All of the editors that I've checked are either involved with the Catholic Church or various religion pages, or have expressed some level of agreement above with Xandar's position in the discussion. Most have been canvassed on not one, but two occasions. At this time all of those !voting with Xandar on the two issues have been canvassed (except Kraftlos, I believe).
    • Xandar's attitude towards this issue is generally inappropriate, for example see here.
    • Xandar has been warned on this same issue just several days ago, see also this, so he is perfectly aware of what he is doing. I have also made a section at the naming conflicts page outlining most of these issues, which Xandar is aware of.
    • Xandar (and others he has called to the discussion) have been reverting changes to Naming conflict throughout the discussion on the basis of 'longstanding consensus' (a misinterpretation, and WP:CCC). I tried undoing one of these reverts, and Xandar responded by informing Anietor, who promptly reverted the page back to the original version. [see also here] This is continuing despite numerous warnings against meatpuppetry and votestacking.

    Some help with this seemingly controversial situation would be greatly appreciated.    M   23:30, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Indeed it would; most of his edits in the last few days have been reversions, fulminations in FULL CAPS about how we are conspiring against the Papacy, and requests for proxies. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:38, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • User:M, (as when he made comments about me on the Consensus talk page,) has totally misrepresented the situation. PMA's comments about me, "defending the Papacy" seem to show where he is coming from on this issue, and the distortions being used. I have had to face multiple instances of breaches of WP:CIVIL on the Wikipedia_talk:Naming conflict page, while I have tried to stick to the arguments.
        • M is one of a group of several editors, including PMAnderson, Kotniski, Philip Baird Shearer and Knepflerle, many of whom have been active in the Catholic Church naming dispute, or who have expressed strong views on that dispute, who have suddenly decided to unilaterally alter the longstanding text of the Wikipedia:Naming conflict Naming convention so that it supports their views. They have threatened, edit-warred, forum-shopped and vote-stacked in order to try and obtain the fundamental change to the guideline that they want, without consensus. This seems to be the latest step on that road.
        • PMAnderson is currently under sanction for disruptive editing, and User:Kotniski has had several complaints about agressive editing on policy issues. In fact PMAnderson was called deliberately into this dispute at Naming Conflict by Knepflerle, who complained about the use of this guideline in the Catholic Church naming issue. Knepflerle and PMAnderson, with the support of Kotniski, M and PBS, then radically changed the Naming Guideline to suit their agenda, and instead of accepting a revert to the standard consensus version, and discussing until community acceptance of the radical reversal of policy they proposed was obtained, then began an edit war to enforce their own desired policy. The page had to be protected for a week, and almost immediately after protection was removed, realising that there was no consensus for their changes, M, PMAnderson and others started again on the same tactic of radically altering the meaning of the guidance and edit-warring when an attempt was made to restore the longstanding consensus version.
        • It is clear WP practice that substantive changes to Wikipedia policies and guidelines should attain community consensus before being made. However this clique are attempting to circumvent that consensus for reasons which are as ChrisO, one of the original writers of the Naming Convention has said, must be because of their involvement in a naming dispute.
        • My role in this is because I have been using the long-standing and never-before-questioned Naming Convention in the mediated debate on the naming of Catholic Church. I found the guidance had been unilaterally and substantially altered, and reverted it. Other affected people were informed and later took part. A discussion was begun, which was then moved to another forum, without telling anyone on our side, in a clear case of WP:FORUMSHOPping. I was informed of this, and informed other participants. Failing to gain consensus on the Naming Conventions talk page, they reverted discussion to the Naming conflict talk page AGAIN without informing the opposing side. I again had to inform participants of this, and of the "Starw Poll" they set up - the incident wher M says I mailed 14 people. I did. SINCE THESE WERE ALL THE PEOPLE ON BOTH SIDES WHO HAD NOT BEEN TOLD ABOUT THE "POLL". It was after this that the edit warring began again.
        • I would therefore state that it is M and his allies who have been disruptive on this issue. Their indecent anxiety to change a Naming Convention that has been stable for 4 years has led them to the disruptive activity I have referred to above. There is no need to unilaterally reverse this long-standing guidance without gaining proper consensus. Our side has been ready to discuss the issue, while defending the principles upheld by the guidance, and subject the result to the approval of the Wikipedia community. Ms side has not, wanting their own way at once - with or without consensus. I would ask that this important page be again locked on the longstanding version reverted by Anietor or StormRider until a real community consensus can be obtained to fundamentally change it. Xandar 01:04, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't want this ANI request to become a giant discussion about the naming conflict page. If Xandar has any issue with the behavior of other editors, he can start his own ANI. Even now, with an ANI open on this issue, Xandar continues to revert [118], this time apparently past 3RR. He has undone this (summary: "restoring a controversial new version...") after being informed that it will result in an immediate block. There seems to be more than enough for a block here, given WP:CANVASSING and the numerous prior warnings, some by admins. It would be preferable if Xandar was banned from reverting on that page, and from canvassing for support or 'informing' other editors of 'controversial and undiscussed changes' being made to the 'longstanding guidance', but I seriously doubt that this would put a stop to his activities. This pattern of editing has been going on for about 3 weeks now[119].    M  02:57, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    My this is a surprise and such a very skewed perspective. I assume that I am one of those "biased" editors because I have edited the Catholic Church article; please review my editing history and you will see that I am first a foremost a Latter Day Saint. More importantly, if I have a bias it would certainly be heavily slated toward the LDS Church. The claim is preposterous and without merit. I submit that it is also representative of the rest of "M's" claims. He has closely collaborated with the editor that has most egregiously violated all sense of civil discussion, edit warring, and consensus building, Septentrionalis PMAnderson. Before this moves forward, please review M and Pm's talk page discussions.
    All that is at stake here is Pm with the assistance of M is the reversion of a long-standing, stable guidance on the preference that preferred names of groups be respected. Not a single editor has recommended that reliable references be ignored, but that when all things are equal, the preferred name be used. Pm and M are determined, regardless of consensus or the views of anyone else, to cram their opinion on the rest of Wikipedia. I reject their efforts, their manner of ignoring all other positions, their edit warring, and this silly, personal vendetta that M is pursuing. He has presented that he is not biased, but his opinions and his position has always been from Pm's position. I reject his claims in their entirety and I recommend that others do the same. --StormRider 04:16, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm sorry, but I just have to chuckle at all of this. Can I say I told ya so, now? In my (not so) humble opinion, this whole matter, lock, stock, and every user actually involved, needs to go to Arbcom. I haven't actually seen anything about this since I posted the above linked to discussion here, but I can see that time hasn't helped the situation at all. Everyone just needs to walk away for a while, probably.
      — V = I * R (talk to Ω) 05:06, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Marktreut edit warring and disruption

    User:Marktreut is continuing to edit war and be generally disruptive at the Lupin III article, as well as Characters of The Adventures of Tintin. He has already been blocked three times for edit warring, sockpuppeting, and being disruptive. He regularly adds his own personal opinions and OR to fictional articles, then when he is reverted, edit wars until he's blocked or the article is locked and makes personal attacks at anyone who doesn't let him have his way. At List of InuYasha characters he turned around and vandalized the article after his OR was rejected, resulting in the first of his blocks. At Lupin III, despite the extremely clear and unanimous consensus against his continued attempts at OR on the article talk page, he continues to revert and readd the information, generally waiting a few days, the coming back and adding it again in a slightly modified form. In the last month, he's done this no less than 15 times and at this point he seems to be doing it just to do it. He shrugged off his blocks as ineffective and stating "funny how a suspension from wikipedia also coincides with a well-earned week's holiday abroad",[120] and has repeatedly stated that he will continue this actions until he gets his way, claiming that "we" made him act this way by not allowing original research and unverifiable information into articles just because he feels they are facts and that he is "protecting" Wikipedia. He also tried to aid the Disney vandal Bambifan101 at The Fox and the Hound after following me there. At Characters of The Adventures of Tintin, first he edit warred over the removal of excessive non-free images, and now he is edit warring and interfering with editors efforts to clean up the excessive plot and WP:OR there. Warnings and discussion have proven ineffective with this editor, who refuses to accept that Wikipedia works by consensus and who laughs off Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and the blocks he has received. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:09, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Vandalism by 66.4.233.x IP range

    66.4.233.x is a range of IP addresses registered to the State of Tennessee Department of Education. After noticing a recent spate of vandalism by 66.4.233.3, I looked into the contribution history of 66.4.233.1 to 66.4.233.30. The following IPs have been engaged in regular or periodic vandalism:

    • 66.4.233.3
    • 66.4.233.4
    • 66.4.233.7
    • 66.4.233.8
    • 66.4.233.10
    • 66.4.233.13
    • 66.4.233.14
    • 66.4.233.17
    • 66.4.233.18
    • 66.4.233.20
    • 66.4.233.21
    • 66.4.233.24
    • 66.4.233.25
    • 66.4.233.26
    • 66.4.233.28
    • 66.4.233.30

    I added {{SharedIPEDU}} to these pages and started an abuse report, but the activity histories seem to warrant a soft block of all IPs within the 66.4.233.x range. Also, there may be additional ranges within 66.4.x.x or 66.5.x.x (all owned by the TN Dept of Education per their whois) that have similar problems, but I'm not knowledgeable enough about Wikipedia to check contributions for these by any method other than manual. --Zach425 talk/contribs 01:17, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    For anyone that has the correct gadget installed, here is the editing history of the 66.4.233.0/24 range noted above: [121] It does not appear that a rangeblock would result in ANY collateral damage, since checking 20 random edits from about 10 random IPs from that range turned up ZERO non-vandalism edits. I will be enacting a /24 soft rangeblock (anon only, account creation allowed) on this range unless someone can come up with a reasonable objection. --Jayron32 02:12, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
     Done. [122]. 3 month soft block (anon only, account creation allowed) should minimize the high level of hit-and-run type vandalism found from this range. --Jayron32 02:15, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Go to your preferences, gadgets and click the button next to "Allow /16 and /24 – /32 CIDR ranges on Special:Contributions forms (uses API), as well as wildcard prefix searches, e.g., "Splark*". (Please report any issues here.)". that should allow you to check range contributions. Protonk (talk) 02:23, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I think a further improvement over the CIDR gadget is the Soxred93 tool, http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/rangecontribs/ which has the advantage of listing all the contributions from the range in order by date, with the most recent ones first. (This helps focus your attention on vandals who are currently active). See an example here. The CIDR gadget presents the same data, but sorted first by IP and only then by date, which is tolerable for a /24 but cumbersome for a /16. EdJohnston (talk) 04:40, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Cool. LEarn something new every day. Protonk (talk) 05:58, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Attack page or something violating BLP

    Hi, Chris Cunningham (disambiguation) was created solely to out a BLPs supposed real name - they get death threats all the time so we have insisted on strong reliable sourcing before revealing identifying information. The same user has be edit-warring on the article itself sourcing this "fact" to fake YouTube videos. Could someone please delete Chris Cunningham (disambiguation) immediately? Thank you. -- Banjeboi 02:38, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Outdent. Yes, it is a problem, can it be oversighted at the deletion log of Chris Cunningham (disambiguation)? There are a couple of issues here, one is that we have to avoid outing people, if reliable sources do so then we can follow their lead. Talk page comments and blog posts on otherwise reliable sources still don't count as evidence; and, btw, we're talking about death threats. Now even if you don't care for the guy consider that the last thing we want to do besides accidentally outing him and getting him killed ... is accidentally outing someone else who is then killed. -- Banjeboi 05:29, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • You can email oversight if you like. I won't, because it's two years old and information about the guy exists in plain sight on google. I'm all for refusing to 'out' him on the talk page or the article, per WP:NPF, but the horse is out of the barn on that dab page deletion log. Protonk (talk) 05:42, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'll see if I can get it addressed, just because it's been sitting in a form there for a while doesn't mean it's acceptable. And let's not confuse Google with reality, there is no reliable sourcing to assert his birth name - that's the point so it could be Cunningham or something else entirely; would the mistaken identity murder of someone named Chris Cunningham sit that much better? -- Banjeboi 06:38, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I realize that I'm butting in here, but... I wouldn't bother. Leaving the history there actually advertises the fact that "we" (the Wikipedia community, not even just the admins) simply won't condone this type of disruption. You'll never completely dissuade people from doing this sort of thing, no matter what you do. Perversely, the more that you try to prevent in anticipation of enforcement, the worse the problem becomes. Just let sleeping dogs lay.
          — V = I * R (talk to Ω) 07:00, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I would no more blame a 2 year old dab page for the murder of a human being than I would blame Jodie Foster for Ronald Reagan's shooting. People receive death threats from sociopaths. Conflating (even implicitly) refusal to jump all over a problem that you have advertised inadvertently with murder is an ugly method of persuasion. Protonk (talk) 07:08, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Bobbygt92 continues to upload images without licenses

    Bobbygt92 (talk · contribs) continues to upload images without any licenses despite a final warning. Time for some admin intervention. — Σxplicit 02:56, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    •  Not done Try talking to them using words rather than templates. Also, what they are doing is not as disruptive as most uploaders, who claim an image as free when it is non-free. The user appears to have uploaded only have uploaded 5 images, all of the same subject. Let's try and involve them in the project before we hit them with the banhammer. Protonk (talk) 03:25, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I was about to block myself for 48 hours, but Protonk is probably right here. I quickly undid my original block. A user should take the time to craft an explanation of the problem before jumping straight to the block. Crypticly worded templates can be hard for new users to parse. --Jayron32 03:29, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • To be fair, even if they are templated, the template clearly explains that the images the user uploaded don't have licenses. The purpose of a block is the stop disruption, and in this case, it would be the continuous uploading of unlicensed images (granted, the user has ceased editing for now, but the point remains). It may not be as bad as blatant copyright violations, but that doesn't make it any better. Various warnings, including my own and the ones included in images like this one, should be clear indicators that the uploader has taken no time to address the problem or read our guidelines and policies. — Σxplicit 03:45, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • If it's not as bad as "blatant copyright violations", how is it also not any better? It's clearly better than uploading non-free media as free, simply because they get sorted into a pseudo-speedy deletion queue if they are orphaned. Also the F3 upload suggests to me that the user is trying to figure out how to avoid getting the templates and warnings. The next step for them (should they not get the point) is to lie and say that an image is free content. The purpose of human to human contact is to interrupt that chain. Sit down, write a note explaining why their uploads aren't free (most people assume "on the internet" or "for public display" == free), and tell them where to go from there. It's entirely possible that they will never understand or care about our policies, but nowhere is it required that they read them prior to editing and I'm not about to block or recommend blocking a user on so little evidence of wrongdoing. I'm also aware of the purpose of a block and when/if I see incipient disruption coming from that account, I'll change my mind. Until then do not bite the newcomers. Protonk (talk) 03:55, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • It's not any better because it's still not the correct thing to do. Trying to get around warnings by choosing different licenses is still wrong. You're correct when you say they aren't required to read policies and guidelines, but that doesn't mean they're free to breach them. If they don't take the time to read the template, or at least contact and ask me or any other editor to ask what they're doing wrong when a template explains it to them, I don't see the point of typing out a personal message saying the same thing in different, personal words. And for the record, I'm not biting the newbies. There's only an amount of good faith I'm able to assume. — Σxplicit 04:17, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • Well, you asked for some admin intervention and you got some. I'm sorry you didn't like it. If you aren't interested in writing a personal message, don't. But I won't block the user and (as I said above) I will recommend against a block unless they continue to upload copyvio material. Protonk (talk) 05:56, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    While I'm not completely against Protonk's suggestion, I would like to comment on this. I do not think the template in question here is cryptic; it says exactly what should be said and what the problem is. Before we had this template, we had to manually tell people to stop uploading images and not attaching a license. Someone finally said, "hey, that's a lot of extra work, let's create a template". Templates are not inherently bad or bitey; they are merely convenient. Templating the regulars is another story, obviously - but for a new editor, this is exactly why we have these templates. If we can't template the regulars, and we shouldn't template the newbies, what are they there for? Is your entire argument that we shouldn't be using any templates? I don't want or have to "sit down" and craft a note; someone already did. Reinventing the wheel. If the editor can't understand the template, they should ask questions. If they can't figure out how to ask questions, they shouldn't be uploading pictures anyway. Secondly - a short block here would have been appropriate. Blocks are not meant to be punitive, and here we would be preventing further uploads from happening before the editor could educate themselves on our policies. Tan | 39 04:31, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • "Templates are not inherently bad or bitey; they are merely convenient. Templating the regulars is another story, obviously - but for a new editor, this is exactly why we have these templates. If we can't template the regulars, and we shouldn't template the newbies, what are they there for?" I'm of the opinion that they represent a method of communication with very little efficacy. In practice they mostly serve as a wicket to get through before we can block someone. We should explore why we don't template the regulars before determining that templates serve as an appropriate stand in for personal communication. We don't template the regulars because we can presume they know the rules...and because most of the templates are pretty bristly. {{Uw-sofixit}} is a hell of a lot worse than "here are sources X, Y, and Z, you can help me fix the problems w/ the page". We don't template the regulars because we recognize that people ignore impersonal warnings but cue in to personal suggestions. We don't extend this courtesy to new and IP users for a mix of good and bad reasons--the obvious good reason being that there are a shitload of new/IP users. Protonk (talk) 05:56, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User LineofWisdom

    This is an open request for a serious action against the above user for my constant pestering by him for the past two weeks.

    • Firstly he started unnecessary edits in the form of inserting the names of his clan members in an article Marwat co-created by me. When I responded to his vandalism and POV entries then he placed an AFD tag on this wonderful article through one of his confirmed sockpuppet. Obviously the result was a Speedy Keep.
    • Secondly then he indulged into an Edit War on the same article with me and as a result I unintentionally violated 3RR and was banned for 24 hours but upon my appeal this user was also banned for a week for Edit Warring as well as using yet another sockpuppet. Article Marwat was also protected upon my request by Jeremy so that he couldn’t do his vanity edits in it. Needless to mention that while appealing against his week long ban he became personal to me and Jeremy who eventually brought a case against him at Administrators Board. He however, got away due to the tolerance policy of Wikipedia.
    • Now as a matter of fact he has been vandalizing all the articles related to the parent article on Marwat or created/started by me and the latest example is his placing an absolutely unnecessary AFD at Khayal Muhammad which would prove to be a waste of time for all of us. My other articles which he has disturbed can be found through his user contributions and can be confirmed from my user page.
    • I leave it to the administrators to decide the fate of this person whose edits are not at all helpful and who is just here to vandalize Pashto related articles. I am positive that he is a reincarnation of an earlier vandal A M. Khan with whom I had a long tussle of removing his vanity entries in the parent article of Marwat. I am saying this because their style of writing and vandalism targets are exactly the same.
    • I expect justice from you. PLEASE HELP ME OUT HERE. -- MARWAT  07:05, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    you're back here already? In my opinion, the two of you just need to disengage for a while. There are over 3 million articles on Wikipedia now, surely something else can keep your editorial interest for a few days. Let him have his way for a while, and then come back to the issue that the two of you have when things have cooled down a little.
    — V = I * R (talk to Ω) 07:22, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Your comments are a little disheartening. What do you mean i am back already? This is my first time I brought this issue into your notice. If you are referring to Jeremy's report then I had nothing to do with it. I don't have any problem with him being around but what bothers me is that he is religiously following me around and is pestering me. Now my specific complain needs to be addressed separately. And besides, leaving aside your comment of 3 million articles, should we leave him to have his way with decent articles by placing bad faith AFD's? -- MARWAT  08:03, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    First, full disclosure: I am not, and don't actually want to be, an admin. Therefore, regardless of my personal opinions here, nothing substantive will come of them. Still, I have some experience with this type of thing, and I'm telling you that coming here so soon after the last incident involving the two of you just doesn't bode well, regardless of if you had anything to do with filing it or not. I stand by my earlier statement, that the best move is simply to let go for some short period of time (a week or two would be good, but even 24-48 hours would help) and come back to it fresh. I know how frustrating this sort of thing can be, believe me, especially when you feel that you're in the right. The thing is, if you really are right, then you should be able to stay cool, and therefore weather any reports that the other party may make. Coming running to AN/I isn't really going to resolve anything anyway, even if someone does "give you justice" and bans the other party in the dispute. They'll just be back, so it's a hollow victory even if you achieve it.
    — V = I * R (talk to Ω) 09:01, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Point taken but the frustrating thing is that I am really tired of this. I am ready to let it go but he is stuck to me like a skunk's smell. And you will see that the moment he re-logs on he will taint this discussion as well. -- MARWAT  09:12, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:STALKing is a real problem, and is taken seriously, so if that is what is occurring then you should limit your report here specifically to supporting a case that you're being "hounded". In other words, don't bother bringing up the background and whatnot, at least not until asked. Limit your evidence to actual "wikihounding" incidents by providing diffs showing how the other user has been harassing you.
    — V = I * R (talk to Ω) 09:25, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=310867893"