Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by DianeFinn (talk | contribs) at 17:42, 17 May 2008 (→BOT out of control and needs temporary blocking/shutting off: new section). 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.

    You are not autoconfirmed, meaning you cannot currently edit this page. Instead, use /Non-autoconfirmed posts.

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

    Start a new discussion

    BLP violations

    User:David Shankbone has decided "out" real life people for contributing to Wikipedia Review; see his talk page and User talk:Jimbo Wales. No matter what the editor has done, Wikipedia is not the place for this, and WP:BLP applies. My first inclination was to delete/request oversight of the edits, and warn David, but given Mr Shankbone is quite popular due to his numerous image contributions, I thought I would bring it here rather than risk a wheel war (the last time I used admin tools with regards to an established contributor for obvious and knowingly violating established policies, it was undone and I didn't hear the end of it for weeks). Thoughts, please. Neıl ☎ 16:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • My thought is that Neil has a personal issue with me--he took it upon himself to go around to all articles where other users put my name in the image captions and removed them, why just me, I'm unsure--so if I get blocked then it should be by somebody other than Neil. He has a personal animus. If anyone wants my reasoning for stating that Paul Wehage is the fieryangel at the Wikipedia Review, let me know. But as Lawrence Cohen stated, our policies don't exist to protect editors of other websites. --David Shankbone 16:34, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • David, applying the image use policy does not amount to a personal issue - I simply noticed this while reading the last ANI thread about you. I should point out I haven't even considered blocking you - this is why I have brought it to ANI for discussion. Please do not deflect the issue with rubbish about some personal animus. I have none with you. I also note you have repeated your BLP violation. Neıl ☎ 16:41, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • The last ANI thread was not about me, but about User:SqueakBox, and I had started it. He had taken a false COI argument that the fieryangel--my good friend Paulie--and applied it here. You have also misapplied it, by the way, but not with removing it from the image captions. When I saw that was happening, I raised the issue myself and nobody addressed it (I can hunt through the diffs - I raised it at the time Jus4helpin was putting names, not just mine, in captions. Regardless, you overapplied it. --David Shankbone 16:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • If there are any other contributors who have their name in the article's image caption (whether put there by themselves or by someone else), feel free to let me know the name and I will work on removing those, too. It is quite hard to find them unless the name is known. Neıl ☎ 16:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Whether an editor has been here for five years or five minutes is irrelevant. If a user is using Wikipedia to further some sort of vendetta and are in danger of bringing the project into disrepute, all steps have to be taken to stop them doing so, whether they be Shankbone or Willy on Wheels. Suggest indefinite block as the post above shows the outing will not stop George The Dragon (talk) 16:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think an indefinite block is warranted or appropriate. An agreement to stop would suffice, providing David's various BLP violations - which he is continuing - are deleted or oversighted. I would like a neutral admin to step in here. Note the link David provides doesn't even back up his assertion - all it states is that a user holds the copyright to a piece of work on a person Wikipedia has an article on, nothing more.Neıl ☎ 16:41, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not an admin, but I just wanted to ask why (possibly re-)revealing who Musikfabrick is/who fieryangel is is so important? What does it matter, really? Wouldn't just not doing it lead to less drama/in-fighting? I agree he may have done you some harm, but really, how does (re-)outing/revealing his identity him help the encyclopedia? And obviously an indefinite block is over-the-top. Mahalo, David. --Ali'i 16:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've tried to stay out of this mess, if that make me neutral enough. And I've never contributed to WR, And I consider myself a friend and general supporter of David S. I agree that the talk pages text there does not prove the identity, especially since a/copyright was asserted for more than 1 article, but never proven, and b/J-T B says it was an account used by several people (in apparent ignorance of our prohibition against that). As for people at WR, I suggest the safest rule is that we should stay clear of any not explicitly admitted corresponding WP identities, and in fact it might even be well that the correspondence be explictly admitted here, not just in WR--do we want to accept their standards? David, please redact. I dont think this calls for oversight, but thats up to OTRS and the office if there's a complaint. I am undecided about the part of attributing real people to purely WR identities. DGG (talk) 16:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment-I do not see any BLP vios, David Shankbone did "out" (in the Wikipedian sense of the word) another editor. My main point is that the title of this section in innacurate--It's not a BLP vio, it's this Wikipedian idea of "outing" that is the problem. daveh4h 17:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, I suppose if the question is one of importance then it's not "Important" - except that over on Jimbo's page you had yet another person, this time an IP editor spreading Wehage's FALSE BLP INFORMATION ABOUT DAVID SHANKBONE there. Not one person has removed that, not one person has asked for oversight. My reputation both on and off Wiki has been damaged by Wehage, and I encourage anyone who also feels the same, including Newyorkbrad, to contact me. I have his I.P. address. I have evidence. But I do note that both Lawrence and Neil left up the BLP violation about me, nobody has removed it, but yet I have violated no policy. I haven't outed anyone. I found out who someone was off-sight, and then found out they outed themselves here. So, I have violated no policy. Yet I have been one of the most constructive and productive contributors to this site, and few people seem concerned with my reputation - only those of offsite trolls. --David Shankbone 17:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Lest we forget, David Shankbone does not actually exist outside of your own imagination George The Dragon (talk) 17:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    ...BLP doesn't apply to editors. Shankbone isn't your given name. I redacted the outing only, I don't know about anything else, because I saw a good contributor--you--doing something that could get him banned. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 17:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No, David Shankbone is the subject of several mainstream media articles. You all need to start acting like it's a BLP, because that name is tied to me whether any of us like it or not. Just because "George the Dragon" hasn't done anything noteworthy doesn't mean other people here haven't. --David Shankbone 17:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Are there any other User:Something that we have applied BLP standards to? I think this would be a new thing... Lawrence Cohen § t/e 17:14, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    We simply can't go allow slander and defamation of editors on this site. Many of us have editor names that, because our work here became noteworthy off-wiki, is tied to us. That makes it a stage name, a pen name, or whatever else you want to call it. It's beyond the realm of comprehension that some of us would not see that. And I'm not the only one - asked TonytheMarine, User:Durova, User:SlimVirgin, et al. --David Shankbone 17:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Why are you outing anyone, anyway? If said slander and defamation is occurring on wikipedia, we have ways to deal with that (and outing people is not part of it, last I checked). If it is occurring off-wiki, deal with it off-wiki. Outing someone here because of something they did elsewhere seems quite juvenile. --Kbdank71 17:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    My reading of BLP is that it applies to all living people. So unless we have zombies on Wikipedia, I'd say that the general principle applies to editors. That said, it applies to WR editors, as well. -Chunky Rice (talk) 17:31, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    David, please place here or send to me -any- comment on WR by thefieryangel where she agrees with the outing of NewYorkBrad. I doubt it. Anyway, she has never even had account on wikipedia so what she writes on another site, is her own affair, and if you are equating her with a Wikipedia editor you can't have got that correct, nor could you prove it as there is no evidence for it. She's said she's never had an account on wikipedia, and we have no reason to doubt that. If you've outed her (I've not looked at the edits concerned, but you've just admitted it) you are outing (and by doing so, sort of harrassing someone who is not even on this site so is entirely entitled to voice her opinions on another site- it's no business of this site to have on it identifying material about an unrelated person who happens to disagree with some things on this site but has a complete right to voice her opinions without attempted, and probably wrong anyway, outing from an editor here. Lawrence- TFA is not even an editor here, and yes, even for editors who are outed by others here, we remove identifying info.Merkin's mum 17:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "WR by thefieryangel where she agrees with the outing of NewYorkBrad. I doubt it. " Merkin - you appear entirely unfamiliar with the situation and the actors involved if you are writing that. Anyway, I think I have said enough...I will allow you all to discuss this. I'm on Wikibreak. Paul: Lulz! --David Shankbone 17:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    for t hat matter, false information posted here should in fact be removed--the rule against outing -- or untrue attempted outing --protects widely in both directions & applies to anything connected with an identity. David's right there. It applies to all. DGG (talk) 17:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Has anyone actually _read_ BLP? If it applies to editors _as editors_, we first ought to shut down WP:AIV, since those vandalism reports aren't backed by reliable secondary sources. This noticeboard would be second, then arbcom etc. --Random832 (contribs) 17:36, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Look, I think personally, it may be time to abandon anon and pseudonymous editing, as I've opined elsewhere, but the policy here is to allow it, and to enforce allowance. As long as that's policy, I'm behind it, regardless of personal opinion. Therefore, except under certain tightly controlled circumstances as outlined in the m:Privacy policy, and/or in matters related to articles, in accordance with WP:BLP policy, no one should be revealing private information about others against their wishes, whether true or false. No one. We cannot control what is done at non WMF sites but it's not something to be encouraged here. Period. I don't think it matters whether one is a WR participant or not. I don't know all the particulars here, but if people are outing the particulars of David's pseudonymous identity, that's wrong, the information should be deleted or oversighted and the people cautioned or sanctioned. But that goes both ways. If David is outing the particulars of other people's pseudonmymous identity, that is also not to be tolerated and should be dealt with the same way. Regardless of how much of a Meatball:VestedContributor David may or may not be. No free passes. ++Lar: t/c 17:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    David, will you redact the outings? If David will not, then can someone else? I had best not do it, as I have a personal animus against David, now. Apparently. I'm not sure how. Neıl ☎ 18:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to clarify at least one bit of the sound-and-fury - there is no doubt at all that User:Musikfabrik is connected to Paul Wehage, as MF has admitted it themself, so that doesn't constitute "outing". — iridescent 18:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No, but DS might provide what he thinks is proof that thefieryangel who posts on Wikipedia Review is the same person as this Paul W, but it will not be sufficient proof, as he is probably incorrect. As to indef blocking- no but the info should be removed as it may be wrong anyway, and Mark W is presumably a real person, that DS is accusing of something he might prove to his own satisfaction, but not beyond reasonable doubt. The info should be removed, and whatever sanction which usually applies to people attempting to 'out' others, applied; at least a warning and if he re-posts the info, the same as what usually happens to people who do that. With allowances made for him being a frequent contributor, perhaps. But given that, people might expect better than the sort of behaviour that usually would be from an IP or a new user. Merkin's mum 19:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It may well be true that there's a connection between User:Musikfabrik and Paul Wehage but I don't think you can reasonably conclude that there "is no doubt at all" about that purely on the basis of the account having claimed such a connection. (posted for and on behalf of Vladimir Putin) 87.254.71.190 (talk) 23:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Actually, as one of the major participants in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jean-Thierry Boisseau, I'd be genuinely surprised if thefieryangel is Paul Wehage. Wehage was part of the Musikfabrik role account, yes, but there are several pieces of information that mitigate against him being the account on Wikipedia Review. Further, I will not disclose. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 21:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Based on all the above, is it fair to say the consensus is that David Shankbone needs to stop posting this sort of thing as it's inappropriate on Wikipedia? If it stops him doing it in future (one way or another), this thread has achieved its purpose. Neıl ☎ 21:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Moreschi- through my own info, I'm pretty sure TFA is female.:) Neil, has anyone warned DS on his talk page, I think this deserves at least a warning. Merkin's mum 22:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Moreschi. It's been a while since I read Wounded Vanity Review but I seriously doubt FA is Paul Wehage (or Jean-Thierry Boisseau). Possibly an androgynous role account - but let's not go there...--Folantin (talk) 11:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I provided evidence at the Wikipedia Review that Paul Wehage is "the fieryangel" over there and has been making defamatory statements about me, Erik Moeller, Wikipedia, Jim Wales, et al. I don't really care whether you all agree with this or not. I don't plan to be around here much anymore. The thread for the evidence is here. If anyone, like User:Merkinsmum, who has lambasted me and others on Wikipedia over at the Wikipedia Review as "Wikiwhistle" and supported the trolling of Paul Wehage/TheFiery Angel, questions why I would do this, they only need Google my name at the WR and read the things TheFieryAngel (and Merkinsmum/Wikiwhistle) wrote about me there. Enjoy the photos. --David Shankbone 14:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    New pieces of info have come together over the last few days: thefieryangel is not Paul Wehage nor JT Boisseau, though I'm 99 percent sure, now, as to who are the persons involved, and completely certain as to one.

    Regardless, I would suggest that this petty tit-for-tat between Wikipedia people and Wikipedia Review people is not very productive. "You out us so we out you" is simply not coherent. The trolls all fall silent eventually...so ignore. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 15:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    DS- I will stand up for people if I think they're being wrongly accused of something, I'm just like that. Several people now have told you TFA is not this Paul bloke. And I'm entitled to my opinions. It doesn't stop me contributing to wikipedia productively and I have spoken out against any forms of outing repeatedly on WR, just as I am now. To be honest, I never expect to have to do so on Wikipedia. I half-hoped we were better than that. The Electronic Frontier Foundation campaigns to protect people's anonymity online and Mike Godwin previously worked for them. I think that contributors' rights to anonymity is part of wikipedia ideology (within reason, of course) and you do no one any good by linking contributors' accounts in this way- do you want everyone to be outed? You know nothing of my life circumstances, nor of TFA's, (who I don't know particularly well, I'm just speaking out because I think she and this Paul bloke are being picked on, and also we don't know that what is being said about her or Paul is even true.) there are reasons why I used another name on WR aside from why people usually do so. (Which aren't to do with WR or WP, but unrelated, real-world people.) Not that I will ever trust you with those reasons. Are you wanting to be the Mr.Brandt of Wikipedia? Merkin's mum 17:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess the ethos you need to consider, lover of Wikidrama (per your User box) is that when you live by the sword, you die by the sword. MM, you started threads ridiculing me on the WR--"Bloke's treating Wikipedia like a job!"--and ridiculing others on here, and you seriously expect some kind of courtesy extended to you? Where do you get off? And by the way, I have had it confirmed that Paul Wehage is TheFieryAngel, now from another source. I removed that source's identifying characteristics from their e-mail and forwarded it on to admins and the Foundation (ask Georgewilliamherbert, Slimvirgin, jpgordon, Jimbo, et al.) You have tied your self in with the wrong crowd, MM, and if being called the Daniel Brandt of Wikipedia is what you want to call me, then so be it. As far as I'm concerned, Wikipedia sucks. Why does it suck? Because of people like you, Merkinsmum. Now, go on over to the WR and chortle some more at the expense of others who have given far more to this project than you have the ability to do. Hey! maybe you can take that comment and have a tea party with User:George_The_Dragon and whinge about how arrogant I am because I point out the obvious. I believe it's part of the wisdom of the crowd that mediocrity shall reign. Invite Paul Wehage (Somey knows he is TheFieryAngel - TFA has only used 3 IP addresses the entire time he's posted at the WR, right Somey? Right Somey?! Lulz!). Think about it Merkisnmum/Wikiwhistle: You are defending someone who has had expressly wanted to "tear this place apart." Oh, and Paulie/Jean-Thierry/Musik Fabrik: I'll be seeing you all, bay-bees! Shankbone's gone rouge... --David Shankbone 17:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I have not followed this thread, don't know what it's about, see that it's long enough that I'm not going to try to catch up at this stage, but another "Fuck off" edit summary just popped up on my watchlist. After the "Jesus fucking Christ" edit summary I saw last week, I'm beginning to wonder how much we expect editors here to put up with, and just what our civility standards are. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:04, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    There are certainly some strange double standards with regards to civility. Any amount of off-wiki abuse is supposed to be ignored, even when the culprit interacts with the victim on-wiki. It's very odd we sanction this Jekyll and Hyde behaviour. Nevertheless, if we want to keep Wikipedia "pure" and not engage in outing and such like here, there are plenty of off-wiki venues for those who want to pursue these fights, especially blogs. It takes about 5 minutes to set up one at Blogger [1] and you can write what you like there. I imagine you can even link to your blog from your user page (what was the WP:BADSITES ruling once again?). --Folantin (talk) 18:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have not even heard of User:George the Dragon although I'm sure I would love to have tea with him as I like tea.:) I've not tied myself in with any crowd and will answer back on WR if I think people there are being particularly dodgy. I don't winge particularly about anything, I do have a sense of humour but don't think that's illegal or blockworthy, within reason.:) Since I value being on wiki I try not to be too evil about those here, this is something I'm trying to do more intensely as time goes on. But sometimes you have to let off steam, or have a laugh, or whatever, it's preferable to going on a rampage like some people do on wiki.:) As you can see by my userpage, contribs etc I do try to focus very seriously on civility. Merkin's mum 18:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This person has now taken it upon himself to edit my userpage [2] which I was unaware of and another user kindly reverted. He is clearly not going to stop and he has gone on wikibreak to seek to avoid any consequences of his actions. I will now apologise to him if I have upset him, but he should stop this picking on women. He knows nothing about my life and doesn't realise what he is doing. Meaning no undue disrespect to WR, a lot of people choose to use another name there, because of what are seen as risks from some contributors there. Merkin's mum 20:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Block?

    Given David Shankbone's latest spree (all after "going on Wikibreak") such as:

    I believe an indefinite block needs to be considered at this time before David does any more damage. However, if I do it myself, I will no doubt be accused of being involved, so would someone neutral do it, please? Neıl ☎ 09:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Indef? I'm going to go on record as being a softie and say that I don't think that's justified yet. But a week at least would seem sane (call it forcing the wikibreak, if you will). dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 09:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    As long as we don't call it a cool-down block, a week with a final warning would be agreeable. Neıl ☎ 09:53, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Teeheehee, calling anything a cool-down block is guaranteed to start moar drama (maybe that's why they ask about it at RfA?). dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 10:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Just tell the guy to get a blog then he can post whatever abuse he likes about editors off-site - and they will still have to be polite to him here. This is the standard, hypocritical Wikipedia way of "civility". David's main mistake was choosing the wrong venue for his rants. He certainly has some justification for his behaviour (not that I condone it), far more than The Undertow, whose friends are currently trying to save him from any sanction for his incivility. --Folantin (talk) 11:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I doubt bringing the_undertow into this will do any good. Please don't try and fan the flames further still. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 11:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "Fanning the flames". How about assuming good faith about my motives? I merely noted the differing attitude of admins towards two cases of uncivil behaviour. --Folantin (talk) 11:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (Update: Oh, I see [3]. I wasn't even aware of that comment before I posted here. Makes an interesting comparison). --Folantin (talk) 12:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not going to read the whole thread above as it is upsetting to me (though I respect other's opinions.) Just to say that I didn't mind the swearing, it was the threats of further action towards me that particularly concerned me. Obviously I am not impartial :) but I think a short block would be in order, of a short duration bearing in mind DS's contributions here, but also bearing in mind that most people who threaten outing or other stuff aginst an editor are treated severely. It would depend on how he acts after the warning I think he's been given. Obviously, if he himself uses my real name off site, I would expect him to be treated as any other editor would if they did so- ColScott etc (who I personally disapprove of) and be given a longer block. But not indef at this point. I also still disagree that TFA has exactly advocated outing- she just said that she cannot fault Brandt if he does so, in the light of the BLP problems on wiki (not an opinion I share as I'm firmly against outing.) DS didn't do this after I made a thread about him, months ago- he has just done this now because I stood up for someone, and because he can. Merkin's mum 12:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "Obviously, if he himself uses my real name off site, I would expect him to be treated as any other editor would if they did so- ColScott etc (who I personally disapprove of) and be given a longer block". Yep, off-site outing of Wikipedians is not on. Just to clarify, I was referring to fighting off-site abuse with off-site abuse. Obviously, if David leaves Wikipedia then nobody will have any control over him in these matters, so it's probably in everyone's interests to persuade him to stay. --Folantin (talk) 14:43, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Having briefly dipped in to look over the issue, contributions, and incivility of this individual, and having reverted trolling to a userpage on my watchlist, I would have to agree that a block is justified. WP:CIV specifically says a couple of things (emphasis mine):

    1. "A pattern of gross incivility, however, is highly disruptive, and may result in warnings or blocks."
    2. "...one single act of incivility can also cross the line if bad enough; for instance, an egregious personal attack...or severe profanity directed against another contributor are all excessive enough that they may result in a block without any need to consider the pattern."

    I think giving a 'pass' to someone based on their previous valuable contributions sets a precedence. Nobody should be above WP:CIV, and the policy says as much in the opening sentence. ColdmachineTalk 13:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    DS definitely needs to cool off, but an Indef isn't warranted. He's been the subject of extended trolling here for a long long time, and for months he's dealt with it better than most can. From the IP vandal who hates that he puts his names on his photos to the constant attacks about living with some dude, to the constant wikilawyering attitude putting just about anything he says or does under extreme scrutiny, DS has taken a metric shitload of grief. While I think he should've learned to laugh it off and ignore it, or just get up and go shoot more great photos, I hardly think that, given the less than stellar support I've seen him get in those cases, we should now turn around and bring the fgull force to bear on him, when we couldn't be arsed to bring it to help him. There will be those who say 'two wrongs don't make a right, and though we messed up before, we shouldn't fudge it now to balance it' I say taht our lack of action meets the 'all it takes for evil to win is for good men to do nothing' ethical failure. We didn't do enough when we could, DS flips out, now we call for his head? No thanks. He needs to hear from the community that he needs a week or two off, but as the block for a week was already overturned, we need to simply emphasize to him how he is both valuable and clearly overtaxed, and needs to go away voluntarily for some time. Even a few days can do a world of good for clearing the head. I'm not addressing the off-wiki stuff, just what I've seen here. ThuranX (talk) 04:01, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    No, an indef isn't warranted you're right but right now the response from the community has been "please don't go". All that does is shout loud and clear that it's okay to be as uncivil as you like provided you've been a good contributor in the past. Yes, blocks aren't punitive, but WP:CIV expressly states the conditions for when a block is appropriate and there are examples abound for why one would be fitting in this case. And as for the so-called Wikibreak: why were several breaches of WP:CIV then made after it was announced? It's nothing more than someone being a diva and the reaction from the community is exactly what was sought by this individual: "please don't go, your contributions are valuable". Sorry, but there are plenty of other valuable contributors out there who don't behave in this wholly inappropriate and utterly unacceptable way. A one-week imposed block is appropriate in this situation. Any other less notable editor would be given that treatment, why make a special case? ColdmachineTalk 14:56, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Mr Shankbone has been taunted and threatened and libeled and insulted up and down and sideways all over the place, on Wikipedia and off, in a legitimate and serious real-world stalking incident. People who are being threatened in real life as well as on WP get a pass on getting grumpy here when provoked. David may well benefit from some cooldown time. However, blocking to force him to take some would be punitive and attacking the victim.
    Administrators should endeavour to help ID and block those harrassing him. If you feel he's behaving over the line please try communicating with him privately first, and not blocking. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:23, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "An eye for an eye makes everyone blind." Many of those who engage in "outing" and other harassment of Wikipedians offsite try to justify their actions by claims of wrongdoing by Wikipedia and Wikipedians. Retaliating by trying to "out" them too just makes it seem like there's little reason to consider Wikipedia and Wikipedians to have moral high ground over the much-vilified "attack sites". *Dan T.* (talk) 02:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed, and there's nothing in WP:CIV or anything elsewhere which says retaliation is perfectly acceptable. It isn't, period. As a long standing contributor, in fact, David should have known this better than most. There is simply no excuse for this behaviour. The 'wiki break' which he is allegedly on is not in fact happening: he is not taking a break to cool off. A one week block is still justified in these circumstances. ColdmachineTalk 11:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks like he's left. Congratulations. At least we still have our White Priders. --Folantin (talk) 17:14, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Rosencomet, canvassing and COI

    Rosencomet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has apparently once again solicited off-wiki for people "to open new Wikipedia editor accounts" to come support him and help protect "his" articles. See the "Attempted Vote-Stacking, Again" section here. This is not the first time he has broadly appealed for help off-wiki on a large scale. I have confidential but trusted info that he did this kind of canvassing with an email to 30 people in the Fall of 2007. He has been repeatedly warned about engaging in canvassing, by multiple admins.[4][5]

    Despite consistent warnings from a wide variety of editors (dating from the very beginning of his time as a Wikipedia editor in August, 2006) about his conflict of interest in promoting the Starwood Festival, Association for Consciousness Exploration (ACE), and people he hires for these events, he has continued to engage in this behaviour. These comments and warnings are so numerous, I'm just supplying a link to his archived talk page and letting the TOC there speak for itself rather than citing specific diffs.

    User:Rosencomet has been reasonably found to be [*OUTING INFO REMOVED - NO OUTING PLEASE *] (see the Starwood Arbcom finding of fact.) [ * OUTING INFO REMOVED *] "...is the conceiver and a founder of ACE, the Chameleon Club, the Starwood Festival, and the WinterStar Symposium, and is both the primary event organizer and product manufacturer for ACE." (from the ACE website) He is also the executive director of ACE[6] and he handles public relations/communications aspects of the organization. (see paragraph #4 here and the ACE website link above in this paragraph.)

    Please note also that [*OUTING INFO REMOVED *]/Rosencomet personally sells books/CDs/DVDs/items at the ACE website and store. If any doubt exists about his COI, see this book excerpt with Mr. Rosenbaum's photo and compare it to this ACE CyberCatalog page. Note the caption saying "When you phone A.C.E., ...you'll probably be talking to THIS MAN" (emphasis in original.) Interestingly, since I referenced this webpage in my COI Noticeboard posting in mid-Dec. 2007, Rosenbaum's picture is no longer featured on the current version page. I had to go to the Internet Wayback Machine for a cached version from July 2007. (Unfortunately the picture doesn't seem to be in the archive cache anymore although the element properties clearly show the link to www.rosencomet.com/catalog/images/biopix/jeff.jpg.) The picture was the same in all versions of this webpage available on the Wayback machine from Dec. 2003 through July 2007 and to 20 Dec 2007 when I last accessed it. In other words, the picture of Rosenbaum (which was on this web page for at least four years previously) was changed within the month after I made reference to it in my COI statement (which Rosencomet was aware of), a strangely coincidental occurrence.

    As I indicated at the top, Rosencomet's level of ownership of articles he has started or contributed to is quite high and readily apparent. Changing or deleting info in his WP:OWNed articles usually calls forth aggressive challenges from him and sometimes wikilawyering. He continues to assert that his judgment is sound concerning inserting references to his organization and events into articles.[7][8]

    AfDs for any articles in which he has a vested interest invariably results in new SPA accounts voicing opinions and the re-emergence of the Ekajati sockdrawer, resulting in a time drain on editors, admins and checkusers. Now he also admits that he is canvassing [9] to affect AfDs for articles he wants to save.

    Despite being warned exhaustively by editors, admins and Arbcomm, and in defiance of COI admonitions by all of the above, he rarely ventures outside his walled-garden area of interest: promoting the careers of those who appear at the Starwood Festival, or whose books and tapes he sells on the rosencomet.com website. Over his time on WP, he has has proven to be a tendentious and disruptive editor.

    I have ideas about actions I'd like the community to take but I'd prefer to hear feedback and suggestions from others before I voice them. Pigman☿ 04:40, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Rosencomet says I misrepresented his letter asking people to become editors to vote with him. I reprinted the letter on his User Talk page in dispute of his claim of misrepresentation. He has deleted it. So, reluctantly, I reprint it here:
    From: Jeff (SURNAME REDACTED) (mailto:REDACTED)
    Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2008 2:43 PM
    Subject: Wikipedia Cabal Alert
    Dear Folks,
    You are all people I have approached about helping me preserve the articles on Wikipedia related to individuals and subjects important to our community. If anyone receiving this has not logged in to Wikipedia as an editor, please do so. It's really easy, and you become one right away. But please, use a nickname rather than your own name, like almost everyone else does. Believe me, there are some people who take this stuff way to seriously, and will hassle you about your activities; plus, no one can challenge you on Point of View or Conflict of Interest issues if you remain anonymous.
    If you have already become an editor, I urge you to edit...anything! Even correcting typos or grammar here and there will establish you as an editor; if you don't, when you vote on something they'll put a flag next to your name that says "this editor has provided few or no edits besides this issue", which is a way of saying that you're not really an editor, but probably just a sock-puppet (fake additional account) for some editor who wants to pad the votes. We are not doing that; you are real people, not dummy accounts.
    There are two articles nominated for deletion that I'd appreciate help on. First, go to their articles, click on the words "this article's entry" in the box at the top explaining that it has been nominated for deletion. That will take you to the deletion nomination page for that article. Please register a vote to keep; to do that, you must hit "edit this page" at the top, then click your cursor right below the last person's entry and add Keep - This subject is notable enough. Keep should have three apostrophes before and after it. You can word the last part any way you want, or expand on it and say why you think so, although someone may argue with your reasoning if you do, and you may not want to keep checking back and responding. After your entry, remember to print four tildas like this (EXAMPLE REDACTED), which will add your Wiki name and entry date to the vote. If you have the time and interest, you can actually try to improve the article with new citations and data, but this stuff happens fast so first register your vote RIGHT AWAY.
    The articles nominated for deletion are Dennis Chernin and Nicki Scully. Please feel free to read the articles as they presently exist first, and see if you agree that they are worthy of inclusion; I am not trying to twist your arms on any of this. I'm just trying to make sure our community has some folks looking out for our interests on Wikipedia and expressing their opinions. Also, there are a couple of editors who have a problem with articles either written by me or associated with Starwood, and others who have issues with Pagans, hippies, New Agers, or whatever they perceive these folks to be, and even three people working together is a lot on Wikipedia.
    Other articles tagged as having questionable notability include Philip Carr-Gomm, Richard Kaczynski, Skip Ellison, Morwyn, Vivianne Crowley, and Chas S. Clifton. Most were tagged by the same person who nominated the other two. He also tagged Nevill Drury (if you can believe it), but retracted it for now. He succeeded in deleting the articles of Phil Farber (author of Futureritual), Pamela Ball (author of over fifteen books on New Age and magical subjects), and Halley DeVestern (who sang with Big Brother & the Holding Company the year they did Starwood). He and his little group successfully deleted the following as well: WinterStar Symposium, Jeff Rosenbaum, Victoria Ganger, and Taylor Ellwood, and tried unsuccessfully to delete Sally Morningstar and Matthew Abelson. They've also been deleting mentions of Starwood and WinterStar wherever they find them using one excuse or another.
    Please feel free to contact me about any of this, either by phone: cell - (REDACTED), off - (REDACTED), or e-mail me either here or at (REDACTED).
    Thanks for your interest. I will continue my efforts to keep articles about prominent members of our community present, up-to-date, and free of slander on Wikipedia, and monitor subjects like "witch" and "psychedelic experience" for misrepresentation. Thank you for any help you can give me.
    Ad Astra, Jeff
    This is a more-in-sorrow-than-in-anger situation for me. I have nothing against him as a person, and I think he has done some good work here on Wikipedia, as well as for the Neo-Pagan community in general. I just wish he would listen more carefully to those who've tried to reason with him with regard to appropriate Wikipedia practices and manners. -- Davidkevin (talk) 15:40, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment I’m afraid this will take a while to respond to, so I will ask you to bear with me. I am also not nearly as experienced and skilled as Pigman in diffs and retrieval of text, nor can I compete with his wikilawyering, but I will just have to say my piece and improve it later as I have time.

    First, the e-mail that Davidkevin posted here was a PRIVATE one to friends that was not addressed to him, and I feel it is improper for him to print it ANYWHERE without my consent. Unfortunately, someone forwarded it to him and others without asking me (for which he has apologized). It cannot be judged out of the context of numerous conversations I have had with the people it was actually sent to. I think it is unfair to include it here, and wrong of him to have posted it at all, with full knowledge that I opposed his doing so.

    Second, the above statement by Pigman contains several misrepresentations. I do NOT personally sell anything. To do so, I would have to profit in some way, which I do not. I sell nothing I own, and I’m not an employee of ACE, nor am I (or anyone else in ACE) paid for the work I do. We are all volunteers. Even if I took an order over the phone for a book, to say that disqualifies me from writing or editing an article by that author would be like saying a clerk who works at the desk of a Borders or Half-Priced Bookstore can’t edit an article about any author who’s book is sold there, or artist whose CD is sold there. Worse, in fact, since he IS paid. I get nothing from editing these articles. I also do not hire speakers or acts; ACE does, by general vote of its members, one vote each.

    Third, I don’t see how my e-mail can be called canvassing according to the definitions on Wikipedia:canvassing. It says: “Canvassing is sending messages to multiple ‘’’Wikipedians’’’ with the intent to inform them about a community discussion.” It doesn’t even forbid canvassing; in fact, it has a section about how to do it if you DO canvass. The page discusses conversations with ‘’’Wikipedia editors’’’, not encouraging new people to become editors and get involved. Yes, I may have gone a bit far by giving specific examples of deletion nominations I disagreed with and thought my friends who I had prior conversations with would also be interested in. However, I specifically said “Please feel free to read the articles as they presently exist first, and see if you agree that they are worthy of inclusion; I am not trying to twist your arms on any of this. I'm just trying to make sure our community has some folks looking out for our interests on Wikipedia and expressing their opinions.” This was a private conversation with people I was encouraging to become involved in Wikipedia, with examples of why I thought they should, and was part of a larger discussion which should NEVER have been posted without my permission on Wikipedia. (This is the reason I resisted being outed as to my identity by Pigman and wished to remain anonymous; I’m sure anyone aware of Newyorkbrad’s recent problems would sympathize with that, and understand why I recommended any new editors use a nickname.)

    My intent, which would be clearer had this e-mail not been posted out of the context of the larger conversation I was having with the individuals I sent it to, was not to vote-stack but to get more people in the communities I relate to (such as the Neo-Pagan, magical, multi-cultural and consciousness exploration communities) involved in Wikipedia. I think more people in all sorts of smaller-interest communities should do so: Native Americans, Santerians, Voudon, the polyamory community, those interested in entheogens, etc etc – communities where under-representation, misrepresentation and misinformation are a problem. I felt that in this case there was a small group calling all the shots, and more people with experience and knowledge in the fields would help matters. But I did NOT want them to simply support my votes or opinions, and I told them so emphatically when I first broached the subject with them; I trusted their judgment to edit responsibly.

    Fourth, I disagree with Pigman’s opinion that I should not edit any article either of an individual that has appeared at an event I have worked on, or insert a mention of a Starwood appearance or connection where it is appropriate. The arbitration did not come to that conclusion, and when I specifically asked one of the arbitrators, Fred Bauder, to "state for the record that I am not violating the arbitration, and am not disallowed to edit articles by either speakers or entertainers simply because somewhere in their appearance history there was one or more appearance at the Starwood Festival or WinterStar Symposium, events run by an organization I am a volunteer with and neither receive payment from nor hire for. I also need a statement that there is no reason I can't edit an article about a Llewellyn author." His reply was "You are welcome to edit any article, including articles about associates, provided you cite reliable sources. It is best to not rely on personal knowledge."

    Fifth, the history of my interaction with Pigman shows, IMO, that he has his own POV issues with Starwood, and that while he invokes the specter of the “Ekajati sockdrawer” (none of whose actions I am responsible for), he recently went on a tagging spree with help from Mattisse, who’s many sockpuppets [10] don’t seem to bother him in the least. Mattisse, if you recall, was a primary cause of my problems in the first place. Most of my links to the Starwood website were in response to her citation request tagging spree just days after I began editing on Wikipedia. She not only used sock-puppets to multiple-tag and vote-stack, she actually created fake articles and blamed them on me! (For instance, Anne Hill, Musart, and Children of Earthmaker) So Pigman called her out of retirement, so to speak, as it relates to my editing, and along with Kathryn they tagged, edited, and deletion-nominated dozens of articles I wrote in a few days. My reaction was NOT to engage in revert wars, but to ask three different arbitrators for help. (Here’s a link to the letter I sent Fred Bauder at that time. I also contacted Thatcher and Newyorkbrad)

    As an example of Pigman’s POV issues concerning Starwood, he has made statements about Starwood concerning his opinions of its connection to drugs and sex (made under the guise of discussing whether mentioning youth programming was "promotional"), implying dangers to children, offering no factual material to back these slurs up. (Kathryn agreed with his statements, and she offered to pass on "info" about the same to an editor privately, away from the sight of Wikipedia editors observing the conflicts you two have had with me. In fact, she claimed to have "a bunch of info about this", which she characterized as "the unpublished reports of multiple friends and acquaintances over the years". She evidently doesn't mind going off-Wiki to promote her positions.) All this can be found on the Starwood Talk Page [11]

    I realize I am far from a perfect editor, but I feel that I am being judged by someone who has set himself up as if he were my parole officer, watching me all the time, and creating a hostile environment in which I sometimes overreact and beg for help from wherever I can find it. Whether it’s an occult author that’s never been to Starwood or something as innocuous as Marvel Comics mutants or Turkish Taffy, I can expect an edit from Pigman or Kathryn immediately after mine. Pigman has actually set up a watchlist User:Pigman/Starwood-Rosencomet Watchlist on my editing! They still act like all I do is promote my events, when I have hardly written a new article about anyone who has been to Starwood in nearly a year. They set the bar so high, that they claim that since ACE got permission from Llewellyn Worldwide (the world’s biggest and oldest occult publisher) to reissue a few cassette tapes back in the eighties, I should not be allowed to edit any articles by ANY author who’s ever been published by Llewellyn. He deletes any mention of Starwood wherever he finds it as undue weight, even if the subject of the article posts his disagreement, as with Paul Krassner (who has been at 6 out of the last ten Starwoods, and written articles about his experiences there in The Nation Magazine, Ariana Hufington’s Blog, and High Times). Also, he treats guidelines as laws and disagreement as aggression, and ignores it when an arbitrator supports my side of a disagreement. On some complaints, Thatcher has told him more than once that what I edited was not a violation of any policy, and he has ignored it. He has even warned me against disagreements discussed on talk pages, when that’s exactly where the arbitration told me to have them.

    In December I created an alphabetical sample of the kind of editing I have done since the arbitration[12]. I include it here to show that I have NOT been aggressively editing, revert-warring, or limiting my edits to Starwood-associated articles. I will provide an update soon, showing that aside from some disagreements on certain existing Starwood mentions (mostly resulting only in discussions on talk pages and deletion nomination pages), I have not been creating new articles linked to Starwood or inserting them into articles. I have mostly been creating new articles about occult authors who have NEVER been to Starwood (like Nicholas R. Mann, Al G. Manning, Vivianne Crowley, Ed Fitch, Prem Das, Laura Huxley, Sally Morningstar, Gabrielle Roth, Dorothy Morrison, Luisah Teish, Nevill Drury, Chas S. Clifton, Morwyn, etc), and adding material to beef up articles threatened by deletion. Pigman keeps characterizing me as a big problem, aggressively and contentiously editing and disrupting Wikipedia. I deny that; I have had few conflicts, almost all reactions to his (and Kathryn’s) behavior towards me, mostly kept on talk pages. I have also sought help from arbitrators whenever possible, and would very much welcome any further help to deal with conflicts when they arrive.Rosencomet (talk) 18:52, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Arbitrary break after really long posts

    It is hard to make a single comment on all of this, but I did spend a good while reading this so I'll at least start out with something. If Rosencomet actually believes that that email is acceptable in regards to wikipedia policy, then that is problem #1. It effectively becomes a message to wikipedians because you are encouraging them to become editors, then telling them exactly how to vote in your favor. It is the ultimate bypassing of consensus. I see on the AfDs that meat puppets have arrived in response. Rosen may choose to continue doing this in the future, maybe more discreetly so we don't find out about it here...oh well. However, if you are actually defending such a thing, then this becomes a blockable offense. I will comment more later, this is just a start. I also encourage both Rosen and Pigman to condense further responses so people can actually read this. -- Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 19:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Off-wiki canvassing via private email communications is definitely sanctionable on-Wiki. See: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/CAMERA lobbying. -- Lawrence Cohen § t/e 19:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not going to defend it. I simply ask where in the canvassing rules it mentions anything about conversations with people who are not editors when you talk to them? A technicality, perhaps, but when can you forbid conversations with non-wikipedians, or sanction for them? In any event, I will certainly be more careful in the future about anything that seems to push anyone, even a non-editor, to edit in favor of a particular position. However, in the context of the prior conversations I have had with the specific people this private e-mail went to, they would tell you that I made it clear that I wanted them to edit as they saw fit and vote their conscience, not follow my direction. And I hope you are never called to task for the content of your private mail. -- Rosencomet (talk) 20:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It is wikilawyering to suggest that by mailing people who are not then contributors to become editors and to vote or edit in a certain manner is not covered by WP:CANVAS. The intent is to vote stack or otherwise disrupt the usual WP processes, and might be considered more serious as you are seeking both accounts previously unknown to the community and also suggesting how they may appear to be more neutral in their contribution history - a clear attempt to promote an agenda over the process of consensus. My opinion is that you should be indefinitely blocked for these serious matters. -- LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    We can't sanction for talking. I can mail all my employees right now to say, "Hey check out this cool article on Wikipedia," or to discuss Wikipedia issues. But as soon as I send the email that says or implies "Also, check out this debate(s) to support me or our interests", I lose in epic fashion and should be banned. You did just that--in my opinion, this is a blockable offense. We have no way of knowing now how corrupted consensus and integrity of the articles may be now, but we do know that you have at least once done this. See again: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/CAMERA lobbying. You did the same thing that CAMERA did, essentially. -- Lawrence Cohen § t/e 20:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    When Rosencomet says he has had few conflcts on Wikipedia, please see [13]], during which Rosencoment ongoing supporters User:Hanuman_Das, User:Ekajati, User:999 and subsequently others -- see: Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Ekajati -- were found to be sock puppets. I realize that by bringing this up, Rosencoment will accuse me of sock puppeting because of a screwed up episode that lasted two months some two years ago involving some of my family, never repeated. I learned from this and paid the price, including over six months of daily harassment from Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Ekajati that continued even after the Starwood Arbitration. -- Mattisse (Talk) 21:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    * Addendum: Nearly all the above mentioned sock puppets were almost exclusively editing Rosencomet/Star Festival articles, voting in those articles' AFD's, etc. -- Mattisse (Talk) 16:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (e/c)Go here, click here, vote keep...lose in epic fashion, indeed. I'm tempted to make a joke about the email being a copyvio - it certainly is a textbook example of canvassing. -- SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 21:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    (undent)Since some opinions have been expressed, I might as well say I also consider it a blockable offence as well. I have to say even I am surprised at the specificity of Rosencomet's letter above concerning actions to be taken. I suspected as much but didn't have that info when I brought it here. I also see that Rosencomet's real world identity has (mostly) been redacted above. Since this info was already explicitly established as part of a public Arbcom case and is extremely pertinent to COI issues, I didn't see it as an issue of "outing" but perhaps my judgment is flawed in this case. In any event, I don't think I can block Rosencomet due to my lengthy and extensive interactions with him. If there is a general consensus for blocking him, someone else will have to push the button. Cheers, Pigman☿ 23:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    After viewing the input of editors so far, I feel that enough have expressed their opinions that what I did was a violation of the policies against canvassing. I must apologize for having done so. I can only say that I did not read it that way, and was unaware of the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/CAMERA lobbying case (though I've got to say that comparing that case to what I did is like comparing a war to an argument). I truly meant to encourage friends of mine that had expressed an interest in my stories about my work in Wikipedia (of which I am proud, despite my stumblings) to get involved and help improve and support articles about people and subjects important to the communities we share. I see that the way I went about it, and particularly my specific mention of articles nominated for deletion that I hoped would be kept (even though I specifically told the folks I contacted to review them and vote according to their own judgement), evidently crossed the line. Both articles have been deleted; ironically, Nicki Scully probably would have survived if not for my blundering.
    I am contacting each person I sent my e-mail to and asking them to ignore it, telling them that what I did turned out to be a violation of Wikipedia policy, and that there is a case against me for having sent it out. I accept that I owe the Wikipedia community an apology, and offer one sincerely. I can only say that I felt that an undue number of articles I had created, mostly NOT related to my personal activities, were being tagged and/or nominated for deletion on notability issues, including several I thought were extremely notable, and I thought this was once again a campaign by an editor with a history of conflict with me to attack articles not because they were actually non-notable, but because I had written them. In the past, I have tried to ask arbitrators for help in such cases, and either gotten no response or, in some cases, been told that my editing was acceptable, but the editor(s) in question simply ignored the arbitrators. When I tried to get help from other editors, I was accused of canvassing. For the sake of fairness to the subjects of the articles, I had hoped that more eyes on the issue would be a help, and I have always wanted more involvement in Wikipedia by people from the communities these subjects are important to, so I thought sending out this e-mail was a good thing all around. However, I accept that my actions were improper, and I can only apologize, retract my e-mail from those I sent it to, and promise never to do it again.
    Over the past many months, I have written many articles about individuals who are unrelated to the events I work on. I have created little or no new links to the ACE or Starwood pages, and no external links, though I have vigorously discussed the merits of deletions of existing mentions and wiki links on several talk pages and deletion nomination pages. In a very few cases, like Firesign Theatre, I followed up such a talk-page discussion with a revert of a deletion, but not more than one revert. An examination of my work since the arbitration last year will show that aside from talk pages and deletion pages, the vast majority of my work has been to either add to and improve articles (especially ones tagged or nominated) or to write new ones unconnected with my personal work. I can supply records of this if asked (and given time).
    I can only hope that I will be allowed to continue to edit here. I truly believe I have been an asset to Wikipedia in the fields of my interests, and occasionally elsewhere. I have spent hundreds of hours just adding to bibliographies and discographies, finding citations and references, expanding and wikifying text, turning in-text notes and links into proper references, and other just plain work. I have never visited the articles of those I've had conflicts with and tagged them or treated them the way I saw myself treated; and I realize that articles don't belong to anyone, but I'm just saying that when I have had a problem it has been reactive, not proactive. I am not here to cause trouble or vandalize or disrupt, just to write and improve articles. With very few exceptions, I think my editing has improved a great deal over the last year. I sincerely hope I can continue to contribute, and I will seek to get a better understanding of Wikipedia policies. I hope I can get the help I need to operate appropriately and find the resources I need when an honest disagreement exists about good-faith edits, and I will refrain from ever violating canvassing policies either on or off Wikipedia. -- Rosencomet (talk) 17:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    By my reckoning, no one has defended User:Rosencomet's actions, four editors have clearly recommended a block, one editor has less clearly stated what Rosencomet did was "a textbook example of canvassing" without specifics of action and one edtitor's opinion seems unclear on actions to take. While Rosencomet's apology above is a consideration, I also note that here, Davidkevin says that Rosencomet's letter was posted to 4 Yahoo groups. This genie doesn't go back in the bottle that easily. This is not an isolated event and his actions over the past two years have generated a number of RfCs, mediations and an Arbcom case. My recommendation is a minimum three month block and if I had my druthers it would be for much longer or permanent. -- Pigman☿ 18:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Could you link to the arbcom case? -- Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 18:16, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Certainly. The evidence page is here. The main page is here. I'll save you the trouble of going through this rather lengthy and convoluted case and say the proposed remedy in relation to Rosencomet was the following: "Rosencomet is cautioned to avoid aggressive editing of articles when there is a question of conflict of interest. If edit warring or other conflict arises, it may be best to limit editing to talk pages." -- Pigman☿ 18:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Um, it's probably worth mentioning that I was the one who brought the case to Arbcom in the first place although you can see that many other people participated. Please also make a note of the Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Ekajati to be clear who was defending Rosencomet's actions in this case. -- Pigman☿ 18:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment I only sent the e-mail to a few friends. Only a half dozen received it, and none have expressed an intention of becoming editors. Unfortunately, one of my friends didn't understand that it was not meant for the general public, and HE forwarded it to the yahoo groups without my consent (and he has apologized), where Davidkevin read it. I have sent an e-mail to the people I originally contacted saying that my e-mail had violated wikipedia canvassing policies, and that I had apologized on wikipedia, and urging them to ignore the first e-mail. -- Rosencomet (talk) 19:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment having no one to advocate for me, I would repectfully point out that this case involves this e-mail and it's violation of wiki canvassing policies; at least, that's the only current evidence being considered. It has nothing to do with an Arbcom on activities that took place in 2006 during the first 4 months of my editing which doesn't mention canvassing once. Also, I had no knowledge of Ekajati's sockpuppets, nor were they the only editors in support of my position in the Arbcom or the two mediations that preceded it. Within days of my first edit, I found myself to be in the middle of a war between two people using an army of sockpuppets: Ekajati and Mattisse (see Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Mattisse. I didn't even know what the word meant. If you read the decisions, you'll see that it also said:

    "Rosencomet was initially unaware of important Wikipedia policies and guidelines like reliable sources, verifiability, autobiography is discouraged, notability, and others.[14] He has made good faith attempts to understand policy [15] [16] and particpated in a MEDCAB mediation over the issue of links. His editing has improved significantly and his range of editing has broadened.
    Passed 4 to 0, 16:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)"

    Pigman's right about one thing; it was a convoluted case decided at the end of March 2007 that covered activities starting from August 2006, and I don't think it can or should be re-tried via a snapshot now. I don't think this decision should be about everything I have ever done or been accused of doing since becoming an editor, or whether Ekajati or Mattisse had more sock-puppets, nor should that Arbcom be selectively re-hashed by the one who brought it as part of this case.

    I made a serious error in sending this e-mail out. There is no question of that. But unless some objective analysis of my editing since then is conducted, I don't think the Arbcom should be mixed in here. -- Rosencomet (talk) 20:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Your editing has always been borderline tendentious and tending to promote your own interests, so that at least has not changed. -- Guy (Help!) 21:01, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Disclaimer: I mediated (for a while) the case that wound up at the ArbCom case.

    I think a block would be, at this point, needlessly punitive. Pigman is right -- the genie doesn't go back in the bottle. Blocking Rosencomet, for any length of time, is not going to undo the damage, both realized and potential, in this incident. But it's also not going to teach Rosencomet anything that he isn't already being told by a flood of editors -- myself included -- in varying degrees of detail and empathy. And since the incident in question is one that is off-wiki in nature, a block inherently cannot be seen as preventative.

    An indefblock, as suggested by Pigman above, I think is grossly inappropriate, since Rosencomet does seem to actually want to do better. Does he fall (far) short of the mark at least some of the time? Obviously, as this incident evidences, yes. But his apparent desire to be a positive Wikipedian, no matter how misplaced his efforts, makes an indefblock inappropriate.

    That renders any block levied at this point in the process, after the incident is by and large over, purely punitive. And I would like to remind all involved here that we don't do that here and we shouldn't do that here.

    Here are my suggested constructive solutions which would both be in keeping with policy and would help Rosencomet grow as an editor:

    1. topic ban, either for a defined length of time or until marked improvement is evidenced.
    2. mandatory mentorship, either for a defined length of time or until marked improvement is evidenced.

    I suggest specifically that these two be simultaneous.

    I, of course, welcome comments on this proposal. -- Revolving Bugbear 21:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: I need to make it clear (and I apologize for not having made it clear already) that I am only a member of two of the four YahooGroups to which the letter was posted, and that in the two in which I saw the letter it was in fact Oberon Zell-Ravenheart who re-posted it, not Rosencomet himself. It very well may be as Rosencomet says, that it was Oberon's idea to do the reposting, not Rosencomet's -- I've known Oberon personally for 36 years and he is both a man of immense good will and also occasionally a man of impulse. I have no doubt that he thought he was doing a good turn.

    Even if it was originally addressed to specific individuals and not intended for group publication, however, the letter as it is written, seen out of the context of being part of a chain of correspondence, still thoroughly appears to be an attempt to "ballot-stuff" in an edit dispute, and inappropriate by the rules under which we all are supposed to work as Wiki-editors.

    Having occasionally corresponded with him, and seen some of his interactions with other editors, I don't think Rosencomet had evil intent. It appears to have been a "doofus" kind of action, something of which I don't doubt we all have been guilty at one time or another in one context or another -- Goddess knows I certainly have, both here in Wikipedia and in plenty of other places, too.

    I agree that banning is merely punative and only grossly instructive at best. I think, with no intention of being patronizing, that mentorship is a much better solution for Rosencomet -- if I had had such, perhaps I wouldn't have made as many mistakes as I did when I first took up here.

    I don't think a topicblock is appropriate as there are subjects about which he is knowledgable, where he can greatly improve articles. Under active mentorship social errors such as this current situation can be avoided, and we all win.

    I wish him nothing but well. -- Davidkevin (talk) 23:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I certainly have no objection to dropping to topic ban suggestion if there is agreement that Rosencomet can trim the things that have been getting him in trouble. My suggestion for a topic ban was more out of caution than anything else -- there are some people whose patience is running extremely thin, and it would be disastrous for a boneheaded but well-intentioned move to wrench an otherwise positive mentorship. But like I said, if it's not necessary, that is of course fine. - Revolving Bugbear 23:50, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (Response to Revolving Bugbear's 21:32, 16 May 2008 post above which I took far too long to write.)
    With all due respect, Revolving Bugbear, I think you are wrong. Yes, a punitive block/action is never appropriate. We do not block punitively; blocks are only to protect the project, not to punish. However. I know I also weigh the editor's history (if any and if I can) leading up to any incident. This is not Rosencomet's first incident of canvassing (see [17] from Dec. 2007). I also have concrete evidence that he sent a different email to 30 recipients (in Dec 2007, IIRC), again canvassing off-wiki for support. I can quote from that email if requested to do so but my source has requested confidentiality.
    Over the many months of my interactions with Rosencomet, I have consistently provided him with polite help, links to appropriate policies and guidelines, explained situations when he was unclear about WP process or protocols, etc. I briefly explained how to provide a statement in the request for arbitration, an arbitration case I myself brought against his actions, particularly reminding him to keep it under 500 words because I was aware of his tendency to write at length. While certainly not a mentor to him, I've done my best to educate and tutor him in the mysterious ways of Wikipedia during our exchanges. While Rosencomet and I have often been in conflict and at odds over these months, I've always hoped he would eventually shed his ownership issues with articles and develop an understanding of WP:V and WP:RS as well as other policies.
    Instead he has developed an ability to wikilawyer: to disregard policy, to ignore or creatively "reinterpret" well-established WP guidelines to serve his goals, to claim community consensus is actually a cabal organized against his work here. To put it plainly: He doesn't play well with others. That is not a blockable offense. But serial violation of the same policy, particularly when blocked for it the first time, is. Pigman☿ 00:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You are right, Pigman, you were not a mentor to him. That's what he needs -- focused, exclusive, intense guidance. With all due respect to you, and without calling your actions into question at all, you can't really expect to be instructive to someone when you are in conflict with them. Rosencomet has expressed to me that he feels that "no one is in his corner". That may be a situation of his own making, but he realizes that he needs to change the way he does things in order to be accepted and productive. That can be shown to him, but not, to take your example, by a party to an ArbCom case essentially filed against him.
    What are you trying to accomplish pushing for this block? Whether or not you think he's any good at it, he clearly shows a desire to improve and to understand, so this is definitely not an indefblockable offense. So what, exactly, will this block accomplish? There is no instructive or corrective merit to a block here. What good will it do, other than to satisfy a few users who are irritated? - Revolving Bugbear 12:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Poke

    It's slipping further and further up the board so it may be getting overlooked, but I would appreciate an uninvolved admin deciding, fairly quickly, whether or not action regarding this is appropriate. My recommendation (revised from my initial one of an indef block) is a week block and a final warning, but I have been alleged to have a personal "animus" with David Shankbone, so would prefer someone else to decide whether or not take action over his latest tirades and turning Wikipedia into his personal battleground. Thanks. Neıl ☎ 12:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    David can be very outspoken. However, anyone with "Merkin" in his username is inviting the name he was called. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 14:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "Her", not "his" - using the epithet "cunt" towards a female user is particularly unsavoury. Neıl ☎ 15:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    In general, yes. It does, however, put to the test that user's assertion that he/she/it "doesn't care" (to state it in G-rated fashion). Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 04:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I am extremely annoyed with David Shankbone's antics right now, but I don't think an indefinite block is appropriate at this point. A week sounds appropriately, but obviously I'm not the one to make it either. --B (talk) 14:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I suggest that someone tell Merkinsmum to stop commenting on David's talk page right now because she is only dragging this along and probably making things worse. Leave him be until he decides to return. APK yada yada 11:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • I blocked when I did because that is when I read and reviewed this matter, having not followed the earlier discussion some hours earlier. I would comment that I didn't participate in that discussion since I did not realise it was anything other than a continuation of some threads previously relating to WR, Squeak, pornography, and topics where I am usually supportive of DS's opinions.
    I blocked for a week because a) that was a suggested length here, and b) that DS had commented that Merkinsmum had a week to resolve whatever issues were the matter of contention. I also concluded that this was a violation far in excess of usual reproach - this was a studied and gender specific insult and threat, made in obvious bad faith which (withdrawal from WP notwithstanding) had not been retracted or apologised for in the generous length of time as mentioned between its utterance and my block.
    The block was not punitive, as has been suggested by some (who believe they are able to determine this without much experience of me or indeed any discussion with - pasting messages on my talkpage after I have gone to sleep is not communication), but preventative. If DS, or any other participant in this discussion, refers to another contributor as a cunt in a similar context to my knowledge then I will issue a similar block. If I don't see it, and someone here does not feel that the community needs to uphold standards of civility and respect and responds with only a warning or mild rebuke, then that it their decision and they will have to deal with the consequences. I am willing to deal with the consequences of mine. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You say the block was preventative, but you've yet to back that up. It was performed only after David declared that was taking a break and had no activity for 19 hours. How was this preventative? Your comments rather seem to focus on how rude and uncalled-for the comments were, that they deserved a block. Equazcion •✗/C • 13:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    But all the edits in question came after he put up the wikibreak banner. He put the banner up Tuesday, then made 6 edits over 11 hours on Wednesday, including two that were threats to Merkinsmum. In his last edit, he not only repeated the threat (despite a warning from Allison not to do so), he gave a deadline ("I'll give you a week") to comply, and called her a ****. This was all while he was on wikibreak. Is it so unreasonable to think that maybe he had returned from his break? Is it so unreasonable to expect that he make one more edit while on break to retract the threat and apologize? ATren (talk) 13:56, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It would be nice, maybe even expected, but lack of an apology isn't reason to block. That would again be punitive rather than preventive. Equazcion •✗/C • 14:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It is preventative on the basis that should DS, or anyone else participating in this discussion, use the term as an intended epithet toward another editor - and not retract/apologise - and I become aware of it then they know that I will block them for a minimum of one week (and anyone is free to sanction me similarly for the same transgression), and that the probability should encourage more courteous and respectful communication. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:17, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Didn't spot this thread here, but I have kept a watch over DS's talk page for months, and the original title of the thread regarding his "vacation" was what brought my attention to the situation. It seemed as if there was a slight consensus here to block, and a consensus at DS's talk page to unblock for varying reasons. I still see no reason why a one week block was justified, in light of the 19 hour lag and the self-removal of comments by DS and his self-enforced vacation. As such, David has e-mailed me and he won't be returning for the duration of the break. seicer | talk | contribs 13:51, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    David had announced his Wikibreak prior to making all these comments, which I think didn't help. He is a valuable contributor when he chooses to be, and I hope when he comes back he is nicer to people. Can we mark this as closed, now? Merkinsmum, APK's advice is good - I'd leave it for now. Neıl ☎ 13:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (e.c.) To Seicer: see my comment above - all the edits in question came while he was on break, and he did not (still has not) retracted the threat. His last edit not only reinforced the threat, but gave a deadline (one week) to comply, which apparently influenced the time of the block.
    Merkinsmum apparently made some snarky remarks on WR - nothing that would warrant more than a mild warning if she'd posted it here, but snarky nonetheless. I warned her not to do that anymore, and she apologized to David multiple times. But as a woman editor with concerns about her safety she is still concerned about the threat which has not yet been retracted. So, Seicer, if you consider the case closed without a retraction, can you ensure that the threat is not repeated and (more importantly) that David respects Merkinsmum's wish not to be further associated with her (alleged) WR identity? No matter what Merkinsmum is alleged to have done, she does not deserve to have this open threat held over her head. ATren (talk) 14:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Outing of RL details

    Resolved

    The new anon 76.117.160.36 (talk · contribs) has apparently done substantial Internet research on me (I use my real last name as my username), and presented about 10 details that s/he had found online, in this edit. I don't believe s/he knew that this is not permitted at WP. I have made a comment to this effect, but could an an admin kindly reiterate this policy for him/her? Many thanks, Badagnani (talk) 17:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The anon has just done so a second time, in this edit. I kindly request attention to this, as I strongly wish to prevent the anon doing this a third time, as per our policies. Thank you, Badagnani (talk) 22:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't see it. In either of those edits, really. The IP does seem a bit confused as to what WP is about in other ways, but I don't see anything like "RL details" at all in either of those two posts. --Random832 (contribs) 02:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The anon located (via an Internet search), then placed on a discussion page, about 10 details of my personal life that are not discussed at WP, but are discussed on my personal websites, quite easy to find due to my unusual surname. Attention to this would be greatly appreciated. Badagnani (talk) 03:01, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Attention to this would be greatly appreciated. I strongly wish to prevent the anon from doing this a third time, as per our policies. Badagnani (talk) 17:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I looked at this yesterday, and agreed with Random; I really don't see anything being "outed". I'll leave a note on their talk page anyway, with a link to the relevant policy. --barneca (talk) 17:10, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you very much for your time and attention. Badagnani (talk) 19:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:JPG-GR

    JPG-GR (talk · contribs) again tries to "decide" the request to move an article back to its old title by "closing" the discussion and removing the "move"-template from the article's talk in an administrative style by edit-war. The same kind of behaviour of this user has happened before and had been issued before here, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive414#User:JPG-GR. I ask an administrator to either decide this move request and help to move the article back to its correct title, or to stop JPG-GR from the disturbing and tiresome actions. Greetings, --Schwalker (talk) 17:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Firstly, as I'm the one who made the request this time (in an attempt to both assist you and create a centralized area of discussion that could be easily followed), I have every right to close the request. Secondly, as this is I believe the third time that this request has been filed it it quite clear by now there is no consensus for the move, so by default there is no more. Thirdly, as I have now told you I believe three times - move requests do not stay open until your side wins. When there is clearly no consensus and the allotted time has passed (which it has each time now), the request can safely be closed. Please use your energy to help improve the encyclopedia rather than to continue hounding me for doing routine WP:RM-related cleanup. JPG-GR (talk) 17:43, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not "your" request. It is a request of mine, which you had re-opened after it had been proven to you explicitly that it is not your, but an administrators' task to decide and close any request to move. You can read this in the IncidentArchive414 which I've linked above.
    I had issued this request one time, then someone else had changed my message on WP:RM into a request in the opposite direction, but with my signature. So I had to change my request back to the first version. Then you tried to remove it from the backlog of WP:RM. Only after my protest here at ANI, you had re-opened the request again.
    Greeting, --Schwalker (talk) 17:56, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Please do not twist my actions to suit your view of the situation. I opened a new request as your previous request had not been filed properly at WP:RM and had broken down into a chaotic discussion (which wasn't your fault, but that of a recently blocked editor). I issued this new request in an attempt to garner additional viewpoints and discussion, and the results were the same as each previous request - no consensus.
    Please do not view any of this as an attack on you or your belief as to where this article should be located. There is clearly no consensus as to whether the article should be located at one place or the other - this is shown by each previous proposed move discussion. I am sorry that you appear unable to see that. JPG-GR (talk) 18:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Why then did you open a "new" (as you try to put it) request to move an article to another title, if you don't make the impression to have, or even know good reasons for such a move, and did not participate actively in the discussion on the article's talk-page?
    Garnering new viewpoints is a good idea, and I believe that in this case, enough compelling evidence has been garnered to move the article to the other title. But you don't seem able, or interested to read and understand the discussion.
    That is why the rules say that an administrator should read through the discussion, and then decide who to proceed further if there are still different opinions. As far as I see, an administrators' help would be needed anyway in order to clear the old title in the database before the article can be moved there.
    Greeting, --Schwalker (talk) 21:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    To quote myself, just above - "I opened a new request as your previous request had not been filed properly at WP:RM and had broken down into a chaotic discussion (which wasn't your fault, but that of a recently blocked editor)." I did not participate in the discussion as I had no opinion on the move. I read through the opinions on both sides (as I did before, despite the chaotic nature), and both sides presented reasonable arguments. Hence, no consensus. JPG-GR (talk) 21:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to tell that I've tried to move the page on my own now. Against my expectation, the move succeeded. I had tried to move the article once before, after it had been moved to another title first, but then the re-move was technically impossible. That is why I thought that for this new move, administrator's help would be necessary too. I'm not sure if my move of the article is the correct way, however as long as it stays at the current title, I don't ask for administrative help anymore concerning this case. Greetings, --Schwalker (talk) 14:43, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    More from the Avril troll

    As indicated in this section above, there was a threat of further trolling/vandalism/disruption from sleeper accounts. Perhaps the "resolved" tag on that section means it's not getting any attention, so I guess I'll start a new section. There have been more Avril questions, and our friend seems to be obsessed also with Summer Glau. Since individual accounts are being used, some editors believe that each questions should be treated in isolation. I myself have to think that if it walks like a duck . . . . Here are the contribs from Emac1, Pikecatcher, Lop Lop 7, Seven seven and eleven, Jellojolts, and table top dancer. There is also another Tor exit node being used. --LarryMac | Talk 20:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I recommend blocking [quack, quack], esp. the Tor node, based on the history of such things these accounts obviously are not here to build an encyclopedia. As an aside, what the hell started all this Avril Lavigne tomfoolery in the first place? Anyone want to enlighten me [if it's in the ANI archives, just tell me and I'll go search]. RichardΩ612 Ɣ |ɸ 20:12, May 15, 2008 (UTC)
    Whoopee! They've moved on to the Entertainment ref desk and started asking questions about Shakira? 80.222.66.180 looks like another duck. RichardΩ612 Ɣ |ɸ 20:37, May 15, 2008 (UTC)
    Personally, I don't see what all the fuss is about. If (he? she? it? they?) is going to be a nuisance, just use common sense on the Reference Desk when answering questions. A lot more energy is expended trying to track them down and ban them than is expended just ignoring their imbecilery. Ziggy Sawdust 20:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    My declaration that I would remove all of the trolling on sight got met with some rather harsh disagreement: [18]. Corvus cornixtalk 20:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Disagreement from an enabler is not something I'd worry about. And Ziggy, if you could magically make everybody ignore trolls, I'd give you a million dollars (or the currency of your choice). But people don't ignore trolls, they feed them. I'm giving up, nobody seems to really care all that much. --LarryMac | Talk 21:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If it will make everyone shut up, I'll personally handle all Avril Lavigne-related questions on the Refdesk. Ziggy Sawdust 03:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Part of the fuss, of course, is that the disrupter is now attempting to "negotiate" for the right to disrupt. See User:Hot JJ's comments at Wikipedia talk:Reference desk#April Trolls in May. Personally, I'm for banning this user (and all of their aliases and socks as they are revealed).

    Atlant (talk) 15:24, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    So if I read that thread right, you have a user who admits to having numerous socks and is admittedly trolling the reference desk, and is using a TOR node on top of that...tell me again why they haven't been blocked? Wildthing61476 (talk) 15:36, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    They have been. Reality check time: if someone has been having fun fucking with the reference desk, they aren't going to slow down or stop if we let them ask one question per day. I suppose, maybe, if I thought they would, I'd wait and see, but we all know they won't. This person is in it for the laughs, not the information. RBI. It's going to be a bother, but it's the only way. --barneca (talk) 15:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Time for a checkuser on all the identified accounts? At the very least, we'll be able to block a few more TOR nodes... --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 15:50, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I take it that if I come across any more of these I should report them to ANI. Or should I just contact an admin directly? RichardΩ612 Ɣ |ɸ 15:56, May 16, 2008 (UTC)
    Looking at the last edit from Jellojolts, I'm of the opinion now block 'em all and let Jimbo sort 'em out. Wildthing61476 (talk) 15:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Prestidigitator looks like a target as well. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 16:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    And User:LLOTAAMI. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 16:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    User:LLOTAAMI blocked. I'm not too certain about Prestidigitator. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 16:21, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Jen17op looks dodgy. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 16:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Done. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 16:37, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Suggestion: When an account looks obvious, block. When an account looks questionable, remove any of their questions that seem trolling, and put something similar to this: User:Barneca/Sandboxen/Page2 on their user page, and block if they violate it. --barneca (talk) 16:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Questions cut and pasted verbatim from elsewhere on the web are a red flag. Still, I don't know if removing the questions when people have already started to provide answers is more or less disruptive than just leaving them up there... --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 17:04, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Added cut&paste to link above. And I'd agree, if someone starts answering, it's probably best to leave it alone. But surely the people who frequent the reference desk all know what's going on by now? Are a lot of these questions getting answers? --barneca (talk) 17:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've had neither the time nor the inclination to check them all out - but it does look to me as though the ones he/they posted recently have had some replies. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 17:09, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Is User talk:Jellojolts blocked? There's no msg on the talk page but this is the one responsible for the recent mayhem on the desks. To answer the question: yes, most of the questions do get responses from good faith posters. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 17:29, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Huh. Well, if it's not overwhelming the reference desk (i.e. people seem to be answering everything, and legitimate questions aren't going unanswered), and people want to feed trolls, I'm not going to spend much time protecting them from themselves. --barneca (talk) 17:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh yeah, meant to say, Kurt blocked Jellojolts an hour and a half ago. --barneca (talk) 17:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Can a non-admin check if someone's blocked? Zain Ebrahim (talk) 18:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, just go to their contribs page and click on "Block log" under "User contributions" at the top. Deor (talk) 18:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    How about we unblock them and let them ask questions at my own subpage? Ziggy Sawdust 18:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I would agree with that, and I stop my disruption. What do you say? 84.29.75.114 (talk) 19:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's another: Vincebosma. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 19:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This might be a bit harsh, but why would we enable someone who is deliberately trolling and disrupting the project? Wildthing61476 (talk) 19:21, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm unsure if this is anything to do with this, but for a few minutes back then the Science ref desk had some huge avril pics obscuring it. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The vandalism to the Science ref desk was from User:84.29.75.114 (see above), a TOR exit node that's now blocked. In light of that, I think any users fitting the above pattern of trolling should be blocked. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:24, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec)It was the anon IP above (check his contribs). Apparently he's quite good at disrupting. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 19:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Here's another: User talk:Youlipo. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 19:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Bevwint - not 100% certain about this one. What are we looking for here (aside from when they were created and whether they've been OPs at the RD)? Zain Ebrahim (talk) 19:50, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Here's one more: User:Retlon chick. Okay, I'm tired now. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 20:01, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    One more: [19]. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 20:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Yup, all the trolls to User:Ziggy Sawdust/Avril pronto! Ziggy Sawdust 01:06, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Le Sock

    Resolved

    All right--I'm reasonably sure I have a Jamesinc14 sock on my hands. He created List of PBS KIDS Channel Identifications This is recreated content, which has been removed more times than I care to count from the PBS Kids article, and it's always been a hallmark of Jamesinc14. I've put the article up for AfD, and reverted a bunch of goofball edits to various PBS articles (bolding/italicizing half the show names but not the other half in PBS KIDS Sprout, for example--more typical J14 foolishness.) I've listed the case at SSP, put up the article at AfD, and reverted everything that needs reverting, I think; is there anything else I need to do? Is there a better way to report what seems like a pretty-near-damn-obvious sock? Or am I being entirely too bloodthirsty here? (This particular vandal truly chaps my hide, I'll admit.)Gladys J Cortez 22:44, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    You know you just did it for the edit summary :) --Relata refero (disp.) 15:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Request for review of block

    I tried to discuss this with William M. Connolley before bringing it here, but after three hours of no response, I think it is safe to say that he has left his computer for now. My concerns can be seen at his talk page. William M. Connolley and Giovanni33 are both parties to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giovanni33 (WMC has offered evidence and a statement) and are involved in a major content dispute about State terrorism by the United States. Today, William and Giovanni got into an edit war on the workshop page itself [20]. They each reverted each other twice, but after Giovanni's second revert, William proceeded to block him for edit warring based on his parole, [21] and then reverted back to his version [22]. This looks to me like a clear case of an administrator inappropriately acting when involved, and so I think the merit of the block should be discussed here by uninvolved admins and editors. Perhaps Giovanni should even be unblocked until a decision is reached, since the block was ill-founded. Dmcdevit·t 03:37, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Giovanni knows better. He's on a 1RR and he clearly broke it. He doesn't get to ignore it just because he's reverting someone he doesn't like. Furthermore, he was removing clearly pertinent content from the page: a notice to those participating in the arbcom case that I Write Stuff was indef blocked as a puppet of NuclearUmpf. He doesn't even have a ghost of a chance of pretending he was doing the right thing here. Jtrainor (talk) 05:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm commenting here as an involved admin (being involved with the ArbCom case in question and the dispute that underlies it) so others can take my comments with a grain of salt (or a spoonful of sugar!...if you prefer).
    As implemented by William M. Connolley, this was clearly a bad block and that decision warrants review, particularly given WMC's history in this area. Connolley and Giovanni33 are disputants in a current ArbCom case and on the article Allegations of State Terrorism by the United States. The problems here all come back to that article. Over a month ago, WMC protected that page then edited it significantly. A few days later, after the article had been protected by another admin, WMC did a massive deletion in the course of a few edits. In my book that was clearly improper, but regardless WMC was now thoroughly "involved" in the article. Several days later another editor restored the content deleted by WMC and went to 3RR over the issue (which was not a good thing to do). A block was not necessarily inappropriate, but WMC made the block himself (of an editor reverting his edits) with the justification "disruptive editing." Now he has blocked Giovanni33 for a probable ArbCom parole violation while involved in an edit war with him in an ArbCom case that the stems from the "Allegations" article. Obviously the correct course of action—given WMC's heavy involvement and already questionable conduct—would have been to bring the issue here. He did not, and that's a serious problem in terms of admin behavior as far as I'm concerned.
    Giovanni33 seems to claim that the 1RR per week restriction on him from an ArbCom case applies only to articles and that this was mentioned in some prior ArbCom enforcement forum. If that is the case (and I don't know what he's referring to) then any sort of block was inappropriate since he did not violate 1RR in article space. If he's wrong then a block for violating 1RR was completely appropriate, it's just that William M. Connolley was precisely not the person to implement it. Regardless WMC's conduct as an admin warrants further scrutiny—irrespective of all the other issues surrounding the article in question.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The prior history is not really relevant here, since said history was seen by ArbCom as containing no evidence of improper use of admin tools. - Merzbow (talk) 07:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You know I respect your views Merzbow, but I think you are wrong in this case. The prior history is extremely relevant because it demonstrates Connolley's previous editorial involvement (which is rather extensive). There's a fairly bright line when it comes to admins blocking editors with whom they have a dispute, and I think WMC clearly crossed it here, but arguably on earlier occasions as well. Regardless of the fact that ArbCom previously rejected a case on these issues (for a variety of reasons I might add, and not because of "no evidence"), I think the recent history of the dispute behind this block is well worth noting.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Without getting bogged down in whether the block itself was warranted, I must echo Dmcdevit in saying that it was entirely inappropriate for it to be made by William, with whom Giovanni was in an edit war. This is exactly the kind of situation we refer to when we say that you should not block somebody you're in a dispute for. Giovanni was blocked for edit-warring by somebody who was not only also edit-warring, but furthermore, was edit-warring with the person he blocked. — Werdna talk 05:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I will note that the vast majority of edit warring accusations have come from either Giovanni himself, or TravB/Inclusionist. Jtrainor (talk) 06:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Whether or not the block was warranted is irrelevant; you just don't block people you're in a disrupte with, this surely isn't a difficult concept to grasp at all. Strongly support unblocking Giovanni for the time being. Black Kite 06:15, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry, I've been offline. G33 broke his arbcomm parole and should be blocked for it, though he is still wriggling. I'm happy for the block to be reviewed. Should I have done it? Perhaps not. Feel free to unblock and then reblock him William M. Connolley (talk) 07:16, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    With respect, that's not the point. The point is that you shouldn't have done it, and nobody else thought it was worthwhile blocking him at the time - at least before you did. Both those things need to be acknowledged without reservation, and then we can move on. --Relata refero (disp.) 07:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Furthur evidence that WMC abuses admin powers and the same cabal of good ole boy friends of his come to his defense every time.....Hooper (talk) 14:16, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No, William did the right thing, completely unambiguously per the Arbcom parole which G33 blatantly violated. William is only involved in as much as he has been trying for a long time to enforce policy on that page; any admin who resist the POV-pushing there could be claimed to be involved, that way we'd soon run out of admins. G33 needed blocking and in my view he needs banning. Guy (Help!) 14:24, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Entirely possible. However, WMC is engaged in fixing content on the article. He shouldn't block someone with whom he is in disagreement on the same page over content. Regardless of whether or not there are problems here, given that G33 specifically disagreed with WMC's interpretation of ArbCom, WMC should have reported it to WP:AE like everybody else has to. --Relata refero (disp.) 15:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • WMC was completely in the right. If an admin is "involved" or "biased" because they previously interacted with anyone they blocked, whether warning or any other interaction, we shortly would have no one to block problem editors at all. Relata, you have an odd definition of "dispute" - breaking ArbCom parole is somethign quite different. You are completely in the wrong here. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua?!? 14:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No, there are content issues here, so you're way off base. See above for elucidation, and the Tango workshop talkpage for bainer on the subject of involvement. --Relata refero (disp.) 15:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with the block (G33 is a tendentious editor, to say the least), but given the fact WMC is a party against him in a current RFC, I think he shouldnt've done the block himself. Sceptre (talk) 15:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Per Sceptre, never block an editor you are in dispute with. How hard would it have been to find an uninvolved admin to do this? --John (talk) 15:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    My thoughts exactly. The block was definitely necessary, but the appearance of the block, considering the multitude of conflicts these editors have been in - and the fact that the admin was in direct conflict at the time with G33 - is inappropriate. Should've gone to AE or asked for another active admin to get involved. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:21, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bad block as issued by this admin, for the reasons that many editors with sound judgment have pointed out above. Since this page was an arbitration case page, acceptable practice would to have been to posted to one of three places: 1) WP:AE, 2) the talk page of the case clerk, 3) the arbitration clerk's noticeboard. Any of those could have gotten a neutral party to review. Clear cut case of an inappropriate block, and probably needs to be mentioned in the case as evidence against WMC. GRBerry 19:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You're too kind, I proposed to reset the block in the process, since the first block was not valid ^^ -- lucasbfr talk 20:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks to Sam Korn; that seems to be the sensible solution. I'm a little puzzled why no-one else did it earlier. There were two issues here: should G33 be blocked; and should he be blocked by me. The latter was in dispute; the former doesn't seem to be at all William M. Connolley (talk) 20:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Unapproved bot?

    Resolved
     – There's nothing happening on ANI, see WP:AN for a loooooong thread —Alex.Muller 17:38, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I suspect that Betacommand is running an unapproved bot on his main account. Check his contributions for the long sequence of DEFAULTSORT changes, including ones that would be obviously incorrect if done by a human, such as this.

    If this is the case, it would be an unsettling double standard by BAG. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 05:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Looks like a bot, unapproved too from what I can find - however he stopped some time ago. Had that been current I would have blocked. He has been specifically warned to abide by the bot policy. ViridaeTalk 06:53, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    See this thread WP:AN#Betacommand blocked for sockpuppetry for more on BC. Kevin (talk) 07:17, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    So, why is that guy allowed to do what he does, if he continually causes trouble? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 11:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a matter of opinion, and many people would disagree with that opinion. Corvus cornixtalk 17:09, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    What opinion? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It was more a question based on a statement of fact than an opinion. Enigma message 17:43, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Bugs's opinion that Betacommand continually causes trouble. Corvus cornixtalk 18:25, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Template:Foreign relations of Russia

    There have been a lot of IP edits to this template in the last few days and some of them look concerning. Not sure whether this counts as vandalism, although it certainly does reduce the number of linked articles.[23] Would someone who knows a few things about the foreign relations of Russia have a look at this? DurovaCharge! 08:24, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    they're probably good faith; why do we need a template with so many redlinks on anyway? ninety:one 12:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually someone else came along (probably not through this noticeboard) and addressed the issue. DurovaCharge! 18:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Heads up

    Resolved

    Backlog at WP:AIV. APK yada yada 15:10, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Evrik

    I direct your attention to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Epicaricacy‎ where users have come forward to admit that their participation was the result of off-wiki canvassing by Evrik (talk · contribs), who appears also to have solicited the support of a sockpuppet of his indef-blocked pal South Philly. It seems to me that some sort of sanctions against Evrik for his crude attempts to game the system are in order, but I leave that to you folks. What to do about the AfD, which appears to be irredeemably tainted, is a whole other question. Deor (talk) 16:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Yes, I asked people to weigh in, but I did not ask anyone to vote in any way. I did not ask anyone to create sockpuppets, or meatpuppets, to participate. In fact I notified a couple of admins of South philly's sock puppets. Which I can document. I have tried my best to remove myself from this discussion and have in not participated in a couple of days. As for the AfD, I think it was done in bad faith. I'm going back on wikibreak. Thanks. --evrik (talk) 16:25, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    * I don't understand in what sense this AfD, which I filed, was in bad faith. I filed it May 12 at 15:19, and admittedly I am no expert at filing AfD. [24]. At that time, the article consisted purely of dictionary-type info and material lifted from schadenfreude [25]. On Talk:Epicaricacy at that time, three users besides me were arguing with Evrik that the word should re-direct to Schadenfreude. He gave flip answers, and reverted a re-direct all but him thought was agreed-to. On Evrik's own talk pages, which he has deleted since this notice was filed, he gave similarly flip answers to other editors who were asking him why he was changing links that used to go to Schadenfreude so that they went instead to the stub he was creating. Since I thought Evrik was ignoring consensus about his new article, I filed the AfD in the hope that a wider consensus would persuade him. I never before encountered Evrik on Wikipedia and had no personal reason to get into an argument with him. I noticed his actions after this edit to Internet troll, which is on my watchlist. [26]. At the time he made that edit, he had not yet created the article, so it was a red-letter link. I deleted the link [27], he created the article and reverted my delete. At this point I went to his talk page, found the upset messages from other users and his offhand answers, left a message saying he shouldn't link to non-existent articles. Rather than saying, "I have now created the article", he came to my talk page and left a message "How would you define non-existent?" [28] If an AfD was the wrong way to approach this problem, I apologize. It was done in good faith. betsythedevine (talk) 17:53, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Record of canvassing friends and/or sockpuppets

    • Evrik has now deleted his recent user-talk, which would document his recent actions, and replaced his user page with a display of his barnstars (including one given to him by his suspected sockpuppet South Philly.
    • Evrik was investigated for having South Philly as a sockpuppet. [29] It seems to me that the first investigator had pretty solid evidence the Evrik was in fact the same as South Philly, even though they used different computers, noting that over a 20 month period they never once overlapped their editing sessions, which seemed quite unlikely. But the second investigator, citing what a good contributor Evrik is, gave a tortuous explanation of why they might not be the same person, giving Evrik the benefit of the doubt as an established editor. His conclusion: "In the best-case scenario, it looks like Evrik drafted a friend to help revert-war with Boothy443, then this friend went on to do some editing independently, always staying loyal to his teacher in various disputes, big and small. "
    • Evrik was also involved in a January, 2007 sockpuppet investigation for the same kind of apparent vote-stacking [30]. The suspected sock English_Subtitle returned to Wikipedia on May 12, after a 4 month absence, to take part in the epicaricacy AfD as well as other edits. w:Special:Contributions/English_Subtitle.
    • It seems like more than a coincidence that of the 10 Keep votes for "epicaricacy", 6 were apparently from Philadelphia, based on information on their talk pages: Evrik, plus Sur_de_Filadelphia, Marketstel, Raider.adam, Eagleapex, and LBlanchard. After the topic of canvassing was introduced on the talk page, a 7th participant came forward to say that Evrik had recruited him. [31]. And so did an 8th person, who had not taken any part in the discussion. [32].

    Now it is clear that Evrik is a hard-working and productive editor of Wikipedia. It is also clear to me that his past encounters with admin reproaches for edit-warring and vote-stacking have not made much impression. I would like to see the "good" Evrik continue to edit here but the "bad" Evrik has wasted a lot of other people's time over this already. betsythedevine (talk) 18:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    n.b. I had originally deleted User talk:Evrik/Archive 12 after a speedy deletion request, but Betsythedevine informed me that it was relevant to this ANI discussion. I've restored the page. Also, User talk:Evrik/Archive 11 doesn't appear in Evrik's archives. I'm noting this for purposes of the discussion; otherwise, I haven't checked out the case. (I'm more interested in checking out the IUCN database against lists of state parks and National Register properties at the moment.) --Elkman (Elkspeak) 18:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Relevant material from Evrik's deleted talk pages

    Thanks to Elkman for restoring this material, but in case it gets deleted again somehow I want to put the relevant parts here.

    • From May 16 I just now became aware of the guideline on canvassing, and I think it makes good sense. In the future, if you want to discuss Wikipedia disputes with me, please contact me through my talk page, for the sake of transparency. ike9898 (talk) 13:50, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi, I don't understand why you have altered many links for schadenfreude, which has an article, to Epicaricacy, which doesn't, and is a practically unknown word. Please would you explain this? Someone else has already reverted your edit in template:suffering, and I think the rest should likewise be reverted. - Fayenatic (talk) 20:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
    I agree with Fayenatic. Epicaricacy seems to exist only in lists of curious words, whereas schadenfreude is in everyday usage. I can't see any reason why Wikipedia should use the former. Can you explain? Otherwise, I am inclined to revert. Grafen (talk) 22:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
    I would tend to disagree. --evrik (talk) 16:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
    I came here to comment on your repeated addition of a link to the non-existent article "epicaricacy" to Internet troll. I see that you have made similar edits elsewhere. It isn't good Wikipedia practice to persist in edits that others question without giving some explanation of why your edit makes Wikipedia better. betsythedevine (talk) 17:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
    Non-existent? --evrik (talk) 17:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
    I made this comment based on the article's non-existence yesterday. I see that today you have created it. You still haven't explained why you think this article's existence (it used to re-direct to Schadenfreude) is a benefit to Wikipedia users. betsythedevine (talk) 18:04, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
    I assume good faith as Evrik is a solid editor here on Wiki and I have great respect for him. But I wanted to ask a similar question. Why wouldn't the term "schadenfreude" link to schadenfreude? --Midnightdreary (talk) 18:12, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
    that was a mistake. --evrik (talk) 18:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

    I hope you can see from this (as well as from early discussion at epicaricacy) that before the AfD other editors tried to engage evrik in a respectful discussion of his actions but without success.

    Added by betsythedevine (talk) 19:09, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I see that Evrik has now asserted (on what basis I don't know) that User:English Subtitle, another !voter in the AfD, is a sock of someone unnamed—though I assume that the section heading "SP" indicates "South Philly". I guess my question is, If Evrik was aware that socks were improperly supporting his position in the AfD (including double !voting), why didn't he divulge it in that discussion? Deor (talk) 19:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Wrap up

    Here's what I think happened, and note I've been familiar with these users from way back. I think Evrik and South Philly know each other IRL. So, they talk to each other and support each other. I do not think they are socks. Then some falling out occurred, like maybe Evrik got tired of SP's socking, but could be all sorts of things. So Evrik reports on SP's socking. SP retaliates by reporting Evrik's canvassing. Now what I find really odd is these socks: English Subtitle, Stonewall Revisited, Amnesia grrl, 216.185.29.69 reporting themselves at SSP. I've indef'd the names and 3-month blocked the IP. See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/South Philly (3rd). That leaves Evrik. He's posted a "retired" note on his pages, but maybe he'll come back. So, I'll leave a note about the canvassing there. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree that there's probably nothing else to be done at this time (though I pity the admin who chooses to close the AfD in question). I'd like to point out, however, that it was not any South Philly sock who reported Evrik's canvassing. It was other users who he canvassed—even though the canvassing was already fairly clear, albeit unprovable, from the evidence in the AfD itself. Deor (talk) 00:57, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I really am sorry that the outcome of all this has been for Evrik to "retire" but I hope it will be temporary. Nobody is claiming -- I certainly am not --that Evrik is wicked, but I do think he got carried away by his enthusiasm into doing a number of inappropriate things. I complained about the actions (so did others). My complaints weren't meant as a personal attack. Everybody, in Wikipedia or elsewhere, sometimes does stuff others think they shouldn't. I think that Evrik must be a very good person on the evidence that he has so many loyal friends, quite apart from the good work he has done in Wikipedia.
    On a less friendly note, if Evrik's ally South Philly had defended Evrik by citing Wikipedia policy instead of insulting and wikistalking me, he could have helped to calm the discussion down instead of heating it up. I am sorry that my annoyance about what I saw as inappropriate tactics caused me to waste my time (and other people's) with excessive posting about these issues.
    I am going to try to change the AfD to a Merge and Redirect, and I will make sure the ultimate Wikipedia article has a section mentioning "epicaricacy."betsythedevine (talk) 09:56, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Redvers failing to AGF

    I wish to complain about this admin, who has twice openly criticised me groundlessly ([33] - the words "as usual" there are also unjustified - and [34]), offensively mentioning me by name when I was far from the only person in that position. When I complained to him about this, he posted a comment on my talkpage [35] in which he suggested that my comments supporting a block of another user (who violated WP:NPA numerous times, including telling another to "grow a brain" - naming no names) were becoming increasingly disruptive (how can expressing an opinion shared by numerous others be disruptive, but them expressing it isn't?!), and that I make attempts to throw petrol on the various fires that spring up.

    He suggested that calling the incivil user "nasty" was a personal attack [36], and I was told that I was intentionally trying to create or prolong drama. I suggested that naming me in this when I wasn't the only one was harassment, and I was informed that I was going to be looking down the wrong end of an RfC. I'm not happy about this behaviour and seemingly I'm not the only one ([37], [38]).

    BTW, I'm not giving {{ANI-notice}} to those involved because I imagine they're watching this page; if you think they need it then feel free to do so. Thanks. —TreasuryTag—t—c 16:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    His criticisms are not "groundless" in my view. Either way this is probably something that could be solved without escalating it to ANI. It's sorta ironic that your response to someone claiming you try to stir up drama is.. to create another drama-stirring thread on ANI. The best way to respond to his criticisms might be to ignore them, don'tcha think? naerii - talk 17:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Redvers has serious issues with maintaining neutrality in his dealings on AN/ANI. Don't make me laugh suggesting that Redvers would ever listen to a template warning, let alone to a courageous ignoring campaign. Redvers only ignores comments against Redvers. Your comment shows AN/I naivety in the extreme. The ironic thing is, if you get too 'Redvers' on Redvers, he does exactly what you recommend, he ignores you, despite the fact he most likely initiated the entire too and fro in the first place. MickMacNee (talk) 01:23, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Special:Contributions/129.11.249.244 is inserting single community website into multiple anime related articles Anime Club, Fansub, Gravitation (manga) and others. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 16:16, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I will add this to User:XLinkBot. If it gets a problem, we'll blacklist. I will also report at WT:WPSPAM. Thanks! --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 16:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    All links that I can find have been added by IPs in the 129.11.0.0/16 range (not a static IP, I think, some of the IPs have various good edits, and some of these, very similar link additions). Also, the editor has used this site as a reference twice, reluctant to remove these. This might be John 'Darlo' Darlington himself, some of the cases are link additions, and after this the name is added, or changed to a wikilink. --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    POV warrior needs inmediate blocking

    88.8.106.89 (talk · contribs) is making POV removals, personal attacks and BLP violations (see here) and edit warring faster than they can be reverted and warned. Please block quick --Enric Naval (talk) 16:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    He seems to have stopped after a final warning --Enric Naval (talk) 16:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The WHOIS report gives back TELEFONICA DE ESPANA which is probably a service provider. As with any anonymous IP addy, it's important to assume that it's not just a single user. Remember, if they start up again, don't just immediately report to WP:AIV. You'll have to start with lower warning levels. If the patterns are exactly the same, start with a level 2 warning. Wisdom89 (T / C) 19:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    He started making the same type of edits only six hours after getting a final warning. Please make another final warning, and the next time block him directly. The same IP has started editing again after a few hours, and all his new edits are POV removals on the same spanish nationalist topics. For example on a template on Africa topics where he has removed spanish territories on Africa[39][40] that had to be protected[41] Ceuta[42][43] and changes to make some plazas de soberania look lik actual national territories[44] (another spanish nationalist POV) --Enric Naval (talk) 09:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:ThegreatWakkorati

    Resolved
     – Blocked, then indef blocked and talk page protected. Hersfold (t/a/c) 22:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User breached BLP here (article was the subject of one of Sceptre's blanking a little while ago, so I think it best to keep it completely free of potential BLP problems). I explained why I reverted the user's edits. I was threatened, and the user has just reinstated the offending content, and proceded to attack me, explaining that they don't care about our sourcing/BLP policies. Requesting another admin look into this, as I am involved and haven't been completely clean myself (sarcasm in response to the threats). J Milburn (talk) 17:10, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I was just going to leave a stern warning, but looking at their talk page, they've had a consistent problem with this. I'm blocking for 24 hours, feel free to discuss with me on my talk page or here if you feel that's not appropriate. Hersfold (t/a/c) 17:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the quick response. J Milburn (talk) 17:21, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec - decided to add anyways as a vote of confidence) I am not an admin, but if I had not decided to look at Thegreat's talk page to see what J Milburn had said in response, I would have reverted and given ThegreatWakkorati a {{subst:uw-npa4im}}. J.delanoygabsadds 17:23, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    For reference, the incivility continued after my post- [45], [46]. J Milburn (talk) 17:29, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hm. Abusing protection templates as well, wonderful. Not looking forward to that unblock request... Hersfold (t/a/c) 17:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Serious threats and personal attacks against myself and others on the user's talk page. Requesting another admin looks into this- again, I would rather not act because of a COI. J Milburn (talk) 22:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    <-Now, I want to kill him for reporting me and write an article about how he was mangled, why, and what he could have done to prevent it. Also, use the autopsy photos without proper premission.. Yeah, he needs to be permabanned and his Talk page protected. Corvus cornixtalk 22:10, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Barneca took care of it. I probably should have made the original block longer anyway, but oh well. Hersfold (t/a/c) 22:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh yeah, forgot to mention it here, I got pulled away from the 'puter for a bit. I gave him an out, to apologize after a week, but I get the distinct impression that won't happen. --barneca (talk) 22:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    systematic disparagement by Wikipedia Rational Skepticism

    Members of a group identifying themselves as "Wikipedia Rational Skepticism Project" have targeted a number of articles, including "Energy Psychology" "Thought Field Therapy" and "Emotional Freedom Techniques" with specious rewrites of objective data. By definition skepticism in principle and practice, violates Wikipedia policies on NPOV as their revisions of entries are entirely biased with an agenda of debunking with no more claim to adequate expertise than active disbelief in a topic. Consistently entries from experienced sources with expertise on the subjects in question are deleted on the basis of NPOV and replaced with pejorative labels like "pseudoscience". A quick scan of the history of "Emotional Freedom Techniques" edits and comments gives ample evidence of these abuses.

    The primary reference given by this group for justifying their skeptical comments is "The Skeptical Inquirer" a splinter group magazine with an agenda of promoting disparaging opinions via pejorative labeling. Attempts to elevate such publications to equal status with professional journals and authoritative writings by experts in a given field must be confronted as a thinly disguised campaign to use Wikipedia for commercial gain--specifically promotion of an organization actively soliciting members and selling subscriptions.

    Wikipedia must have effective policing of abuses to the intent of providing unbiased content in order to remain a viable informational source for readers. I'm certain there are attempts from any number of splinter groups intent upon promoting and aggressively revising their favorite targets, whether they be anti-abortionist, political religious groups, skin heads, creationists, or in this case debunkers using the trappings of science terminology to attack specific targets. To allow such systematic and organized discrediting activities to continue unchallenged threatens the integrity of Wikipedia and risks turning it into the equivalent of a messageboard for highly politicized agendas. After all if The Skeptical Inquirer can be cited as an adequate authoritative source then anything Pat Robertson preaches, Rush Limbaugh spins, or political party eschews can be referenced to justify revising legitimate article entries.

    I ask administrators to review the activities of this group and effectively prohibit their disparagement of legitimate on the basis that their agenda, as stated, is to deny readers access to information that they have targeted to actively disbelieve. After all, who cares what anyone else believes and disbelieves? Wikipedia is not a forum for voicing, let alone enforcing, personal opinion.

    Greywolfin (talk) 17:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I haven't reviewed the contributions yet, but I do take issue with your assertion that "By definition skepticism in principle and practice, violates Wikipedia policies on NPOV". Per WP:WEIGHT, "Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them...But on such pages...the article should make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite majority-view content strictly from the perspective of the minority view." If a hypothesis is scientifically implausible and this implausibility is born out by empirical data, this needs to be mentioned in the article. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    As an update, I think this edit] displays a poor understanding of WP:NPOV on your part. WP:LEAD clearly states that a lead should "briefly describe its notable controversies", and I think User:Fyslee's summary of the experimental findings and the notable criticisms accurately reflects the later contents of the article. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I will also ask admins to monitor this group, and help them enforce WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NPOV against the legion of True Believers who ceaselessly strive to make our articles on these fictional or fringe subjects appear to be more than they are. Rational skepticism is as close to WP:NPOV as makes no odds in the matter of paranormal, fringe and pseudoscience subjects - extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, after all. I am reminded ot the tests applied in Kitzmiller v. Dover, which showed that ID is a faith-based idea, not science. Many of these subjects are part of a belief system that lacks objectively verifiable evidence, and are claimed to be true because the only "reliable" sources are the wholly uncritical ones which support them. Science does not publish papers in Nature on the subject of hokum still being hokum, of course we use the sources which specialise in investigating extraordinary claims, people like Randi and Clarke. Also, how many genuinely new editors find this noticeboard with their fourth edit? Greywolfin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has the appearance of coming from someone's hosiery drawer. Guy (Help!) 17:53, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks like that sock is a busted flush. Worth blocking? Guy (Help!) 22:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Ludvikus

    Ludvikus (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

    Could some come review this user's situation? He has been blocked for a full two years (for what was called disruption), and now the situation is getting quite complicated. I think he would appreciate if someone would look over this mess. Please start here, and read to the end. There are allegations of email harrassment, claims of secret agendas, and accusations of neo-Nazism. I have been told this is the place to report such matters, and he can't do it himself. I think the whole thing needs to be reviewed. Thanks. Ostap 17:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh boy. This has already received input from El_C, jc37, jpgordon and Cobaltbluetony, all of whom the user has declared are involved. There's a summary of a section of the user's recent actions about 3/4 of the way down that talkpage from User:Huon which might be of use. My own interaction with him has come at Talk:Zion (disambiguation), which I believe independently confirms Huon's diagnosis. --Relata refero (disp.) 21:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Is this one of those situations where the admin community splits into those who agree with him (none thus far), and those whoa re involved, conflicted or in some other way not appropriate to review? Guy (Help!) 22:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    More like, it's exasperation over trying to deal with a very problematic user. The sole question is whether the two years is justified, according to the talk page. Let's take a look at the block log:
    1. Blocked for 48 hours for disruptive editing.
    2. Nine days later, blocked for 24 hours for personal attacks.
    3. That block extended to one week for further personal attacks.
    4. Two weeks later, blocked for six months as a "persistent troll"
    5. Two months after that expires, 24 hours for disruption at AfD.
    6. Five days after that, blocked for two months for General disruption, as discussed in multiple places. Last straw: Creation of abusive WP:BLP for WP:POINT purposes.
    7. Now, five months after that block expired, he's blocked for two years for Disruptive editing: a re-occurring problem.
    So, perhaps the community should be asked, is a two year block appropriate, or would a community ban be more appropriate? Or can perhaps this editor be educated? Maybe a mentorship would be appropriate here. The problems are manifold and complex; this is not an editor attempting to damage to Wikipedia, but rather is an editor who seems unable to work within the style and strictures Wikipedia expects and requires. The two year block seems to me to be an expression of frustration at the seeming intractability of this editor's issues. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:40, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    It is pivotal to note that the entire workload of dealing with thousands and thousands of words daily on talk pages (that try to reinvent the wheel without even bothering to glance as the basics or history) and low quality, mis-formatted edits, falls on a few pf us. Not to mention facing the consequences of bad faith and disruption when he doesn't get his way, or when he breaks one his promises. The point is that we cannot be expected to keep going like this (he still doesn't feel he's done anything wrong and that it's all one grand conspiracy — but I'm increasingly drawn to the less than good faith conclusion that this is a game for him, seeing how far he could take argumentation for its own). Either way, it's exhausting and Wikipedia is not therapy (see comment at the bottom of this and my latest one here). El_C 02:06, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • This sounds oddly familiar. We've had a similar (though decidedly not the same) sitatuion with an editor (User:Asgardian) which led to several RfCs, 3PO, and finally arbitration. Well-meaning user with "some" good edits, but who was causing problems due to block reversion, and poor (misdirective) edit summaries, among other things. What reminds me of this was the lengthy go-almost-nowhere double-talk talk page discussions. He too was treating this as a game (and admitted so at one point. I bring this up in the case any results of his arbitration may be useful to be applied here. Here's the link: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Asgardian-Tenebrae. - jc37 03:40, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If I am reading that page right, the result was a year of editing restriction, not a two year block like Ludvikus got. I think a restriction is more appropriate in this situation. Ostap 04:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    He was placed on restrictions (a generous route in light of the sheer scope of the disruption), but failed to adhere to their terms. El_C 05:49, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I realize that, which is why he did deserve a block. But two full years? I would think a day or a week would have been more fit. Ostap 05:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not just that, obviously, but tendentious conduct elsewhere, too. He was already blocked for over 8 months last year. El_C 06:15, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I found his last two-month block pretty unfair also. Regardless, I truly think you should reconsider the length of this one, and give thought to the proposal brought foreward by Alex Bakharev. Ostap 06:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, well, you're supporting him rather consistently and uncritically, so it isn't a shock you would arrive to further conclusions that are favorable to him. I am opposed to it; I don't think Alex (or you) bothered looking into the matter closely. Not to mention that Ludvikus still maintains everyone else (many editors across many articles) is in the wrong and that he's 100 percent innocent and being persecuted. Same problems are just going to repeat. El_C 06:38, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    In light of his long history not only of tendentious editing, but also of trying to manipulate other editors, including myself, I would be in support of a community ban. —Ashanda (talk) 06:48, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • I certainly support a lengthy, perhaps indefinite block. Some editors above seem to support Ludvikus' POV, but support for his POV does not excuse the way he pursues it, which genuinely does appear to be highly disruptive. Past blocks and discussions show that Ludvikus is probably not actually capable of being less problematic, unfortunately. Guy (Help!) 09:25, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Sock of The Kohser needs blocking

    Resolved

    Thekohser (talk · contribs) outed Arise Sir Loin of Beef (talk · contribs) as a sock of his here. I blocked, but then Kohser pointed out a potential conflict of interest to me, so I've undone my block. Somebody with no such conflict should probably redo the block. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:09, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Scientz and possible breach of WP:BLP

    I recently noticed that User:Scientz has information on his user page which includes dates of birth and personal information about the private lives of people in his family, who are not in the public eye, and do not edit Wikipedia. I believe this breaches the guideline at WP:UP and the Biographies of living persons policy. (Specifically, "What may I not have on my user page?.... Personal information of other persons without their consent" and "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion, from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space.") I have removed the information twice, and been reverted by Scientz. I have explained my reasons to him, and asked that he remove the information, but he has refused. I would like further opinion on this but I have brought it up here because I think it is a serious breach of WP:BLP. --BelovedFreak 19:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    From his comments, he seems to believe that his user page actually belongs to him, which certainly is not true if one reads WP:UP. I'm not an administrator, so I can't take much action, and I'm not sure this is a blockable offense, at least not at the moment. You could always take this up at the WP:BLPN and gather more opinions on the matter. Wisdom89 (T / C) 19:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, looking at the page, I see a gross violation of WP:UP. You could be bold and start a WP:MFD, but I'd recommend talking to others about it first. Wisdom89 (T / C) 19:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Concur with BLP violation. Content removed again, user warned.  Sandstein  20:16, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I see the page has now been deleted. Thanks for your help.--BelovedFreak 13:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Can we block an ED troll

    Resolved
     – I AGF too much for my own good. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 20:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Nothing more than a disruptive entity.

    • FYI others previously were removed.
    1. "balderdash, it was a legitimate edit, twinkle users need a leash"
    2. "preposterous, the edit was not vandalism, typical knee-jerk revert and vandal warn"
    3. "I'm removing the WP:TEMPLAR warning'
    24 April 2008 Neapolitan Sixth New user account--Hu12 (talk) 20:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Crystal clear, IMHO--Hu12 (talk) 20:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm the target of a few of those insults. They're too childish and silly for me to feel offended and were in response to a silly comment of my own, so please don't worry on my account. The user is trolling with some attempts to mimic ED, but the account history shows mostly constructive good faith edits elsewhere. Their fifth edit summary[51] after joining last month is "removing uncited original research" so whoever it is, they knew the ropes around here before setting up that particular account. I have no feeling either way about blocking, just some info. Cheers, Wikidemo (talk) 20:25, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    To be honest, I found the "how do I cite web" thing a bit funny... but yeah, block. Sceptre (talk) 20:29, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, blocked indef. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 20:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Clearly Neapolitan Sixth (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) is a sock of someone..--Hu12 (talk) 20:37, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I LIVE IN A HAT (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) possibly? RichardΩ612 Ɣ |ɸ 21:35, May 16, 2008 (UTC)
    Yeah I pointed that out and got warned - it really cracked me up :) 86.137.221.99 (talk) 22:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Safe Sex Poster Boys

    I'm about to go out but noticed this article seems to have massive amounts of copyvio text in it (the entire Media section appears to be in violation) - can someone delete and if necessary delete from history? Exxolon (talk) 21:16, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    You sir, are indeed correct about your assumptions. So I have deleted the article. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 21:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    IP 68.54.154.10 deleting images

    special:contributions/68.54.154.10 is systematically removing illustrations from various articles on mythological creatures, presumably because said illustrations are paintings of bare-nekkid ladies. All contributions by this IP seem to be of this nature, for instance two attempts at Mermaid (both reverted). PaddyLeahy (talk) 21:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Warned. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 21:50, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Crap, had him blocked for 3 hours and only saw the warn now. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 21:51, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh well, he doesn't seem active anyway. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 21:54, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Multiple IPs doing same vandal edit on Tinley Park High School

    I've been chasing this vandal edit [52] for the last couple of days. It's appeared several times, and from different IPs. I've only worked my way up to a level 3 warning on one of them, but it's time for stronger measures. DarkAudit (talk) 22:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    You should probably take it to WP:RFPP where someone will review whether page protection is appropriate or not. Sasquatch t|c 22:53, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. And responded to quite swiftly. Thanks to all. DarkAudit (talk) 23:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:LaraLove's controversial userbox

    The userbox can be seen at the top of Lara's user talk page. It was originally in template form as a subpage of hers, but Lara deleted the page during the MfD. When she did, the MfD was closed (a reasonable conclusion), but Lara then moved the non-transcluded box code to the top of her talk page. At the time I suggested (here) re-opening of the MfD to determine the appropriateness of the box despite it not being on its own page anymore, and the closing admin said that he was willing to reopen the discussion but wasn't sure if it was proper due to the actual page having been deleted. Depite my having voted keep at the discussion, I'm concerned that Lara's continued display of the box, following an MfD that suggests it was deleted, will cause problems. There was already this removal by another user. So I'm preemptively posting this issue here so that it can be sorted out hopefully prior to the inevitable conflict that will arise. Equazcion •✗/C • 22:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Is it time to reconsider LaraLove's admin status? Corvus cornixtalk 22:38, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    No. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Absolutely not. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 23:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    What? No. SQLQuery me! 07:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure if this is the way you guys should be talking to anyone with regards to their own page or talk page. As I understand it, it is our personal right to write what we want on our own pages so long as it is really factual and does not to any degree compromise on wikipedia's functionality or intergrity. Dare I say this but I see someone above saying something and almost immediately another becomes like a meat puppet. --Dave1185 (talk) 22:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • You don't own your userpage. Yes, for the sake of courtesy and precedent, people shouldn't edit your userspace trivially, but if there is a legitimate cause, then anyone can do so. People thought the userbox was trying to be flame bait and a little too divisive, and thus they can raise issues on it. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 22:51, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Uh, what? Are you really saying that you think I'm a meatpuppet of Equazcion? Anybody who agrees with somebody else must be a meatpuppet? I have had no dealings with LaraLove, I'm only concerned with her political positions and her incivility with the inclusion of this userbox. Corvus cornixtalk 22:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I seriously doubt about your ability to visualise things. Was that really necessary of you to add the line above after agreeing on something? But you did not state so. Hence, your behaviour fits the profile of a meat puppet and a troll. --Dave1185 (talk) 23:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't care about the userbox, but about its message. This also goes beyond having admin tools. Frankly, I would not choose to associate with anyone professing a legitimate distinction between "white pride" and "white supremacy." I would suggest this be taken to RFC, as its going to turn into a firestorm. Ameriquedialectics 22:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Could we perhaps just comment on content? Such as developing a consensus to ask Lara to remove the MfD'd box? Unless there are diffs suggesting that Lara was adding non-NPOV content somewhere, her beliefs (and peoples' perception of them) are probably not what we should focus on. --Bfigura (talk) 23:00, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Let's not make this a continuation of the unpleasantness that led to the creation of the userbox in the first place... I'm already regretting posting this incident. My intention in bringing this here was to determine if the MfD should be re-opened to discuss the userbox, despite it not residing on its own page anymore. There's no need to argue about racism here. Equazcion •✗/C • 23:00, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Lara's obviously been a bit pissed off and stressed out over the past few days. I'm sure that once she's calmed down and moved on a bit she'll remove it herself. What we don't need right now is yet more calls for people's admin bits to be removed on ANI and threads that are only going to upset already stressed users further. Can we just let it rest for a few days? I'm sure the userbox isn't hurting anyone. 86.137.221.99 (talk) 23:00, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Uh, that was me. naerii - talk 23:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Pissed and stressed are really irrelevant in this case -- unless you want to argue that in creating those user-boxes she was non compis mentis. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;dissera! 23:16, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a rather offensive userbox, but let's give LL time to voice her side...... Dendodge .. TalkHelp 23:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    She already has, see the MfD, and also see my comment there. This really isn't going as I had planned... I was just trying to get the MfD re-opened, but instead this is turning into a painful rehash of past events. Does anyone want to actually comment on whether or not the MfD warrants reopening? Equazcion •✗/C • 23:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I am going to say yes - moving it from template to where it is now didnt change to controversial contents. ViridaeTalk 23:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Reopen to remove offal. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;dissera! 23:31, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Leave it alone. We have an encyclopedia to write. Let the drama die. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Whatever minimal disruption was caused by the userbox in question is being outweighed by the cries for blood here and elsewhere (of which, of course, not all opposing parties are guilty). Lara's obviously been stressed out about recently, and the absolute worst way go about resolving things is to start a large discussion on a centralized noticeboard with her in the spotlight. I think the point has been made that some people consider the userbox to be in poor taste, but there is some point where their pursuit of the matter becomes disproportionate to the offenses presented and devolves into insensitiveness and attempts to cause distress to an already fragile person who is feeling harassed - all when the short-term substance of the complaint is actually very little.

    The Wiki did not end over userboxes in 2006, and will not end over a single one now. Can we please avoid such a discussion for now and try to squash this through calmer, less high-profile channels? east.718 at 23:37, May 16, 2008

    • Quite right, this really is the proverbial storm in a teacup. Such a lot of attention over so very little. Just leave it be, move along, really there is nothing to see here. Polly (Parrot) 00:29, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The issue of this userbox needs to be resolved. It was 6 to 3 in favor of delete when the MFD was archived. It's obviously inappropriate to a large number of people. Yet when Jim62sch tries to remove it, he gets reverted. We need to come to some sort of conclusion about the userbox/code/whatever to call it. I'm very sorry that Lara is in a fragile state right now. But she put up a pair of very inflammatory userboxes, intentionally, knowing full well the consequences of her actions. Her fragile emotional state is no excuse for the inappropriateness of the boxes. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 00:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    To clarify, this can be done here, or by reopening the MFD and continuing it, either way. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 00:33, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Swat, I really think you ought to back off on this issue, please. Whether unintentionally or otherwise, you're not going to help resolve this situation by continuing to post on this situation. SirFozzie (talk) 00:37, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Back off the issue? Did I start the issue? No. Was I one of the first 10 posts on the issue? No. However, I'm the target of the userbox. It's inappropriate, and I intend to back off as soon as it's gone. Lara's completely inappropriate behavior is not my fault, and instead of saying "Oh no Swat, how about you just sit there and take it when emotionally unstable people make inappropriate userboxes targeted at you", perhaps she ought to simply take responsibility for her own behavior, and not do it in the first place. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 00:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The encyclopedia isn't going to die if she has it on her page for a bit longer. We aren't going to diffuse this situation by edit warring over her user page. Leave it for a bit. Ignore it. Continuing against it will just inflame the situation. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 00:56, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    And we aren't going to diffuse anything by burying our heads in the sand and doing nothing. And I have no idea what you're talking about edit warring. Nobody is edit warring. I certainly haven't touched it. Only one person did, and he was reverted, once, which brought about this AN/I thread. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 01:02, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Take it easy, I'm not accusing anyone edit warring. I'm saying don't do so by removing it again (not addressed specifically at you, by the way; but at anyone who reads it). Waiting it out is not "burying one's head in the sand; it's giving someone time to cool off and think better of what they've done. Do you have a better solution? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 01:07, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (to SwatJester) I think the concern was that LaraLove's position - as stated in this userbox - is a direct result to a comment you made at WP:RFAR. For good or ill, your remark agitated a response from Lara. I would submit that your point and position is quite clear on this matter, so further comments might enflame the situation without adding further information to the debate, or without bringing us any closer to a resolution. I also note, with some concern, that no one actually said "Hey Lara, could you consider rephrasing that userbox?" UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 01:16, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    SwatJester was standing firm against racism. That is noble. LaraLove's response was not. LL's comparing White Power to Black Power and that it is much less horrible than White Supremacists/Nationalist/Neo-Nazis was disingenuous and incorrect. Her creating this userbox is intentionally exacerbating the situation. Support of racism, either implicitly or explicitly, should be eliminated. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 01:41, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No, Swatjester was violating our [WP:NPA|policies by personally attacking other editors]], and probably should have been blocked for his statements. He needs to get out of the situation, because his involvement is definitely part of the problem, and his continued involvement is going to continue making things worse. GRBerry 01:50, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That's mostly what I was getting at - Even if SWATjester had/has a point, a point on which I stand mute, it's getting lost in the ZOMG Drama. I honestly think that no real discussion is possible until things calm down, and that's the point I tried to make. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 02:00, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Aaaaaaand we're getting off track again, back to the main point which is the appropriateness of the userboxes and what to do about them and/or the MFD. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 02:18, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    It says someplace that Wikipedia is Not Censored. Except by administrators. And in general by any small group that decides to dislike some aspect of some other editor's talk page and claim that they are offended. (Whether they actually are or not is immaterial and not questioned; indeed, it would be offensive to ask whether someone who claims offence is truely offended or merely trolling).
    Why not simply desysop all of the administrators and give all editors including IPs the right to block any other editor whom they disagree with? The number of admins is vanishingly small compared to the number of editors; eliminating them should have little effect on Wikipedia. Loren.wilton (talk) 02:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    In my view, there's no possible reason why one should be proud to be white. It's just a physical attribute; nothing to be ashamed or proud of. El_C 02:57, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Some people are proud to be alive. Often they think they have reasons for that pride. Is it only white people that aren't supposed to be allowed to have pride in their existance, or does this require eliminating the Black Pride article too?
    Personally I think people should Get A Life and not bitch about the fact that their neighbor found something harmless to be proud of. After all, the neighbor might not be Catholic, and it might not be a sin for them. Loren.wilton (talk) 03:06, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Far from harmless, white pride encourages racial supremacy and separatism (even though race is a mere construct and need not divide humans from one another). Blacks and catholics [etc.] historically faced massive persecution, unlike whites as group. El_C 03:33, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm as picky about racial sensitivity as the next person, but I don't think a Wikipedia userbox "encourages" anything at all. Perhaps this is me being naive, but I would hope that our editors have enough common sense and/or the ability to think for themselves that they do not let a small graphic on a Wikipedia user page influence how they view the world. Do I agree with this specific UBX? Most certainly not, but I respect the user's right under the United States Constitution to display it, as covered by the 1st Amendment. Now, should it progress to a blatant promotion of racism, I might have a different view of things. Best regards, --InDeBiz1 Review me! / Talk to me! 03:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    As an aside, users don't have a 1st Amendment right on Wikipedia. The 1st Amendment applies to state action, not private organizations like Wikipedia, which is free to censor whatever it sees fit. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 04:18, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I actually was talking about white pride as a concept (in general), not about the userbox (sorry if that was not made clear). El_C 03:49, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ahhhh, gotcha. My apologies. --InDeBiz1 Review me! / Talk to me! 03:51, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No problem, I can see how it can be confusing. I supplanted "it" (which was mistaken for the ubx) with white pride. El_C 03:57, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Aaaaaand we're off the topic again of the inappropriateness of the userboxes on the talk page. Can we deal with that? ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 03:07, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Sure. It is worse for you to be discussing this issue than for that box to be on her talk page. Since you see fit to discuss this, I conclude that the box should remain. Heck, I might copy it too if you keep this up. GRBerry 03:12, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, that would really decrease the drama. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:19, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've spent the past 15 minutes trying to figure out what any of you are talking about any why it is an issue. The passing editor does not give a crap. Switzpaw (talk) 03:47, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Both userboxes cast Wikipedia in disrepute. The first one says "only on Wikipedia" (when, in fact, the ADL and SPLC both consider "white pride" to be racist). Admins are held to a higher standard than average editors, so this is inappropriate. On the other hand, maybe it's a useful warning to other editors - after all, "I am not a crook" worked so well in the past. The latter userbox claims that "Wikipedia approves this message"; displayed on a page of someone who announced that they are a Wikipedia admin is unacceptably misleading, and once again casts the project into disrepute. In addition, of course, it was Lara herself who labelled the_undertow (and herself) as supporters of an organisation considered by the ADL and SPLC to be racist. If she labelled him (and herself) as adherents to a philosophy that is described as racist by reliable sources, she has no right to somehow cast the project into disrepute. Userboxes attacking the project are an inappropriate use of Foundation resources. Admins are held at a higher standard than the average editor. Displaying such userboxes is unacceptable. Guettarda (talk) 04:19, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, either way it looks like they've been removed. Probably a good thing since she purports to speak for Wikipedia...which of course she can't. User space usage has a fair amount of freedom but it ends when you make these kinds of statements on behalf of Wikipedia. RxS (talk) 05:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Mmm, the savory flavor if tit-for-tat Wikidrama. Let's see. SWATJester goes after Undertow for being a bigot, then finds other reasons to throw Undertow under the bus. Lara gets upset, and points out the problems with this situation that she sees, including attacking the man, not the edits. SWATJester and others get upset that Lara builds a Userbox shining a spotlight on them. They delete it in a tiny tiny XfD, based on the 'not the purpose of template space'. She builds it inside her User Talk. They riot on moral grounds 'White pride = White power, how offensive, remove, delete, block, untool'. If their actions in going after Undertow were so perfectly right and can withstand any scrutiny, then they shouldn't care, and can ignore her. If, however, they realize their actions are open to debate, then they are right to be defensive and want to hide their shames. Leave the UB, and like others here, I'm tempted to put it on my page too. SWAT is actually in the wrong here, as is Equaczion, who said 'this isn't going as planned' (did he expect an avalanche of 'bad lara!'???). I'm with GBerry and others, this is a stupid waste of resources and time in the name of Wikidrama (tm). ThuranX (talk) 05:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I already wrote a lengthy post at the Adimins Noticeboard and it was soon archived. Now I am going to write what I feel now. I personally feel that the userbox is acceptable. The aim of Wikipedia is to improve the encyclopedia. The comment about Undertow being racist had nothing to do with the matter at hand. Being racist, even if Undertow is or is not, does not hurt wikipedia. And the comment did not help the discussion. Lara Love took it personal, as with many others who have worked with and/or befriended Undertow. You can look through ALL of Undertow's contributions and find nothing about his supposed being racist hurting Wikipedia. The comment that was posted was one's personal interpretation on something that Undertow had posted somewhere (I can't see the deleted edit as I am not an admin). When the Administrator's Noticeboard thread was posted, people argued wheter white pride and white supremacy were the same thing. The thing is, IT DOESN'T MATTER. The user had done nothing wrong by Wikipedia standards, except for the incident in which he unblocked a user, and possibly shouldn't have. The purpose of the discussion on whether Undertow should be de-sysopped or not was about the incident and whether it was warranted or not. It was not about the personal views of Undertow.

    Lara Love was appalled, as were many others, including me, about the discussion of whether White Pride v. White Supremacy. She did not agree with it and made a userbox explaining her views. It is pointed to the controversial comment, and she is stating her opinion on it. Wikipedia is not here to judge the views of a user, it is here to build an encyclopedia. And that is what I feel many people are failing to see. <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 05:26, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree with both of you generally, it's the "Wikipedia approves this message" part that needs to go. Otherwise I don't think it rises to a level where it deserves this much discussion. The rest of the content is a little pointy but there's worse in other userspace. RxS (talk) 05:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (ri) Many months ago there was the infamous "polemical" debate about my user page because I was listing the number of US, UK and Coalition troops KIA and WIA in Iraq. Noting the sacrifice in Iraq was bad, but Lara creating userboxes that clearly violate WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL and WP:POINT is good and we should all just let it die, decrease the drama, have a pity party or LaraLovathon or whatever, right? Ah, but then, nobody is reading Wikipedia:Userbox#Content_restrictions, eh? If they did, her user boxes would have been dumped as fast as guano goes through a goose (and no, her ub's do not qualify under the "occasional exception" criterion. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;dissera! 14:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    But you were making general social commentary, whereas LaraLove is commenting on Wikipedia policies and her stances on them, making interacting with her regarding WP issues easier. General social commentary is bad; commenting on Wikipolicy makes interactiosn easier, just like being a known inclusionist or deletionist helps. ThuranX (talk) 15:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you have it the wrong way round. General social commentary is normal. What Lara did was create userboxes that attacked other editors, while making false claims about Wikipedia policy. She created userboxes which were meant specifically to create drama, but which had the potential effect of casting the project into disrepute. (If you read WikiEn-L, you will see, that journalists managed to misinterpret things as innocent as the meaning of "Good Articles". Having an "administrator" make "official" claims about Wikipedia is a huge risk.) Guettarda (talk) 16:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Need of 3rd Party - Userboxes During the Discussion

    I need to get some more opinions on this. The userboxes that were/are on LaraLove's page are both being reverted. I reinserted them twice [53][54]. And they were reverted twice [55][56], both stating they were deleted via MFD. However one of the MFD's is closed and archived, stating that it was deleted by the editor, and the second is still open. Neither discussion carrie(d)(s) a cosensus on whether they should be deleted, and neither does this thread as it is still open. Should they remain on the page as the discussion is carried here or should they be removed? <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 06:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Leave them removed until this thread has been archived and the community has made a definitive statement on what is acceptable and what is not. Depending on the outcome, I'll edit them appropriately or send them into oblivion forever. Lara❤Love 06:50, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The consensus is now overwhelmingly clear at MFD that the userboxes are inappropriate. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 17:30, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Reply from Lara

    I want to first apologize to everyone for the language and outbursts from me the past couple of days. It's been a rough week and all this went down on my days off, so there was no forced break from the drama. Having been at work for the evening, I am now, even after reading through all this, calm. This is going to be long (shout out to FT2 <3), but it all needs to be said. I'll state my views, for the record, and then bring the discussion back on track and clarify my reasoning for everything.

    I would go pull quotes, but quite enough time has been wasted on this already. So I just ask that SWATjester's comments in the above thread be taken and applied to himself. I'm not sure who posted the message that is currently above what I'm typing, tho I'm sure I'll EC and it will be someone else at that point, but there is no sig, however it ends with "Wikidrama (tm)." They pretty much summed it up. SWATjester used an edit where the_undertow eulogized his Latino friend to refer to him as a white supremacist. This was shocking to many. He was asked to strike it by me and others and he not only refused, but he added another paragraph with another link (I believe) to the Arbitration case. I opened the ANI thread and pointed out, using many diffs, that the_undertow is not a supremacist. Regardless of what white pride means where ever you live is irrelevant. People are racist by their beliefs, not depending on what your opinion of the title they chose to identify as. Plain and simple, pride != supremacy.

    Guettarda stated above that I'm a member of a white pride organization. I never claimed that, and I'm not. I would never be accepted into one, because I'm not a racist. I have friends of various races, which would prevent me such membership, not that I would ever want such a membership. The fact that racist organizations use "white pride" to cover their supremacy does not make all who identify as white pride racist. Our own article reads, "a slogan used ... to promote the heritage of persons of white European racial identity." Whether or not you agree that those of white European heritage have a right to be proud, there are people who do. And while I don't dispute racists use the term to mask their supremacy, it is not, or rather should not, be acceptable to label those who are not racist in their beliefs simply because they identify as a term abused by racists. OrangeMarlin referred to me as defending White power. Whether this was a mistake or an intentional attempt to skew others' view of the situation, I would never attempt to defend white power. My beliefs in no way put me above any other race. I am proud to be a female. Proud to be a mother. But that makes no claims on my feelings about men... I love me some mens ;). I am proud to be white. But that makes no claims on my feelings about any other race. I love all my friends, and I have friends of many races. MessedRocker stated in IRC to me that such an explanation is cliche. I really didn't have a response and I don't care to even have it clarified. Supremacists do not, as far as is my perception, befriend those of other races. So it's seems a valid defense to me. Regardless, this is not even something I normally talk about. It's not something I display or proclaim. It's something I feel and generally keep to myself, because it's not a thing. However, I told SWATjester this in IRC because he was saying I didn't understand what white pride was, so I shouldn't be defending t_u, or something like that. I told him so that he'd see it was coming from someone with similar beliefs. He brought it on here to sidetrack the discussion at hand. That being his inappropriate comments.

    The fact that SWATjester is taking these boxes as personal attacks on him is ironic, to say the least. First of all, they're not directed toward him specifically. Rather him and everyone who supported his statements. SWAT wrote: He's just another angry, out of control, white supremacist. Desysop him now please... And later added I stand by my statement. The undertow's extensive history editing favorably on Stormfront and other white supremacy related articles, supports my contention.[57] This was met by calls for SWAT's tools by Neil and dihydrogen monoxide.[58] He was also asked on his talk page and on the Arbitration page to remove his comment. This was after the first, he later refused to remove it and added the second.

    I told him in IRC I was taking it to AN. You'll note he posted his reply three minutes, I believe it was, after my post. He didn't even read it. I posted links, many diffs, throughout my posts on that thread detailing the situation that lead to the editing of the race articles. It showed NPOV editing and an attempt to bring consistency to all race articles. There was no white-washing. These diffs were ignored. The community endorsed SWATjester's statements. I was, and continue to be, blown away. That is why I created the userboxes. It wasn't to call SWAT out or be a bitch. It was to force the community to go beyond ignoring the actions and letting them slide, to officially endorsing them. As long as his statements remain unretracted, I consider that a community endorsement that such unsubstantiated attacks are acceptable and, by what has happened over these userboxes, just as I had expected, that those on the receiving end of such attacks are not allowed to voice their disgust. Rather the attacker is supported as the victim.

    SWATjester labeled the_undertow a white supremacist based on an edit he misinterpreted. He then supported it based solely on the articles t_u edited, obviously without doing any research on the edits whatsoever. This mislabel was accepted by the community. The community has made a dangerous statement with this endorsement. It has given free reign for administrators to label editors based on the articles they edit, despite the constructive, NPOV manner in which they do it. That sets a nasty precedence that serves only to damage the encyclopedia. It's extremely important, in my view, that articles on taboo topics be NPOV. When editors do not want to involve themselves in such articles for fear of being labeled something they are not, then a disservice has been done. If SWATjester and those who support his statements stand by them the way they say they do, then they should not feel attacked by my userboxes. the_undertow and I have been mislabeled as racists. If those comments stand unretracted, I have every right to display my disgust. We have been personally attacked. SWATjester claiming my userboxes pointing out that discussion are a personal attack on him... I think that says a lot about his confidence in his claims. My userboxes are factual. I'm labeled a racist here. No one that knows me IRL labels me as such. I am not a racist, I just play one on TV Wikipedia. Neg. My userboxes:

    How reliable is Wikipedia?
    Not very.
    This user is a racist by Wikipedia standards, though not by beliefs.
    Thank God it's only the Internet.
    IGNORANCE
    If it's your misconception,
    it's your right to mislabel others to damage their reputation.
    Wikipedia approves this message.

    These are both statements of fact. The community has set a standard, as I detailed above. And it's a fact, as shown in that thread, that there is a staggering number of editors in this community that disregard what one's beliefs are and categorize them by a misconception. If I were racist, I wouldn't proclaim it just to deny it. It's a misconception that all those who identify as white pride are racist. Period. It's sort of like my RFA, where I was opposed for being an ageist. I provided diffs of me supporting the RFAs of very young editors, including a couple of my opposers... and they still opposed me as being an ageist. When you're given evidence that your perception is wrong and you continue to stand by it, that's willful ignorance. My userboxes are fact. And as long as the community sees fit to allow SWATjester's comments to stand, I should be allowed to display my userboxes in disgust with that standard.

    That said, I won't debate further on my view of the differences between white pride and white power/supremacy/nationalism. If you disagree with me and view them as the same, go merge the articles. Because as it currently stands, by our own references, they are different. And when an encyclopedia disregards it's own content, there's a greater issue at hand. Therefore, any such debate should take place on article talk pages. I've clearly spelled out my beliefs. If anyone chooses to continue to view me (or the_undertow) as a racist, then that's on you. I care not. As you prefer to not associate with racists, I prefer not to associate with people so ignorant as to label me as one. Lara❤Love 06:47, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Lara, take off the Spider-Man suit and come down from the Reichstag. Your userboxes make personal comments about another Wikipedian, and that needs to go (your userpage does not currently have them, I think). Sure, you disagree with him. We know that. We don't make userboxes saying "user foo is an ass" and I think you know that. The subject of white pride and racism generally is incredibly sensitive, inspires very strong feelings, and is inherently prone to misunderstanding and misconstruction. Further escalation is not wise. Guy (Help!) 09:09, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    So, if calling others racist is a no no, can we get a similar injuction against SWATJester? sauce for the Goose must be sauce for the Gander in this case. ThuranX (talk) 15:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, LaraLove, that was me with the 'Wikidrama (tm). I missed a tilde in my sig. ThuranX (talk) 15:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Similar "injuction"? Sure. Just like you, SWAT should not be creating attacking userboxes, and should not be creating userboxes which make false claims of endorsement by Wikipedia. Just like everyone on the project.
    Where are these userboxes of his? Or are you just using a hypothetical to take another "swat" at him? Guettarda (talk) 15:55, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Let me clarify. If the community allows SWATjester's comments to stand, my userboxes go back up. They are not directed at him, as I already stated. If I have to reword, or update the link, to make that clear, I will. They are directed at him and EVERYONE that supports his inaccurate statements, and defends his right to say them while stifling my same right. Too many people are missing the point. This isn't an attack on him (he attacked the_undertow and then me). In this action, the community has to make a decision. Is it okay for administrators to mislabel editors as racist based on the articles they edit and against all evidence? Right now the answer is Yes. And it's a yes topped off with a standard that the mislabeled editor has no right to fight back.

    So there ya go. Answer the question. Is it okay for administrators to mislabel editors as racist based on the articles they edit and against all evidence? Lara❤Love 16:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Your question is loaded, presupposes facts not in existence, and misrepresnts the facts. Is it any wonder that nobody wants to edit it? You're obviously looking to get a very specific answer. I called The undertow a white supremacist. I did not call him a racist. There's your first error. Your next error is "against all evidence" when in fact, I've presented extensive evidence from both his own edits, and outside sources, including the leading anti-hate groups, but don't let that stop you from getting the answer you want. I could propose the counter question "Is it okay for an administrator to flagrantly violate WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, make offensive userboxes just to prove a point, call editors ignorant ID'ers, insult people on IRC, and refuse to accept that possibly people might disagree with her view?" But that question would be just as loaded as yours. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 17:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It is quite clear to me at least that editors can edit the race articles without being labelled rascist, can edit the pedophile articles without being labelled pedophiles, etc, etc. People get judged on how they edit article, yes, but never purely on the articles they edit. Thanks, SqueakBox 16:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, then. So you do not approve of SWATjester's I stand by my statement. The undertow's extensive history editing favorably on Stormfront and other white supremacy related articles, supports my contention. Considering there's no evidence to support "favorably" in the_undertow's edit history? Lara❤Love 16:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    From where I stand, feel free to keep the userboxes. With all due respect, just don't put anything like "I have white pride" on a job application. Regards, Ameriquedialectics 16:56, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Off-topic

    The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
    I personally see no point in this thread continuing, it is achieveing much heat and no light. PLease take it somewhere more appropriate in a more civil manner (this is directed at EVERYONE participating) ViridaeTalk 07:57, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    While I appreciate your personal feelings, nothing has been resolved at this point. So it's not in any form productive to halt discussion. Archive top dropped down to that of side-tracked discussion that has no potential to go anywhere positive. Lara❤Love 08:09, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    We don't need to merge those articles, but it is mostly racists who draw the distinction (and it's notable therefrom), and claim white pride to be un-racist. You're proud to be white... why? Or is it just something to say, pushing perceptions of political correction for its own sake. El_C 06:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I already stated my views. This is just attempting to again distract from the point at hand. Lara❤Love 07:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, well, I feel it's pivotal. And I'm entitled to express that. El_C 07:27, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Whatever it is, its pointless. After reading her reply, you knit pick over that? Seriously. And calling others who make this distinction racist as well? Thank you for calling me a racist. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 07:37, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No, whimsically. I don't know why I bother. It is impossible to have an intelligent discussion with this much latent hatred. El_C 07:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    All under the guise of "pride," What about some humility, for once? Or perhaps pride for merit, not for skin colour. Pitiful. El_C 07:54, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Nothing I said was offtopic. The misconception is ignoring the crypto-nature of white pride. And you do not get to monopolize the debate. El_C 09:03, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Which means that a great many of us strongly feel that white pride is a crypto-racist belief and we will not be intimidated over that stance. El_C 09:10, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

    User:Betsythedevine

    User:Betsythedevine removed my comments to a discussion, accusing me of being a sock ... here. I am not a sock, just a person who can't remember their password. I wouldn't have registered this account had I not been forced to. Thanks. Amnesia grrl (talk) 22:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Then why did you admit to being a sock at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/South Philly (3rd)? — Rlevse • Talk • 03:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't read it as that. What I read was Betsythedevine referencing an IP address talking about being unable to log into their account, and then Amnesia grrl saying "Yeah, that IP address was me" (rather ambiguously I admit). I don't see her admitting to be a sock at all. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 05:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Catherine Deneuve

    I've been having disputes with IP 70.108.119.24 (talk) (who also appears to be engaging in sockpuppetry - I have already filed a report on the matter[59]) on the Catherine Deneuve article. I have attempted to engage in discussions with this IP, but it keeps reverting material without fully discussing the matter. This started when one particular IP (which is a likely sockpuppet) made full-scale edits that had several formatting mistakes.[60] I reverted that edit. Afterwards, identical edits from other IPs (once again, likely sockpuppets) were made and then reverted by me and another user. Back and forth reversions have continued to take place, and I've been trying to explain to that IP about the problems with its edits.[61][62] However, as I said previously, the IP continues to revert material without fully discussing the matter - even after being warned by an admin.

    As you'll see in the revision history of the article, the IP made yet another reversion, but I have not reverted it myself, due to the fact that I do not want to be blocked for 3RR. I am trying to be as civil and constructive about this process as possible, but to no avail. I tried to request page protection, but it was denied. There is historical context that I feel should be factored in to this situation, though, which is what I was trying to explain in the requests for page protection article. There was a situation that almost literally mirrored this whole ordeal a couple of months ago, between me and another user, in the same Catherine Deneuve article. The administrators that handled that situation seemed to factor in the exact same points I've been attempting to convey in this recent dispute; thus, semi-protection was offered and 3RR-based blocks were not issued following cases that were filed. I'm not saying that every single administrator should act the same way, but I think this is significant to note. Once semi-protection was granted in the previous situation, that other user finally engaged in full discussions, and a constructive resolution was soon reached. That's what I was hoping for in this situation as well. And now that the IP once again reverted material without fully engaging in discussions, this only further emphasizes what I've been trying to explain.

    Thanks to anyone who looks into this case. -- Luke4545 (talk) 23:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Wheel war? MFD

    Resolved

    RE Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Running/Encyclopedia Dramatica

    Someone want to review the closure and unilateral reversal from this to this.
    Obviously The Full protection placed per ArbCom clarification, is being ignored. A (editable) copy of a page was created in the userspace during a content dispute. Per Wikipedia:User_page#Copies_of_other_pages. "pages kept in userspace should not be designed to functionally substitute for articles or Wikipedia space pages". This is infact an editable substitue for Encyclopedia Dramatica which already exists in the appropriate articlespace. The appropriate talk page is sufficient to make {{editprotected}} changes, not the userspace. While I appreciate User:David Levy's interprative lesson, I fail to see how edits Not pertainng to the dispute, cannot be achieved on the appropriate article talk page. --Hu12 (talk) 23:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    NOthing to review - see David's talk page. ViridaeTalk 01:57, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Stifle

    Resolved
     – Generic claim of rouge admin abuse, nothing that can't be fixed well before the deadline by a dose of AGF and actually talking nicely to Stifle.

    NOT RESOLVED This is not resolved at all. The primary issues of retaliation, lying, and false statements on part of the admin in question have not been addressed.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Stifle claims to be an admin and has been abusing authority as an admin. Examples include # deleting bona fide pages from the college football project

    1. "re-speedy-deleting" an article that already had a consensus of keep
    2. giving an incorrect wikipedia policy on speedy deletion
    3. failing to retract the incoreect policy statement made on the page where the statement was made
    4. failing to follow basic guidelines on notability and reliable sources
    5. taking retaliation for attempting to delete other pages the user posted
    6. failing to properly convey policy on GFDL licensing and use of copyrighted material on Wikipedia

    For these, and other offenses, please look into this matter.--Paul McDonald (talk) 23:37, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Could you provide some diffs? Also, I think your statement "Stifle claims to be an admin" is misleading, since it implies that he is impersonating one. bibliomaniac15 23:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec)Stifle is in fact an administrator. We need differences (examples) of what you claim is abuse of administrative tools; without specific examples, it is impossible to verify your claims. Horologium (talk) 23:50, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This appears to be a case of a WikiProject's claimed ownership of a series of articles. Corvus cornixtalk 23:51, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Were the deletions inappropriate? Yes. Are the AfDs okay? Yes. If you can show me a history of this being a problem with him then we may have something, otherwise it's already been taken care of. Wizardman 23:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    He speedy deleted them, you challenged at DRV, he decided that AFD would be appropriate. You got what you wanted at DRV. Now, you need to convince the community at AFD that these articles meet the community's standards. The project, like any project, is a small subset of the community, and meeting the project's standards is not particularly relevant. GRBerry 01:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    There were two part that were clearly inappropriate: First, these articles were deleted immediately by the admin, rather than placing the speedy tags and letting someone else judge. The speedies were of course all overturned almost immediately at DRV, and letting a second person judge is a good way of avoiding problems like this. I will sometimes do it myself its its obvious nonsense or the like, but otherwise, I find it inadvisable. {Perhaps we need a firmer rule in the matter. Not a violation of the letter of the rules to do it that way, but a clear violation against the spirit--speedy being for unquestionable & uncontroversial cases. Second, is doing them all at once. It would have been better either to discuss first the question about the notability in general with the WikiProject involved, or to do one or two as a test. Taking them all at once this way seems pointy. However, if the Project does want to define every head coach of every football team as intrinsically notable, I think that seems at first view to be against common sense, and they need to explain it to the community at large. Projects dont get to do their field entirely their ow way--but their views are to be taken very seriously into account. DGG (talk) 02:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You missed the fact that I overturned the deletions when it became clear to me that it was not the way to go. I corrected my mistakes. Stifle (talk) 08:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Specific examples

    1. View Revision history of Oscar Dahlene, specifically the 17:17, May 16, 2008 revision. The user's comments state, "Undid revision 200817445 by Guest9999 (talk) - only admins may remove speedy deletion tags" -- this is absolutely not true. Admin is knowingly stating that something is policy when it is not--see discussion User talk:Paulmcdonald#Oscar Dahlene for detail.
    2. View aforementioned User talk:Paulmcdonald#Oscar Dahlene for what I believe to be a retaliation delete. I commented on another topic on the admin's user page wher eI believe a big mistake was being made, and the admin retaliated by attempting to speedy-delete an article that already reached a consensus of keep.
    3. View User talk:Stifle#Kulveer ranger, where the admin is attempting to assert that only GFDL material may be used on Wikipedia, yet we know that there are fair uses of other licensed categories.
    4. View User talk:Stifle#Vote stacking assertion, where the admin accuses me of something called "vote stacking" referencing Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football#HELP! Emergency Action Required!. Note how the tone of writing changes when the group is considering reporting the admin's behavior.
    5. View User talk:Stifle#College Football Deletions, where the admin incorrectly states that one of the reasons for deletion was that the source cited was the college website, when in fact it was a different website. The Admin deleted 22 articles in 6 minutes, and obviously did not take the time to give even a cursory review.

    Will that be enough to get you started?--Paul McDonald (talk) 06:26, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    1. Well, generally that is the way it is done. If you disagree with a speedy delete tag, you should use the hangon tag (as someone did), not remove the speedy delete request.
    2. The article in question had no such consensus formed. There was an AfD for a similar subject that had limited participation.
    3. Whole text copyright infringement is certainly not acceptable. Articles of this nature are routinely deleted without any controversy whatsoever.
    4. Stifle was quite right: what you did is utterly unacceptable.
    5. Stifle seems to have acted in some haste, but also agreed to restore the pages and also seems to be perfectly aware of the other source. Wizardman, GRBerry and DGG all address this issue clearly and rationally above. Vassyana (talk) 06:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks to the folks who have contributed to this for me. In so far as I made mistakes with my administrative tools, I reversed them soon thereafter when I was convinced of them. And saying that a keep result on an AFD on an article about a single person means that everyone who has occupied a similar position to that person is automatically notable is deeply disingenuous, and without waiving that, it's not in accordance with WP:CCC either.
    Let's let the AFDs run their course. I've already withdrawn one in the face of decent proof of notability. Stifle (talk) 08:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, and WP:NAM :) Stifle (talk) 08:14, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Generally, the way it is done is to lie to people? I'm not complaining about the speedy delete, I'm complaining about the admin saying that "only admins may remove speedy deletion tags" when the admin knew that was not true, said it anyway, and has no intent of retracting the false statement.
    2. Again, the issue is not the article, the issue the admin making the false statement "content on Wikipedia must be available under the GFDL"
    3. Mabye it was canvassing, maybe it wasn't. Some say yes, some say no. That's not the issue here, the issues are the false and misleading statements the admin is making.
    4. But the other users fail to address the admin's false and misleading statements and blatant disregard for truth.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    SPA

    Resolved
     – Blocked by East718RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 09:14, May 17, 2008 (UTC)

    Not sure. But can you take a look. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 00:21, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    You misspelt "duh". Sceptre (talk) 00:41, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    More trolling on Talk:Handlebars (song)

    After the page was protected due to some edit disputes that I was involed in, I took the discussion to the ptalk page, it did not go so well. User:Rau J has used my attemptes at discussion to continue to troll and refusing to engage in civil discussion, trying to accuse me of the one being evasive. see here. JeanLatore (talk) 01:06, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    How am I trolling? I have been uncivil once and that is because everyone has a tolerance limit. I think that you are simply wasting everyone's time waiting for the protection to end so that you can continue to avoid discussion. This right here is a perfect example of what I mean. Instead of discussing on the talk page, you go to ANI to waste both ours, and others time on a dispute that should be able to be resolved rather easily. Rau's Speak Page 01:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Cardiff123098

    Resolved
     – blocked 31 hours and left warning--Rodhullandemu 13:34, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    This user has been abusing Welsh and Cardiff related articles for months and it's time s/he was banned. S/he deliberatly introduces incorrect information into articles and ignores countless vandalism warnings. WL (talk) 01:48, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Is this acceptable?

    Resolved
     – All text on Wikipedia is free to copy behind the GFDL Gwen Gale (talk) 03:06, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    For reasons into which I shall not go, I Googled my username. One of the first places it came up was at a WP mirror, http://medlibrary.org/medwiki I checked at the mirrors list, and apparently it's GFDL-compliant--but here's the question: it came up on my search because my name was on Barneca's user-talk page. The full URL that came back was http://medlibrary.org/medwiki/User_talk:Barneca . I thought userpages and their associated talk pages weren't supposed to be part of mirrored content? Or did I misunderstand?Gladys J Cortez 02:33, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I've done the same before and have seen dozens of similar mirrors. I am unsure of the policy relating to this, however. Malinaccier (talk) 02:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Everything's GFDL'd. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay--I've just seen some of those "if you're finding this talk-page somewhere other than Wikipedia..." disclaimers, and just wanted to make sure all was well. If so, this can be marked resolved--thanks for your time!Gladys J Cortez 02:58, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Live mirrors are discouraged as they may use an excessive amount of server resources. The site has been reported to m:Live mirrors Nakon 04:15, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:198.85.213.1

    Resolved
     – IP blocked... for now.

    This user, 198.85.213.1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), is not listening and reverting edits again. I've already reminded him about edit warring, but it seems does not listen, he again reverted valid reverts on Makie Sasaki and especially Mobile Suit Gundam SEED: The Movie. He's getting on everybody's nerves now. Clearly WP:BRD will never work with this editor. Can this address be blocked (for at least two months) because of his actions? I need answers or actions ASAP. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 02:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    This IP has been blocked. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 08:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Why only three days for the trouble he has caused? Anyway thanks. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 08:54, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Other than open proxies or IPs like schools whence large amounts of vandalism come, IPs are generally not blocked for long periods of time as it is more likely to inconvenience regular users than impede blocked users. Stifle (talk) 15:23, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User: Propaniac

    Resolved
     – edit war has stopped

    This user has declared an edit war on an article that I created at The Color of Friendship. My last edit conformed to what she and two other editors suggested, but she undid the change never the less and left threatening posts on the edit and on my talk page. Dispute resolution isn't working, because it's clear that the problem here is not one of Wiki policy but the editor herself.Cbsite (talk) 02:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    After this comment ("don't tamper with my work any more") , see WP:OWN. This is an edit dispute and doesn't belong here. And yes, users are allowed to warn you about blocking; that is not harrassment. After the warning, everyone is allowed to go to WP:AIV and request an admin to look at the situation. So, I'll ask you, Propaniac was adding a link to the other movie. Explain why you don't think that it's necessary (sort of a moot point since it's at the new article but still). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:51, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, given that Cbsite is reverting against the logical consensus that this be a disambiguation page (given that there are 2 works that match it) and several editors have told him to stop his edit war, he should probably stop post-haste. And this is not an AIV issue... This is not simple vandalism. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:10, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I was disambig-ing at first and then disambig-ing and hatnote-ing; she felt that a redirect to the 2000 version, with a hatnote at the 2000 version, were all that were necessary.
    Actually, the most recent edits by Ricky81682 and Steven J. Anderson seem to make the most sense. And excuse me, but it's not my edit war!Cbsite (talk)
    Regardless, the whole thing looks like it is over now. No need for any action, since there is nothing to stop... I am marking as resolved... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:21, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefinite block of User:Rubidium37

    Could someone please review the block of User:Rubidium37 to see if it was justified.[63] --Jagz (talk) 06:23, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Why? If it was not, the user is free to make an {{unblock}} request.  Sandstein  06:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems like an obvious throwaway vandalism account. Stifle (talk) 08:16, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    This is such an obvious disruptive SPA it's clearly blockable, and if his master gets caught in the autoblock, all the better. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:37, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Chip Reese

    76.30.158.58 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)/76.30.158.238 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) /Shinertex (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) have been reinserting a POV pushing unsourced quotes into and filling up the lead of the Chip Reese article multiple times, request that an administrator look into this, the data has already been removed by at least one administrator already and was ignored.▪◦▪≡SiREX≡Talk 07:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    First, I removed them again and gave a larger explanation which could help. Second, I'm watching the page but going to bed soon, so if it continues, ask for protection and tell them that it's coming from one username and 2 anons (which might require a checkuser to get at if it's really bad which it's not). Once they cannot edit the article, they'll either lie in wait or more likely actually discuss the issue. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you very much for your assistance. ▪◦▪≡SiREX≡Talk 09:14, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Imbris

    Could someone please take a look at Special:Contributions/Imbris. This guy is edit warring all the time,[64] groundlessly accusing other people all across of bad faith, of inserting nonsense and of undermining consensus and trying really hard to impose his own views no matter what it costs. He has been warned numerous times already.[65][66] --Eleassar my talk 08:44, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Per this comment, Zscout370 had some interaction with him at Commons which got him blocked there. From his editing, he's in that whole old Yugoslavia argument area, but this time focusing only on the flags. His log is full of image uploads (indicating a continuation of the fighting from Commons) and a couple page moves that look like they have reverted. However, a clean block log and no indication of an AIV report suggest a edit warrior but one who hasn't gotten to the point of full complaints yet. I would wait until someone points out something specific. I've notified him at well. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:58, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The relevant Commons discussion is here. I declined a block at the time (giggy; first comment) barring further evidence, and Zscout blocked later following further evidence and discussion. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 09:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Disabling autoblocks on blocked accounts

    Could someone remind me what the legitimate reasons are for an admin to disable autoblocking on an account? I don't want to give details in case there are privacy concerns, but in general should an admin give a reason for undoing an indefinite block and then re-enabling the indefinite block with autoblock disabled? Should I ask the admin concerned, or should they have given a reason in the log? Carcharoth (talk) 13:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Agreed with the above, ask the admin, he prolly knows what he's doing :). -- lucasbfr talk 14:21, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    While, since I don't know the details, I can't comment on why the admin is flipping the block, it should be noted that we have the new IPexempt tag, which would avoid these problems from the other end. Also, we have a very good historical case of this being a red-flag of shenanigans... If we know the specific admin and the specific unblocks in question, we may be able to comment intelligently on this. Can we get more details?!? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I thought it was only one account, but it now turns out it was two, though the two accounts are still related. I will e-mail the admin concerned, but may not get a reply before I go on wikibreak in a few days. Would it be acceptable for me to e-mail someone else to let them deal with it instead. It may be completely harmless, and I don't want to embarass anyone or cause any drama. Carcharoth (talk) 17:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Please unblock User:Лис

    Resolved
     – Username unblocked, unblocking admin thanked

    Per the altered Wikipedia:Username_policy#Non-Latin_usernames please unblock the blocked username Лис. Non-latin is no longer banned. -- Cat chi? 14:14, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

    • Why? Is the user seeking an unblock? Its been over 2 years since the account was blocked and the world moved on. Otherwise should be also unblock every other account that was blocked under that policy. Better to wait for the users concerned to request it. Spartaz Humbug! 14:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Please undelete the redirect Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Davenbelle

    In the absence of a response from the deleting admin User:Thebainer, I hereby am requesting an undelete of this redirect.

    -- Cat chi? 14:51, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

    You should list that at Wikipedia:Deletion review. Stifle (talk) 15:21, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    ... where it's unlikely to succeed. Time the cat dropped his obsession. Guy (Help!) 16:55, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Speedy deletions have a criteria for a reason. Wikipedia:Deletion review is not the right address. -- Cat chi? 17:03, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
    WP:CSD#G10 covers this. It looks like your private redirect so you can refer to the RFAR without having to note that you, too, were part of it, but in the end the deleting admin's deletion summary is spot on; we don't have redirects to case pages like that. It's not like it needs to be referenced that often anyway, especially if you stop obsessing about it. Guy (Help!) 17:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I beg your pardon. The incompetence of people (in general) has lead to that dispute to continue for the past three years. How dare you blame me for the incompetence of others. The only person obsessed here are people like you who are obsessed in making my job more difficult.
    WP:CSD#G10 CLEARLY does not apply and you know it. RFAR pages are not attack pages and the redirect does not disparage anything. "We don't have redirects to case pages like that" is not a speedy deletion criteria.
    -- Cat chi? 17:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
    I agree. Try G6 instead. I think arbitrators should be allowed to do arbitration-related cleanup without ridiculous processes. Sam Korn (smoddy) 17:34, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Arbitrators do not get a special say when using their admin tools. Administrators particularly arbitrators are not in a position to ignore comments and complaints to their talk pages about their admin actions.
    G6 cannot apply as me disagreeing with the deletion by definition makes it controversial.
    -- Cat chi? 17:40, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

    Disruption from the part of User:Mecena

    Even though said user was repeatedly indicated that there is no need to place articles in subcategories back into the ubercategory, he continues to revisit the same pages over and over again, silently re-adding the category to articles on Romanian novelists, poets etc. - although they are already in the respective categories (for novelists, poets et al), he adds "Category:Romanian writers" everywhere. I tried to reason with him myself on his talk page, but he doesn't answer, nor explains his edits. Dahn (talk) 14:58, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Said user has finally decided to acknowledge the messages left and I interpret this as a pledge that he or she shall not carry on with the disruption. He or she did do the same again to one article after I posted this report here, but not after answering on his or her talk page. So I presume this would count as "resolved". Dahn (talk) 17:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Cardiff City / 2008 FA Cup Final

    Resolved
     – Cardiff city have three strips, playing in third strip not depicted on their page.

    The two articles seem to contradict each other. Cardiff's away strip is all white in the Cardiff City article infobox but is Black & Yellow on the FA Cup Final Page. As this is a current event that will probably get a lot of visitors today can someone familiar with football/teams/strips/football infoboxes sort out the correct depictions and make sure they are in both articles? Exxolon (talk) 15:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm watching the match at the moment, and it appears that Cardiff are playing in their third strip today, for whatever reason. Doesn't look like it needs to be changed. Stifle (talk) 15:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah - didn't realise they had three strips - I don't see a picture of the third strip in the Cardiff City article so that should be added at some point. Marking resolved. Exxolon (talk) 15:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Ziggy Sawdust/Avril

    Anyone else think there's something funny going on at the above page? GBT/C 15:21, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Seems like a pretty good way of removing the disruption or appearance of disruption from the reference desk without either a) going on a banning spree or b) potentially making rather unpleasant comments hinting at people being troll enablers. WP:NOSPADE anyone? 78.86.18.55 (talk) 15:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Something "funny" indeed. I'm fairly certain that every account that edited that page is the same person. I know people don't own their user pages but if it keeps him off the refdesks then I'd say it's a good idea. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 15:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, they could be same, or they could be multiple children in the same classroom. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:54, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's Saturday...pretty much everywhere. GBT/C 17:03, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Is this proper behaviour?

    I asked an administrator for advice, he told me to open a case here. Apologies for the long story ...

    A few weeks back, User:Opus33 reverted my changes in Joseph Haydn several times, creating a discussion in the talk page (Talk:Joseph Haydn) just to agree if a reference to a commemorative coin dedicated to Haydn is worth to mention in that article. The final decision was to let the reference to the coin in the article. After that, I personally thank him in his talk page (User talk:Opus33) and told him I will be changing other articles, like Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart and Ludwig van Beethoven. Changes were done and no more controversy about this topic happened.

    However, I changed the article Schloss Esterházy two days ago and the same user User:Opus33 removed my contribution again, arguing "These coin paragraphs are really obtrusive and should not be included". He did the same in other article. Then it seems like if he is looking for help with User:Eusebeus and now this new user is asking for a similar discussion in the article Schloss Esterházy just to add a reference to a commemorative coin. I do not see the reason why they are so protective about "their articles" allowing changes that only they like. It sounds to me like the living stone of Wikipedia, where every one can contribute, is not supported by these two users.

    I have started a discussion again in the mentioned article, but is this a right behavior for a Wikipedian? I do not believe User:Opus33 behavior is correct. Any advice? Why shall I start a similar discussion with the same user for the same topic, just in another article? Miguel.mateo (talk) 15:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I have three thoughts: First, this sounds like a content dispute (see WP:Dispute resolution). Second, it's ok if an editor has a change of mind. Third, I'm not sure commemorative coins are notable enough for inclusion in most biographical articles, since these coins are often only marketing ploys by government mints. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank Gwen for the quick answer. Allow me to comment. First, I am asking for advice on behaviour, I have handled one content dispute and now the same user is asking for another dispute in another article, but with exactly the same conditions. Is this correct?. Second, that will be the case if the same editor change the same article, not blindly deleting content in another article, don't you think? If that is the case he should have asked in the talk page but that was not the case. Third does not apply, the last article is an article of a building; I am simply putting a reference to a commemorative coin that have the castle on one of its sides. But for example, if your thoughts were in the talk page then it would be a completely different story. An editor should put the changes in the talk page and wait for answers, not simply deleting it without any reason ... no?
    Thanks again and apologies for the time taken, I really do not know what to do ... Miguel.mateo (talk) 15:54, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Miguel ... a couple things. I realize you are trying to help and honestly think these images improve the articles, but I'm not so sure they do, and please do not accuse other users (e.g. Opus33) of vandalism as you have here (maybe an honest mistake?) and here (content dispute). We had a compromise worked out on Haydn a ways back but now it seems you are adding these coin images to articles where a lot of other editors oppose having them. Gwen is right--it's a content dispute, and please try to put these images in perspective: are they really important enough to go in every article on a composer or piece of music for which a coin was minted? Consider what the articles would look like if we included everything of equivalent significance. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 16:06, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't want to talk much about content here but I think putting pictures of coins in biographical, architectural or other articles would be much like putting a picture of this biscuit tin in Mont St Michel (never mind I'd find a biscuit tin more thrilling). Gwen Gale (talk) 16:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Coolest Kid20 sockpuppet

    Resolved
     – User blocked by Gwernol, {{sockpuppet}} template applied. RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 16:12, May 17, 2008 (UTC)

    User:Coolest Kid20 seems to have created another sockpuppet: User:Coolest Kid 50. I'm really terrible at the sockpuppet reporting process, and I have no idea how the process goes in reporting another puppet of an already blocked puppeteer, so, uh, if someone could look into that it'd be appreciated. --Closedmouth (talk) 15:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    This is fairly cut and dry based on the username and user contribution. I'm sure an administrator can make a judgment call here. There's probably no reason to file/start a sockpuppetry case. Wisdom89 (T / C) 15:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks like it's already been done : ). Also, in the future with such patently obvious cases such as this, you can be bold an add a {{sockpuppet} template to their user/talk page. Wisdom89 (T / C) 15:54, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Can admins review this Topic Ban please?

    After asking appeal and waiting about 3 weeks without any response from the arbcom it turned out that "appeals against topic and article bans imposed as part of an arbitration finding need not and should not (except in truly exceptional circumstances), be heard by the Arbitration Committee itself. They can be determined by consensus among administrators". So I am here to ask you a review about this topic ban. Summarizing (and quoting the beginning of the statement by the user who is appealing):

    On April 21, 2008, Raul654 topic banned user:Thomas Basboll without warning, referring to the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions in the 9/11 area, and describing this edit as "horrendous POV-pushing" in the face of an alleged consensus that this version is the only one supported by policy (discussion at AE).

    All the statements are here. What do you think?--Pokipsy76 (talk) 16:56, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Yes, you are right, you should also be topic-banned along with Thomas Basboll. Guy (Help!) 17:09, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Guy, please stop these short, unhelpful, drive-by comments. You are prejudicing discussions and poisoning the well, as well as diverting the topic from Thomas Basboll's topic ban to your proposed topic ban of Pokipsy76. If you could present a longer, more reasoned argument, that would no doubt be greatly appreciated. I personally remain concerned at the way Raul instigated the topic ban, left it undefined, and didn't respond when asked about it. If Raul can't be bothered to defend a proposed topic ban, I see no reason why it can't be overturned. I think we should await Raul's explanation of the topic ban, and if no explanation is forthcoming, it should be overturned. If Raul's explanation is satisfactory, then the community can consider endorsing it. Does this seem like a good way to proceed? Carcharoth (talk) 17:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    BOT out of control and needs temporary blocking/shutting off

    Bot: User:DumZiBot

    Confirmation that it is a bot: I'm a bot, I am not able to understand by myself what is the aim of all these basic binary operations that I'm performing

    Diff that bot is deleting material, not just adding a link at the bottom: http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&diff=213072670&oldid=213069913

    Please disable bot until repairs can be made. DianeFinn (talk) 17:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=213077636"