Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. 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

---

User:PrinceGloria

As you understand, verifiability is important. As such, the media response to the manipulation if Youtube and wiki was sourced to a Polish magazine published by edipress.com. As a respected magazine with a large circulation in Poland this is considered to be a reliable source). The statements in question were proven in the article and cannot be considered to be rumours. The comments sourced as per reliable source by BBC host who is well respected as a commentator of eurovision who has been written up in UK newspapers over the past few days were written in a non-POV manner and provide more sources for her performance which came last. As Eurovision is a contest that Isis Gee tried to win her results ( place and critic of performance ) are not given undue weight. The article already went through WP:3O and User:Kevin Murray supported removal unless sourced. This was not completed as User:PrinceGlora and yourself have not responded to my points. In face, although User:Kevin Murray removed the false and unsourced Polish mnationality of Isis User:PrinceGlora and yourslef reverted versions that included a unsourced material and false statements about her position in the contest which violated WP:BLP.

I ask Ricky81682 to add to the WP:3O initiated by User:Kevin Murray and stop wasting admin time with entries such as this. Would some other admin like to get involved and settle this again?

Eurovisionman (talk) 20:19, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

User:PrinceGloria has continued to place non-consensus information in Isis Gee even though a dispute resolution in in place. This is clearly infringing after the user was asked to stand down [1].

He been taking part in an edit war in isis gee. This entry is in dispute and a consensus version was agreed. User:PrinceGloria has in part inflamed this edit war by reverting contemt that is in dispute and labeling other users as sockpuppets which has been proven to be false. For example, Isis Gee came last in the competition but User:PrinceGloria has misinterpeted this to read as if she didn't. Please block for a short time for exacerbating the edit war. If one looks at the edit history of this user it is clear that he is simply removing negative content.

Polishchick99 (talk) 19:58, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Please check the users who voiced their "concerns" @ Talk:Isis Gee & Talk:For Life (Isis Gee song), check their edit histories, compare comments to those written by User:Eurovisionman and the anonymous IP he has been found to probably use to circumvent his ban and finally the misspelling of Isis Gee as isis gee. God, I feel like Hercules Poirot and Miss Marple in one! PrinceGloria (talk) 20:16, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know anything about this case but can spot an obvious sock when I see one and Polishchick99 clearly is a sockpuppet account, of who I don't know and don't much care. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:27, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

When your first edit is "Why have I been bloked??" (sic), it's a little suspicious. When your 2nd edit is "I heard some stuff on the radio and can Eurovisionman please put it in", it's getting pretty obvious. When your fourth edit is "non-POV" but focusing on a song being in last place (over who wrote it), you are getting ignored here and blocked if you continue this blatant silliness. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:31, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, this is getting outright hillarious - I have a filthy mind, but it just cracks me up when a self-professed "chick" declares she was "bloked". PrinceGloria (talk) 20:37, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

This is actually important The user who reported myself here is now actually abusing the articles in question, possibly acting as one of multiple rather crude sockpuppets for a user who has been originally banned, and now has uploaded unfree media claiming them to be his/her own work. PrinceGloria (talk) 21:31, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Ohh grow up, I didn't know why I couldn't edit the entry - the page is blocked to newbies. I heard about this on the radio and saw how the entry is full of PR and contributed. It seems that the whole world is a sockpuppet for this user!! Contribute to the discussion. Can someone please take a good look at the edits by the user in question - all reverting material. PrinceGloria is inflaming an edit war.

Can you contribute to my points in the discussion?????!??!??!

Polishchick99 (talk) 21:37, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, okay...Just stop, please. This is like watching the mentally ill fight. HalfShadow 21:39, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, can someone do a checkuser immediately and put a stop to this? Now we have new images coming in (Image:My picture of ISIS GEE.jpg) along with the constantly changing users? Semi-protection isn't working as that stupid "fake tan cyborg" crap keeps getting reinserted at For Life (Isis Gee song). Recommend immediate blocking (I'm sort of involved so I'd rather not) to put a stop to this. There is some serious BLP concerns around here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:41, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

If there's any more, add it to Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Eurovisionman. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:49, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I've deleted the image and blocked Isgreatestman and Polishchick99 as obvious sockpuppets. The others I'm not sure about so I'll wait for the checkuser to be done. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 06:29, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Eurovisionman was blocked for 55 hours, which has now expired. Do we wait on the CU, or do we sanction for abusing alternate accounts as identified above? LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:51, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, he's now free and commenting at the checkuser page. More of the same soon enough I expect. If someone else wants to, could they please reformat the checkuser request. The last thing I would want is the clerk to have to deal with that disorganization. Why is it so hard to get checkusers taken care of? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Ricky, you are biased in this matter. I ask a non-biased admin to look at my edits.

From what I can see my edits are sourced and valid. I simply added that there is some controversy in the Polish media related to Isis. This was sourced from a major Polish magazine. I also posted comments from the BBC host who is now in the press calling for a change to the Eurovision rules. The host's comments are all over the media - one would think that this is possible relevant and not vandalism as you have said.

A dispute resolution was initiated by another admin. Unfortunatly you and Prince Gloria have not taken part??

Calling for a non-biased admin to investigate.

Eurovisionman (talk) 13:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

As you understand, verifiability is important. As such, the media response to the manipulation if Youtube and wiki was sourced to a Polish magazine published by edipress.com. As a respected magazine with a large circulation in Poland this is considered to be a reliable source). The statements in question were proven in the article and cannot be considered to be rumours. The comments sourced as per reliable source by BBC host who is well respected as a commentator of eurovision who has been written up in UK newspapers over the past few days were written in a non-POV manner and provide more sources for her performance which came last. As Eurovision is a contest that Isis Gee tried to win her results ( place and critic of performance ) are not given undue weight. The article already went through WP:3O and User:Kevin Murray supported removal unless sourced. This was not completed as User:PrinceGlora and yourself have not responded to my points. In face, although User:Kevin Murray removed the false and unsourced Polish mnationality of Isis User:PrinceGlora and yourslef reverted versions that included a unsourced material and false statements about her position in the contest which violated WP:BLP.

I ask Ricky81682 to add to the WP:3O initiated by User:Kevin Murray and stop wasting admin time with entries such as this. Would some other admin like to get involved and settle this again?

Eurovisionman (talk) 20:19, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Like everyone has told you before, verifiability is more important than "truth." Things like a random DJ says that a living person is a man (based on a random Polish blog that doesn't pass as a reliable source) is inappropriate. Unsourced rumors about a hidden PR campaign on YouTube and on Wikipedia is just wrong to add. The fact that a BBC host supposedly called her a "fake tan cyborg" (based solely on a video that only people in the UK can see and no one else has been able to confirm) is also not helpful and probably gives undue weight to criticism (and really doesn't belong at the article on the song where it is now). For all of these things, you would think that it would be possible for someone else to repeat the story. I only got involved when PrinceGloria remarked on your first WP:BLP violations. Would some other admin like to get involved and settle this again? The article already went through WP:3O and User:Kevin Murray supported removal unless sourced. Also, comments about Eurovision as a whole aren't appropriate for the article on her. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:43, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Full protection on Allegations of state terrorism by the United States

Allegations of state terrorism by the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I've fully protected this article against editing due to the resurgence of an edit war after the lifting of the previous protection. As I know there is an ongoing arbitration case dealing with this article that I don't particularly wish to add myself to, I thought it best to note the protection here. There is also some fairly strong evidence of socking in the article history that I plan on checking out over the next day or so, and any comments on how to deal with that would be welcome. --jonny-mt 04:12, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

As an involved editor, my suggestion is for an editing restriction on the disruptive SPAs in question until the ArbCom case finishes. We shouldn't get into the question here of whose socks they are, and meat vs. sock, for that is what the case is exploring. However, we should do something to protect the article while the case is running, otherwise, it will be full-protted for a month or more. So I suggest that the accounts listed here (except for Giovanni33) be restricted to editing only the pages of the ArbCom case for the duration of said case. With the understanding that should additional SPAs show up in the meantime, they will be accorded the same treatment. - Merzbow (talk) 04:46, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't appear to be necessary as the article has been fully protected (as jonny noted above). I request that it should not be unprotected until all sides pledge to resolve their differences through discussion and not edit warring.

Bless sins (talk) 05:28, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Such a pledge is certainly not going to be forthcoming from me. The side of the dispute I am on has not used any socks. Jtrainor (talk) 08:04, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

That's a nice idea, but the whole reason sockpuppets are allegedly being used is to disrupt the page and POV push. Until they are restricted it will not be possible to reach consensus on the page - that much is clear from their attitudes and editing behaviour. Remove them from the equation and then a solution may appear.

I should note for the record that Supergreenred was unblocked on the strict directions he not tag-team edit war. Clearly his return to the page is a sign of his true nature. John Smith's (talk) 08:21, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Though it's easy to get confused, Supergreenred was actually unblocked on the condition that he not edit war/tag team revert.[2] It was User:Rafaelsfingers who was supposed to stay away from the article. Anyway SGR did start edit warring which is precisely not what they were supposed to do.

The sockpuppet issues are at ArbCom right now, it would be wrong to take any action with respect to that since the Arbs can handle it. Personally I think the article should just stay protected until the G33 ArbCom case is over. Topic bans for some of those accounts would be fine with me, but it's probably easier to just leave it protected (the main work over there needs to happen on the talk page anyway) and let the Arbs have their say about those accounts.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of the socking issue, the wholesale deletion of sourced material from the article, without even pretending to challenge the sources on the talk page, needs to stop. I'm going to start handing out vandalism warnings if this behavior keeps up. -- Kendrick7^talk 10:43, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

You would probably be wasting your time - it's a content dispute. And sources have been regularly challenged on the talk page. John Smith's (talk) 17:23, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Fine with me also if the article just stays locked. Regardless of what happens with G33, I cannot imagine the Arbs won't be showing these SPAs the door (with pro-active remedies against new ones if peace is ever to be had). In the meantime we'll create a sandbox for "Allegations..." and work there. - Merzbow (talk) 17:47, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

That's disappointing. There is an ongoing central discussion at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Terrorism. Maybe leaving this article protected pending a consensus there would be reasonable? --John (talk) 01:35, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that's a good idea, John. You've only got a few editors taking part in that discussion when there are many, many more editors in dispute on the article in question. You can't obtain consensus by consulting only a few parties. John Smith's (talk) 10:43, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd actually like to ask that you not create a sandbox for this article--while it's a simple matter to merge the histories to preserve the GDFL, a sandbox version worked on by multiple editors would have to be reviewed for inclusion before any merging could take place. I have a good bit of material to review before I start making any proposals, but I plan on getting to that point sooner (i.e. in the next day or so) rather than later. --jonny-mt 07:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

For reference, there is a previous puppet report on some of the accounts at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Rafaelsfingers. John Smith's (talk) 17:27, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

For the record, Supergreenred has now been re-banned - though the matter of the other accounts has not been addressed. John Smith's (talk) 10:43, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Only a thought here and I know, another AfD would be very unlikely close in a delete, but does anyone else think this article title (Allegations of state terrorism by the United States) will always draw edit wars, PoV drama and episodes of full protection? Gwen Gale (talk) 10:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Sadly, yes. But in part because of the abuse of puppet accounts - if that stopped things would get easier. John Smith's (talk) 11:20, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

The article has had several different titles and they all seem to attract trouble. There's a discussion about the title happening over at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Terrorism for anyone who is interested.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:55, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Just as a note (and to keep this discussion from getting archived for a little while longer), I've come up with a potential solution but decided to contact ArbCom first to make sure that it wouldn't hinder the ongoing case. Although I haven't yet received a reply, I also haven't received a notice that my e-mail was rejected, which hopefully means that they are at least aware of it. --jonny-mt 09:03, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Dtobias violating the no personal attacks policy

Resolved

 – Original comment refactored by author. No more heat needed here. --ElKevbo (talk) 19:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

During discussions at the C68-FM-SV arbcom case, Dtobias (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has decided to lodge an unnecessary personal attack in my direction. I asked him to retract his comment, but he hasn't. Perhaps someone can explain to him why such commentary is unnecessary.--MONGO 17:43, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Unnecessary commentary? *cough, shithole*, *cough, mental problems, cough*

Check yourself before you wreck yourself. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

My comment didn't name any active contributor.--MONGO 18:12, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Besides, MONGO deserves a hell of a lot of leeway when it comes to ED. Sceptre ^(talk) 18:28, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

"Makes one wonder what mental problems one would have to have to be involved in such a place."

"Everyone who is involved in such a place has mental problems."

These are semantically the same. One is posed rhetorically, which does not remove it from be a statement. Your statement that those involved "would have to have" mental problems is a set of all involved, with a non-insignificant subset being active Wikipedians. You've made a personal attack on many, not "any". This would have been no big deal for the talk page where you left it, but since you simultaneously came here to complain about being insulted while you were making insults - you need to be called on the hypocrisy. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Sematically? No, not true...no one was named...the website is a shithole, so not sure how that would insult YOU. It is a comment about a website and it's denizens...a fair representation of the facts I believe if one were to spend a few minutes examining the content there.--MONGO 18:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Subject of "shithole" statement = the ED website. No need for the statement, but whatever.

Subject of "mental problems" statement = insulting attack on the editors of the website, which includes many Wikipedians.

Making it a group attack doesn't absolve you from making the attack against an individual SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Drats...I forgot, you're an ED admin...so in that case, please accept my deepest apologies...sincerely and with the utmost respect and wikilove.--MONGO 19:23, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Dan is a gadfly who frequently shines light into areas of Wikipedia some people would prefer remain dark...that said, it looked like a hyperbolic example to me, no need to overreact. Kelly ^hi! 18:10, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I think he should retract it...it wasn't the least bit helpful.--MONGO 18:12, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've censored myself now... but your running to mommy AN/I about it says more about you than about me, I think. *Dan T.* (talk) 18:22, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

So, while announcing that you've refactored your comment, you've decided to take another pot shot at MONGO. What good does that do? Ice Cold Beer (talk) 18:24, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

He takes another pot shot here as well as at the redaction he performed at the RFAr. It works this way...Dtobias can insult others and when they complain he calls them thin skinned, yet he never hesitates to point out other's NPA violations and expects some outcome. The hypocrisy is amazing. My suggestion is that he confines his attacks to the usual offsite venues where I don't participate. There, he and like minded folks can say whatever they want without penalty.--MONGO 18:29, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

stfu, Dan, you don't need to take parting shots as you leave either. Your comment about who is a jerk could have been made impersonal and still gotten the point across. Simply stating you'd refactored your comment would have sufficed to defuse the situation instead of inflaming it. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Dan does seem to be stirring things a bit lately for reasons best known to himself. [3] [4]. Those aren't personal attacks, really, just weird stuff. Hopefully he'll stop after this. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 22:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

a man's gotta dream. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 21:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Block of Giano

I have blocked Giano II for 3 hours for a violation of his civility parole in this edit and previous edits today. I am posting it here because I am aware of the history of what happens when Giano is blocked, but there is simply no excuse for his posts. If you are inclined to unblock, please first think about what the ArbCom editing restriction was designed to prevent, why I have issued the block, and then consider posting here to discuss first. Stifle (talk) 15:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Also note the following disruptive edits:

• [5] [6] [7] at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Completed requests
• [8] [9] at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IRC
• [10] [11] at Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard

Stifle (talk) 16:02, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the block was warranted for the reasons given. If anyone wishes to unblock please be sure you have consensus first. _{1 != 2} 16:11, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with this. While the edits are disruptive and intentionally so, they are dealt with by page protection. While I will totally agree that Giano's comments on Bishonen's talk page (mostly in the direction of some members of the AC, though some in my direction as well) are not in the tone that we would like to see on Wikipedia, I do not think they are so serious as to warrant this block. That conversation annoyed me, because I was trying to enter into it in good faith and have a reasonable discussion, but I do not see block-worthy behaviour here, even considering the history. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 16:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Intentionally disruptive, not a tone we want to see on Wikipedia, long history of the exact same thing, no indication that if left alone it will not just keep going on. A small block such as this seems a very reasonable response. In his response to this very block more examples of name calling and assumptions of bad faith, the very issues in his arb-com restrictions. This will not go away if ignored. _{1 != 2} 16:32, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse block Taken in isolation, any one of these may not be warrenting such a long block, however Giano does have a history of abusive behavior, and given that, should be held to that history. Every comment is not taken in isolation, and I have noticed that as of lately, his comments have become increasingly antagonistic as of late. We should not condone this behavior, especially given his long history of such abusive language and personal attacks. He doesn't get to arrive at Wikipedia each day with a "tabula rasa" like he's never commited a civility violation or a personal attack. He has earned the reputation he has, and there should be consequences for it. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:36, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with Sam Korn here. The majority of these "questionable" edits took place yesterday and were addressed by other administrators - Ryan Posthlethwaite, Until 1==2, Thatcher and Sam Korn; none of them, by their actions, determined that Giano's edit warranted a block. Stifle now comes along and essentially wheelwars with them; this is inappropriate. Today's edit on Bishonen's page was only made to that page because the thread to which Giano was responding was moved from his talk page to Bishonen's. Bishonen has not lodged a protest about what Giano has written on her page; failing that, the thread should be treated as though it is on Giano's own page - a place where users are generally granted considerable latitute.

I don't entirely agree with Giano's thoughts on IRC, and I don't particularly approve of his language, either. But one has to wonder at what point a committee that took on a case called "Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IRC", and included in its remedies that it would address the IRC question is in breach of its own decision. It's been four months, and since that time the committee has been silent on the issue. Questioning this is no longer failing to assume good faith, I am afraid.

You are right, Stifle. There is a predictable reaction to blocking Giano. He gets angry and intemperate. Other administrators who've already been working with him are disempowered and their actions and opinions belittled. The blocking policy ("blocking is preventative, not punitive") is ignored. And at three hours, heaven only knows what you were trying to accomplish - except perhaps to make it of such short duration that nobody would unblock. I agree with Sam, though...this was not blockworthy. Risker (talk) 16:42, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't see much to be gained by this. Giano's ire directed at ArbCom is nothing if not predictable. In fact the only thing more predictable is that he will get blocked and a huge discussion will ensue. So long as he is expressing his dissatisfaction on a user talk page, I would suggest simply ignoring it would be the most effective course of action. I had to laugh at Risker's redefining of "wheel-warring" though. God help us if we start defining, as a "wheelwar", any admin action in the absence of anyone else doing so. Rockpocket 16:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

It's an interesting question, Rockpocket - at what point does a single admin's decision override that of several other admins? Pity's sake, there were four experienced admins, including a former arb, an arbcom clerk, and an arbcom clerk trainee, none of whom felt a block was required. Why is it okay for someone else to show up a day later and decide that all of these people misjudged the situation? Risker (talk) 17:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

It is an interesting point, Risker. And I didn't mean to dismiss it. One should expect admins to take notice of the opinion and, if one exists, consensus, of other admins who have discussed a situation. However I do think there needs to be an overt discussion about not taking action, rather than simply interpreting the lack of someone else taking action meaning that no-one else should. The distinction can be subtle, of course, and this is where the balance of initiative and good judgment comes in. My amusement was more at your use of the "wheel-war" label, and the chaos that would ensue of it was ratified as such, rather than your point - which I believe is a pertinent one. Rockpocket 18:29, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Risker, I didn't see any admins making a decision that there should not be a block. You listed me in that list, and I certainly took no such position. That, and the primary reason for the block was on Bish's talk page well outside the involvement of the listed admins. Please do your homework before yelling "wheel war". _{1 != 2} 17:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, don't you ever shut up, Until? As for ignoring something, anything, have you even tried it, ever?[12] It's not long since you informed me that you follow all my edits, presumably in the hope of finding something to complain about. It's not because you nurse a secret passion for me, is it? What delightful behaviour. Don't worry, I'm hardly editing now in any case. Bishonen | talk 17:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC).

Please be more civil Bishonen. I don't follow all your edits, no sure what you are talking about there, I assure you that I have have no "passion" towards you. I don't even remember mentioning you Bishonen in weeks. The diff you presented is of a post just above. Really not sure what I can take from your post that is productive. _{1 != 2} 18:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

<sigh>.The diff was of you talking about "ignoring" Giano. Since I was referring back to where you said that, you know. It was on IRC that you told me you read all my posts. That's what I'm talking about here. Forgotten it? So be it. Or are you going to tell me I lie? Well, I don't. (Disappointing about the passion!) Bishonen | talk 21:36, 27 May 2008 (UTC).

Oh please Bishonen!!!! Surely 1=2 nver visits IRC, I just cannot beleive you have said that. You'll be saying next certain Arbs are there too, trying to make new and useful friends. Giano (talk) 21:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I have done my homework, sorry to say. He did not say anything on Bishonen's page that he had not said on his own, on which you commented. Posting on his page, or in this case on Bishonen's page in response to a thread that for some reason had been moved from his page, is hardly drawing attention to himself; you had indeed indicated your action plan to leave him alone in such circumstances. Thatcher and Ryan Posthlethwaite both elected take the administrative action of protecting the involved pages rather than blocking. Sam Korn is pretty clear in his opinion above. Risker (talk) 17:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I came across the comments at the crats' noticeboard earlier today, by coincidence, and was a little disturbed by them, not least since they were entirely irrelevant to the discussion. I think 3 hours seems fair, all-in-all; it was admittedly fairly minor incivility. ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 17:00, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

It should be noted that the IRC clarification got filed away today as "stale". Maybe another clarification filing is needed (I filed that request for clarification), or would that be disruptive? Maybe the community should take the initiative from Arbcom and look at this and this and come up with a more workable and equitable set of remedies, given the arbitration committee's seeming reluctance to take this any further. I think it depends on whether the committee are inactive on these issue because they are happy with the current situation, or whether they are just busy with other things. I might file a request for amendment asking that the whole issue be returned to the community for us to deal with, rather than arbcom. Well, that's a bit more than a request for an amendment, but that is what I'd file it as. Carcharoth (talk) 17:15, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• I don't know that another <link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User:MarkS/XEB/live.css&action=raw&ctype=text/css&dontcountme=s">clarification request would be disruptive, the problem is that you don't really want a clarification, you want the committee to take further action that it has so far declined to do (and, I suspect, is deeply divided about). I don't know how to resolve the situation. Thatcher 19:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
  • If the arbcom is indeed deeply divided, then other people (ie. others in the community) stepping forward with proposals might be the best solution. It may take slow progress, but giving the arbcom a clear question: "Will you allow others to try new proposals and see if there is support among the community to modify, clarify or otherwise amend the outcome of the IRC case (and in particular the ongoing situation with Giano's civility sanction)?" would seem to be a first step. No need to actually propose anything, but to see if ArbCom are willing to let the community have another go at resolving things. If some proposal gains clear consensus in the community, possibly the Arbcom will be only too happy to formalise it and move things forward. Carcharoth (talk) 22:20, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• In fact why are we discussing IRC problems on Wikipedia? It is really unfair to the ArbCom and to Giano. But it is more unjust to the community. Indeed, everytime someone brings me something said or done on IRC or something like "oh, user:someone contacted me on IRC and blah blah" I reply by "i am not interested". But I am really interested in seeing some order here. Call me a radical but it may be great to ban all IRC-related problems or discussions about them... [WP:NOIRCHEADACHE]. And believe me, the problem is not Giano or the ArbCom. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 19:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

That only would be reasonable if in return, admins were forbidden to take actions based on IRC-based discussions, since the community at large has no input there. Though it is my opinion that such a thing should be done anyways. Jtrainor (talk) 19:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Admins make the decision to take action based on their own judgment (within the context of policy and process, of course). If an outside conversation aids them in that, that's fine, but they can't rely on it, no matter where it comes from. If I know some Wikipedians personally, and I ask for their opinions for something face to face, that's perfectly fine, but I can't rely on their words as anything other than personal guidance until they post them on-wiki. The exact same standard should apply to IRC. - Revolving Bugbear 19:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Revolving Bugbear, amazing name I love it, could you just put your point in words more simple. You see, I have the dubious good fortune never to have met a fellow Wikipedian (well actualy I have met 2, but they are unaware of the honneur) You see the Admin concerned here today, poor man, was sent from elsewhere - IRC? the Arbs Sam Korn? - who knows, how these days does one know the difference? Poor Stifie I hope the curse of Giano does not befall him, but at least 1=2 (or whatever his current name is) has stoped jumping up and down like a grasshopper on heat. Giano (talk) 20:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Let's run through this again: I might have sent Stifle to come and block you? Even putting aside the fact that backroom manoeuvrings are hardly my style, your accusation against me appears positively ridiculous in light of my comments above. Y'know, your valid criticisms of the AC appear a lot weaker on account of your more absurd accusations. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 20:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Are you on the Arb's mailing list? A simple yes or no will suffice. Giano (talk) 20:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Giano, yes he is. He is a former arb. Maxim_(talk) 20:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I read and contribute to arbcom-l. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 20:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

We'll take that as a "yes" then Sam. I'm sure Stifie and 1=2 (whatever he is called) will be well rewarded for services rendered. Giano (talk) 20:49, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

The cabal is giving out bounties now? Where do I sign up! --Jaysweet (talk) 20:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that's right. I, as a member of the cabal, orchestrated this block (despite opposing it) in order to get you banned (even though I don't want to) and will be giving rewards (what, exactly? Biscuits? Sweets? Super-duper blocking powers?) to Stifle for carrying it out.

This is complete fantasy. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 20:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

No Sam, not fantasy! Just the Arbcom you are part of and have supported. What else was a civility parole on me, but an attempt to supress the truth? You can't opt out now, you were on that list. Giano (talk) 21:29, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah but remember there is no such thing as a free lunch - especially when served by this Arbcom! Giano (talk) 20:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not on the arbcom list, I've been on IRC twice since the start of April, and nobody sent me. Stifle (talk) 21:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

No Stifie, you have the wrong end of the stick, we all know you are not on the Arbcom mailing list and have limited contact with IRC - we have all worked that one out ages ago - why else were you selected? Giano (talk) 21:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Giano, do you actually believe this? You are either being outstandingly paranoid or you are trolling. These accusations have precisely zero basis in reality. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 21:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

It was the Arbs clear intention that clueless Admins would leap in and block me. every time I said something they did not like, and that is what certainly seems to happen, or am I imagining that too? Giano (talk) 21:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Adhere strictly to WP:CIVIL and you won't get blocked. Transmission end ... I mean problem solved. - Revolving Bugbear 22:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Well GIano - stop giving them that choice - and you can do that while still making your point. Viridae^Talk 22:02, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

<- from my perspective it all gets a lot easier to understand if you start to look at things as 'you're either part of the problem, or part of the solution' - all I really see above is Giano indicating that because of Sam's involvement with arbcom, he's (in Giano's view) part of the problem. This is actually kinda reasonable, no? - anywhoo... I just wish people would be kind enough to apply some rigour in considering others' ideas, rather than reaching for the paranoia or trolling buttons......

by the way, and intended lightheartedly, this is far from the most silly thing occurring on Wikipedia at the moment, believe it or not! here you can see a genuinely first class wiki bun fight involving arbs being upset at a clerk getting uppity (imagine! trying to actually keep an arb case sane! arbonaughts to battle stations!)

Final note on the above - I think Stifle made a mistake (not the best username to be dealing with criticism anywhoo, no?!) - cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 22:00, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• It pains me to say this, but please, everyone, just ignore Giano's trolling. Since I was mentioned above for my role in not blocking Giano regarding his Arb case edits, let me say for whatever it is worth, that I consider Giano's civility parole to apply mainly to cases of alleged admin or arbcom abuse, where Giano is nominally uninvolved, and rides in on his white horse to stir the pot further. Giano has sometimes taken up the cause of editors whom he feels have been wronged, and sometimes he is correct, but too often his approach is intentionally abusive and confrontational and inflames the situation and stirs the pot, and this is what (I believe) Arbcom was trying to deal with, in the IRC case and its antecedents. This dispute regards only his own case, and consists of himself stirring the pot to try and get a reaction out of someone, in which goal he has succeeded once again. It is classic trolling. I think the block was an overreaction, and I think that attempts to continue a rational discussion miss the point entirely that this iteration of the dispute is not about rational solutions. The disruption, such as it was, of the arbitration pages was dealt with by protecting them, and the best response at this point is, sadly, to ignore him. Thatcher 22:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh here we go again - The Arbcom fucks up! So it must be Giano trolling or Giano is paranoid. Well done Thatcher - which one of them wrote that? The Arbcom are a bunch of failing cowards and liars - take your pick which is which. Giano (talk) 22:05, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Giano, you are throwing around accusations and characterisations again. In some contexts, that is fine. In an online context where you are literally only what you say, you are digging a hole for yourself as well as others. You may be right about some things, but these general comments don't help. Let me ask you this - even if the arbcom restriction were modified or lifted, or something like that, would you still carry on the way you are doing? You seem to be trying to get wholesale resignations, and that is extremely unlikely to happen. I don't think you really want that, and the amount of effort it would take to succeed in that is, frankly, not worth the bother. The impression I get is that there are other issues not being mentioned. Is this just about Arbcom, or is there more to it than this? Carcharoth (talk) 22:15, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

My only wish is that the community see the true colours of its disreputable, lying and disgraceful Arbcom. What it chooses to do with them is up to the community. To me, they are people of no consequence, they are as ants on the pavement and about as much use. Giano (talk) 22:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't call what Giano is doing trolling, but what Thatcher says does make sense. The Giano restriction doesn't reflect well on ArbCom, but some of Giano's actions don't do him great credit either. The trouble is, if you are going to say on the one hand "ignore Giano", then (after giving arbcom the chance to clarify things) there comes a point when you have to ignore some of the arbcom's decisions as well. We all apply varying levels of common sense and ignoring rules every day as we edit Wikipedia, and quietly ignoring, extending, diminishing or re-engineering some of the more "out of left field" arbcom decisions is not an impossibility, especially if they don't engage with the issues further. I'll reply further above in response to Thatcher's other reply. Carcharoth (talk) 22:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I certainly do not endorse ignoring Giano's provocations no matter the circumstances, but in this specific instance, yes. (Although I decline to name specific examples of circumstances where I would endorse or carry out a block; hopefully they will never arise). And to the other matter, the community already has the ability to modify or nullify an arbitration decision, but it requires a consensus not to act even when Arbcom has authorized action, and that does not seem to exist with respect to Giano. Thatcher 22:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Support block - eesh, Giano is being a massive dick, and I would consider a block on him if he were not sanctioned. Sceptre ^(talk) 01:19, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

• Giano was simply stating a solution to a problem on Wikipedia: an abusive and corrupt ArbCom. It'd be nice to see more users speak out against this crap. Monobi (talk) 01:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

  There are better ways of saying it: saying "I don't like the arbcom because I think some of their decisions are wrong and sometimes double-back on their decisions" is fine. When it gets into calling it a "waste of space", "thoroughly disgraceful", "[a bunch of] liars" in just the edit he was blocked for, it becomes unacceptable. Even more so by saying "[the AC] are a waste of space", calling them "lying bastards" and a "walking disgrace", and saying they're "planning to have [him] bumped off as we speak" in only two edits after the block. Add onto the civility parole, and you honestly think nothing's wrong? Sceptre ^(talk) 01:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to make one note here. I saw this happen at RFAR, I saw Giano edit war, I saw Thatcher protect the page, and... I said nothing, and saw no need to do anything.

If Sam Korn is part of a fantasized version of Arbcom that hands out bounties, then, Giano, I haven't seen that. I have blocked you once, but as I've said before, I hope not to have to. As far as today goes, I saw you edit war and decided the page protection resolved the dispute the best way. I've advised you repeatedly how to avoid problems. Those aren't the actions of people against you. They are the actions of people against certain behaviors, which you and others sometimes use unacceptably.

You've been told many times that if you cease to act up, no arb will pay you attention; no admin will block you. If that's genuinely truly what you want, you know how to have it. You're intelligent; you know exactly what's being asked of you, and you know it's achievable completely. You haven't acted up the last few weeks; no admin has blocked you the last few weeks. You acted up yesterday; an admin blocked you. See the pattern?

You have exactly the equality and fairness of treatment you wish for, although you don't like it. If you act up -- and I'm not really fussed if once two years ago you might have had a point, or if you really do believe everyone is out to get you -- then you will come to admin attention. If you don't act up, you probably won't. If you make your points like Carcharoth, like Thatcher, you won't get blocked. If you do it by snarking others, personal attack, pointless edit warring and immaturity, you will. It's that simple and that direct, nobody is 'against' you. You choose the words you write about and to others, nobody else, and you do so knowing the requirements upon you. It's your call alone.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 07:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

• I think it's important to be able to criticize the institution: comments that the ArbCom is a "waste of space" or disgraceful are perfectly valid critical conclusions. If ArbCom is seen to act fairly and effectively people won't take the criticisms seriously. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:02, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Topic-banning Giano from discussing the arbitration committee

I know I'll get shouted at for this, and Giano will probably add this to his view that AC are against him, but really, his contributions in this regard aren't helpful at all, and the way he's going, he'll end up banned. I don't want that to happen because he's been here a long time and has done great work in the past, but he's making himself look horrible by acting the way he is doing, and I doubt he'll reform, if three blocks after an AC for civility shows anything. Thoughts? Sceptre ^(talk) 01:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Nah. I suggest talking to Giano instead of fighting. As a side note, I advised a newly minted admin today that he should never make a block, and then run to announce it on WP:ANI for review. No, if you are unsure of a block, don't do it. Get advice FIRST. Thanks, I will now retreat to my lair. Jehochman ^Talk 01:53, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't've proposed this if talking worked - I think Giano's being asked too many times to reform and/or check himself. Sceptre ^(talk) 01:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

No. Nothing would please him more (or so I imagine) than to intentionally violate an admin-imposed ban on that topic. When he is on the corrupt Arbcom kick, the best thing to do is ignore him. Thatcher 02:32, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Jehochman is right about blocks; further, since it seems these blocks are all related to the arbcom sanction, they should be discussed on WP:AE. I'll point out that "topic-banning" Giano (in various forms) was deliberately not done by Arbcom after extensive discussion during the case itself, and it probably isn't in the best interests of the project, Arbcom, or anyone else to try that case all over again here on AN/I. I also notice a curious habit of people deciding to block Giano or otherwise trying to circumscribe his behaviour shortly after he has announced he will be away from the keyboards for an extended period (going to bed, being away for several days). There is a patent unfairness to this pattern, and I would urge that the community think about why this keeps happening. Risker (talk) 03:14, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

We have tried talking to Giano, we have tried ignoring Giano, that has not worked. I know it won't happen, there are too many friends of his that will prevent it. But I do support a topic ban, his contributions towards the idea of arbcom reform are nothing but nasty spite and conspiracy theories. If you believed all of what he has claimed over the past year then 2 dozen admins and most of arbcom is out to get him with no evidence to show for it. The only people I have seen giving Giano any issue have been responding to his poor behavior. _{1 != 2} 04:18, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Until. I was half-inclined to block Giano again for incivility in this thread, but it would not prevent anything and would inflame the situation further. Unfortunately, he's adding only heat and no light to Wikipedia — Giano's main saving grace in the past was that he was a fantastic content contributor, but the important word in that sentence is "was" — all he appears to do now is insert himself into contentious discussions in the style of Hammerhead Bob and complain about the arbcabal, the admin cabal, and anything else. There was a ban from the Wikipedia namespace a couple votes away from passing in the Arbitration case and that would, I think, have cleared up most of the disruption.

The matter remains that of the 15 times Giano II has been blocked, only four of those blocks have expired — the others have been reversed, and 10 of those reversals were not by the original blocker. Stifle (talk) 09:24, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I hate to say this, but you don't know what you're talking about, Stifle. You're presumably not aware of Giano's habit of working up these "fantastic" (your word) articles in his userspace. Obviously, you can't be expected to know every detail like that, either, but, well, since you don't, please refrain from speaking at random about his editing habits. Up to a month ago, he was very busy on what promises to be his most magnificent architectural page to date, The Winter Palace. See also [13][14][15][16][17][18]. All heat..? In May, admittedly, he spent most of his time brokering a deal with, and for, banned User:Vintagekits, see [19]. No light..? You ought to strike out your ill-informed post about "his saving grace in the past", and how he was a fantastic content contributor, Stifle. You really can't have studied his contributions in any, uh, depth. Focused as you apparently were on his block log.

Meanwhile, I acknowledge that there has been heat. I don't have any trouble understanding its birth from frustration... but I can also well understand the negative reaction of many people to it. Giano and I have discussed it. Bishonen | talk 11:15, 28 May 2008 (UTC).

I am speaking merely of Giano's recent contributions (i.e. in, say, the last month). I should have made that clearer. I am not speaking at random, just of what I have seen lately. Stifle (talk) 11:40, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

• Bad idea. Yeah, we need to help Giano keep cool, and yeah, encouraging those ongoing brilliant articles is the best thing to be doing, but Giano is (and this reminds me somewhat of the MickMackNee case recently...) someone who we should be allowing to give an opinion the ArbCom. If you want to help, help him not go overboard with it (the recent WP:BN comments about IRC were, to me, a bit paranoid/over the top (said as someone who generally agrees with Giano)), don't ban him. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 11:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't mean to butt in, but I have found that Giano (II) has been one of the most uncivil and disruptive people I have talked to. In trying to resolve an edit war over at a blocked editor's userpage, the abuse he hurled at me was incredible. He ought to be blocked simply on the gournds of incivility, but that would be classed as a disgraceful act by many people, because not only is he now an established user, he has made some good contributions to Wikipedia.Lradrama 11:26, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Not saying you made this up, but it would be easier for us (well, for me at least!) if you could point to the userpage in discussion—I am willing to consider this. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 11:32, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Of course I didn't make it up. It's at a topic called User:Vintagekits over at User talk:Giano II/archive 8. Lradrama 11:36, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't say you made it up, I just threw that in because the last thing this discussion needs is accusations of that sort of thing from anyone. Better safe than sorry. :) Looking at the discussion now. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 11:40, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

(I have since regretted some of the things I said in the discussion since. It resulted after a community discussion at an admin's noticeboard I think, which was a heated debate, and we were all at the end of our tethers. After being treated the way I was, I said some things I now regret.) Lradrama 11:43, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

So do you still think that "the abuse he hurled at me was incredible" - what I see there was a rather minor sideshow with some strong wording that seems to have sorted itself out. It should be possible to move on from something like that, but if it still rankles with you more than a month later, then maybe it is best to talk about it rather than let any residual resentment and anger fester. I don't mean that in an offensive way. Keep talking with most people on Wikipedia and eventually, if they stick around, you will find common ground or come to an accommodation, or learn what to avoid, or learn the common triggers to avoid. Those that don't adapt in this way find they will rub people up the wrong way. I think Giano sometimes reacts too quickly, but then I tend to analyse things too much, so as you can see, people approach things differently. Mix and match and keep talking, and assume a bit of good faith and be flexible and understanding, and most things work out in the end (ie. be laid-back). There is probably an essay about that somewhere. Carcharoth (talk) 11:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Those words are very wise, although I'm heavily unsure of what my reception will be if I do so. When I come across him again, no hard feelings will be felt on my part. It's down to him to do the same, then we can both move on. Lradrama 12:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Terrible idea. Terrible, terrible. So long as ArbComm is a necessary evil (i.e., so long as editors are human), critics of ArbComm are necessary also. Giano in criticizing ArbComm serves an important function. He could do the job better, but Wikipedia needs the job done, and nobody else editing on Wikipedia is doing half as good a job of it. Given that this clearly was a sub-par block that shouldn't have been issued, your arguing that it is evidence we need a stronger reaction is just plain wrong. Admit that you made a mistake in blocking him and we might start to get somewhere. GRBerry 14:52, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Anybody ever think of nominating Giano for Administrator & then for membership at Arbcom? If he wishes Arbcom to be reformed? he'd have a better chance of achieving that goal, from the inside (not outside). GoodDay (talk) 15:24, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Giano ran for Arbcom last year. Can't say he didn't try.--Cube lurker (talk) 15:32, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Ya'll sure got a soap-opera going here. GoodDay (talk) 15:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The block is totally counterproductive; Giano's behaviour is an unusual phenomenon, I'm sure you all realise, and there's a good case that treating it with greater lattitude than might be strictly applied to someone else is in the public interest. I think the block was uncreative. Please find a better strategy for dealing with a highly creative WPian. TONY (talk) 16:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

While I sometimes agree and sometimes disagree with Giano's comments, I don't think censoring them would achieve anything positive. As the old saying goes, a good government needs a good opposition. Orderinchaos 16:26, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

May I suggest that User:GRBerry, User:Bishzilla and maybe I could speak with Giano, online or offline, to help reduce the level of heat? Each human being is unique and different methods of dispute resolution may work better with different people. I do not think confrontation is going to be productive here. Jehochman ^Talk 18:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Talk away. Often off wiki discussions are a great way to cut past the drama. _{1 != 2} 19:31, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

May I quote that sometime? ;) Durova^Charge! 19:36, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The funny thing is, that more people are spending time and effort on this and the associated drama, than on the more organised and focused and (yes) constructive criticisms of Arbcom. Didn't User:Lawrence Cohen draft a request for comment somewhere? Yes, User:Lawrence Cohen/Arbitration RFC draft. I see discussion on the talk page about how to structure and go ahead with it petered out in March. What happened with that? Maybe not enough people were aware of it? If more people do turn up over there and start discussing it again, could you have the courtesy to wait for Lawrence to come back from wikibreak before making any major changes. Oh, and in case anyone gets the wrong idea, a past arbitrator and a current arbitrator took part in the talk page discussions. From various comments on-wiki over the past months (the early part of the year), I got the impression that internal arbcom disucssions had attempted to address some issues, but were making slow progress (updating the wider community on the progress of such discussions obviously wasn't on the agenda). I think a lot comes down to communication issues, but that would be something to discuss in detail elsewhere. One thing I think would be, if not quite essential, but obviously very helpful, is to get a commitment from current ArbCom members to take part in any RfC. Of course, it is also possible that the original impetus behind that draft RfC has died away, and people are happy with the way things are. Carcharoth (talk) 02:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Hasn't petered out, actually. Very much a topic of discussion in some quarters. There are practical issues and nuances to consider, as well as the very real concern that a poorly planned and executed attempt to gain attention would discredit itself and its participants quite quickly. I would rather proceed with the utmost decorum, and with a commitment to seeing justice in cases other than one's own, and to offer viable solutions to the current problems. Durova^Charge! 06:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Hot Summer (song) and Category:House music songs

I created the category House music songs months ago. Late last week, I noticed the addition of a song called Hot Summer by the group Monrose. This is not a house music song by any stretch and is making this list misleading. Naturally, I removed the entry as I have written about (and followed) house music since its inception in the late '80s. Needless to say, the user Noboyo keeps re-adding this song to the list. I see from entries concerning Monrose that he has contributed a lot to their entries; he is either a fan or someone directly afffiliated with the group. In any event, the suggestion that "Hot Summer" is a house music song is horribly misleading and will confuse prospective learners on the topic. Wikipedia is supposed to deal in fact. Both times, I have left messages on discussion boards related to the topic (some of which seem to have been deleted). I ALSO left a report of vandalism, which vanished. Is anyone interested in the integrity of facts at Wiki anymore? Please deal with this issue and this user!!!Mwmalone

With respect, it appears that there are sources that describe Hot Summer as a House song - though other genres are noted as well. Do you have a source that explicitly debunks the proposition that the song is House? I acknowledge that you're more familiar with the genre than I might be - but if there's a source, then it can be included. I'll also note that, while you may have created the category, it is open and available for anyone to edit, add to, subtract from, or otherwise modify; in other words, you do not own it. Please discuss the matter on the article's talk page at talk:Hot Summer (song). UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 16:20, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Have you, Mwmalone, even tried to discuss the matter, or to more appropriately cite source that back your position, anywhere? Since I see no evidence that any attempt has been made to resolve this dispute I don't really see where admins have any role in it... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Plenty of us are interested in integrity. However, the solutions you seek should be sought on Wikipedia, not on discussion boards elsewher. Try explainign all this on the relevant article and list talk pages. ThuranX (talk) 22:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I think by "discussion boards" the OP may have meant "talk pages", as they are linked from a "discussion" tab at the top. Orderinchaos 16:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

If so, then it appears he has met the burden jayron32's question suggests, and we should be looking at the other editor. no? ThuranX (talk) 20:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Months of harassment from RobJ1981

I am having some health issues, so this may be my last post for a while, but as I possibly leave the project, I want the community to be clear of some of the harassment I have endured since the summer of 2007 from RobJ1981. He is supposed to be avoiding me, but has not and is not doing so, even though I have repeatedly ignored and avoided this bad faith editor. Here are some of the cautions and warnings made to him:

From Chaser on 4 October 2007: [20]

From DGG on 22 December 2007: [21]

From Casliber on 25 December 2007: [22]

From Ncmvolcalist on 6 May 2008: [23]

Notice the language from the request for comment on RobJ1981's closer: "If either of you feel the need to respond in an Afd (for example), then please completely ignore the comments of each other entirely. Do not engage in ANY discussion with or about each other - even if it involves having to ignore each others comments, no matter how much merit (or lack therof) they may have. Le Grand appears to have not replied to any of your comments, so you need to do the same."

Despite the above, RobJ1981 continues to comment to or about me: [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], etc.

Instead of focusing on the contents of the discussion he focuses on me in the above examples, which he was explicitly warned against doing. Notice by contrast that I neither commented to or about him, nor directly about anyone else in those discussions for that matter.

And he attempts to get the article for which I have made the most edits (over 100) merged: [29]

I am trying really hard to ignore him per Chaser, DGG, Casliber, and Ncmvolcalist, but I do not understand why he refuses to do the same considering Chaser threatened to block and a Request for Comment on RobJ1981 concluded with fairly explicit instructions that he avoid and ignore me.

But he didn't and so note the new warning at [30].

The post above was made by Ncmvocalist (talk) at 20:06, 26 May 2008. Notice these posts made by Rob AFTER Ncmvocalist's post in the Request for Comment:

• 23:53, 26 May 2008 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines‎ (→Weapons...: comment)
• 22:51, 26 May 2008 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines‎ (→Weapons...: fixes)
• 22:48, 26 May 2008 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines‎ (→Weapons...: comment)
• 22:42, 26 May 2008 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soul series mystical weapons‎ (→Soul series mystical weapons: comment)
• 21:39, 26 May 2008 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines‎ (→Weapons...: comment)

In the above posts he outright says, "In response to this comment by Le Grand", "We can't assume good faith," "Le Grand is just coming here to force his anti-deletion views", etc.

We were told not to comment to or about each other and as indicated previously admins have been warning him for months now. If you ask Chaser or Durova, they can tell you that they also had offered mediation, suggested we disengage, etc., which I have done, but which he continues to ignore. Notice I have not responded to nor have I referenced any of this recent comments on wiki until now. He is admittedly assuming bad faith against me and claims that I am "coming here to force" my "views". I came to the talk page to discuss civily with other editors, to maybe even be convinced by them (I have actually changed my "votes" in both AfDs and RfAs, and several times, so I am open to reason), and hopefully come to some understanding why if we have these policies and guidelines does so much of the community in practice not seem to follow them and how we can get a more universally agreed upon consensus. While I may disagree strongly with some, I respect that they are willing to discuss with me and acknowledge that just as I mean well, I'm sure most in the discussion also do as well. If I "lose" the discussion, so be it, but notice in that discussion that I do not accuse anyone disagreeing with me of being disruptive, assuming bad faith, nor do I mention editors by name or otherwise call them out, etc. It gets really tiresome when AfDs and talk pages devolve into being about the editors rather than the articles and arguments. Sure I may go back and forth with Randomran and others in AfDs, but I would not be able to do so if they did not also reply to my posts and that's a good thing, it's what AfD is a discussion. Does it mean that I think ill of him or others? Of course not. I made over 20,000 edits here, welcomed thousands of new users, uploaded a bunch of images, created articles, etc, and so I engage people in sometimes determined conversation, but I do so because I respect them enough that I am willing to volunteer my time to do so, because I believe that if they are also willing to talk, maybe we can eventually come to an understanding.

And what's classic is I who have argued to delete more articles than Rob has argued to keep (I've never seen him argue to keep in fact) has the hypocritical audacity to harp on me for not arguing to delete more. I wasn't aware of the quota!

How does Rob deal with spirited discussion that doesn't even involve him? He tries to coordinate an off-wiki attack against me: [31], [32], [33], etc. Why when I have ignored and avoided him for so many months has he refused to do the same? Why fixate on me for so long? Why is he derailing good faith discussions and personalizing them? Why is attempting to indocritinate users against me? There is much more, and even more despicable and disturbing stuff than I am willing to post here, but again, my family and friends mean a lot to me and if content disputes are so important to someone that they want to harass and threaten me on and off wiki, it's just not worth it.

I don't know what more I can do to just ignore him that will cause him to follow the warnings he has received by admins and in the request for comment, but it isn't right that discussions that otherwise would be civil now change direction and instead of being about the articles under discussion or the guidelines suddenly become about me, because of one editor.

The bottom line is I care about my family and friends and the on and off wiki harassment from this user has gone on long enough and taken an increasingly obsessive and real world turn that even without my health issues, it is not worth allowing some wikipedian to spill things over off the project. So thank you to all who have been kind and respectful; I wish you all well and I just hope that once and for all the obsession of this editor with me is dealt with so that no one else becomes his next target. Adieu. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

RobJ1981's behavior here concerns me. He also has a long block log. I doubt warning again will do any good, they don't seem to have affected him before. I request input from <link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User:Lupin/navpop.css&action=raw&ctype=text/css&dontcountme=s">others here. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I hesitate to get involved in this, since I know little about the specific interactions between RobJ1981 and LGRdC, though I do have some experience of how frustrating Grand Roi's disingenuous cluelessness can be. However, could you clarify the comment about RobJ's "long block log," Rlevse? I'm not seeing any evidence of that. Deor (talk) 01:02, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

He's certainly not staying away from LGRdC, or from commenting about him: see Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Oops. the block log item was my error, that's what I get for working on more than one thing at a time. My apologies on that. But I do feel there is room for concern here. Even after LGRdC posted this, we have {http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts&diff=prev&oldid=215399344], [34], [35]. This is after he has stated he has to leave. Why the bother? — Rlevse • Talk • 01:15, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

It's hard to avoid an editor that edits many of the same subjects as I do (many of which I've edited quite longer than he has). I shouldn't have to change my editing ways, just to avoid Le Grand. Personally I feel his attitude is an issue, and others have similar views. See recent deletion debates for examples. I think Le Grand is harassing people in deletion debates, by pushing his views of "I don't like this policy, so I wont follow it" across very strongly. Also, he quotes an editor's essay as something we must follow... but that's far from the truth. The tag at the top of: User:Fresheneesz/Don't Destroy makes it very clear, it's an opinion essay, and not a guideline for Wikipedia itself. Also, I wasn't informed of this discussion on my talk page. Isn't it good faith to notify a user about a discussion about them? I agree with Rlevse, why the bother for this section at all? I see this as a bad-faith discussion, that's just an attempt to tattle on me for my views that don't agree with his. RobJ1981 (talk) 01:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

No one has the "right" to do anything. I withdrew from both Wikiproject Professional Wrestling AND Wikiproject Videogames of my own volition as per the RfC, even though I strongly disagreed with Ncmvocalist's finding. I'm also going to note that a big part of what made me drag Rob infront of an RfC was the continual accusations of bad-faith and bogus assertion of negative motives (i.e. "an attempt to tattle"). This is bad faith in itself, and moreso, it's extremely obnoxious. The correct thing for Rob to have done would have been to utterly and fastidiously ignore Le Grande Roi, as I have done to Rob prior to this post. McJeff (talk) 01:38, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The assertion regarding off-wiki harassment is particularly troubling. I don't know any of the details. Would either of the parties concerned here please clear the air? Durova^Charge! 01:43, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'm going to go out on a limb here. As I said, I know essentially nothing of any previous problems between the two parties, but I have to say that in all the diffs provided by Grand Roi above, I see no evidence of stalking or harassment, just fairly run-of-the-mill disagreement on talk pages. In particular, of the diffs [36], [37], [38] cited to show an attempt "to coordinate an off-wiki attack," the first doesn't mention Grand Roi at all, and the other two are simply requests for support in an RfC. If there is something serious going on off-wiki, I think more evidence of that is needed. And if there is something in the previous history of these two users that makes RobJ's talk-page comments more sinister than they seem, I apologize for my presumptuousness in inserting myself into matters that I clearly don't understand. Deor (talk) 02:00, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't have much of a history to look at here, other than what's been stated already, but I've been involved in the ongoing discussion about suitable content on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines#Weapons..., in which I warned Le Grand that he was stepping over the line with respect to tendentious editing. Numerous editors in that conversation believe he is engaging in active POV pushing and is not willing to play by the rules of consensus-building. We also advised him that, in that particular case, he should take his issues to WT:N, since they have more to do with a core Wikipedia policy than a specific guideline in the VGProj.

Given that, I can see how RobJ could easily tire of dealing with such an editor on a regular basis. As I mentioned in the WQA, I have not seen evidence of Le Grand breaking any civility policies, but I do believe he's testing the limits of multiple editors by hammering home the same point over and over again. I did also read over a conversation between RobJ and Le Grand in Le Grand's talk page, and I saw a bit of sniping between both parties in what could, at best, be called a big misunderstanding. IMO, RobJ was perhaps a little unnecessarily snippy and terse with his remarks, but I don't think anything he did in that particular case qualifies as harassment or Wikistalking. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 02:14, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Update-harassment

I'd have to say I am finding it hard to see this thread as anything other than harassment User_talk:Randomran#What_do_you_think.3F as per this. I am not uninvolved so recuse myself form action. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:59, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, RobJ1981 has done nothing wrong since 2007. In 2007, he failed to assume good faith in a few AFD discusions. Since then, he has issued a few stern disagreements to Le Grand, and has contacted me for a request for comment on Le Grand. I can honestly say that this complaint is frivelous. There has not been any breach of policy or etiquette. I'm sure Le Grand is just looking for a channel to voice his frustration with wikipedia as of late -- which he is entitled to do, but not at the expense of the administrators' valuable time. Randomran (talk) 03:02, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure? Robj1981 was instructed to avoid Le Grand Roi at the end of Rob's conduct RFC, and le Grand Roi provides ample evidence that Rob has failed to do so. Rob hasn't produced any evidence against Roi. More to the point, when an established editor makes a claim of off-wiki harassment the appropriate response do is to hold off from asserting such an extreme label frivolous at least until the parties have had a fair chance to follow up and clarify matters. Durova^Charge! 03:18, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

While I really do just want to depart at this point and my head is so congested it's somewhat hard to concetrate on typing and I hope that whatever happens here is enough that I will be left alone, I might as well clarify a few things. Rob and I were told over and over again that if we participate in the same discussions we are not to comment to or about each other, which he did and I didn't. There is no reason why he can't comment in say the weapons discussion without mentioning me specifically. I did not mention him after all. His comments in the weapons discussion might not seem like much, but they need to be taken in the larger context and have gone on despite administrator warnings for almost a year now. This has gone on since maybe JULY 2007. Now, regarding the weapons discussion, after editors suggested I take it to the notability guideline I did in fact do that as seen here. As far as AfDs go, I outright created a userspace page and asked editors to post feedback on my participation in them as seen at [39] and [40]. I have taken whatever advice editors have given in good faith and if I'm persistent in some discussions it is because I really believe I am arguing in the best interests of our project, I would not waste volunteer time doing so otherwise (after all, I have a family and life outside of Wikipedia), and in all cases I still am civil. If it ever seems that I go back and forth with anyone; well, I couldn't do that if others didn't reply to me as well. Even when editors ridicule me (see [41] and [42]), I still try to find ways to be friendly with them otherwise (see [43]). And if ever I seem flustered, it is in part, because I've had to also contend with guff from various now blocked sock farms (User:AnteaterZot, User:Aipzith, User:PatrickStar LaserPants, User:Noble Sponge, User:Lord Uniscorn, and User:Only Zuul were one such checkuser confirmed group; User:Eyrian, User:JohnEMcClure, User:THX1337, User:Varlak, and User:Graevemoore are another; not to leave out User:Blueanode or User:Dannycali, i.e. one anti-inlcusionist sock farm after another). Rob also says above, "Also, I wasn't informed of this discussion on my talk page. Isn't it good faith to notify a user about a discussion about them?" Funny, I wasn't informed of the Wikiquette alert on my talk page... As far as persistently going after editors, please note that I am not the only editor Rob has done this stuff to at least on wiki: [44] and [45]. Notice JzG warned Rob about Henchman in pretty firm terms only to have Neil have to warn him as well not long after. And as far as trying to get others to go after me, well, that's been going on for months as well (see [46]). Anyway, to get a sense of things, please consider Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Television series considered the greatest ever (2nd nomination). Notice every time I try to get back to the discussion, he kept focusing instead on me and every time I offered something friendly it was just dismissed. I don't mind, as many know, interactions with others, even spirited ones, but there's a difference between a spirited discussion about the article under question and one about each other and about making it about each for months and months and months. I am deeply concerned if not disturbed by this refusal to ignore the many warnings to disengage with me even though I have done so with him and with him and the trying to start up email and IRC chats on me (see [47]), it's really getting out of hand and I am deeply concerned that if it doesn't stop now it will escalate further. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:17, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I have long been an open friend of GRC, though not always a supporter, and therefore I too am going to be up front in admitting my involvement. To me, it does indeed look to be harassment. The diff on RR's talk page [48] & on Robj's corresponding page is indeed coordination of an attack on a contributor. To try to round people up to join in a RfC is the most dangerous sort of canvassing--people join a RfC if they spontaneously agree with the matter at hand. I point out that GRC had done and could not do any harm to the encyclopedia commenting at AfD--if his view is not accepted, as is often the case, & rather frequently with very good reason, it is not accepted. That's what AfD & talk pages are for. That he is persistent is not considered a bad thing around here. Persistence at afd and policy talk pages is how consensus gets changed. I do that also, and so do hundreds of other people, though I think most are a little subtler about it. He doesn't go deleting content, he doesn't modify other peoples talk pages or afd discussions, he doesn't add spam or revert edits, he doesnt single handedly make drastic edits to established policy, he has never to the best of my knowledge insulted anyone, in my opinion, its a valid complaint by GRC, & the simultaneous WQA thread started by RobJ is harrassment, in line with his previous behavior. But I'm not the one to judge it. DGG (talk) 03:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't know enough about the situation in 2007 to be able to form an informed opinion. But I'm guided by two assumptions:

• That the comments that Rob just ignore Le Grand in 2007 were merely suggestions, and thus non-binding. And so Rob ignored these suggestions at his own discretion.
• That there's nothing wrong with asking someone, in good faith, to make an honest comment about another user, which I have done.

If any of my assumptions are wrong, then perhaps an administrator should intervene. Otherwise, this is just a case of two users who have frustrated each other (regardless of who started it). Randomran (talk) 03:37, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you've missed the point. Where a user has explicitly asked not to be talked about, or talked to by another individual - where the individual ignores the request and continues to do so, on more than one occasion, on an ongoing basis, it's harassment. The RFC, the warnings, the discussion were all attempts to avoid administrator intervention - they've clearly failed, so that's why we find ourselves here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:47, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

So basically my first assumption is wrong: that if you ask someone to stop talking to you, the other person is obligated to stop talking to you? Can you show me a policy that supports this? Randomran (talk) 03:52, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, so common sense needs a policy, just for the both of you? "Harassment, repeated annoying and unwanted contacts, repeated personal attacks or making threats stops other editors from enjoying Wikipedia. These and other forms of harassment if not curtailed may cause disruption to the encyclopedia." You can go into other specifics at WP:HARASS. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:02, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Could you assume a little good faith please? It was an honest question. I want to know if harassment is a subjective feeling, or if there are objective criteria for it on wikipedia. There is no "both of us" -- I'm the only one asking. Randomran (talk) 04:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

OK. I say both of you because clearly, he did not understand it either - but I'm not suggesting you're doing the same thing as him. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:16, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Block

This is really getting ridiculous. It doesn't matter what modifications/discussion have taken place, or what warnings have given, R1981 efforts to change have been insufficient. A block is needed, but how long? Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

In my own personal opinion, I would give him a week long block for his harassment of Le Grande Roi, and then another block for each future incident of incivility. I have seen difs where Rob justified his right to be incivil (or in his words, "negative"), and personally do not feel that he will ever change without strict, authoritarian intervention. McJeff (talk) 03:59, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Not sure a week is long enough from what I've read. Let's see. . .

1. months of harassment (almost a year)
2. warned about it several times by multiple editors.
3. ignoring concerns expressed at the RfC.
4. filing a baseless and what appears to be a retaliatory WP:WQA (initial post at 00:43, 28 May 2008 (UTC)) after this was this was already being discussed at ANI (initial post here at 23:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)).
5. Canvassing to recruit for an RfC? Soliciting to co-ordinate off-wiki and out of community scrutiny?

In light of the above, I'd be comfortable with at least a month break -longer if there is consensus to do so. R. Baley (talk) 04:03, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the answer is much simpler. One or both of them should avoid AFD discussions for a while. I don't think there's any proof that they've had any contact anywhere but in these AFD forums. Without any further evidence, I can't say there's any real proof of harassment. I say that as someone who has no friendship or animosity toward either party. But I also say that as someone who is unfamiliar with policy on harassment, and if there is some kind of wikipedia definition for harassment. Randomran (talk) 04:08, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I want to point out 4 things. First: McJeff has wanted me blocked since he started the Request for Comment on me. When a block didn't result due to that, he was upset about the whole RFC process. He's had a personal grudge towards me for a while, so it's pretty obvious he will support a block. Secondly: my post on Judgesurreal777's talk page doesn't mention Le Grand once. I think it's a bit wrong to assume it's instantly about him, just because I didn't want to discuss things on the talk. Third: why is nearly everyone making Le Grand out as an innocent one? There's been a good number of deletion debates I posted at, and then he popped in later. He might've not mentioned my name in the posts, but he certainly shouldn't be posting where I am... if he truely wants to be left alone. Fourth: I was not aware of the ANI post until after Jayjg had posted it in the Wikiquette alerts. As I said before: I wasn't told of the ANI thread on my talk page (before I started the alert on Le Grand). I don't constantly check ANI, so I don't think people should be assuming bad faith about me in that aspect. RobJ1981 (talk) 04:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I didn't "want you blocked", I said that if you refused to quit being tenditious, argumentative, and in your words, "negative", I would seek a block as a last resort. Big difference. McJeff (talk) 04:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I think this is horribly inappropriate considering the duration of the problem. Rob has a months long history of tenditious editing, personal attacks, and harassment of users he disagrees with. Please do not turn a blind eye to what he is doing because you find Le Grande Roi's insistance on dragging out deletion debates irritating. McJeff (talk) 04:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/RobJ1981#Outside_view_by_Ncmvocalist for more information on my issues with McJeff. McJeff was told to avoid me, yet here he is... trying to stir up trouble and encourage a block. RobJ1981 (talk) 04:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Then there is this: [49]. So to make it clear, McJeff agreed to it before... but now doesn't, because he saw this ANI discussion? Very bad faith indeed. RobJ1981 (talk) 05:00, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Please observe yet another kind of incivil behavior Rob engages in - attacking others to deflect criticism.

Ncmvocalist is aware of my participation in this topic, and has not yet requested that I leave. If he does, or if another administrator does, I will. However I feel that, as a person who has filed conduct issues with you in the past, both the RfC and a Wikiquette alert, my participation in this topic is essential. The topic is in regards to YOUR conduct, after all. McJeff (talk) 05:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

No need for McJeff to leave during dispute resolution, in the same way there is no need for you to leave Rob1981 - it was filed by LGR after all. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

For the sake of factual argument, please consider all of the most recent AfDs in which Rob has participated in descendeing order with the most recent on top:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soul series mystical weapons - his first post is a response to me, as is his next post

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Ring of Honor events - notice, how, yes he posted first there, but I do not comment to or about him (please keep in mind that I am also a member of the Wrestling Wikiproject)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Fingerpoke of Doom (2nd nomination) - notice I have not commented in that one

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Mario characters in other media - again, his first post is about me

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Table of Doctor Who characters, monsters, and aliens - again, who comments or suddenly appears to comment on whom here?

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brawl Characters' Final Smashes - he posts to delete (still not seeing any keeps from him) after me and then comments to me

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Characters in Call of Duty - his only comment is again about me

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:AndyJones/Triceratops in popular culture - nominates an article that I was the last person to edit prior to nomination and then reverts me including on article with "in popular culture" in its title on the "in popular culture" wikiproject listing and for which I am member!

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Juggernaut (wrestler) - I am a wrestling fan and yet I stayed out of that one

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Wii games (North America) - I am a member of the video game wikiproject and I stayed out of this (again, not seeing any keeps yet from him)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moon Dog (Dungeons & Dragons) - his only post there was to tag someone as a single-purpose account, but notice that I don't say anything about him; also, please not that the discussion was marred by sock account

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Devil May Cry Demons - again, no comments from me on him and anyone who sees my AfD participation logs know that I participate in just about every list related deletion as there are

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vicious and Delicious - I totally avoided this one, which he nominated and closed as keep

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Celebrity and notable guest appearances in Doctor Who - again, no participation from me in an AfD he nominated for an article that was not deleted

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Goethean/Evolution (philosophy) - yet another I avoided

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Xbox Live Arcade releases by date - I even avoided a video game list!

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oceanic Six - his contribution is yet another comment on me

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jeff Dahl/sandbox/Priestly - no comment from me there

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Super Street Fighter II Turbo HD Remix - I also avoided this one

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Advance Wars COs - I avoided this list, too

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dyna Blade (Kirby) (2nd nomination) - I avoided this one, and as most know I tend to argue in the fictional character AfDs, but Rob was in it, so I stayed out

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NeoGAF (3rd nomination) - another one he nominated that was kept and that I avoided

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Saturday Night Live hosts and musical guests - notice how unlike him, I can participate without commenting on him

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Pit Bulls - yet another I avoided

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Zappernapper/Bulba - still another I avoided

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/K.C. James and Idol Stevens - yet another avoided

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Réplica (band) - yet another I avoided

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Psycho Dad - yet another I avoided

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tony Barrera - yet another I avoided; his edit here wss to revert someone else I think he's had disputes with

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Booty call (slang) - again, I avoided him

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Artakha - first person to post after me

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colin Delaney - another he nominated that I avoided and that was kept

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Stump/Nintendo DS - yet another I avoided

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:A Link to the Past/List of Nintendo DS games - yet another I avoided

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of The Fairly OddParents characters - a list and a character one that I avoided

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional video games - a video game list I avoided

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rasmus Højengaard - another I avoided

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chuut-Riit - his contribution is to comment on me in an AfD in which banned User:AnteaterZot participated

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Turanic Raiders - yet again, he has to comment on me rather than the article

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carlito and Santino Marella - I avoided this one

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ain't That Life (album) - yet another where has to comment on me rather than the article under discussion

And the above is just THIS YEAR alone, i.e. after the edits that caused Chaser to say, "Rob, you are making improper accusations of stalking against editors who are involved in the same recent surge of popular culture deletion discussions....These improper accusations are disruptive. If this continues, I will block you." in October; after DGG said, "just discuss the 'article' at AfD."; and after Casliber asked him to assume good faith and focus on discussing the template. I have listed ALL of RobJ1981's MfD and AfDs since the beginning of January 2008 and after these administrators warnings were made. Please consider carefully what you see above. RobJ1981 accuses me of being an "extreme inclusionist" and yet since that time I have nominated several articles for deletion. Do you see any "keeps" from him above? If I am somehow acting against policy and/or consensus then why were a good deal of the articles he nominated for deletion in fact kept? Notice if nothing else how many AfDs that are exactly the kinds of AfDs people usually see me in, but I deliberately avoided. Notice how in any AfDs in which he commented first, and the incredibly small number of those that there are, how I did not post immediately after him and how I never once commented to or about him, even after he made some remark about me. Again, look at all those instances where for sometimes days in a row his participation in AfDs is focused entirely on commenting on me and me alone disregarding the article under discussion altogether. How much longer can this go on? For what it's worth, he's still apparently interested in turning another against me (see here) and please also note this edit. He says, "There's been a good number of deletion debates I posted at, and then he popped in later. He might've not mentioned my name in the posts, but he certainly shouldn't be posting where I am... if he truely wants to be left alone." You can click on that link to his contribs that focus on Wikipedia edits and not how I hardly pop up at "a good number of deletion debates" in the past few months and by contrast how he does in fact do that to me. Anyway, considering that I participate in large numbers of AfDs, what difference does it make if he happens to post in them so long as I do not comment on or about him? Why if I can avoid commenting on him can he not avoid commenting on me? If it's not hard for me to do, it shouldn't be hard for him. And if I am so wrong, then why were so many of the above kept? If I'm wrong for being an inclusionist, then why does he never argue to keep? I have no problem with him participating the same discussions as me, just not turning the discussion into being about me and not whatever we're supposed to be discussing. And what's with the cryptic "if he truely wants to be left alone"?! Come again? Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 05:36, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. I have neither friendships nor grudges here, and I am judging this debate from an uninformed and neutral position. I feel like I've stepped into a situation with long-standing friendships and equally strong grudges. I've seen evidence that RobJ and Le Grand both like to visit AFDs and have collided a few times -- and I've been in enough AFDs to know that there are even more AFDs where neither of them so much as encountered each other. There's been no stalking and no overt threats. I would need to see further evidence to form a final opinion, as the other participants insist there is more to the history of this dispute. Randomran (talk) 05:14, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

My apologies - I didn't assume bad faith, and if that's how I came across, I sincerely didn't intend that. McJeff (talk) 05:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

One can gather Randomran is neither uninformed or neutral, and was canvassed for RFC support by R1981 - see the bottom of his talk page. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I've had zero relationship or contact with R1981 until that time. Randomran (talk) 05:51, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Notice the times of when I first asked Randomran about a request for comment (and the time when Le Grand made this ANI section); 22:02 for mine, and his was 23:50. Not to assume bad faith here, but I believe he made this as a revenge discussion, just because I asked for Randomran's opinion. Why exactly was Le Grand even reading Ran's talk page in the first place is a question that should get answered. RobJ1981 (talk) 05:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Possibly, but Le Grand has been in contact with others with updates of the situation for a while now - it was what persuaded me to make the future note, where I made it clear that if you continued going against the view of the RFC (any time after I've made the note), then it should be brought here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:45, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I recently watchlisted Randomran's talk page, because I left amessage there. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 05:51, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

To respond to this (since I forgot earlier): And what's with the cryptic "if he truely wants to be left alone"?! It wasn't cryptic, so just stop. My full post (so it's not twisted AGAIN): He might've not mentioned my name in the posts, but he certainly shouldn't be posting where I am... if he truely wants to be left alone.: sounds very clear to me. In my view, I see him as following me (which I did accuse him of in the past, which I was told to stop doing). However, if I need to avoid him, he should be avoiding me at all costs as well. Seeing as how we haven't avoided each other: we are both to blame, not just me. Remember, it takes two people to have a conflict. RobJ1981 (talk) 05:59, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

R. Bailey has suggested block for a month - any other input by admins? Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

No voting on blocks

I removed the "voting" sections that were here. I have no opinion on whether Rob should be blocked, but we do not vote on blocks. Feel free to discuss it, make points why a user should or shouldn't be blocked. But this is not a vote, and as administrators, we don't count heads to see if someone deserves to be blocked. Ral315 (talk) 05:17, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Ral. I was uncomfortable with that format also. Basically I wonder what would be the best solution here: civil persuasion hasn't worked, RFC hasn't worked, and RobJ1981's conduct even at this thread is troubling: personalizing disputes, attributing negative motives to people he disagrees with, tu quoque--I have doubts that a block of X duration would solve that. Are we at risk of losing good editors if the problem behavior doesn't end? I think we are. So here's an idea: a topic ban from AFD plus civility parole, reviewable after 3 months. I once sitebanned le Grand Roi, then welcomed him back and unbanned him myself and later collaborated with him. No hard feelings toward Rob (I hope things end well with this too). Durova^Charge! 05:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd have agreed with you, given my stance on blocks (horrible), but given that he's failed to avoid Le Grand on multiple occasions (after being advised by various editors, admins, an RFC....), it seems likely that a topic ban will be ineffective. Per R. Bailey, I think a block is the only option to begin with; a topic ban and civility parole can follow upon the block expiring, if necessary. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:51, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

That is why I formatted my previous suggestion as I did. Personal feelings about Rob aside, this would be the first time he's been blocked if I'm not mistaken, and I have seen him do good work at wikipedia, so I don't feel a month long would be necessary. Rob's problem is, again, his incivility and his determination to remain uncivil. This is why I proposed a week long block - basically a means of saying "your cooperation is not optional" - and then banning on individual incidents. If he has a block history that I'm not aware of, of course, I think a month long ban would be more appropriate. McJeff (talk) 06:00, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that a topic ban from AFD is probably the best. There's no evidence of substantial contact outside of these AFD discussions. Civility parole and other efforts to monitor people's behavior are also good ideas. I'm not against further penalty, but then someone would have to show me that this problem is not substantially an AFD problem. Randomran (talk) 06:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Since January 1, 2008, RobJ1981 has participated in forty-one (41) AfDs and MfDs (I have probably participated in a hundred or more). In ten (10) of those he commented after me and in all of those instances his comments after me were not about the article under discussion, but about me. I commented after him a whole three (3) times and in one of which was in a discussion concerning an article that he nominated that I was the last person to edit before he nominated it. In NONE of those instances did I ever comment to or about him. But keep in mind, it’s not just AfDs and MfDs. In other discussions in which I commented first, he does not comment to someone else or focus on the comment. Rather, he comments on me or to me (again, notice in all of those discussions, I do NOT comment to or about him): [50], [51], and [52]. Is it really so hard to participate in that discussion, which I started, without mentioning me specifically? I don’t know what if any articles Rob has created or contributed to, but the one for which I made the most edits (over a hundred) happens to concern him greatly: [53]. As far as I can tell he has some kind of extensive dispute over the Smackdown vs. Raw games (which I happen to own by the way) and yet I stayed out of that. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 06:16, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that pretty much confirms my point. One editor participated in 100+ AFDs, another editor participated in 41. Is it any doubt that they bumped into each other ten times? Keep one or both away from AFDs, and you've resolved the majority of the problem. Randomran (talk) 06:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you're thinking in those terms, notice that I never once commented to or about him, but rather focused on the articles in question and even though I have extensive AfD participation, I deliberately avoided nearly forty just because he participated in them. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 06:28, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict)That's not an acceptable solution. If it were we'd just block people regardless of the merits of their comments, simply so there would never be any disagreement. The community really seems to have adopted this attitude about giving up at the first sign of a minor annoyance, and that's not good. -- Ned Scott 06:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

And I'm not saying he didn't do anything wrong here, just that some people are jumping the gun here. -- Ned Scott 06:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, I wouldn't really call 10 AFD comments over one year "harassment". It begins to build a case, but it doesn't really offer anything conclusive. We're really going to need to see more evidence beyond these AFDs. Randomran (talk) 06:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

You're missing that those are AFTER at least three admin warnings for earlier behavior. Those are just SOME of what has happened this year (2008) alone. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 06:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Wait a second here, I don't see anything even close to a consensus that Rob is deserving of something like a topical ban from AfD, let alone a block. Don't go making conclusions on your own here, guys. -- Ned Scott 06:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Ned, it is about nearly a year of on-wiki harassment, ignoring administrator warnings, and coordinating with other editors against me. As indicatd above, it is behavior that while recently has fixated on me, even though I have avoided him as much as possible, he has done with other editors as well and again despite warnings. After nearly a year of this behaior and given that it's happened to others and that he appears to be trying to canvass support against me, how can I not be concerned that this is just not going to stop and has a real possibility of escalating out of control? Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 06:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

As I said before: it takes TWO to have a conflict. Many of the interactions I've had with Le Grand are far from harassment. I disagree with him and state my view on a subject, so in his view: it's instantly 100 percent harassment according to him. Also that Wikiquette alerts comment was far from canvassing. Asking one editor isn't "trying to canvass", so how about stop assuming bad faith, and stop twisting things around to make me look bad. RobJ1981 (talk) 07:40, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposed one month block

The evidence that GRC presents above is compelling. GRC visits XfD to participate in the substantive discussion. Rob visits XfD to stalk GRC. I really can't see any other rational interpretation for the material laid out above.

Long-term wikistalking like this is seriously disruptive behaviour, and we must respond firmly to it. It seems that no-one is willing to stick their neck out and apply a block. Well then, I am. I propose to block Rob for one month, for long-term Wikistalking. I will check back here in about five hours, and unless if I see consensus against this proposal, I will then apply the block. Hesperian 06:43, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed; given the surrounding circumstances and other dispute resolution methods (excepting arbitration) that have been attempted to resolve this dispute, there is no option left but to prevent further damage. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:45, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't see grounds here for a block, and I don't see evidence of wikistalking. LGRdC's listing of Rob's AfD participation above shows the exact opposite: Rob's pattern of AfD participation was not primarily geared towards annoying LGRdC. Apparently, the majority of Rob's actions were on AfDs that LGRdC had not (or not yet) commented on. Rob's AfD behaviour is evidently motivated by a certain opinion about Wikipedia policy, evidently held by him in good faith, just as LGRdC's is motivated by a different opinion likewise held in good faith. If the scope of their interests overlaps so much, there is no way they could reasonably avoid each other, and there is no reason to demand that they should. Both have a wiki-political agenda they follow in these AfDs. That's legitimate. But nobody should engage in such if they can't stand the heat. If LGRdC wishes to systematically promote his (rather controversial) opinion on popular-culture inclusionism in AfDs, he will have to be prepared to systematically meet the same people and the same opposing opinions over and over again. Monitoring another user for problematic behaviour is legitimate. LGRdC wishes to be left alone, but frankly, he has no right to demand that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:24, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Well then let's declare all our agendas then. We know where you stand on pop culture, as well as Ned Scott and RobJ, i.e. on the opposite side (often) to me and Le Roi. Ergo, it is difficult to take any of our opinions on this block. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The above is only part of something that has gone on since July of 2007. Yes, in many of Rob's AfD posts in 2008 they are indeed not in ones I was in; however, in those in which I did participate he ONLY commented on me and not on the article under discussion. By contrast I NEVER commented to or about him in any of those AfDs. We can reasonably avoid each other, because I have been able to avoid commenting about HIM. There is reason to demand that an editor not derail discussions by turning them into being about editors rather than content. There is reason to demand that an editor not try to use any means necessary to target a particular editor despite numerous warnings against doing so. My opinions on popular-culture inclusionism is no more or less controversial than the reverse of that argument and I am totally fine with anyone interested in debating the argument. Monitoring another user and making up lies about him and making hypocritical accusations against him over several months as Rob has done about me is illeigitimate. I have ever right to demand that I not be outright harassed, lied about, belittled, campaigned against via email and in IRC, etc. And the above was just this year's AfDs and AFTER all some of the warnings and those are just the AfDs. It began as simple disagreement in “popular culture” AfDs (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/References to imps in popular culture, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Behemoth in popular culture, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Boy and his Dog films, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs in Guitar Hero II, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Garden of Earthly Delights in popular culture (note: Dannycali was blocked as a JB196 sock), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Los Angeles Police Department in media, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hell in entertainment and other popular culture, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cultural references to Grand Central Terminal, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dark Carnival (ICP), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cultural impact of Star Wars, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grey's Anatomy in popular culture, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NSA in fiction, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fatal highway accidents in the Florida Keys, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional characters with posttraumatic stress disorder, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Hardy Boys Original Titles, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people youngest in their field, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Worms weapons, tools, crates and objects (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of characters in the Destroy All Humans! series, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Seinfeld girlfriends, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shinnok's amulet, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saabs in popular culture, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Parodies on South Park, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Futurama animals (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeb Bush, Jr. (third nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Libby Folfax, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Umbrella Biohazard Countermeasure Service, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of sidekicks (2nd nomination), etc. all in which he posted after me) during which time he also typically left missives on my talk page (see [54], [55], [56], [57], [58], [59], [60], [61], [62], [63], [64], [65], [66], [67], [68], and [69]) to commenting about me in the AfDs (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Avatar: The Last Airbender characters (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Georgia Tech in popular culture (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Television series considered the greatest ever (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Balliol College in fiction, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Veni, Vidi, Vici in popular culture, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional devices in Futurama, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Happy Meal toys (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Mortal Kombat arenas, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Songs from The Legend of Zelda series (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of television programs in The Simpsons, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of minor Star Wars Sith characters (2nd nomination), etc. So, he goes from simply being on the opposite sides of me in AfDs to having to comment to and about me, which I would be fine with it was not in some kind of “note to closing admin” nonsense. Plus, okay, so my arguing to keep a lot somehow makes me bad, but him only arguing to delete is okay? Notice in one of these diffs when I started increasing my delete arguments (he did not say by contrast start arguing to keep), he just dismissed it. So, even when I tried to take his advice, it’s somehow not good enough. But if it was just the above, whatever, but it included taking these disagreements to extreme dishonest assumptions of bad faith wherever he could as a means of gathering support against me or in the hopes of getting me in trouble: [70], [71], [72], [73], [74], [75], [76], [77], [78], [79], [80], [81], [82], [83], [84], etc. And for what it’s worth a large number of those who argued to delete in the various in popular culture debates (Eyrian, Burnrtsauce, Dannycali, et al) turned out to be sock accounts. At the same time that I’ve had to contend with Rob, I’ve also had to contend with various Eyrian and JB196 sock farms, which would be a whole new set of diffs. So, the combination of Rob and these others is just overwhelming me and discouraging me from wanting to volunteer my time to help a project that I’ve long believed in and on which I have by contrast met a larger number of respectable and nice editors. And as for the trying to get other users against me as the above suggests it is neither new on wiki, nor off. I have seen how some of these fixations and disputes have boiled over beyond on wikipedia (heck, even non-admin me has already been mentioned on Wikipedia Review a couple times now) and just given the intensity here and the willingness to coordinate these campaigns against me on and off-wiki as I have tried really hard to avoid the user in question, I just do not want this stuff to go beyond Wikipedia. And you know I have tried to respond to criticism in AfDs and have indeed done as some suggested and offered suggestions on the consensus building talk pages, which have in fact netted some positive results. Please look again to that greatest television AfD talk page how many times I tried some kind of friendly comment to Rob only to be rebuffed over and over. Look at how many AfDs he commented after me in above before and while he tried to claim absurdly that I was stalking him. It’s one thing if people want to make legitimate criticisms and you know, some of his suggestions were valid (for example, I had a number of “per x” keep rationales initially, but I since changed to try to have more extensive reasoning), but to agree with a comment another user made about “feeling sorry for my students”, i.e. a personal insult on my profession (I am a teacher and by the way due to my user page picture, some of my students know who I am here, so how nice when they see such comments and the same goes for my family who knows who I am due to the basset hound images). Since Thursday, I have had a combination of high blood pressure, an intense head cold, etc. and given some of my previous significant general health collapses, editing on something in which someone is just bent to oppose me and to get others to oppose me hardly helps. Again, I appreciate all the many nice editors with whom I have edited and I wish even those who have disagreed with me well, and I am not necessarily saying adieu forever, but I need to step back before someone’s animosity against me grows to a far more concerning level. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 07:49, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Just an observation here, but if the only considerable poor conduct from RobJ1981 is directed towards Le Grand, yet he will shortly be departing Wikipedia, would a block (which would, as always, be undertaken to prevent further be disruption) not be somewhat moot? After all, the departure would function as an equally effective bar for future disruption towards Le Grand.

If RobJ1981's disruptive conduct "spilled out" after Le Grand departed, then certainly, measures to prevent poor conduct would have to be considered, up to and including a block, but since we seem to be speaking hypothetically with regards to that (unless, of course, evidence of poor conduct not directed towards Le Grand has been presented), that is something we would handle as it comes. Anthøny 08:26, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

No opinion on the actual merits of a block, but just on this point, while that would seem to be in line with blocking policy (preventative, not punitive), I really don't like the precedent that if someone harasses to the point where the other departs, they are no longer punished as it is moot. In this case, I would argue WP:IAR over the blocking policy. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Couldn't have said it better myself. This sort of behaviour cannot be condoned. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:37, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I would tend to agree with Ricky81682. While LGRdC has an extreme inclusionist viewpoint which I am opposed to, that does not under any circumstances excuse the wikistalking by RobJ. Stifle (talk) 08:43, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Dear Anthony, I am willing to come back at some point as I am no quitter, although with health and other concerns it is time for a break, but such a potential future return is only if it is clear to me unquestionably that there will be nothing further against me from Rob. That if we ever participate in the same discussions we do not comment about each other (there's plenty of others who can disagree with us in any given discussion), as I have been able to do for months now. That he does not try to garner support from editors against me in IRC and elsewhere. That this persistence against me does not escalate any further. That this animosity against me because I more frequently argue to keep articles (even though I have nominated or argued to delete over two dozens articles this year alone) by someone whom I don't think I have ever seen argue to keep anything and against me from someone who chastises me for not notifying him of this ANI thread yet starts a Wikiquette alert on me without notifying me; that this hypocrisy stops. That he not worry about how I go about discussing with editors in AfDs or elsewhere any further. I created a userspace page on my AfD participation at User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles/Deletion discussions and on the talk page, I invited honest and constructive feedback and advice from editors so that I can improve on my participation there. I even notified two editors about that page in the hopes that they will in fact provide me with advice, but by no means would I limit that offer for suggestions to just them. And those like Durova who have probably known me longest can see an evolution from admittedly just arguing to keep everything in rapid fashion and using the "keep per x" approach to trying to include some policy guideline or shortcut as well to also actively trying to find sources for and improve the articles under question and to more recently trying to approach the AfDs as interactive discussions (which I've noticied some do not seem to take kindly to, i.e. would rather it just be a vote or list of keeps and deletes) to also nominating articles for deletion myself. Moreover, while I have focused my deletes on hoaxes, I have also expanded to include original research (yes, I admit the per nom is a weak argument, however), as well as how to guides. How does Rob react? See here. Now if that came from someone who I've seen argue to keep a fair amount of articles, well, okay, but someone who practically if not never argues to keep is going to scold me and dismiss when I have tried to argue to delete more often? What good is it to change one's editing habits if he's going to still be hypocritically talked down to by someone unwilling to argue to keep articles? While I might not respond to "advice" given to me in a sarcastic manner, I do when it is presented in a friendly and constructive manner. If ever there's been AfD in which I have seemingly gone back and forth with others, well, it's a discussion and notice that I do not call people names or bring them to admin boards unless they turn out (as so many have) to be like socks of JB196 or Eyrian with whom I have also received all kinds of grief in many AfDs and elsewhere. We have thousands of editors, if anyone who is a good faith editor wishes to offer my constructive criticism, I set up a page for that. These constant threats and efforts of his to try to "get me" with Wikiquette alerts, ANI threads, or Requests for Comment defy belief. If my participation here is so horrible as he acts, then what, are all of these editors wrong? I may be firm in my convictions, but those who know me well and long enough know that I can be persuaded to change my stance in AfDs and RfAs when approached in a friendly and respectful manner. This authoritativeness that I have received from Rob is not how one convinces others of anything. In any event, if I can comment in discussions without commenting on him, there is absolutely no good reason given all the warnings he has received why he cannot refrain from commenting on me. This idea that he somehow can't resist commenting about me in AfDs or trying to get others to join him in Request for Comment efforts is mind-boggling. Look again at all forty-one of his AfDs since January that I resisted commenting about him in. It is not that hard and even in those that he said something about me, I resisted replying to his comment. Again, it is not that hard to ignore someone. If after ignoring and avoding him in these various discussions, he still cannot resist trying to garner support from others for a Wikiquette alert or Request for Comment on me or as he did last year multiple ANI threads just because he disagrees with me as an inclusionist, then I don't know what to think and I don't know how far he is willing to let this dispute go unless if firmer action is taken than the various warnings and attempts at mediation over the past several months. You know I could have taken all this that I posted here and just piled on in the Request for Comment against him, but I decided to just limit my particaption there to agreeing with some comments and just acknowledging what was referenced in regards to me. I was even outright asked by the iniator of that Request for Comment if I would start the Request for Comment against him and yet I turned down doing so. One would think I might have jumped on these opportunity, but tempting as it was, I really just did not want to escalate things further and in fact I hoped he would have picked up on that and realized, "You know, Le Grand Roi does not seem to be responding to my posts; he's not piling in the Request for Comment; maybe's it time I just leave him alone." But no such luck.

And to answer your question, no, this behavior, while perhaps having been "most" intense against me, there is evidence that he has done so towards others at various points as well. Please notice these warnings: [85] and [86] regarding one particular user and this request for comment regarding several others (please note that there was an earlier request for comment someone made against him which was deleted prior to the starting of the new one). Please also not that this warning by Chaser, Chaser cited bogus stalking accusations Rob made not just against me but also against at least one other editor and Chaser said a block would follow if it continued. I am trying to get over being sick and so once this discussion runs its course, I do plan to take some kind of break of indeterminate length and in part based on whatever happens here, but I've already received encouraging messages from others asking me to not outright leave and if it is in fact made clear that what has been indicated happened to me and to a lesser scale to others will be dealt with in such a manner that this dispute ends right here and now and any attempt to escalte it further will indeed be dealt with in a firm manner, then after things cool down and I recover, I may indeed return. I just want to be sure that any attempt to reignite this dispute on or off wiki will not be tolerated. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 09:22, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I have re-read the above, and given it a lot of thought. I concede Fut.Perf's point that Rob is not stalking GRC in the sense of following him from page to page in order to harass him. However, it is abundantly clear that Rob has become obsessed with GRC, and is unable or unwilling to control his urge to harass and attack him whenever their paths cross. Rob may well be (is presumably) going to XfD pages for the good faith purpose of D'ing the X, but as soon he encounters GRC there, this purpose is set aside for the sport of demeaning and harrying GRC. I suspect even Rob would agree to a sympathetic version of what I'm saying here: something like "I've had enough of him and will do whatever it takes to see him kicked off the project, or at least make sure that others see him for what he is". That such a campaign of harassment has been allowed to continue for nearly a year is simply unacceptable. In my opinion it is important that this community protect itself against this kind of long-term harassment. Therefore I will block Rob for a month. The stated reason will be harassment rather than wikistalking. Hesperian 11:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I respect your judgment and acknowledge the fact that you probably are more familiar with the case than I am; yet, I do not yet see either a compelling case having been made based on evidence here, nor a clear consensus for the block; I therefore reserve the right to review and, after due scrutiny, possibly overturn the block. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:03, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry FPaS, you are not uninvolved - your strong views at the TV episodes Arbcom case precludes you doing that. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

In fact, I'm so uninvolved that I can hardly even remember ever having heard the name of the editor in question, nor have I ever, to my recollection, participated in any of the disputed AfDs the two opponents have met on. I refuse to accept that my opinion on wikipolitical matters precludes me from taking action here. We all have our opinions, I have mine. I will not refrain from taking action here, if I see fit. Take me to Arbcom if you don't like it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:14, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the wikistalking aspect, he did say "As I know you will probably ignore this, I will be mentioning this in every AFD that has the essay used for keep," i.e. he seems aware that I am indeed avoiding/ignoring him, but outright declares he is in effect watching my edits and will in fact comment on them. What else do you call telling another user you have been asked to avoid multiple times that you plan to comment on his posts? And again, my concern includes discussions like User talk:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles/Archive 7#About Deletion, which starts out as a civil and cordial attempt at understanding between Judgesurreal777 and me, which needlessly is jumped in on to become a critique on me. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 12:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Without knowledge of the rest of the issues, that diff above sounds to me more like he's watching the "What links here" of the essay to see where anyone is employing it. I don't think there are rules against stalking an essay, if that matters. --192.193.245.16 (talk) 14:59, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't usually take on difficult blocks. The reason I stepped up this time was because I perceived a need for this to be handled by someone uninvolved in the political and philosophical issues underlying this dispute. The idea is to have an outcome tainted by neither bias nor even the perception of bias. You haven't overturned yet — you've merely reserved the right to do so — and yet already you stand accused of having a bias in this case. Therefore I agree with Cas that for you to take direct action here would be problematic. I am sure there are plenty of people around who, like me, are uninvolved in the inclusionist/deletionist arm wrestle. Why don't you ask one of them to review? Hesperian 12:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Hesperian makes a good point: if the block is going to be reviewed, it would best be done by someone who--like Hesperian--comes to the subject without even the appearance of a history. This is a longstanding conflict that has been through formal dispute resolution already and could possibly end in arbitration. The best outcome is if the community resolves it with reasonable people on both sides satisfied that the actions and decisions are based upon policies, not politics or personalities. I have the highest respect for Future Perfect's integrity. Yet at a dispute where AGF is already worn and threadbare the best way to repair it is with clean new cloth. Respectfully requesting that one of the other 1500 admins review this one. Durova^Charge! 16:05, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm really appalled that this is all necessary to get Rob blocked. Why are the people that are arguing against a block ignoring all the incidents citing times when Rob was explicitly and directly told to cease certain behaviors by admins and then blatantly ignoring those orders? Why are people treating this as if there were some sort of equivalency between an editor with a year-long history of bad faith, incivility, and disruptions, and an editor who occasionally beats a dead horse in AfD's? Look at Rob's conduct in this very discussion, and don't give Le Grande's post a tl;dr. McJeff (talk) 17:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

You'd better be careful. I'm not yet through reviewing this case, but among the bits and pieces I have seen, there were a few posts from you that really looked a lot more like real harassment than anything I've seen from Rob so far. Clamouring to get your opponent blocked here isn't making you look good. Friendly word of advice. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Per above (Durova, Hesperian, Casliber), I don't think it is appropriate for you as an admin who's semi-involved (i.e. anything but entirely uninvolved) to be the one taking any action on this case. This was why it was brought here, specifically so uninvolved admins took action, rather than through contacting a particular admin who may have been semi-involved and even remotely prejudiced. As for your review, I'm assuming you're meaning recent evidence, not the pre-RFC stuff? If McJeff has followed the RFC recommendation, then there is no problem. It was RobJ1981's clear failure to follow the recommendation (and previous warnings etc.) that led to coming here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, NCMvocalist. I was very worried about a chilling effect from You'd better be careful. McJeff presents his opinion politely and with reasons. Disagree with his logic or bring evidence forward of improper behavior (if he has done any recently), but let's share ideas in an open environment. Durova^Charge! 17:50, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

That effect is one of the reasons I don't like blocks to begin with. Education; clear explanations and warnings from third parties really should suffice ordinarily; but alas, in this case they proved ineffective. Anyway, though I'm going to be away (semiwikibreak/wikibreak) by the time he/she responds, I too was concerned by the 'you'd better be careful' comment, and the reasons that came with it. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying that Rob has done nothing wrong. But on the evidence so far, his wrongs are something other than stalking or obsession. I would agree with Hesperian when he says "Rob is not stalking GRC in the sense of following him from page to page in order to harass him". But I cannot fully agree with the statement that Rob is "unable or unwilling to control his urge to harass and attack him whenever their paths cross", for two reasons.
(1) The first reason is that there are at least a few instances where the two can participate in an AFD without incident. That's in addition to the vast majority of AFDs where one participates and not the other.
(2) The second reason is that where Rob does recognize Le Grand's presence, he does not always engage in a personal attack. A few times he notes that Le Grand is using a non-binding essay. [87] [88] [89]. The worst "attack" that Rob makes on Le Grand is that he's twisting policy, which is rude at worst.
From this evidence, I might be able to conclude that Rob doesn't like Le Grand or at least doesn't like his viewpoint, and that Rob enjoys strongly disagreeing with Le Grand when their paths cross. And this dislike or annoyance has led Rob to be less than civil in AFDs (and people indicate that Rob has had civility problems in the past). Despite efforts to color my position as less than neutral, the evidence points to something other than stalking and harassment if it is examined with neutral eyes. The penalty should be developed in proportion to Rob's incivility in AFDs, but anything more than that would be undue. Randomran (talk) 17:49, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

It's one thing if their paths cross. The point isn't just that Rob gets after Le Grande in AfD's, it's that, after being specifically instructed to leave Le Grande alone, he continues to badger him. A single incident of rudeness may not be that big a deal, but when one user is unceasingly rude, as Rob has been to Le Grande, that becomes a problem. McJeff (talk) 18:15, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you in part, but I take issue with words like "unceasingly" and "badger". What we have is a handfull of rude replies that should be judged on their own faults. Keep in mind that we have just as many neutral replies, and even more times where they basically ignore each other. This is (at worst) rudeness, but not stalking or harassment or badgering. Randomran (talk) 18:26, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure you are "neutral" on this? See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soul series mystical weapons, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Characters in Call of Duty, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brawl Characters' Final Smashes, and Talk:Resident Evil 4#Merger_proposal. Are you sure it's a handulf or merely rude replies? He made scores of posts in AfDs and other discussions (see [90], [91], [92], etc.) after I did and generally in direct response to me and at the same time somehow tried to claim that I and others were stalking him. He didn't simply comment in AfDs, he commented on multiple users' talk pages to and about me, he started various Wikiquette alert and ANI threads on me (all of which went against him), because he didn't like my stance in "in popular culture articles" and when those failed he threatened to start new threads and again went on user talke pages to the point that someone warned him for venue shopping. He dismissed when I made a good faith effort to increase my arguing to delete in AfDs. He has attempted to stir support against me, not just from you, but also from others, in IRC, on talk pages, and by emails. I am a member of the Article Rescue Squadron, and RobJ1981 (as you are not an admin, you may not be able to see all these contribs) has removed my rescue tags to articles! Please see [93], [94], and [95] for examples. These articles are not ones that he nominated for deletion and I limit my use of the rescue tag to maybe one or two articles at most a day and only for articles that I also make an effort to improve. He has been cautioned about this behavior: [96], [97], [98], and [99]. Please also consider Wikipedia talk:Article Rescue Squadron/Archive 3#List of fictional devices in Futurama. Please also see the Category:Articles that have been proposed for deletion but that may concern encyclopedic topics. The category is not exactly flooded and those that I did not myself tag, I also attempted to improve. I am a member of the popular culture wikiproject and he removed my listing of an article there (notice the name of the article): [100] and removes it a second time while assuming bad faith. For his interaction with another member of the project regarding those edits, see User talk:ErgoSum88#Comment. And as far as his comments to me go, see [101]. I gave a few reasons why I thought the article should be saved, but he fixates on one aspect of my remark. And again, I'm not the only one he has made accusations against: [102]. Nor am I the only one he has been asked or warned to leave alone: [103]. He says above, "it takes TWO to have a conflict." And yet as the hundred odd diffs show above, I keep avoiding and ignoring him, while ONLY him keeps commenting to and about me. He says, "Asking one editor isn't 'trying to canvass'," which would maybe be correct if it was again not a pattern going back into the fall when (if you search through enough of the diffs in this thread) he has indicated that he has tried to get a number of others prior to Randomran to start threads on me. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:58, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

RobJ1981 requesting unblock

Just so everyone knows, RobJ1981 is requesting an unblock here. D.M.N. (talk) 19:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure a one month block is appropriate. I don't have enough experience with these kinds of complaints to say if he should be unblocked, but I know that if wiki-stalking is a crime worth a one month block that Rob deserves much much less. Randomran (talk) 20:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec with previous refactor) If anyone has a better solution to Rob's conduct problems than a one month block, I'm all ears. I proposed one alternative above. Durova^Charge! 20:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I was initially in favor of a lesser one-week block followed by civility probation and a very strict decree that he is not to interact with Le Grande in any way, shape or form, unless the two agree to do so via each other's talk pages. McJeff (talk) 20:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

As much as I hate to continue to comment here and especially as much I hated having to post this message also on his talk page, as I really want to just be done with it, months of removing my rescue templates, removing my additions to wikiprojects, trying to merge articles I edited extensively, commenting to or about me in various discussions (not just AfDs) rather than about the article content, making bogus stalking accusations against me and others, venue shopping for suppoort against me at Wikiquette alert, user talk pages, IRC, email, ANI, in what a hundred odd instances is indeed wikiharassment/wikistalking or whatever you want to call it. We are NOT talking about a few random instances. We are NOT just talking about AfDs. We are NOT even just talking about behavior against me. We cannot tolerate this behavior. When I have ignored and avoided him, there is no acceptable or legitimate reason why he cannot do the same. Period. And again, he has done this stuff against others as well as the evidence demonstrates. Anyway, all I want in order for me to stay on Wikipedia is for it be clear that any further escalation by Rob on or off-wiki will not be tolerated:

1. We do not comment to or about each other anywhere on Wikipedia ever again after these discussions here conclude. If he comments to or about me ever again, an admin may block him.

2. Which means we can participate in the same discussions, but NOT immediately after each other and we cannot comment to or about each other in such discussions. Any comments in the same discussions must be on the content of the discussion and cannot have a snide "Le Grand refuses to..."-esque remark included. At the same time, however, we are encouraged to avoid discussions in which the other participated as much as possible, but the key is the discussions remain about the topic at hand and not about each other. And we do not post immediately after each other in them.

3. He does not conspire with other users against me on talk pages, on IRC, or via email. He is in effect forbidden to start Wikiquette alerts, Requests for Comments, and ANI threads about my interactions with other users that do not even involve him. If I do anything questionable, which I have no intention of doing anyway, there are plenty of other admins and editors who can let me know. It is not up to him to be the one to do so. Similarly, if he does get into disputes with others, I will resist from commenting in them, even if say another ANI thread or Request for Comment starts on him. If it does not involve me, I will stay out.

4. He does not nominate articles for deletion that I have either worked on extensively or was the last editor to work on prior to nomination (such as the AndyJonesTriceratops page) nor does he try to have articles merged for which I was a major contributor (such as the Weapons of Resident Evil 4 article that I took photographs for and edited over 100 times). You obviously do not need to worry about inclusionist me trying to have any articles he created (I don't know if he has done so?) deleted or merged. And as even with most that I am interested in, such as the Smackdown vs. Raw ones, I'll continue to stay away from those discussions about the rosters being prose or lists.

5. He does not remove rescue templates I place on articles. Again, if any of them are questionable, leave it to someone else to check. If he does so, he may be blocked.

6. He does not remove listings I place of AfDs in relevant wikiprojects. If I am incorrect, someone else can remove it. If he does so, he may be blocked.

The bottom line is that this dispute not go beyond these discussions today. I am willing to coesist with someone so long as I know that they will not allow whatever dislike they have of me to spiral out of control and in effect distract any further from what should be a civil colloborative venture. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:19, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I see he has acknowledge my suggested solution. But I must say, I'm not sure what to do here, but he somehow has to be told that the only acceptable solution is he ignores me altogether and does not look for possible ways in which he can report me in the manner he describes, just as I will agree not report him for behavior of his that does not affect me. Please see the bottom of User talk:RobJ1981#Punishment for incivility.2C not stalking.2Fharassment. He says, "If I see the rescue tag being overused (again), I will be reporting it to admins." No, someone else can if they think so, which is misleading, because in how many maybe even hundreds of AfDs do I NOT use that template? My use of the template does not involve or concern him. He let's go of this issue. Period. Trying to grasp at scenarios in which he can still comment about me, when I am saying I have no desire to comment about him anywhere (I hope that after today and after I take a few days off, that there will be no more disputed interactions), will not resolve things. After months of this nonsense, it has to be total disengagement. I tried other means of communicating with him peacefully in 2007, over and over, and all of which failed. I could understand if I started posting things about him, which I will not, and he wants to tell admins, but if it does not involve him, he says and does nothing. We need to be able to move on completely without having either one of us possibly lingering over the other in any capacity. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:22, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Blocking for an entire month over this is absurd and needs to be undone. -- Ned Scott 00:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Ned, you are not neutral in this either so comments like this are unhelpful. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Excessive, maybe, but calling it absurd is ludicrous. He has been engaging in this behavior against LGRdC for over a year, engaged in it with many other editors, and has repeatedly ignored administrative requests and orders. When confronted, his attitude is that of two wrongs make a right - see this very topic and how his entire defense consists of attacking other users. He needs to be told, firmly, that this is unacceptable and it will not be tolerated. I hope to God that the block is not overturned. McJeff (talk) 01:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

If the block is to be lifted, I think some other remedy needs to be set in place. What Rob has proposed so far is really more restrictive on Roi than on himself (for example that Roi shouldn't be allowed to edit in any discussion where Rob has already edited, but Rob can still post after Roi). Not enough evidence has been presented regarding Roi to justify a two sided restriction. If Rob agrees to some other solution--perhaps a variant on my proposal above--I think Roi can be trusted not to game it. And if concerns remain and the parties agree, I'll take it upon myself to hold Roi to it. That is, if someone thinks Roi has gamed an agreement they can come to me with specific evidence and I'll work it out, and if I can't then I'll open an ANI thread myself. Durova^Charge! 01:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

The reasons for why he wants his block reviewed show that there'd be no change if the block is lifted - needs to be declined. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Given that there is clearly no consensus for the 1-month block, and the block seriously impedes Rob in making his own side heard, I intend to lift it sometime later today and replace it with a topic ban from AfDs and other related conflict areas. This will be as a purely provisional measure, to run for the next week, i.e. while we figure out what to do in the end. I do not think that a long-term ban from AfDs etc. is legitimate. Both sides in this dispute have strong, legitimate opinions on deletion matters; both have been systematically campaigning for them across multiple AfDs. Both sides are therefore a legitimate target of criticism, which by the nature of the situation will be as systematic as the campaigning itself. If you want to campaign but can't stand being systematically confronted with criticism for that, don't campaign. There is no right to be left alone in such a situation.

What I do think appropriate for Rob would be a mentoring scheme. A mentor could, for instance, have told him that it wasn't a good idea to tag every single instance where Grand Roi was linking to that essay as an AfD argument. That was really a pretty silly thing to do, and the only serious instance that I've seen in his recent behaviour where a harassment charge made some sense. A mentor should be ready to tell both Rob and, if necessary, his opponents to leave any given situation alone, with short blocks or topic bans as a last resort. That should be sufficient.

Personal remark: Some people above have suggested I should recuse myself from admin action for being "involved". Their opinion is appreciated, but I am not and I will not. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

This is still under discussion between Rob and me. I ask you not to intervene. Hesperian 07:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Rob making his own side heard, there's another solution: the transclusion template. We used to use it at CSN and it was recently used at the Betacommand discussion. I'm no coder, but if someone wants to nick it and use it here that'd be fine with me. Basically it allows him to post a statement in his own defense to his user talk page so it appears as a subsection of the sanctions discussion. Durova^Charge! 07:29, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, fair enough, I'll be following the discussion on his talkpage. I can see there's some signs of a problematic attitude on his side that needs being clarified first. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:01, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

To everyone, I appreciate the replies and efforts in regards to this thread that I started and hopefully we will come to something satisfactory soon. I am opinionated as everyone is, but I do invite honest, respectful, and constructive criticism made in good faith and created User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles/Deletion discussions, which has a talk page, on which I hope I can see some good suggestions. The thing is when I look at the criticisms he has made and continues to make against me on his talk page, I just don't know what to think. He takes issue for some reason with my post at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Ring of Honor events. As that userspace page of mine indicates, I typically participate in list dicussions and again as the evidence provided above indicates in the over forty AfDs Rob participated in since January, the Ring of Honor one is one of only three that I posted in after he had posted in it. Notice, I did not post immediately after him, nor did I comment to or about him. Now if he made a post like the one I made there and in the manner that I did in an AfD sometime after I posted, I would not care, but when he posts after me in AfDs, his posts are: [104], [105], [106], [107], [108], p[109], [110], etc. In fact, in the last seven (7) AfDs in which Rob participated, five of them were after me and as indicated above his posts in those were not merely after me but to or about me rather than about the article under discussion. The last MfD Rob participated in was to create the Triceratops in popular culture one from Andy Jones' userspace, which I was the last editor to edit prior to his nomination. So, he says if I really want for him to avoid me I shouldn't comment in the same AfDs, but what I don't get is why I am obviously able to comment in an AfD like that Ring of Honor one without saying a thing to or about him, but in five of the last seven AfDs he was in, his whole effort there is to comment to or about me? What is key is that those comments come after all the disputed history from 2007 and after the more recent Request for Comment on him in which the closer said not to comment to or about each other any further to avoid escalation. I did that, he did not. In fact, he instead tried to recruit someone to help in a Wikiquette alert as a possible precursor to a Request for Comment. He wrote that my linking to an essay titled "User:Fresheneesz/Don't Destroy" in AfDs somehow confuses editors, because of "others that just assume it's policy due to it being listed with a bunch of other policies." The essay has "User:Freseneesz" in it's title. It is obviously not a policy. I just don't see how that confuses people and if it is included in an argument with policies also listed, then hopefully that demonstrates that I am trying to make complex arguments not just based on essays. Plus, participants in AfDs link to user essays all the time (for example, see here and lots of us link to the Arguments to Avoid in Deletion Discussions essay); I don't think it is wrong to link to essays, especially when it's part of a larger argument. He also claims made a claim about the rescue template: "placed on nearly every AFD article you comment". Not only is that totally untrue as my edit history is public and everyone can see that in the overwhelming majority of AfDs I participate in I do not in fact use that template, but when I do it is for articles that I typically actively work myself to improve. Who would want to edit under cirumstances in which someone has already started multiple ANI threads and a Wikiquette alert (in addition to talk page efforts to get support against me from Otto4711 and Randomran, for example, or notices to my adopt a user mentor Chaser) when many of these allegatins against me are significantly inaccurate? Again, this has been going on with varying degrees of intesnity since July of 2007 and given the ignoring of multiple warnings, given the attempts to get support from others against me, this is one instance where the only solution I see is we agree to totally and completely disengage from each other. We can disagree with and take criticisms from other editors beyond this point, but this particular disagreement cannot escalate further. That is what concerns me most that in nearly a year and after multiple administrator comments after my own attempts to agree to disagree or avoid him and after the Request for Comment, he still saw the need to try to compell someone to start an already discredited Wikquette alert, which he said if it didn't go anywhere he would next try a Request for Comment. Why do these things to someone who is trying to avoid you? For as long as this has gone on, it was looking as if it no end was in site and that my time here would just be spent defending myself against him and I don't think I've ever experienced such determination against me before. Thus, because so many previous attempts at resolving things did not seem to work, it has to be we do not reply to each other, we do not talk about each other, we do not start threads about each other's actions that have nothing to with the other, we not revert each other, we do not nominate articles each other created or worked considerably on for deletion or merging, we do not join in on policy discussions and instead of focusing on the policy say unhelpful "Le Grand Roi refuses to believe..." remarks. If it is clear that such disengagement will be enforced, then I hope, once I recover health wise and can edit again regularly, we can move on and help improve this project in our own separate ways. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 08:23, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

RobJ's response [partial talkpage transclustion]

[RobJ's talkpage is partially transcluded below. When comments are made, they will appear here.]

Disruption on Little Green Footballs#Rachel Corrie

This article was recently listed on the Wikiproject Palestine notice board. Since then, users Eleland and Timeshifter have been engaged in general tenditiousness, incivility, and aggressive POV pushing. In addition, Eleland has also broken the 3RR rule.

In regards to Eleland's 3RR issue. His initial edit takes place at 10:07, 23 May 08. First revert at 18:40, 23 May 2008. Second revert at 19:09, 23 May 2008. Third revert at 20:24, 23 May 2008. Fourth revert at 12:29, 24 May 2008. That's 4 reverts in 18 hours. To be quite honest, I miscounted and thought he hadn't broken 3RR right up until I started writing this, which is why I never took it to the 3RR noticeboard.

Eleland's second edit on the Little Green Footballs article included a disruptive, insulting edit summary. [111]

Note from an uninvolved user - the "insult" is "this is nonsense". Kalkin (talk) 18:38, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Is that not an insult, or at the least incivil? McJeff (talk) 20:40, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Eleland presents a highly disputed POV as fact. [112]

The complaint refers to the edit summary, to which I do not believe the NPOV policy applies. The change Eleland makes to the article here is quite the opposite of "presenting a highly disputed POV as fact": Eleland replaces "[Rachel Corrie] expresses the view that Palestinian terrorist tactics are justifiable" to "[Charles Johnson] claims that she praises Palestinian terrorists". Kalkin (talk) 18:38, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Eleland leaves an abusive post on the Wikiproject Palestine noticeboard. [113]

The "abusive" part of the post appears to be, "At this rate we'll have NPOV in only, oh, six months". I haven't yet examined all of McJeff's evidence, but so far the characterizations of Eleland's behavior appear to be a bit tendentious. Kalkin (talk) 18:38, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Eleland makes an insulting post, then later changes it. Twice. [114] [115]

More - Eleland writes a talk page post which contains several clear violations of WP:CIVIL, but then removes them within minutes before anyone else has edited the page. Kalkin (talk) 18:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Another even more disruptive, insulting edit summary, complete with a WP:OWN accusation. [116]

Eleland accuses McJeff of being a "fanboy" and of "crazy spin", probably over the line. Kalkin (talk) 18:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I should note further, though, having reviewed the talk page, that McJeff appears to display a basic misunderstanding of WP:BLP and that Eleland was almost certainly justified in making more than three reversions by the BLP exception to 3RR. McJeff wanted Wikipedia to factually describe Rachel Corrie as a supporter of terrorism, although she does not so describe herself and the only source is Little Green Footballs, which is an extremist blog. Sample of McJeff's talk page argument:

The issue here apparently is that, because Rachel Corrie's diary did not specify attacks on civilians, it should not be claimed that she supported terror. This is entirely inaccurate, and while I'm willing to compromise to an extent as per No Original Research, I am absolutely not willing to budge any further than I already have.

Corrie was part of the International Solidarity Movement, an organization that is emphatically anti-Israel and pro-Palestinian aggression. Whether they explicitly support terrorism is irrelevant, because they simply cannot have their heads so deep in the sand they don't realize that the vast, vast majority of Palestinian attacks are directed at civilians.

McJeff also violates WP:CIVIL in the user's very first post on the talk page, writing that Eleland is "unfit to edit this article". Kalkin (talk) 19:16, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The comment that he was unfit to edit was after a series of posts characterizing LGF as a "unreliable extremist source" (I object to LGF being characterized as extremist, it's anything but), comments on the talk page about "invading foreign troops", and accusations of myself and the other regular editors of the article refusing to follow NPOV. Although it was incivil perhaps, I believe it is suggested (though not required) to refrain from editing an article in which you are so heavily biased against the subject. Additionally, my statement was in response to his incivility and aggression, not to his POV.

As far as me insisting on designating Rachel Corrie as a terrorist, that is technically incorrect. Although that was my initial position, I later agreed that we shouldn't do that, per the fact that until a reputable source backing my POV is found, it is original research. So please do not characterize me as a POV pusher, or as "opposite but equivalent" to the editors I filed this on. I have my opinions, and as you may guess I'm strongly pro-Israel and anti-Palestine, but I understand wikipedia policy on NPOV, which is why I backed down during the debate from my initial position. McJeff (talk) 20:40, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Four quick points: First, I don't see how WP:BLP applies, as Corrie is not a living person. Second, the question of whether the word "terrorism," or any of its variants, should be used has already been resolved, apparently to everyone's satisfaction. Third: the source in question is Corrie's diary, not LGF. Fourth: the characterization of LGF here as an "extremist blog" by Kalkin is curious. (Disclaimer: as can be seen in the relevant sections of the article's talk page, I am an interested party in this disagreement.) HiramShadraski (talk) 20:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Timeshifter attacking another user with threats of banning. Also boundlessly accusing him of being a sockpuppet. [117] [118] [119]

Timeshifter with an inappropriate accusation of vandalism. [120]

Incivil patronizing. [121]

Accusation of wikilawyering. [122]

Accusation of "reversion team". [123]

Also please note the attempts of Timeshifter to push a certain weaselword phrase into the article. [124] [125] [126] (Third link is the same as Timeshifter's inappropriate vandalism accusation).

Both these users have shown an absolute unwillingness to compromise, and a significant level of hostility both to the opposing users, and to the subject matter in general. McJeff (talk) 02:37, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I've been accused of being a sockpuppet, but other than that, I wholeheartedly support McJeff's complaint here. I have asked Timeshifter to not make threats and to edit in a civil maner, but to no avail. I actually wrote up a 3RR report on Eleland's blatant 3RR violaiton above, but decided not to file it becuase I noticed it a day late, and thought the edit war was over. Canadian Monkey (talk) 02:51, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I swear I saw a sockpuppet accusation, but I"ll strikethrough my own until/if I find it. McJeff (talk) 03:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Found it. [127] McJeff (talk) 03:08, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Sock of User:Foxhunt99

Resolved

account blocked Cumulus Clouds (talk) 16:05, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I first reported this sock to the blocking admin in Foxhunt99's SSP case at User_talk:MastCell, but he seems to be away while User:Centrallib has run amock on Serfdom in Tibet and its related AFD. He admits to being the same user on MastCell's talk page (and used the same IP as Foxhunt99 on Serfdom in Tibet), but it hasn't stopped him from trying to shovel his nationalistic POV all over Wikipedia. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 03:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about the delay... just had to eat, sleep, and earn money. :) MastCell ^Talk 16:40, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Effervescenth30 threatening User talk:Wrosew on his talk page

Resolved

 – Both accounts 'sploded HalfShadow 15:18, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[128] HalfShadow 03:47, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Of course, it's probably worth noting that Wrosew looks like a vandalism-only account. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 04:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't make stuff like this okay. HalfShadow 04:52, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Block them both for a week and then investigate. Overt threats like this are grossly against the rules, no matter the circumstances. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:07, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Blocked effervescenth indefinitely. Investigating Wrosew. — Werdna talk 05:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Not inclined to block Wrosew, because the vandalism is not continuing. Apart from anything, it gives us a good place to watch for our friend returning to harrass him. I will be keeping an eye on his talk page. — Werdna talk 05:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Interesting question here, Wrosew made what amounts to a legal threat here [129], but it was in regards to an obvious threat of violence. Does WP:LEGAL apply here in regards to WP:TOV? Dayewalker (talk) 05:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

If I'm reading it correctly, Effervescenth30 was previously a different, and possibly permanently blocked, user. Notice that he posted some barnstars from some apparent previous incarnation, and then blanked them out. What's up with that? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:45, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Both users indefblocked. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 09:53, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:AIV is backlogged again

Resolved

--Steven J. Anderson (talk) 03:55, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks pretty empty to me. — Werdna talk 05:24, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but that was over one and a half hours ago. Lradrama 10:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that was the joke. Qst (talk) 17:53, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Vandal in need of block...(or not?)

I came across edits from this user tonight in the course of reverting one of his vandal edits. 68.191.179.217 (The IP appears to be static, judging from the history.) As I posted the warning, I noticed that a)he'd been recently released after a one-month block; b)he'd been warned several times since his block expired. I went into his contributions list and did a little looking about. The user has made 21 edits since being released on May 19th; of those edits, every single one has been reverted as vandalism. So, says I, let me take this over to AIV. Well, that didn't go too well, so I'm bringing it here, which seems to be the next logical place to take such an issue. Is there anything we can do about this now, or do we have to wait til he starts up again? Gladys J Cortez 07:18, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

While AIV might not have been the proper place for this, it does appear we have a persistent sneaky vandal here. I think another time out might be in order. AniMate 07:36, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Gave him another three month. Next time please use WP:AIV for simple vandalism reports Alex Bakharev (talk) 09:15, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Just a note, but the user did use WP:AIV and Doczilla shot her down. AniMate 09:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of this; Alex, AIV was my first choice, but as AniMate said, the report was declined. Thanks, though! Gladys J Cortez 09:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

AIV is for simple cases where the vandal is vandalising now and quick action is needed. It says so at the top of the page. For sneaky long term vandalism where an admin needs to take time to look at the edit history in detail AIV isn't the best place as it tends to be very fast moving, with multiple reports being added and being removed as they are dealt with. I think here is the best venue to deal with that and think Alex Bakharev's advice wrong in this case. Note that having a report declined there isn't being "shot down" not does it mean that the person isn't a vandal or doesn't needs to be blocked. If the admin thought that they would say so in the edit summary.Theresa Knott | The otter sank 10:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, saying Gladys was "shot down" wasn't any sort of indictment on Doczilla. It was just disagreeing with Alex stating that WP:AIV was the place for this report. AniMate 12:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Vandal: User: Mahaakaal

This user is reversing all cited references and material that I have given in many articles on Indian religious history. I have politely asked for discussions but he refuses to discuss and deletes or misinforms on petty fundamentalist issues/goals and ignores actual historical facts.

I dont know why ALL my references according to this user are deleted? Please can you kindly examine the situation, thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.196.3.2 (talk) 09:20, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Post us some diffs as evidence please. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 09:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Theresa,

Thank you for noting my concerns regarding the above user.

Here is one example: The first complaint is that if you look at his first complaint about me, regarding Nanak the founder of Sikhism, he states repeatedly that Muslims revere Guru Nanak in Punjab. Now 2/3 of Punjab is in the Islamic state of Pakistan, in 1947, India was partitioned where Muslims formed the Islamic State of Pakistan and Sikhs remained in India so by by definition Muslims revere Their Prophet Mohammed as well as Christ, David and Noah, but not Nanak - its simply biased POV to state that they do revere him. I do accept that Sikhs and possibly Hindus revere Nanak since Nanak was born into a Hindu family, but to suggest Muslims revere Nanak in the same fashion or context as Muslims is blatantly biased and false.

There are many attempts by this user to twist original definitions of Deh Siva Var Mohe, Waheguru all the cited references I have provided have been deleted by this user. I have even provided many references from srigranth.org where the user deleted those references, yet they are used in many other wikipedia articles for referencial material.

What we need to see, is a diff where he is actually removing a reference so we can see what you are talking about. Otherwise we are in the dark about what is going on. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 18:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Having said that I looked at the Guru Nanak Dev page and saw that Mahaakaal made two recent edits there. The edits are here where he adds a reference in and here where he reverts someone else's removal of text and a reference. I don't see any evidence of him removing a reference that you added :-( Theresa Knott | The otter sank 18:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

P0lyglut (talk · contribs)

Resolved

 – User warned. MastCell ^Talk 16:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

going about posting links to his own website, notably at human sacrifice presenting some Chinese nationalist's claim as "evidence" that the Dalai Lama endorsed human sacrifice. Since I was recently blocked over 3RR for reverting what I considered WP:SNOW, I do not want to deal with this myself, even though I do think it falls under WP:SNOW, and a block without furhter ado may be in order already based on the stuff on user's talkpage (warning: chances are this user despises you). dab (𒁳) 12:43, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I warned him that if he continues edit-warring to reinsert links to his personal website, his account will be blocked for spamming. If he starts up again and I don't notice, just let me know. MastCell ^Talk 16:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Editor removing CSD tags

I am opening this discussion in order to discuss the actions of User:Jbmurray. In the past several hours he has twice removed CSD tags on Peter Wall, once and twice. I warned Jbmurray twice for this. Reposting directly from WP:CSD

Any editor who is not the creator of a page may remove a speedy tag from it. The creator may not do this. A creator who disagrees with the speedy deletion should instead add [[hangon}} to the page, and explain the rationale on the page's discussion page.

Instead of following this policy of adding HANGON, Jbmurray took the very unusual and highly irregular step of ignoring policy and removed the CSD tag himself, despite being the creator of the article. I believe the community needs to look into this obvious derivation from policy and the actions of Jbmurray. Bstone (talk) 15:32, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I watched this last night on my watchlist. The article was tagged {{inuse}} and there was no justification for the speedy at that time. I was actually removing it, but Jbmurray beat me to it - the article was about a minute old, and I think that the action, whilst against the letter of WP:CSD was within the spirit of improving the encyclopaedia as it is now a featured article candidate. Fritzpoll (talk) 15:38, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) For some reason this editor has a bee in his bonnet about this article. He has, as he reports, repeatedly tried to speedy delete it, and when frustrated in that intent has added a variety of tags, claiming a range of alleged problems,[130] [131] [132] [133] all without a shred of evidence, despite repeated entreaties on his talk page and on the article talk page. In each case, those tags were removed by uninvolved editors.

Most recently, he has sought fit to take the article to AFD, where at present four other editors have immediately responded that it should be speedy kept.

Meanwhile, the article is also a featured article candidate.

I would suggest that if there is any censuring to be done, it is of Bstone, for what is almost becoming a campaign of harrassment. Not that I would have dreamt of taking such a petty matter to AN/I. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 15:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

"Campaign of harassment". Not even close. Bstone (talk) 15:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

You are correct that he shouldn't have removed the csd-tags himself. It appears that you've already given him a pair of templated warnings for that. What administrator intervention do you think is necessary at this point? --Onorem♠Dil 15:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec - I see that things are more complicated than I thought - or simpler, YMMV) My view on speedy criteria is that if anyone contests a speedy tag with a valid reason, the speedy criterion either needs to be revised or the speedy tag was inappropriately applied. Whatever, a deletion discussion has now started. CSDs should be unambiguous. Jbmurray should have trusted any reviewing admin to see that there was enough here to warrant an AfD, and Bstone, I don't quite see what administrator action is needed here. Can't you talk to Jbmurray yourself and discuss things amicably (without using templated warnings)? Carcharoth (talk) 15:43, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Right, Jbm shouldn't have removed them himself that, but Bstone, you added the first tag 2 minutes after creation of the article, and you then added it again while the article was being actively worked on. After you put it back the 2nd time, a non-involved user removed it as totally uncalled for, You then added 2 different tags for notability & 1 for tone & 1 for advert, which were all removed by another uninvolved editor, and then you added some of them them back. When yet another editor removed them, you finally nominated it for AfD. At that AfD there are 6 comments, some keep, some speedy keep. Three of these are eds. who had not previously been involved in the tagging. I see some remarkably persistent opposition to the article on your part. DGG (talk) 15:49, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Jbm shouldn't have removed the tags, but removing a CSD tag from a good article is hardly the worst sin in the world. The repeated tagging, eventually bringing this to AfD and ANI, was pretty darn excessive and not in the Wikipedia spirit of cooperation.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:15, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and closed the AfD - there's no reason to permit this kind of behaviour. WilyD 15:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I notice that he did it twice and yet you warned him three times? Not to mention that the tag was eventually removed by a non-involved editor, which should make this whole debate a moot point. No, the admin shouldn't have removed the tag from his own article, but at the same time, the speedy tag was inapproprate. I mean, you warned him more times than he did it, then tagged it, then after an editor pointed out the tags were inappropriate, you tagged it again, they were removed, so, after it had 36 sources - at least 6 of which are very clearly WP:RS, nominated it for AfD. And then 20 minutes after you nominated it for AfD, you report him to ANI for something he did 17 hours ago and already warned him for more times than he did it. WP:IDHT much? --Smashville^BONK! 16:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I do hope that the Bstone sits quietly and reflects on his/her behaviour in this matter. It doesn't show the kind of fine judgement and common sense that we expect and need from admins, in my view. TONY (talk) 16:32, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I am not, nor do I have any desire to be, an admin. However the actions of the admin in removing the CSD tag- in clear violation of policy- does not reflect well on his status as an admin. Bstone (talk) 16:47, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Nor does continuing to press the issue long after it is over. I mean, he was pretty aware that he wasn't spamming Wikipedia, much less blatantly. No, he shouldn't have removed the tag, but he has been told as such. I mean, when one admin tags an article another admin is writing as "blatant spam" two minutes after they start writing it...and persists at trying to get it deleted, takes it to ANI (when there is no incident)...it's kind of disruptive. --Smashville^BONK! 17:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Another spam article nominated for Featured Article? What's going on with wikipedia? Is there that much of a shortage of good articles? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi. The perfect place for you to comment on this article, is at FAC. I look forward to your thoughts, and your suggestions as to how it might be improved. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 17:51, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not about "improving the article", it's about why wikipedia is allowing promotional articles to be elevated to featured article status. What's up with that? Is wikipedia really that hard up for articles? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:07, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

As per your recommendation, I have posed this question at the FAC page. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:15, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. And I've responded there, seeking further details. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 18:18, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Your definition of spam seems to be rather wide-ranging. You may want to go through the other 90-plus articles in the "Real estate and property developers" category, or the 3,300-plus in the "American businesspeople" category, and compare the writing and sourcing of this article to those we already have. It stands up rather well for itself as a profile of a prominent businessperson in western Canada. Calling it spam cheapens the work put into it by the editors involved. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:50, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

To me, it reads like promotion. And I heard the same spurious argument last week. It's not about the writing quality of the article or the presumed good-faith intentions of the editors, it's about the fact that it's got to do with selling stuff. In other words, spam. Maybe you don't agree. You've got your opinion. And I've got mine. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

If the article can survive AFD, it can be awarded FA status. It has survived an AFD already, so saying that the subject matter is inappropriate is not really accurate. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 19:10, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

If wikipedia no longer cares about its rule prohibiting spam, I suppose you're right. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

As long as it's not featured on the Main Page, it's not a problem for me. But I don't like the term 'featured', it's misrepresentative, 'quality article' would be more appropriate. Cenarium (talk) 00:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I feel WP:IAR could be used here, whether intentionally or not. <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 17:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I've missed something here. I don't understand why there are editors in this discussion saying that he should not have removed the csd tag himself. Has everybody's common sense gone on holiday? If an admin (someone who we trust and knows policy) starts an article and they choose to remove the tag and let you know that they are definitely working on it, don't add the tag back, don't report them to AN/I because they are trying to improve the encyclopedia (you know, that thing we're all here for), and don't tell them off for removing a csd tag. It's pure process wonkery. Bloody hell! </rant> Seraphim♥Whipp 19:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Admins are not above the rules that apply to anybody else. He could have put a hangon tag on the article and explained what was going on on the Talk page, and left it up to another admin to remove the tags or delete it. Conflict of interest applies to any editor, admin or not, and an article's creator has a conflict of interest when it comes to removing CSD tags. Corvus cornix_talk 21:10, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I should clarify, should it not have been clear: the fact that I was an admin had no bearing on my reaction to the CSD tags. I think any editor in my position (and indeed in Bstone's) would have been in an equal position to use his or her common sense. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:20, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the point she's trying to make is "He was clearly working on it, and we trust him - give him a chance". Though it may have been wise to sandbox the article. Sceptre ^(talk) 21:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Jbmurray! I didn't mean to imply that you thought you were above the rules or anything. It's exactly as you said in your second point and as Sceptre put it; we should apply common sense more liberally when it comes to established/long-time users, since they are well aware of the "rules". It seems like process wonkery to say, "You must not remove the tag!" when you made it plainly obvious that you were still working on it. Seraphim♥Whipp 21:55, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

This kind of attitude with speedy tags is so disruptive and harmful, we should make user warnings about that. No wonder why new contributors are 'scared away'. May templates and user warnings rule Wikipedia. Cenarium (talk) 00:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm curious why Bstone thought it acceptable to use templates here, given that User talk:Bstone says that's he'll revert them on sight.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Heh. I find that curious, too, as I noted on his talk page; he's yet to respond. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 22:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Blocked User:Fredrick day heavily editing AfD

This user follows my contributions and frequently intervenes in opposition to my position, has vandalized my Talk page and, as well, the user pages of User:Kmweber. Before he was blocked, he was vandalizing and posting with gross incivility and personal attacks using the IP range of 87.112-87.115, and nearly all his block-evading posts, which are legion, come from that range. It is unusual, for edits identifiable as Fd from style and topic, for there to be any other WP edits at all, ever; occasionally there will be a prior edit apparently unrelated, though it's possible that even these were his (and in a couple of cases that is probable). Routinely, edits from this particular IP range are considered his. See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Fredrick day and the talk page for that SSP report. See also a recent comment by User:Sarcasticidealist on this, in another AfD, at [134].

Fd has currently voted and is making massive comments in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asset voting. I struck out some of these comments (though I could have removed them; at the time, there had been only one comment responding to his edits, pointing out that this was an SPA),[135]. Fd reverted my strikeout.[136]. This calls for administrative attention, which would be appreciated.

The nominator in this last AfD is User:Yellowbeard, some attention should also be given to this account. See Special:Contributions/Yellowbeard and evidence given in [[137]]. That SSP report did not determine sock puppetry because checkuser did not find connection to Nrcprm2026, which was only a reasonable presumption based on area of interest and style. However, the user is an SPA dedicated, immediately from account creation, to filing AfDs on voting systems articles, and the very first target was a non-notable article, properly deleted, of Schentrup method. Clay Shentrup, who certainly created this article, is a notable critic of Instant-runoff voting. Given that Schentrup method was practically a joke, and nobody would have been looking for such an article, that this was the first editing of Yellowbeard leads to a reasonable presumption of political motive. And the AfDs that followed confirm this. Yellowbeard has consistently targeted articles related to the criticism of IRV. Many of these are indeed non-notable, and this is not an attempt to interrupt legitimate AfD process, but I'm stating here that admin attention to Yellowbeard is in order. His filing of this AfD, at this particular time, could be harassment. It's clear he, like Fredrick day, follows my contributions, and I had just mentioned Asset voting in article talk.[138] Look at recent contributions for this account, and his block log. If there are any questions, please ask. (I would not suggest that the AfD be interrupted, the question of notability is legitimate and deserves attention. I'm not attached to outcome, my concern here is process nd its disruption and distortion by sock puppets, SPAs, and harassment.)--Abd (talk) 16:22, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

• So this feeling of persecution justifies off-wiki canvassing? Frederick day, whatever his antics, seems to have legitimate concerns about your use of Wikipedia to promote your pet theories on voting. --Calton | Talk 18:36, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

If Calton thinks that was canvassing, then he'd have a perfect basis for suggesting close examination of my behavior. I'm not promoting the article. I'm quite aware that attracting lots of attention among those uninformed about election methods and their history could result in many delete votes. I certainly don't think that my report here will help the cause of keeping that article. No, I'm posting here because Fredrick day is an abusive sock puppet, and if I needed to establish that he's been harassing me, that would be easy. But what then? Why, he could be blocked! And he doesn't give a fig about being blocked. The additional comment about Yellowbeard is exactly what it appears to be: a suggestion that admin attention is warranted to his long-term behavior. It has little to do with this AfD itself. Fredrick day always finds some way to cast aspersions on his targets, that is exactly his modus operandi, he gets Wikipedians fighting with each other. One thing at a time. This report was filed, first and foremost, because a blocked user is disrupting an AfD. Whether Carlton agrees with Fd or not as to my "use of Wikipedia" is irrelevant. This is a user who has again and again openly defied a block. And it's about time he be formally banned. He has well earned it. --Abd (talk) 20:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Guy, I don't "think" it's off-wiki canvassing. it's what it is, however you attempt to spin it with weasel words: you went outside of Wikipedia for aid in an AFD. The more you wikilawyer and bloviate, the worse it looks. --Calton | Talk 23:59, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

So RfC me. I did not violate WP:CANVASS. There is a certain Alice in Wonderland character among some users: words and guidelines and policies mean whatever they want them to mean. In other words, if Calton thinks what I did was canvassing, why, it's canvassing! However, it was done to improve the project, period. (If what I did was canvassing, if there is consensus on that, the guideline should be revised to make this clear, because it wasn't even fuzzily canvassing. It was neutral, it wasn't spamming talk pages. It could bring some more expert participation into Wikipedia. And since AfDs aren't votes, I fail to see what actual harm it could do.) But if I'm wrong, I'm sure the community will tell me, and I surely would not do it again. This one, though, has implications, so I'd take it up through Dispute Resolution so as to get a clear community decision. While this was email, it wasn't stealth, because I immediately disclosed it. It wasn't private email, it was public; it is quite similar to the announcement I later posted to Wikiproject Voting systems, standard stuff. it was rigorously neutral. I'd be quite prepared to defend this before ArbComm. So, Calton, you are entitled to your opinion, and you can get as uncivil as you like, until someone who cares notices. --Abd (talk) 00:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I did not violate WP:CANVASS. Reality check: in your own words, "I posted a neutral notice to an off-wiki mailing list...": extracting the weasel word "neutral", you went off-wiki in aid of an AFD. You violated the explicit rules regarding against trying to skew an AFD discussion. Obscuring this basic truth under a blizzard of wikilawyering doesn't change the basic truth. --Calton | Talk 02:41, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

My, my. Looks like I might need to explore some areas of Wikipedia process that will be new to me. Neutral is not a weasel-word. It means that I did what I could to avoid any hint of "skewing." Calton, provide some evidence for your claim or shut up. All you have done is to repeat your charge, initially made with no access whatever to the actual alleged canvassing message, and now with no specific reference to it, and with escalating incivility and charges of bad faith. This is AN/I, and there was an incident, abusive sock puppetry by a blocked user. Do you have anything to contribute with respect to that? If you believe I violated WP:CANVASS, by all means, pursue recourse. Otherwise this must be seen as trolling, and, I must remind you, assume good faith is a policy, not a guideline. --Abd (talk) 04:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

AfD process is sensitive. The presence of heavily biased illegitimate edits can warp the process; users vote based on what they see at one time and don't necessarily follow further discussion. A blocked user is attempting to influence an AfD, it was brought here because this *is* a block-evading user, and, before I take matters into my own hands (by removing his contributions or striking them out, which starts to be edit warring), I brought it to the AN/I. Not to debate the article or any other content issue. If I canvassed, that likewise is worthy of attention here, but it might be noted that the only reason anyone here knows about the alleged canvassing is that I disclosed it in the AfD. Had I wished to actually canvass votes in some direction, I'd not have used the mailing list I used! I'd have used the Range Voting list! No, I wasn't canvassing for votes. The mailing list is read by experts in the field, and someone may be familiar with the literature and have evidence to present. Before judging this alleged canvassing notice, wouldn't it be a good idea to read it first? Neutral notices are allowed on-wiki, and I have never seen that comment cannot be solicited from experts off-wiki. It's not going into influence the outcome, in any case, unless the arguments brought in are cogent or the evidence convincing. Yellowbeard succeeded in many of his AfDs, quite simply, because nobody noticed them, and he certainly was not going to do an exhaustive search for reliable sources. (My intention has been, from the beginning, to link to the mail in the AfD, but I'm a little distracted by this, right here.) --Abd (talk) 21:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that Fred Day's activities are, as always, disruptive and problematic, but I don't see how they can be dealt with besides through WP:RBI. No comment on Yellowbeard (talk · contribs) as yet. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:02, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, SI. Yellowbeard is a long-term issue, in my opinion, he is only mildly disruptive compared to Fd, and, as long as he is watched, he can't do much harm. I don't think he wants the account blocked again. So that can certainly go on the back burner. As to Fd, there are two solutions. One is to watch that IP range for disruptive edits and rapidly revert, with an assistance tool. The risk is that, as before, if he knows this is being done, he will look for some apparent BLP violation to fix. But that's fairly simple, just don't do the automatic reversion on BLPs. I would be doing this myself if I had clear community support. Together with the above, when his pattern edits appear (generally close on the heels of an edit of mine, though there may be other activities I'm not aware of, for sure), the IP could be temporarily blocked. I can't do that one, I don't have the buttons on this wiki. My preference with his edits to the AfD today would be simply to remove them. He knows that people will read them if they are merely struck out, and he also knows that people will read the History also, but nothing could be done about that (short of a range block). (I wouldn't strike out comments that have received substantive response. One solution might be to move such to Talk. Certainly such moves are often made for material that really shouldn't be in an AfD. Come to think of it, what a great idea!

Hello? Community of administrators? Any other ideas about how to deal with a determined abusive bock-evader who can reset his IP any time he feels like it, plus he has access to open wireless routers in his neighborhood? I know what I'd do, but it would take a network of support, and we don't have that. RC patrol would be part of this. AN/I has gotten way too hot, it needs to be broken down further, as has happened in the past. I'm going to do a little research, and come back with more ideas, I hope.--Abd (talk) 22:59, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

What in particular is disruptive about my comments at that AFD? all I have done is a) point out that original research is being used and b) explained why original research is being used. Am I blocked - yes. Is my behaviour at that AFD disruptive? I don't see it. You can strike my remarks and you can block this ip but those remarks are clearly 1) in good faith in regards to the AFD 2) do not make any reference at all to other editors and are entirely about the AFD and 3) represents an interpretation of policy that I think many would agree with. So yes I'm blocked but that doesn't mean people can simply lie about my behaviour. While they can be removed on the grounds that I am blocked, they should not be removed on the grounds that they are vandalism - because thet are not. --87.114.153.224 (talk) 00:00, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I could waste hours pointing out how this user has been, over and over, disruptive, and how he poisons discussions. But I won't. What would be the purpose? He's a blocked editor insisting that he can edit just like everyone else. When he was blocked, he said, go ahead and block me, and he said that he could do his work better as an IP editor. It's obvious why. He's not responsible, he can say and do whatever he likes, and he has no account to risk. I do. He just acknowledged, above, that his remarks could be removed. No charge was made that they were vandalism, he's been a vandal elsewhere, he's edit warred in the AfD, and, again, why bother to put together the evidence? He's blocked already! If it was proper to remove his remarks, why did he revert the strikeout and mention of his status, which left them readable and merely called attention to his status as a blocked editor. Anyway, seeing the above as permission, I'm going to remove his remarks. Some of them may go to Talk, if anyone has responded to them. --Abd (talk) 00:36, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I could waste hours... You've certainly wasted hours of everyone else's time with the tiresomely verbose wikilawyering. --Calton | Talk 02:41, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

For the record, Calton, what wikilawyering? What action, specifically, violated [WP:CANVASS] and how? And what is your purpose here? I see that you have been blocked three times for personal attacks, persistent incivility, and taunting of other users.[139] I can understand, now, why. In my opinion, your intervention here was an additional offense. --Abd (talk) 04:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

You are about the last person here who should complain about personal attacks. If you put half the energy you invest in these tl;dr comments of yours into article writing or other productive work not aimed at promoting your pet theory then maybe you wouldn't meet this sort of resistence to your behaviour on that AfD. EconomicsGuy (talk) 05:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

If I've made a personal attack, again, RfC me. I haven't. EconomicsGuy, the only persistent resistance to my behavior in the AfD is from a blocked sock puppet and an SPA who is, in fact, promoting a political agenda, it's obvious to anyone who knows the field. Tell you what, if Yellowbeard doesn't get himself blocked by his behavior here, would you like to be part of DR process over this incident? Talk about wasting time.... --Abd (talk) 12:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

While you were writing this I removed the vote by this banned editor. Standard procedure, let's move forward now. EconomicsGuy (talk) 12:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Meanwhile, as editors bicker, edit warring has begun in the AfD. As I indicated I would do above, I began removing Fd's comments from the AfD. Yellowbeard has now replaced Fd's vote, making this the second AfD that he has double-voted in, plus other comments from Fd that were, at best, redundant to what Yellowbeard was saying. That could also be called "meat puppetry." I have previously restored content edits made by blocked editors, but never controversial ones, and only on my personal responsibility. Methinks Yellowbeard has a very serious axe to grind here, such that he would edit war over a blocked editor's contributions. He's been this way before, he argues very strongly and tendentiously for Delete. It's strange, the AfD could go to delete with no further action on his part, it's beyond me why it would be so important to him. He doesn't even edit Wikipedia except for AfDs (and, then, a few times, to attack other editors; he came out of apparent retirement to canvass oppose votes for my RfA, for which he was blocked. All very silly, really, since I wasn't going to get the bit anyway, I was still too new, too few edits.) --Abd (talk) 12:40, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Guettarda refuses to retract offensive personal attack

User:Guettarda recently claimed that I've "gone so far as to threaten to introduce pro-ID POV into articles that most people admit are pretty good" in an unspecified post at Wikipedia Review. [140] There's two problems with this: 1) I have made no such statement, and 2) Guettarda refuses to retract the claim or prove it.

Since there is no evidence, I'm left with the conclusion that Guettarda's statement was a lie, and responded based on that. [141] [142] [143] Guettarda claims this is a personal attack, but WP:AGF clearly states otherwise. I will not "discuss" something that isn't true, even if it were somehow possible to do so.

Guettarda has thus far only removed the "observation" because it made me more than a little angry, which was "distracting from its purpose." [144] I find the allegation extremely offensive, and do not want it to become a "fact" simply because Guettarda stated it and refused to retract the claim. In fact, Guettarda continues to treat the claim as if it has some truth to it, still without producing any evidence. [145] [146]

I refuse to be unfairly maligned in this way. This behavior is completely inappropriate for any editor, much less an admin. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 16:43, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd have tried discussing this with the subject of this AN/I report (previously WQA), but I'm afraid I already know what he's capable of saying in response to me. Therefore, I think it'd be better if another user discussed it with him. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:02, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Are you talking about me? If so, where have you tried discussing this? As far as I can recall, I have never interacted with you, either on Wikipedia or elsewhere. Guettarda (talk) 18:22, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

See below. Maybe I read too much into it at the time when you left that note for Shoemaker's Holiday. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:28, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Since Guettarda has deleted and struck all of his comments about this, I am mystified as to what you want. --Filll (talk | wpc) 17:40, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I want a retraction. Guettarda is claiming that the supposed statement "undercuts his/her credibility here." [147] Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 17:53, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Nope. That was not what I was saying. Guettarda (talk) 18:02, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Once s/he calms down and starts behaving appropriately, I would be interested in exploring what it was that was wrong with my interpretation of his/her statement, if that's what s/he wants. But, as I said, it's a distraction, nothing more. - how about you start by linking to this alleged statement by Sxeptomaniac so we know exactly what statement you may have misinterpreted. --Random832 (contribs) 18:07, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

In response to a question by Sxeptomaniac, I said what I did to try to explain to him/her why his/her activity at Wikipedia Review is hurts his/her credibility (at least with some editors) over here. Instead of communication, my illustration brought anger and personal attacks* from Sxeptomaniac. So I edited my comment to remove the offending text. If Sxeptomaniac choses to remove his/her personal attacks, I am quite willing to discuss how it is that I mischaracterised what Sxeptomaniac wrote. All I have seen are further personal attacks.*

I removed the comment. Sxeptomaniac has repeated my comment in various places (both here and at WR), when a diff would suffice. Make of that what you will. My comment was a good-faith attempt to reflect what I wrote. Maybe once Sxeptomaniac is willing to have a civil discussion, I will learn what the problem was with interpretation. [*Sxeptomaniac has characterised my comment as a "lie". Calling something a lie is, on the face of it, a personal attack - a lie is an intentional falsehood. Thus, it is a statement about intent, rather than a statement about the action. While I may have misunderstood what Sxeptomaniac meant (I have no way of knowing what s/he meant) it was made in good faith] Guettarda (talk) 18:20, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Gaming the system: "An appeal to policy which does not further the true intent and spirit of the policy is an improper use of that policy." I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that wikilawyering about the implication of using a term like "lie" as opposed to neutral terms like "untruth" isn't the way to go here.PelleSmith (talk) 19:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

You know, this reads like a demand for "satisfaction". Are we talking about pistols at dawn on the hill outside of Wiki-town? But whose dawn? Are we in the same time zone? Different time zones? Oh, this is all so complicated. But I'm sure that, somehow, it furthers the mission of writing an encyclopaedia, right? Guettarda (talk) 18:43, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

This all reads like classic victim bullying by Sxeptomaniac and his pal Ncmvocalist to me. Move along, there's nothing to see here. Odd nature (talk) 18:45, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm awfully tempted to call mark this as resolved, Guettarda already moved on, perhaps Sxeptomaniac should do the same. There is no point in "demanding" an apology just to feel that you "won" an argument. - Caribbean~H.Q. 18:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

For the record, if suggesting Sxeptomaniac bring it here (from the WQA) so that there is more input means I'm his 'pal', then that speaks of your own (poor) judgement, Odd nature. I've had no prior dealings with either editor; the only reason I didn't want to comment either way was so that the dispute was resolved as quickly as possible. (Having seen Guettarda make a certain comment about me to another editor recently, I didn't see there was any point in me discussing it with him; it'd probably compound rather than resolve itself). If there's consensus that it's resolved, then I agree - it should be marked so. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:07, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Towards who is this: "I'm his 'pal', then that speaks of your own (poor) judgement" directed towards? - Caribbean~H.Q. 19:10, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe you missed the target: "then that speaks of your own (poor) judgement, Odd nature." User:Odd nature is an editor. See [148] Cheers.PelleSmith (talk) 19:18, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Cheers PelleSmith - you hit the target. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:28, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Caribbean H.Q., I'm not interested in "winning", but in having my name cleared of a false accusation. Let me give an example, somewhat amplified to hopefully give some idea of where I'm coming from: Suppose I posted a claim that you had admitted to being a child molester in another forum (with no evidence). How would you respond? Then suppose that, instead of retracting the statement as false, I simply blanked that accusation "because you got upset"? Would you find that satisfactory?

I believe Guettarda is attempting to ruin my credibility with a false accusation, so I'm going to do everything I can to stop that. Guettarda could have ended this very quickly with a quick retraction or a link, but has made excuse after excuse for not doing so. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 19:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

That's not an example, that's a hypothetical -- and a deliberately provocative one at that. You're not helping yourself. --Calton | Talk 19:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Calton on this one. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:46, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm really not trying to be provocative. I'm just trying to give people an idea of where I'm coming from. Some people don't seem to understand why I'm not satisfied with the accusation simply being blanked, so I tried to give an example that most people would understand. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 19:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

If we created a Userbox that says "Sxeptomaniac has been certified never to have injected pro-Intelligent Design POV into articles", and link it to this thread, will that solve the problem? --Jaysweet (talk) 19:51, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I suppose at this point I'll have to be satisfied with having taken this as far as I can, in the hope that it will deter others from repeating the lie in the future. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 19:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't you think you've used up your quota of personal attacks by now? I made a good-faith attempt to accurately portray your comment. Had I anticipated your reaction, I might have used some other illustration, or none at all. My only purpose was clear communication. And at that, I failed utterly. Oh well... Guettarda (talk) 20:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd let it go at this point, for my two cents. Guettarda's response about "lie" being a personal attack seemed a bit much under the circumstances, but if he removed the comment that's a retraction in my book, whether anyone wants to characterize it as something else. Mackan79 (talk) 19:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

This puzzles me. Sxeptomaniac wrote:

I believe Guettarda is attempting to ruin my credibility with a false accusation

If he was afraid of his "reputation" being sullied, why is he spreading what I said all over? The statement was up on a low-traffic page for 8.5 hours before I removed it. Since then, he's repeated it at two higher traffic pages (here and WQA; I'd mention another place as well, but then we'd probably see another post go *poof*), when a link to the page history would have done the job just as well. But maybe that's just my lack of understanding of how the world works. Guettarda (talk) 20:16, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Guettarda -- I am not sure it is helpful at this point to speculate on the wisdom of Sxeptomaniac's bringing this to WP:ANI. People have their motives for what they do. Would I have done it? Probably not, but then again I did fly off the handle one time when a vandal account called me a Scientologist for no particular reason -- I mean, it was to the point where I almost asked an admin to remove the edit in question from the page history, until I decided it was better to just leave it be. ha ha ha... Anyway, my point is, people have their reasons for what they do, and those reasons don't always make sense to everyone. Sometimes people's reasons, in retrospect, don't even make sense to themselves, as in my freak-out over being called a Scientologist :D That's just the way it is.

At this point, these are the facts: Guettarda has deleted the comment in question. Sxeptomaniac has acknowledged that he may have to be satisfied with no additional action taken beyond that. At this point, other than making it abundantly clear that you guys don't particularly like each other, what more is there to resolve? --Jaysweet (talk) 20:26, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Here's my reasoning: I expected the accusation to be repeated at some point in the future, so I want to make it abundantly clear it is not true and I won't tolerate such things, since Guettarda refused to retract it. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 20:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to ask again for a link to the alleged statement of Sxeptomaniac saying he would insert ID POV into articles, though I'm guessing it's probably of similar quality to the evidence that Filll and FeloniousMonk produced for their accusations against Moulton. If that's the case, then when faced with a choice between malice or utter incompetence as theories for why you said what you said, he chose not to insult your intelligence. Perhaps an unfortunate choice, since it goes against WP:AGF, but there you go --Random832 (contribs) 20:49, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Right, Sxeptomaniac. So you're not satisfied with a remark being deleted, you want to keep repeating it and calling another user a liar as well as demanding that the user retracts the remark. I'm sure that when you take up issues that an indefinitely blocked user has told you about, you do so in good faith. I'd hope that you take care to disregard the sort of personal attacks that are acceptable on another site, but I'd also hope that you can also accept that views on issues differ in good faith and that someone you describe as behaving like "a foaming-at-the-mouth religious fundamentalist" may actually have a valid point. Now, Guettarda has to accept that his reading of off-wiki remarks may be mistaken and without evidence can't stand. That doesn't make him a liar, and I'd expect you to withdraw that accusation. . . dave souza, talk 20:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Dave I think the issue that Sxeptomaniac and others are having is that there is in fact currently no evidence of any "reading of off-wiki remarks" at all, and none in particular to have been misinterpreted. Sxeptomaniac can be taken to task once Guettarda makes it clear what remark he misread to come to the interpretation he stated. That is the basic amount of evidence needed to, if we assume good faith, say that Sxeptomaniac's remark was uncalled for. Until then how do we know whether or not it was a misinterpretation or actually a conscious lie? Its that simple, and the fact that Guettarda refuses to do so is rather astonishing. Either he's so proud that he is incapable of pointing directly to his mistakes or he's actually trying to wikilawyer himself out of being called a spade. With a solution this simple one wonders what the hold up is.PelleSmith (talk) 21:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

... and slinging around accusations of any kind, whether they be about "lying" or threats to insert POV into entries is a detriment to the project, and while no one likes Wikidrama letting that kind of behavior slide because its just "easier" is not the solution.PelleSmith (talk) 21:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Again, I reiterate: Guettarda has removed the remark in question. Sxeptomaniac has acknowledged that he is unlikely to be successful in getting any further action taken. It is abundantly clear to everyone here that y'all don't like each other. What further action needs to be taken? --Jaysweet (talk) 21:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The same thing every accomplished victim bully expects: leverage over others. Until Sxeptomaniac and his pals Random832, PelleSmith, and Ncmvocalist feel they've sufficiently brow beaten Guettarda into silence and waylaid him at the articles in question, expect them to linger here and raise the ante. That is, until the community's had enough and closes this thread. Odd nature (talk) 21:55, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

That's right we are all buddies, we've just disguised it on Wikipedia, pretending to not have the same interests or communicating so that no one could tell that its true! At what point, Odd nature, do you accept that we're all just members of the "community" using a community forum to voice our concerns?PelleSmith (talk) 22:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Odd Nature, I suggest you read that blog posting you like throwing around. I have not been carrying around hurts to use in unrelated matters as per the article you reference. I have consistently been after one very specific thing: a retraction, and took it as far as I could in my pursuit of that. That said, Jaysweet is right, nothing much else is likely to help, unfortunately. I'm done. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 22:05, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. This entire thing is ludicrous. It is about a possible misreading and/or misinterpretation of a post on another site that might very well have already been removed, and for which we have no record if it ever existed or was removed, by who and when. And even if the reading was correct, it is not some terrible indictment or something with terrible negative connotations; even if true, so what? And in any case, Guettarda struck and deleted all references to it. The only person spreading and repeating this nonsense over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over in a frenzy like some sort of drama queen is Sxeptomaniac. Come on people. Give this a rest. It is nothing.--Filll (talk | wpc) 21:43, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Filll, as you well know some of us like to think that there should be accountability for baseless accusations used in an attempt gain advantage in various disputes. No amount of buttering these accusations up with supposed, "oh I don't even care if he is what I spuriously claimed he is," changes the problem here, and this problem is rather clear from Guettarda's own remarks. 1) He believes that Sxeptomaniac's behavior at Wikipedia Review destroys his credibility on Wikipedia yet 2) he misrepresents (whether consciously or not) this behavior in a way that furthers this claim. I stand by the fact that this type of behavior should not be encouraged, and that Guettarda could easily lay this to rest by obliging the "drama queens," in any number of ways.PelleSmith (talk) 21:50, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

"Accountability for baseless accusations" is not an excuse for making baseless accusations of your own, like those here. Odd nature (talk) 21:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

For your convenience Odd nature, I've linked once again to the pertinent remarks that are not in dispute, unless perchance someone hijacked Guettarda's account. I'll take full accountability for anything I've said, but someone has to say it. Baseless accusations are harmful to our project, and letting everyone off the hook just to diffuse the "drama" isn't the way to go. This supposed "drama" perpetuates itself in the vacuum of responsible action by the community at large. If an uninvolved admin had asked Guettarda to apologize and or to explain his misinterpretation would that have been so evil or hard? Some people are sanctioned from posts at this board in seconds, and it sends a bad message to the community when disputes involving other people just get the "ok move along, enough with the drama" routine.PelleSmith (talk) 22:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I wish I had the energy to reply to some of the blather on this, but I'm tuckered out just reading teh dramaz. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 22:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Why was it requested? Or let me rephrase, what exactly compelled you expend the energy to add that non-comment?PelleSmith (talk) 22:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey, that was really clever. Nonetheless, this is naught but much ado about nothing. If we really want to get technical: saying that someone "lied" absent proof is basically libel, especially when one won't retract it. Hence, Guettarda's NPA comment was correct, yet he just "let it go". The rest can be ascertained from Dave's comments below. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 23:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Baseless remarks should be removed. There is no evidence supporting the accusation of a "lie" and that should be removed, there is no evidence supporting the accusation of announcing an intention to make "pro-ID edits" and that has been removed. Statements made on other forums may seem to some people to discredit the editors making the statements, that's purely a matter of opinion and not one that can be resolved here. . . dave souza, talk 22:46, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Dave, some statements if true, are seen to discredit any editor in the eyes of pretty much any other editor. Being unabashedly pro-ID is one thing, but threatening to disrupt the encyclopedia consciously by willfully inserting a POV into entries is quite another. Feel free to have a look at the recent CAMERA fiasco, where it was pretty clear that simply being pro-Israeli is quite different from consciously disregarding Wikipedia policy and acceptable etiquette. Consciously and vindictively attempting to unbalance entries (which is what Sxeptomaniac was accused of threatening) is likewise clearly against our basic guidelines and policies. Now, I know that you and others understand the distinction and I would appreciate a little recognition of that. This is not a matter of simply calling someone pro-ID, but of claiming that they have threatened to disrupt the encyclopedia. Given the larger context that this is all happening within (Moulton, Wikipedia Review, etc.) one would expect the nature of this accusation to be even more clear.PelleSmith (talk) 23:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

BTW, as I have stated in part already, there is no way to prove whether or not someone has in fact intentionally told a falsehood, and if no admission of such intent is available then clearly there is no way to suggest the likelihood that a lie in fact has been told. On the other hand if we assume good faith, as many are perfectly willing to do, there is at least one way to move on with more certainty that there was not an intended falsehood. If the person who claims not to have lied, but to have misinterpreted something, were to give evidence of this misinterpretation, then assuming good faith, we can accept this as true, and ask that the person claiming the lie to apologize and retract his/her claim. I think this is more than reasonable, not to mention easy and by Sxeptomaniac's own admission would solve the entire issue. He at least claims he'll retract his statement given this type of proof, and many others would undoubtedly sway towards simply believing Guettarda.PelleSmith (talk) 23:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

So what you're saying is that you want "proof" before you'll assume good faith? My feeling is that we should assume good faith all round, and neither assume that Guettarda lied nor that Sxeptomaniac was *threatened* "consciously and vindictively attempting to unbalance entries" which was not something I saw in any remarks made. If we can all back down from such antagonistic positions and accept the sincerity of both editors, I'm sure that there will be a reasonable explanation. . . dave souza, talk 23:38, 28 May 2008 (UTC) Corrected by striking "was" and substituting *threatened*, as PelleSmith notes. . dave souza, talk 09:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

This is the last I'm going to say on this, but I didn't claim that Sxeptomaniac was accused of doing that, but that he was accused of threatening to do so. Cheers.PelleSmith (talk) 00:31, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that correction, I've amended my statement accordingly and hope that conrrectly conveys your meaning. It's still not my reading of the sentence that Sxeptomaniac finds objectionable, and my feeling is that you're overstating its effect, but of course that's individual interpretation and not an absolute. . . dave souza, talk 09:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh Dave. I see you like to apply that subjectivist safety net when obvious meanings don't suit your interests. The appeal to individual interpretation is a non-starter, and a boring diversion from the practical aims of human communication. Keep it up and we'll have to start assuming that we probably don't understand a thing you write.PelleSmith (talk) 13:57, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Going back on my word already, one more thing. I think there is some confusion here as to the dimensions of AGF at play in a matter like this one. Hypothetically, if you claim that I have written a lie and I respond by saying that "the reason I attributed something untrue to you is because I misinterpreted something you wrote," then both you and I have made affirmative claims--you that I lied and I that you produced some piece of writing that could be misinterpreted and that I …so misinterpreted it. The main thing that differentiates these claims, that one is very possibly a personal attack, has no bearing on AGF. A personal attack may be very sincere, however much its choice of words violates civility and acceptable modes of communication. When you retort with "I don't believe that what you say is possible because I have never written anything that could be so interpreted," then whose statement is the outside observer meant to accept based on an "assumption of good faith"? Do we have to assume good faith in Sxeptomaniac's assertion that the original comment was a lie? Do we have to AGF behind Guettarda's explanation? And do we have to AGF in Sxeptomaniac's second assertion that Guettarda's explanation doesn't make sense? It is only Guettarda's explanation that you claim I'm unwilling to AGF in until he gives proof. AGF here, to me, means assuming goof faith all around until there is reason to believe otherwise. When one party is presenting themselves in a transparent manner, personal attack or no personal attack, claiming to have reviewed all his own comments and welcoming others to do the same, and the other person, sitting on the other end of a contradictory claim, closes up entirely and claims, based upon a technicality (NPA), that he no longer has to resolve this contradiction then how are we to AGF? I'll tell you how, AGF means extending the courtesy not to judge Guettarda on what Sxeptomaniac is claiming, but to let Guettarda defend himself. In taking the fifth, we are left with just that, the implication that Guettarda has chosen not to continue in order not to incriminate himself. While this may keep him from incriminating himself it also makes us lose trust in him, and trust is rather important to AGF if it is to function at all. Anyway my point here is that I'm not asking for proof prior to AGF, but simply for proof so that AGF (and trust) can be maintained.PelleSmith (talk) 01:37, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

My feeling is that such hypothesising is an obstacle rather than an aid to mutual understanding, and that all personal attacks should be withdrawn. . . dave souza, talk 09:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

It's highly suspicious that the original accusation was not accompanied with a link at all. You can say now that the post may have been edited and removed, but presumably he saw it at some point, why not have copied the link then? --Random832 (contribs) 23:52, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Guettarda has long withdrawn the comment and said he might have made a mistake. He's already met all the conditions any editor acting in good faith would expect to resolve this matter. Yet the piling on continues and a completely unnecessary drama implying Guettarda had intentionally misrepresented things has sprung up without any meaningful evidence to that effect. It looks less and less like the the aggrieved party and his pals genuinely wanted his greivance resolved and was simply setting the stage to score some point against Guettarda from their past content dispute. Odd nature (talk) 00:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Odd nature has (until now) only made comments in this thread that heighten the drama rather than help quickly resolve whatever issues/misunderstandings/dispute that existed between the complainant and his pal. He's continues to make unsupported accusations that editors are commenting here because of involvement in non-existent content disputes with Guettarda - could someone kindly tell him to either provide evidence, or to stop with the incivility and assumptions of bad faith? Thanks. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

WHAT content dispute? I have never, to my knowledge, edited an article that Guettarda has edited. --Random832 (contribs) 13:46, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

And there are two very important things he has not done: He has not actually apologized, and he has not said just WHAT he was looking at that gave him this extremely negative impression of Sxeptomaniac. --Random832 (contribs) 13:49, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

So seriously. What do you all want? Guettarda has deleted the comment, which essentially amounts to a retraction. It appears some people would like Guettarda to make an official apology, but he has made it very clear that he is unwilling to do so, and I don't see how we can force him. I have never heard of sanctions being taken against an editor because they refused to apologize, and nobody appears to be asking for this. (If you are, please say so explicitly so we can at least discuss the proposal in concrete terms rather than abstract, e.g. say, "If Guettarda doesn't apologize, I think he should be blocked for 3.1415926 hours", or "If Guettarda doesn't post an official retraction on his user page, then we'll all point at him and call his mother fat.") Sxeptomaniac originally seemed to want public confirmation that the alleged accusation was untrue, and if this is really the case then I reiterate my suggestion that we create a UBX that says, "This user is not now, nor has ever been, a pro-ID POV warrior on Wikipedia", and link it to this ANI thread. I mean, if that's really what you want, why not?

But let's have concrete requests. The level of dialogue so far has been fairly poor on both sides, which is made all the more pathetic because it involves longstanding users. At this point, everyone has aired their grievances and I think we are quite clear on that. So from now on, if you don't have a specific request, then keep it to yourself. Agreed? --Jaysweet (talk) 14:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed - specific request: please warn User:Odd nature to stop making assumptions of bad faith and make him retract his unsubstantiated accusations here. He's failed to provide evidence to support his accusations of me (or the other users he mentioned) being previously involved in content disputes with Guettarda, or of being in any way involved with the complainant beyond this incident. The issue is resolved if and when the relevant lines are removed. I want to make it clear - I am uninvolved (in case any future steps of dispute resolution are attempted concerning any of the users here, I don't want any ambiguity when someone refers to this in the archives). Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Apelike on Encyclopedia Dramatica

I have no interest in a real time edit war. Apelike is inserting contentious information in violation of our BLP policy in the article. What he is inserting is, 1) just plain factually wrong, 2) not backed up with the source he has tried to use. This needs admin involvement to stop the continued insertion of BLP material. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

There was no need for that, but oh well :P CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 22:53, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Continuous personal attacks, incivility, talk page harassement

Recently User:Tymek blanked large chunk of the article for no apparent reason with edit summary "keep your POV to yourself" [149], his edition was revereted, but Tymek blanked large section of the article again [150], and again this time calling me vandal in edit summary [151]. He was asked to stop edit warring [152], to which Tymek reacted by copy- pasting this message back to my talk page, adding title "A note to a vandal" [153], I've deleted his "warning" from my talk page, but he continued to insert it back [154], [155]. I've asked him multiple times to ceise personal attacks against me multiple times and follow WP:CIV, WP:NPA, WP:AGF. After beeing "advised" "keep your POV-ish opinions about newspapers to yourself and concentrate on the article you are trying to censor." [156]. I'll reminded Tymek of WP:CIV and WP:NPA rules [157], after being called "extreme left-wing, anti-Polish POV-pusher" [158], I've reminded about civility policies [159], but in response I was called "anti-Polish POV-pusher" again [160]. Recently Tymek was warned that this behaviour unacceptable by uninvolved admin, and was asked to comment content and not contributor [161]. In response Tymek came back with the same slander against me "he deletes sourced information, just because it contradicts his anti-Polish POV" [162]. I really have had it with these continuous ad hominem remarks from user who simply does not want me to "spend my time writing any articles, as their quality is very dubious and biased" [163]. Ending my report I must stress that the issue is not the content blanking, which might have happened by mistake, despite beeing disruptive, but continuous ad hominem remarks, which deffinetly did not happen by mistake, and which are continued after warning from admin with user not showing any remorse or intention to stop it. M0RD00R (talk) 19:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Just a quick note: The first several diffs where Tymek blanked a large amount of content appears to have been an error. I believe he and M0RD00R were arguing over the characterization of a particular organization as "extreme left-wing," and Tymek accidentally blanked half the article and (carelessly) continued to use the revert tools to undo M0RD00R's undo. This was a major snafu on Tymek's part, and I hope he has acknowledge this mistake somewhere -- but those diffs do not seem to require administrator action at this time.

I have not yet looked at the remaining diffs yet, checking those now... --Jaysweet (talk) 19:15, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Moving along.. Tymek did in fact repeatedly restore warnings that M0RD00R had removed from his page, which contradicts WP:DRC and WP:UT. However, that is a common mistake and he was appropriately warned about it this morning, and I see no evidence he has done so since then. --Jaysweet (talk) 19:20, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

This edit by M0RD00R Tymek is a major WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA violation. Absolutely unacceptable.

Here also spectacularly fails to WP:AGF in this edit.

Regarding the actual edit warring, it is hard to tell who is at fault, but I notice that most of the edit-warring between these two involves Tymek adding unflattering adjectives (such as "extreme left-wing") and M0RD00R removing them. That's not a good sign... --Jaysweet (talk) 19:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

You mean edits by Tymek because these diffs are [164] [165] Tymeks edits, or maybe You've had something else on Your mind? M0RD00R (talk) 19:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Of course, yes, that's what I meant to type, my apologies. I fixed my earlier comment. I think I was thinking "Tymek edits pointed out by M0RD00R", but that's not what I typed. ha ha ha, sorry, my fault. --Jaysweet (talk) 19:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Stuff happens. LOL. M0RD00R (talk) 19:43, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Blanking large amounts of an article was a mistake (stuff happens), I apologize, I was not even aware of it until today, see my contributions to check my hard work for the Wikipedia project. User Mordoor has been removing referenced information on various occasions, sometimes calling it vandalism (sic!), sometimes claiming that sources are not valid, sometimes without giving reasons at all. Since large part of his work is aimed at presenting Poland in bad light, I have called him anti-Polish POV pusher, for which I apologize if he is not one. However, when you see a person repeatedly adding biased info on Poland-related articles, or for no apparent reasons removing information that presents a different side of the described information, there is only one thing that comes to my mind. And forgive me, but I did not know that issuing an edit war warning was a personal attack on user Mordoor. Tymek (talk) 19:52, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I really don't know what to make out of this statement, when regrets and slander such as "Since large part of his work is aimed at presenting Poland in bad light" are going hand in hand. M0RD00R (talk) 19:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Tymek -- the personal attacks that I am concerned about have nothing to do with the "edit war warning," it was referring to M0RD00R as "extreme left wing", making offhanded and dismissive remarks about an "article he is trying to censor," and things such as this.

I took a look at your comments on User talk:Scarian, and I do not see evidence of M0RD00R engaged in inappropriate edit wars. Is there something I missed? --Jaysweet (talk) 20:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, if he finds extreme left wing offensive, I apologize. As for the article he was trying to censor, there is nothing I should apologize for. He was trying to suppress/delete information from an article just because he did not like it. This is called censorship, simple as that. My attacks, and the adjective continuous is a gross exaggeration, are just effect of his biased editing. Talk page harassment? Sorry for that, I always thought that warnings should be kept on user's talk page, Scarian informed me they can be deleted, so now it is fine. Tymek (talk) 22:14, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Both users have crossed the line (M0RD00R for example assumed bad faith and accused Tymek of vandalism here). Both are however valuable contributors who for the most part contribute constructive content to Wikipedia. Based on my years of experience with both users, I have to agree with Tymek that M0RD00R is certainly biased and non-neutral when it comes to Poland-related subjects, but he did not need to address that in such a strong way on his talk page (whether he was baited into it by M0RD00R other recent edits is another matter). In any case, I'd caution M0RD00R to pay attention to WP:NPOV and WP:AGF, and Tymek to pay attention to WP:CIV and WP:NPA and - since he did apologize for excessive language - close the thread.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:24, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Most recent Tymek edit shows that he is still not ready to comply with WP:NPA and WP:CIV. Non-apology apology filled with offensive ad hominem remarks and further accusations that I was "trying to censor the article just because I did not like it"[166], while I clearly sateted my WP:RS releated concerns on relevant talk page is not the way to go. This must stop. Can I be spared further inslults at least at this board? M0RD00R (talk) 22:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Assuming some good faith would go a long way towards improving your relations with many other editors. And WP:IDONTLIKEIT is a valid concern, and your editing pattern is not a perfect mirror of neutrality, I am afraid. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Piotrus, I have no personal beef with any Wiki editor, I'm not holding anyone my personal enemy. In some cases for example when I'm called "fucking pig", I choose to limit my contacts with those editors on talk pages to the minimum and I don't see anything what I could do to iprove my relations with editors like that. But let's not go off-topic, do no start content disputes here. I simple do not wish to be called "censor" and other names time and time again. Is it too much to ask? M0RD00R (talk) 00:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

It's a reasonable request, and I don't believe Tymek will repeat such words again. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

The request is reasonable, and I will not repeat such words again. Tymek (talk) 01:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Roleplay online

Resolved

 – Dcholtx blocked, unblocked after agreeing not to make legal threats

There is an ongoing edit war and content dispute here, in which a user is demanding "official contact" from Wikipedia and threatening litigation. S/he is also publishing his/her email address in edit summaries. If an admin isn't already on the case, I think someone should take a look. -- Karenjc 19:26, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The editor has been warned about edit warring and, more importantly, about the legal threat, by user Ward3001. He/she appears to have stopped for now. The behavior in question is 100% unacceptable, and if it continues an indef block is warranted. --Jaysweet (talk) 19:36, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked User:Dcholtx for the legal threat. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I need help with the email I have received from User:Dcholtx, who is carrying on with his legal threats (and seems to think the editors he was reverting at Roleplay online are Roleplay online employees). Gwen Gale (talk) 20:55, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Naw it's ok, never dealt with one of these before, is all. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Look at this edit summary. I've been in contact with the editor by email and he has agreed not to make any more legal threats, I'm about to unblock him. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:50, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Webmaster doing Wikipedia no favors

I was blocked for being a "sock" and there was a link to a "checkuser". At that link, there is no checkuser information showing that I am a "sock".

Everything I have written is completely reasonable and not disruptive. Even if there was a checkuser review, everyone who has a password to the computer here is properly vetted and are bonded employees. Furthermore, all internet traffic is monitored.

Therefore, the conclusion is that the Wikipedia Webmaster is doing Wikipedia a dis-service by blocking people. You should also note that a search engine review of Wikipedia shows that quite a few distinguished people do not think highly of Wikipedia.

In the future, webmasters should be careful not to do careless things as it reflects poorly on Wikipedia. I have much knowledge but if you don't Wikipedia to have it, I will not insist on writing it for you. Goodbye. (a public service annoucement from the Wikipedia audience). DWISME (talk) 20:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I see that some complaints are marked "resolved". This complaint is not resolved but should be a friendly reminder to the webmaster as the problem continues. DWISME (talk) 20:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Huh? Bearian (talk) 20:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

It is completely impossible for anyone to investigate this unless you give us the username that was blocked. And note there is not such thing as a "webmaster" here. --Hut 8.5 20:38, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, technically, nobody "owns" Wikipedia. Jimbo Wales started it, but it's now run by the Wikimedia Foundation. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 20:49, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I blocked this account and directed them to post an unblock request on their blocked account's talk page.[167][168] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vassyana (talk • contribs)

While this would normally be a reasonable question from a confused new editor, the above editor was originally Doctor Wikipedian (talk · contribs), who is now blocked as a sock of the banned editor, Dereks1x (talk · contribs). Check the contribs for more info - Alison ^❤ 20:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I've protected the talk page. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 21:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Kulikovsky's illegitimate edits on Vladimir Putin article

This is to bring to the administrators notice that the user kulikvsky continues to violate wikipedia rules by deleting well sourced material and statements in the article on Vladimir Putin.

This has already happened several times. He edits are biased because while he continues to retain material and references related to recent political figures connected to Putin and continues to retain criticism by a questionable yeltsin era shock-therapist Boris Nemtsov, he purposefully deletes all my edits and references related to Yeltsin era oligarchs who are listed in forbes list of billionaires.

Infact, this user does not delete the other names such as Yakunin, Chemezov, which are not even listed in the billionaire list.

I request a block on this user for the consistent bias with which he adds and deletes the edits, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Samstayton (talk • contribs) 20:36, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Other editors, such as User:Ender78, also undid your edits. A cursory look at the edit history of that article shows there's no consensus for your edits. Anyway, this is a content dispute. Sort it out on the talk page with the editors that dispute your edits. Don't come running here to ask for blocks of people you disagree with.--Atlan (talk) 20:46, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Content Dispute on Delta Sigma Theta

Content dispute on Delta Sigma Theta to decipher whether or not DST is a service or social fraternity. As a result one user and an IP have broken 3RR. miranda 21:02, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, well warn them then and if they revert again, report them to WP:AN/3RR. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:07, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Nah, you "admins" warn them. I am busy improving content. miranda 21:10, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

No need for the bad attitude Miranda. I'll sort it out then. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:15, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Previous comment wasn't "bad attitude". I have had seen far worse conduct from others (including administrators) on Wikipedia, and you are calling my comment coming from a bad attitude? Well, thanks for blocking the IP then. miranda 21:22, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks like Ryan's blocked both 207.189.99.134 (talk · contribs) and Justinm1978 (talk · contribs) for 24 hours. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:47, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Twinkle abuse by User:ILoveFran

ILoveFran (talk · contribs) appears to be abusing Twinkle. They tagged an inoffensive article about a government official for speedy deletion as an attack page, then an ugly but inoffensive user page for speedy deletion as vandalism, and then tagged an inoffensive article about a racing driver for speedy deletion as an attack page (even though it was already incorrectly tagged for speedy deletion as nonsense). Following my warning about abusing Twinkle, they reverted another user's page back 22 edits. The history of that page, User:Samsunge100, is pretty interesting in itself...

ILoveFran also seems to have made a habit out of using Twinkle to warn users for vandalism despite not being the one to revert their changes. Can someone please take a look at this? Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:40, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the last point, that's happened to me a lot using Twinkle as well. I click "Rollback", but somebody else beat me to it. Twinkle goes on its merry way and pops up the User talk page regardless of the earlier edit conflict. I hit "Warn", and by the time I get back to my watchlist, I find that somebody else did the rollback but I did the warning. heh, oops.

I think the user is acting in good faith, but is using the tools clumsily. I will try to engage them on the user page. --Jaysweet (talk) 21:45, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

It seems unlikely that the situation you describe is happening to this user so consistently, but I assume it is possible. Reverting another user's edits on their own user page as vandalism is harder to explain. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:52, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Call me exceedingly suspicious (and maybe I've spent too much time over at WP:SSP), but there's something slightly strange going on between ILoveFran and User:Kivar2. Have a look at their contributions side by side. There's also something slightly strange about the fact that the account is created, makes two edits, then comes back a few days later when it's autoconfirmed to kick off with the Twinkle edits... _GB^T/C 21:53, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

In any event, there are just too many mis-directed twinkle edits in his/her history (including 4 edits warning the wrong user about the creation of an inappropriate article here) - they clearly don't understand the policies they are trying to enforce... _GB^T/C 21:59, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Hate to say this, but they have Twinkle installed through gadgets, so we can't remove Twinkle from the monobook and protect it. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 02:43, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

The user stopped as soon as they were warned, placed on apology on my Talk page, and got someone to adopt them. If the disruptive behavior resumes, we can re-open the thread, but for now I am going to assume good faith, and that it really was just clumsy use of the tools, and mark this as resolved. --Jaysweet (talk) 13:13, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

User:ILoveFran just gave someone a level 3 warning for removing speedy deletion tags, which doesn't appear to have happened. No offense intended to the user who adopted them, but ILoveFran probably requires a hands-on approach (see User:Bjaco18, their other adoptee). I also note that ILoveFran apologised, but answered none of your questions. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up, looking into it now... --Jaysweet (talk) 13:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely correct. I have told the user that they really ought to stop using the tools if they are having so many troubles, and that any further abuse could result in a block, just to prevent disruption to the project. I am now teetering on the edge of losing good faith. --Jaysweet (talk) 13:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

My(?) edit to Edie Britt

Resolved

 – User accidentally edited older version of the page

I don;t know if this is the correct place to report this. According to article history. I made this edit. I am completely sure that I just removed only 2 lines that were speculations. I certainly didn't make massive changes to the article. had some problems in the past with my mouse and I deleted some paragraphs twice from other articles by accident. But this case differs, they are changes that I haven't made. (Still the edit summary its mine!). Does anyone have a logic explanation? -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The change in the interwiki at the end, make me believe that a bot is involved. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:47, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

No, um, it looks like it was you. But it's okay! Everyone makes mistakes :-). CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 21:55, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

My English is not that good to change "invites him to his house" with "invites him into his house" and moreover I wouldn't have changed the interwiki order! The previous edit was 2 minutes ago. It looks like I read and corrected the whole article in 2 minutes. Is there any possibility that I submitted my edit and the very same moment with someone else and the software got confused? -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:02, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you inadvertantly edited an older version of the article? Iblardi (talk) 22:18, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I did some research and that makes sense. Sorry but I got a little stressed because I did a mistake in the same article for a second time. Thanks. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:24, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome, glad you got it solved. Iblardi (talk) 22:45, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Mantanmoreland and Bassettcat

• Bassettcat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - for editing history.
• Mantanmoreland (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Technical and behavioral information indicate a very great possibility that User:Bassettcat is an abusive sock-puppet or otherwise editing in breach of both puppetry policy and most of the remedies of the case Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Mantanmoreland. Specifically:

• Remedy 1 - "Any current or future editor who, after this decision is announced, makes substantial edits to Naked short selling, Overstock.com, Patrick M. Byrne, Gary Weiss, or closely related pages or discussions on any page is directed: (A) To edit on these from only a single user account, which shall be the user's sole or main account; ... (C) To edit in accordance with all Wikipedia policies ... (D) To disclose on the relevant talk pages any circumstances ... that constitute or may reasonably be perceived as constituting a conflict of interest with respect to that page."

• Remedy 4 - "Mantanmoreland, under any current or future account, is banned from editing articles related to Gary Weiss, Patrick Byrne, Overstock.com, Naked Short Selling, and other mainspace articles in the area of dispute, broadly construed."

• Remedy 5 - "Mantanmoreland is directed to edit Wikipedia from only a single user account"

On May 14 2008, Bassettcat edited from his normal IP range at both 00:12 and 00:15, followed by an edit made on a second IP in a different city at 00:18, and then an edit at his normal dialup IP at 00:21. The second IP, located an estimated 500 - 1000 miles away, was a dsl connection, and almost beyond doubt, Mantanmoreland's (the same /25 block for those who understand IPs: ww.xx.yy.19 for Mantanmoreland, vs. ww.xx.yy.88 for Bassetcat). This is likely to show two things - when Bassetcat has access to a dsl connection in one city, he prefers to avoid using it and to instead edit via dialup using a connection that locates to around 500 - 1000 miles away, and that the dsl connection Bassetcat avoids editing through is almost certainly the connection of a user with past likely sock-puppetry, and an Arbcom ban on editing the articles that Bassettcat almost exclusively seeks to edit.

This is in addition to strong prior behavioral evidence that had alerted a number of users to the connection as well. Bassettcat's contributions were already suspect (see results of UserCompare, and Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Mantanmoreland). The question of "framing" was considered but technical evidence suggests it is both unlikely, and would have required a significant degree of telepathy. Other potential explanations such as "visiting on business" or "not my dsl" were considered but evaluated as being rather less likely, given the case evidence and its back-history.

Based on these findings I have blocked Bassettcat as a sockpuppet, and blocked Mantanmoreland for 2 weeks for breach of sock-puppetry policy and of the remedies of this case. Due to the gross egregious nature of this activity, I was tempted to block for considerably longer (some will surely feel a site ban is to be expected and wonder why not given) but feel that in fact this plus the sock being blocked, is sufficient, this time at least. Do not repeat after the block ends, and final warning on all egregious abuse or evasion issues of these kinds.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 21:51, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Would this more properly belong on WP:AE? In any case thanks for the research and diligence. Despite having called for a site ban before, I support 2 weeks, this time, in the hope that the message sinks in. But next time, if there is one, it would be time to go to indef, or at least something considerably longer. ++Lar: t/c 22:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, at the risk of saying I told you so, guess what? Told ya so. And yes, I'm wondering why a site ban is not immediately affected. However, I will bring this up with FT privately, based on previous conversations we had. SirFozzie (talk) 22:40, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

• Propose siteban. Enough is enough. This user's abuse of the socking policy has been incredibly disruptive and divisive. Durova^Charge! 23:15, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I've explained to Fozzie. The two second nutshell version is something like this: As with real-world offences, people who make it all the way to comunity bans or arbitration for warring and POV pushing, have a high recidivism rate. Even so we give them their chances, rather than prejudge it. It's generally low risk, since the scope for acting up after unban or arbitration is very curtailed (Mantanmoreland lasted 2 years until RFAR; Bassettcat lasted 8 weeks.) If the problem recurs, it's usually quick and easy to deal with, unlike first time round where a year's history, confusion and 'smoke' often needs untangling.

As Durova says, it has (past tense) been disruptive. Notice this time, it was very easily handled. Most of the serious ripples in high profile RFAR cases come from a number of bystanders and onlookers who have to put their loud views in (or egg others on to do so) - in different directions. Mantanmoreland himself as an editor, was trivially easy to deal with once at arbitration.

(And on a side, the tendency by some to dramatize, and to stridently call or demand things in loud voices (no specific finger-pointing intended), is almost always more disruptive in high profile cases than the party themselves. Not doing so, would often help, but on wiki as in the tangible world, there'll always be some people for whom it's difficult. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 23:40, 28 May 2008 (UTC))

• If I may say so respectfully, there's a forking flowchart for sockpuppeteers: either they decide to stop, own up to the mistake, and reform--or else they admit nothing and set about making their next attempt at socking harder to spot. The latter course causes a substantial drain on volunteer energies even in the absence of drama (and there was no shortage of drama here, substantially of this own user's making). If he showed any outward sign of remorse then your solution would be wise and circumspect. But he doesn't. This time was relatively easy to catch, yet the way he responded the last time, and the time before that, and the time before that too--gives reasonable people every reason to suppose that at this moment he is parsing the things he did that led to this sock's uncovering, and planning improvements to mask his next persona. AGF is not a suicide pact. Durova^Charge! 23:53, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

• (sigh). Agree. Enough is indeed enough. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:31, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

This news, and other recent events, in my view raise very serious concerns about the competency of our arbitration committee. I think it's becoming clear that the system we've got in place is failing currently - it's simply not fit for purpose. I actually concur with Lar on this matter (and would be further reassured if he could keep this issue on his radar a little) - in fact, that kind of decentralised approach to dispute resolution is exactly the direction I think we (urgently) need to take things. Some of our best editors are on the arbcom, and we're setting them up to fail badly - they, and 'we' (the community) deserve better. What next? an RfC? God knows - no drama and a serious talk about this stuff somewhere, I reckon..... Privatemusings (talk) 23:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Reasonable point, PM--and I'd like to discuss that in another place where we can do it justice. For this thread, let's keep things focused. Is the community's patience exhausted with this editor? Durova^Charge! 23:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Hmmm. The alternative to sending everything to ArbCom is to have a decentralized approach where individual admins or ad hoc groups of editors handle conduct problems. You know, like WP:CSN. But I question the community's current commitment to such an approach, given that no one is ever satisfied that the number of people commenting on a specific situation is sufficiently representative of "the community". People are currently more willing to believe an unconstructive user's complaints of being railroaded by abusive admins than they are to give the benefit of the doubt to the admins in question, and I doubt that anything other than "send everything to ArbCom" will work in the current atmosphere. Everything ends up there anyway. MastCell ^Talk 23:55, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

• Agree to ban, should have been done long ago (and before the usual people come crying on here to defend MM to the death, this is not a lynch mob. OK?) Al Tally ^talk 23:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Support ban. Where's my pitchfork? Amerique^dialectics 23:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

If Mantanmoreland would have ever apologized for any of this, I wouldn't have advocated a ban. But, as far as I know, he has never apologized, or even admitted any wrongdoing. Cla68 (talk) 23:49, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

(Placeholder explanation: post from a banned sock has been deleted. Two replies remain below). Durova^Charge! 09:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

You mean in that he might start commenting there instead? What a loss that would be for Wikipedia! Amerique^dialectics 23:59, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

It is very unlikely he'd get a warm welcome there. Durova^Charge! 00:39, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

He has had plenty of tiem to reflect. This the four time he has been caught socking as I read it. Viridae^Talk 00:13, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Correct. This is the Fourth account blocked as a sockpuppet of Mantanmoreland. SirFozzie (talk) 00:07, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Um, this is the IP's second edit. What is your main account, please? Durova^Charge! 00:08, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Me. Forgot I hadn't logged in. Viridae^Talk 00:13, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, ty. No offense taken, I hope? Durova^Charge! 00:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Nope, of course not. I was interested to see what else the IP had been used for - its very much shared. Viridae^Talk 00:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

This is a blatant and intentional violation of his arb restrictions. He should be banned now, but he wasn't. He's been given multiple chances. Enough is enough. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks are due to User:Huldra and User:Thatcher for their work on this case. I hope other ArbCom members who allowed this Mantanmoreland account to survive will help out with the next Mantanmoreland sockpuppetry case, with each member taking up the burden in turn, and when we've gone through the entire Arbcom, FT2 can then do it again himself, and so on. Into eternity. Noroton (talk) 02:29, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support a ban. Noroton (talk) 02:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Oddly, I still think the 2 week block is right... this time. But I'm a softie, I guess. Mantanmoreland was nice enough to me before this matter came to a head and I'm always one to try to see if people will reform. There seems to be a fair faction calling for his head, and I'm not sure I agree. I just don't think it's time yet. To PM: I'm always happy to be agreed with! (anyone else have any doubts about that... ??) but this time I think you've got the advantage of me, sirrah... what is it you're agreeing with me about? :) ++Lar: t/c 02:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

So what does he need to do before you'll back a ban? How many more RFAs does he need to vote stack? How many more ArbCom elections? He should have been shown the door months ago. Tolerance is admirable, up to a point, but not when it sets an example that undermines the integrity of the site. Durova^Charge! 03:49, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Dunno. When ArbCom says it's time, I guess. ++Lar: t/c 04:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

If deferring to ArbCom is what you choose to do then I can respect that (even if I disagree with it), but it's very worrisome to see you articulate Mantanmoreland's niceness toward you as a consideration here: too many banned users already assert that it's favoritism, not policy, that makes the difference in ban decisions. To see that viewpoint validated by an administrator would be disappointing enough, but from a steward? The community elects people to positions of high trust specifically because it expects them to rise above personal considerations. Please weigh your words carefully. Durova^Charge! 05:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

You're right. I was being snarky in my second reply actually, (I had a much longer and snarkier post written but I deleted it and went with that. I should have just not said anything then, I suppose. What I'm being snarky about is this; Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Mantanmoreland ban discussion and this; Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Mantanmoreland ban discussion/Part 2. Scan those epic discussions. There were a LOT of opposes at the time. Where are those people now?... just to pick a few at random, where's An/tony? Where's Guy? Where's Sam Korn? Where's David Gerard? (many of these users said things like "this reads like a lynch mob denied their desired kill"...) Supporting a ban is futile until and unless some of those users come around to supporting a ban (and maybe actually say they were wrong, even?) because it won't stick, so I might as well support what WILL stick. On reading this over, this post is a bit snarky too.... sorry! As for the "nice" bit, well I think people who are collegial tend to get more chances than those who are vicious, and I'm not going to say that's a bad thing, because I don't think it's favoritism, it isn't. It's recognition that collegiality is needed to succeed here. ++Lar: t/c 10:15, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

PS, full marks for using "forking flowchart" in a sentence! I LOLed. ++Lar: t/c 10:16, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Very few of those dissenters are the type that will come out an admit to being wrong in my experience. A community ban discussion deserves to go for several days at least, giving people time to voice their opinion. If those who dissented last time are still noticeably absent but a significant portion of the community who has taken part in the discussion feels that a community ban is appropriate, then consenus should be seen through. We do not have privileged community members who's opinion is required for a consensus to be formed. Viridae^Talk 10:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Lar, if I got too barbed there I apologize. The community has started to move away from its old policy of unilaterialism on community bans (per a thread started by FT2 a few weeks ago), which really is a good move. The old system where any sysop could thwart unanimity may have sufficed three years ago but it doesn't scale: too easy for a political animal to render himself or herself practically unbannable by cultivating the right people. The CAMERA fiasco showed that there has been at least one deliberate campaign to exploit policies that used to work pretty well when Wikipedia was smaller. Several of our periodic drama fests would cease if a few diehards didn't derail consensus (with attendant brinksmanship over what-is-a-siteban v. what-is-a-wheel-war). If we had a more rational and developed way of welcoming people back to good standing, then departures would be less stressful. I could say more, but I already digress. Durova^Charge! 10:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Apology not needed, it was a fair cop. ++Lar: t/c 11:23, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Someone clarified the community ban thing in a way that made sense to me the other day. A community ban that exists only when no admin will unblock can be no longer called a community ban if someone decides they are prepared to unblock. If this nonw defunct ban is to become a community ban again, it must become the second: A community ban that exists when the community has discussed the matter and decided it is appropriate that the person in question be banned, ie one made by consensus. This second type cannot be overalled by one lone admin. It can only be overruled by community consensus - which is what made it in the first place. The first is an effective community ban, because noone with the ability to unblock will the second is a real community ban, that is a ban imposed by the will of the community. Viridae^Talk 11:07, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

You speak wisely. A single admin veto no longer scales. However I'd point out that in Mantanmoreland/Samiharris part I, it was not a single admin, it was a significant minority. (fewer than those saying that, for example Moulton, is no longer community banned). I expect some of them to turn up here again. Sometimes you have to be pragmatic and take the sanction that will stick instead of the more preferable one. ++Lar: t/c 11:23, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually I pretty much speak in tongues - but you got the point. (that was really badly explained, because the perfect word to describe the non admin willing to unblock situation is thus far escaping me) Viridae^Talk 11:46, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

That came down to roughly 2/3 in favor of banning, 1/3 opposed. Ergo, how much majority is a supermajority? Now we have yet another confirmed instance of socking--technically confirmed this time, which makes it more definitive than the last instance--so soon after the arbitration closed. Common sense says the camel's back has broken, and we can put our straws to better use sipping lemonade as we return to building the encyclopedia. Come to think of it, I have two FPCs to catch up on. Durova^Charge! 11:49, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

• I am ready to block user:Mantanmorland indefinitely but would better still ask my colleague FT2 to agree with it. Wikipedia is a respectable place. Mean, repeated and sophisticated sockpuppetry cannot change that. Sockpuppetry is bad and it should be fought extensively with harsh manners. There's no reason whatsoever for us to give to suckpuppeters. Period. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 02:35, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! FT2! Well, being the person who requested the CU on Bassettcat (about one week after I wished him welcome :-< ), I am not very surprised that they were indeed sockpuppets. However, I am very impressed with the technical know-how of many of the admins here! My own "recipe" for catching Matanmorland -socks is quite simple: read the blog of a certain financial writer GW; and watch carefully for any new accounts which edits articles related to what this writer blogs about....
Secondly, what I find troubling about the whole affair is, (as other people have noted before me), the total inability of Matanmoreland to admit to past wrong-doings. As long as that is the case, I simply do not have any trust in him.
Thirdly, the main articles of interest are still in not too good a shape. I strongly urge more editors to take an interest in the 4 main articles: Naked short selling, Overstock.com, Patrick M. Byrne, Gary Weiss; more eyes are needed. Regards, Huldra (talk) 03:39, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

A ban is long overdue. Given the severity of his past offenses, there should be no hesitation at all this time. Everyking (talk) 04:27, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Normally I'm a softie like Lar but the time for going easy on Mantanmoreland passed a few thousand diffs ago. If he had admitted his wrongdoing it would be a completely different matter. He did precisely the opposite. He denied, derided, and obfuscated throughout one of the more divisive ArbCom cases in Wikipedia history (one which, like it or not, damaged the reputation of the ArbCom among some users). He has been an enormous drain on community resources and (along with his main antagonists in the real world) caused one of the largest Wiki-dramas of all time. Now he is socking again. Let's decide this once and for all: site wide ban and be done with it. I'm sure this user will create new accounts given past behavior, but at least next time we can avoid a long ANI discussion and just block them outright. As I say I really am a softie when it comes to blocks and second and third chances, but the disruption caused by Mantanmoreland is just too massive to ignore. It's probably best for a member of the committee to implement an indef block but if that is the consensus here after further discussion we should not hesitate to do that.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

support full site ban as I have since the socking work by Fozzie and others came to light, and Mantanmoreland refused to address it. I agree with Durova's evaluation, either sockspuppeters reform, or they deny and don't. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 06:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I thought that the job was done?. Oh well, guess not...I suppose I look like Carnac! Yes, I'm saying "told ya so", as could a lot of people at this point...I supported a site ban before all of this happened, as did many others. That would have avoided this and now, obviously, would have been the right decision. For some reason Arbcom delayed making the right decision. Perhaps now they will. I hope they do, but I still have my doubts (sadly). daveh4h 06:39, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Even if we block Mantanmoreland now, that does not mean that the AC was wrong to make the decision it did. This was always a possible outcome. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 12:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Point. However it's not exactly a ringing endorsement of their analytic and predictive capabilities in this regard either, is it? Well hopefully this is a learning opportunity, as every incident potentially is. More specifically, do you have an opinion on the imposed 2 week block? On the call for an indef ban? You were one of the voices opposing indef right after the case concluded as I recall, so it would be interesting to see what your view is now. ++Lar: t/c 15:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I support a ban. Out of curiosity, has anyone examined the checkuser data to see if there's any evidence for a link between Bassettcat and User:Samiharris? If the data's not yet too old for SH, it would be interesting to know if the MM=SH hypothesis can now be bolstered with checkuser data. alanyst ^/talk/ 12:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

No, as I said before, Samiharris edited exclusively from open proxies, at least during the time frame available at the last check. This time Mantanmoreland adopted a different tactic to keep the two accounts separate and undetected, at least until he made an error. Thatcher 13:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I guess I'm assuming that checkuser data is not limited strictly to IP information, and if there's information about user agents or so forth that links SH to BC then by transitivity we can regard MM=SH as supported by checkuser evidence. alanyst ^/talk/ 14:27, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

No link such as you suggest can be established. Thatcher 15:00, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for checking. alanyst ^/talk/ 15:11, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I've seen anyone oppose at this time, but in case I did, I'll ask (just out of curiosity): who does not support an indefinite ban at this time? Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Sigh, I guess I goofed when I let Bassetcat slide through at WP:AE with merely a false "disclosure" of his COI. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement/Archive21#"Probation" violations?. I note that the Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Mantanmoreland case from 5 May is still open and unresolved. There is another suspected sock there that needs to be reviewed again with an eye on the additional three weeks of evidence. GRBerry 13:40, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support siteban. I trust that all those on the ArbCom wiki who were holding up an up-down vote on this issue during the MM RfAr view this as a trouting by reality. Must....not...feel....schadenfreude...it...is....immoral....and....bad... --Relata refero (disp.) 14:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

MOWA Band of Choctaw Indians

Just check the edit history of MOWA Band of Choctaw Indians. This ridiculous war has been going on for months now, and I know for a fact that it was brought here are least once before. Uuu987 (talk · contribs) and Verklempt (talk · contribs) ought to both get final warnings over edit warring. Corvus cornix_talk 23:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

warned. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

What solution do you suggest? uuu987 ignores attempts to engage on the talk page. I really do not know how to deal with such an editor.Verklempt (talk) 02:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, you could start by knocking off the blanking. Parsimony and context make clear that the reporter quotes the report, then quotes the individual's response. Stop playing this stupid gotcha game and work on improving the article. ThuranX (talk) 03:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Legal Threat

Resolved

 – user blocked Toddst1 (talk) 03:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

User:WadeKeller2008 is impersonating Wade Keller, a wrestling writer who publishes a well-known wrestling newsletter. When asked for confirmation, he responded with a personal attack, then a legal threat here [169]. Dayewalker (talk) 00:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks potentially delicate. Left a note and will monitor from there. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, he said "if you add libel, I will sue you". Indeed, he has reason to be concerned since people have been adding libel to his biography. Whether or not he is WadeKeller, who knows. But this doesn't look like the sort of threat that WP:NLT is meant to address. Plus the guy he's replying to called him a "fag". --Haemo (talk) 00:27, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

If you'll check the edit here [170], you'll see that actually User:WadeKeller2008 added that to his own page and insterted it into my comment.

I've had contact with Wade in RL before, I'll drop him a line. Who should he contact if this is not him, and wishes to prove he's being impersonated? Thanks in advance! Dayewalker (talk) 00:31, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Have him contact OTRS. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 02:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Article: Toyota Camry

the Toyota Camry article keeps getting replaced with information about the Toyota Sceptor

the "Camry" is the name given for the US (and other) models, and the "Toyota Camry" article should give information relative to the US Market (and others) ... this article should not give information about the Japanese car or market, as the name for this car was different

people using Wikipedia will be mislead if people continue to edit the "Toyota Camry" article and replace its current info with Japanese information —Preceding unsigned comment added by Venomnitto (talk • contribs) 03:23, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a content dispute to me, and the top of this page says that this isn't the place for content disputes. Try one of these alternatives instead. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 06:23, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Abuse, legal threat & defamation by 67.87.7.164

Unresolved

67.87.7.164 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Anonymous IP address has began inserting defamatory and potentially libelous information in to the article Gregory R. Ball. I originally became involved in the article (and worked it into a "Good Article") following a string of anonymous IP vandalism on the original stub ([171], [172], [173], [174], [175], [176], [177], [178]).

The IP seems to be angry that I am also contributing to the article on one of Ball's political rivals. It goes on to accuse me of being an employee of the New York State Assembly, and "illegaly editing the biography from Assembly computers on taxpayer dime". They have stated they filed a freedom of information act request with the State Assembly, although as any administrator can confirm, I expect they will not be happy with the result, since I am not in their employ, nor have I ever edited from any IP address or other account from any computer other than my own.

I have responded on the IP's talk page with a welcome message. Please let me know how, if at all further, I should proceed. Thank you. MrPrada (talk) 03:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

It's a politician. There's always going to be some juvenile vandalism but it's not too bad here. The IP address seems to have stopped. Rather than get into a discussion with the editor about yourself, you could try and simply suggest that removing large amounts of text is largely ineffective and (although "Greg BALL is a LOSER" doesn't indicate a real interest in discussion) if they are interested, they can make real comments at the article talk page if they have something they want added. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:46, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I would agree, and I will attempt that. It has been brought to my attention that the vandal (or someone else) has actually been complaining about me and this article specifically, by username, on other websites as well. MrPrada (talk) 06:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

• It continues, see [179], [180], [181], [182]. MrPrada (talk) 06:55, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Update: I have continued to engage the IP in dialogue and tried to stay as calm and cordial as possible. Other uninvolved editors have slapped vandalism warnings, and I have issued a 3RR notice regarding the edits. However, the editor still does not appear to be showing any good faith. MrPrada (talk) 08:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

In a related incident, the IP was blocked for 24-hours for WP:3RR violations on John Degnan. MrPrada (talk) 09:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

The complaining user is to be commended for extending WP:AGF well beyond the normal bounds. It's obvious the guy is a vandal, and he's had repeated warnings and won't answer your questions. So the next time he does it, take him straight to WP:AIV, report that he's vandalism-only, and they should slap a lengthy block on him. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:11, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Evaluate sockpuppetry, User:Lampman

The following accounts appear to be controlled by the same person:

• Lampman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Eixo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Panichappy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Eixo and Panichappy came back after long wikibreaks to "vote" on a poll at Wikipedia talk:Good articles, that Lampman also participated in. I attempted to raise the matter quietly; his response was flippant to the point of being just confusing. The accounts seem to all be in good standing and all seem to have done good work, although there are limited additional instances of double and triple "voting" (such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of nude celebrities‎). Lampman's lack of a meaningful response forces me to bring the situation here for review. Thatcher 03:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

On the one hand, there may be enough for a checkuser. On the other hand, the single edit from each of the "sock" accounts is a month old. I would say that these are quacking quite well. There appears to be clear votestacking here, or some sort of shenanigans. I don't know if these are too stale for a Checkuser, but I would say the evidence is strong enough to support its use if it would be effective. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I am a checkuser, and these are confirmed results. I checked Lampman as part of an unrelated matter and these turned up. The question is what, if anything, to do about it. Thatcher 06:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I would say you have a case for blocking the sock accounts. They have been used to votestack, and should be blocked. You should also warn Lampman that any further socking will result in blocks to his main account. It may be past the point of blocking the main account right now, being a month old, but CLEARLY you should block the sock accounts. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 06:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Jayron. Block the sock accounts, they're not doing any good, and there's the vote stacking. Give Lampman a strong warning to not do it again. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 08:03, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

check out this edit

Resolved

 – Vandalism rv'd by a bot. Next time feel free to revert it yourself! RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 13:27, May 29, 2008 (UTC)

will let an administrator decide what to do with this one:

http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Calgary_Tower&diff=215661997&oldid=215661701

69.140.152.55 (talk) 04:19, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

• Has been dealt with by Bot - obvious vandalism.--VS ^talk 04:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Mrshaba versus 199.125.109.XXX

• I am being drawn into a dispute. Ref:
  • Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive421#Mrshaba
  • User talk:Anthony Appleyard#Disruption by IP user 199.125.109.XXX

  Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:03, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Abuse of User Joe1978?

Greetings, User Joe1978 appears to only have edits for today and has a series of rapid edits, according to his contributions page. All of his edits are related to two subjects it would seem. The first, the subject of LGBT related AIDS deaths. The second is tagging various people related to politics as Jewish Conservatives. I am not entirely sure that it is really necessary to do so. Perhaps they do indeed practice the Jewish faith or have Jewish ancestry, but the excessive tagging raised my eyebrows. I probably would not have noticed what was going on, but I wanted to check the guy's previous edits because the edit he did the Mark Levine article (conservative commentator) seemed odd. As if to say in some vaguely anti-semetic way, "Did you know that he was a Jew?" Or maybe I have it completely backwards, perhaps he has fierce love for his own Jewish roots and wishes the wiki-world to know about the success of various Jewish people within America. I don't know really. Either way, it seems really odd/fishy in a way, but I could be wrong. If this was right for me to point out, please let me know. If it was wrong, please also let me know. I'd like to make sure that I don't go annoying the Administrators over minor things. Thanks for your time. Rocdahut (talk) 05:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest asking him first if you have any issues before coming here. There is already a discussion about the category he created and is busy populating (Category:AIDS-related LGBT deaths) so it may be approaching WP:SPA level but I'd just say let's see what he does afterwards. For the Jewish categories, policy about living people is very strict: unless self-described or referenced in multiple very reliable sources, it's not worth adding those categories. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Thelegendofvix

User:Thelegendofvix has been engaging in extensive edit warring on Greek (TV series), refusing to allow no less than six editors to remove his WP:NPOV and WP:OR additions. After four reverts, I gave him a 3RR warning (foolishly being generous). We discussed on his talk page, but he continued to assert his right to put the information in there. Less than hour later, an account that has not been used in nearly a year suddenly appeared to revert the article again to Thelegendofvix's preferred version, then disappeared again. Fairly obvious reason to be suspecion, so I filed a sock puppet report. Thelegendofvix made various comments there as well, before finally filing a blatantly obvious retaliatory sockpuppet report against me, claiming was the inactive account and was trying to frame him! He then messed up my user page to shove the sockpuppet notice into the middle of it (rather than on my talk page)[183]. He's since blanked the sockpuppet case notice from his own talk page[184]. I think this pointy behavior is inappropriate, and would like an admin to please take a look at the situation and respond in whatever manner seems appropriate. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 05:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

No one should be sockpuppeteering, and if proven, the admins should give Vix the Vapor Rub. One of vix's sins, apparently, is explaining that G R sigma sigma K does not spell "GREEK", which is not OR, it's verifiable. Collectonian is death on trivia, so this seems to stem from a content dispute. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:03, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Sock COI

Would an admin have a look at Grama Vidiyal's history and view the talk page as well. This sock has numerous names and continues to remove the COI and "additional citations for verification" notices, even though he's admitted to being an employee of the company and even though the article only has one reference. I'm tired of battling with him. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 07:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I've agreed (on shaky grounds) to the G7 delete - the sockfarm operating there was the most substantial contributor and clearly wanted an advert, so requesting deletion when they didn't get it seems fine (one source, COI, no linked articles... nothing lost here). However, as it was shaky grounds, any other admin is welcome to undelete and deal with the problems instead if they wish. I've left the talk page up for now. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS looks at danger and laughs his head off 10:46, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

And immediately recreated (from a local copy, it looks like) by Chuck 7936 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) with his first edit. My but this article is a sockfest! Chuck complains that he doesn't know why it was deleted, having, as Charlie1858 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), been the one to request it here, admin only. Other obvious socks include Ted46530 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - now defending the article at AfD with 125.22.250.12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - probably the underlying IP. 21 ice cool (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Dudeular (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Gramavidiyal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are all also possible socks. Whatever can it all mean? ➨ ЯEDVEЯS looks at danger and laughs his head off 14:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sixth Studio Album (2nd nomination)

Could someone please fix this. This particular article is still undergoing discussion at its 1st nomination. I think the second nomination may have been created while trying to correct mistakes in the article created through various edits made by IP contributors, VoABotII, and User:Ikkomuitnederland. If someone could have a look and fix the various links so that everything points to the 1st nomination it would be greatly appreciated. Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Deleted the 2nd nomination (just the nominator, who I informed) and linked back to the first. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:36, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:12, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Copyright Vio on Wiki

Resolved

 – Image properly attributed. Oh, and yes, SUL is brilliant! RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 13:25, May 29, 2008 (UTC)

On another project site someone has stolen an image I've taken and claimed it for the own. Since I can't under stand the language I need help! The image in question is here and here is my image Image:The Age Headquarters.jpg. Bidgee (talk) 08:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. How cool is it that unified login now keeps me logged in when I visit other projects? --jonny-mt 09:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Abd manipulates Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asset voting

Abd is manipulating Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asset voting by removing comments of users who voted "delete" [185] [186] [187]. Yellowbeard (talk) 09:55, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

He appears to be removing !votes by Fredrick day (talk · contribs) (is he banned?). This AfD in total appears to be something of a car crash anyway. While we're here, I've looked and looked and I can't see where you contacted Abd about this before coming here to complain. Can you provide me with the link to where you tried and failed to resolve the matter with him/her, and where you informed him/her of this discussion? Thanks. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS looks at danger and laughs his head off 10:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. I was referring to this discussion. Yellowbeard (talk) 10:13, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Then you probably would want to merge this section into that section, rather than starting a new one. And I'd still advise asking Abd about it directly (and/or informing them about this section). ➨ ЯEDVEЯS looks at danger and laughs his head off 10:22, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Once again, Abd removed a "delete" vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asset voting [188]. Yellowbeard (talk) 12:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Once again, you brought it here rather than talked to the editor in question about it. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS looks at danger and laughs his head off 12:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

For the record, Frederick Day does appear to be an indefinitely blocked user, per their block log. As the block was for sockpuppetry in furtherance of harassment, as indicated, I don't see an issue with removing !votes from socks of this user. I do recommend that you discuss this with abd, however. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 12:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I know you're the admin and I'm not, but I think the better approach, rather than simply deleting, is to point out that the vote was cast by a now-blocked (though apparently not banned, in this case) user and then let the vote-counters take that fact into account. The user should definitely question the other user about it, though, before coming here. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:57, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

It would be better to change "delete" into "comment", so that the information of the edit doesn't get lost. Yellowbeard (talk) 13:28, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

The blocked user in question acknowledged in the other section over this incident that removal was proper. I only removed comments that had not triggered any response, and, had any of them raised substantive issues not already addressed by others, I'd have probably pushed them to Talk. Note that I first used strikeout, not deletion, but that was reverted by the blocked editor, and, after discussion here in AN/I, I decided that simple removal was better, anyway, and clearly legitimate. If the AfD has been distored, WP:SOFIXIT. In the other section here, I note that Yellowbeard is acting as a meat puppet for Fd, and has, by restoring Fd's illegitimate vote, voted twice. I've warned him on his Talk page. Yellowbeard is a tendentious AfDer, and, in fact, AfD is all he does, look at Special:Contributions/Yellowbeard. From the beginning, first edit, AfD, and all the AfDs are in a narrow area, clearly identifying, in fact, his political agenda, to anyone who knows the field. But it's not necessary to investigate that now; just remember, I'm ready to defend anything that might look like a personal attack before ArbComm, if needed.

None of this is about content, it's about editor behavior. In the other report, I noted that the AfD itself, on its own merits, was proper, a legitimate question is raised and, while I voted Keep, I'm not, you might notice, strongly arguing for Keep, and there could be Merge outcomes that would be appropriate. I just think that Keep is, for the overall purpose of the project, best. But I'm an inclusionist, relying on WP:V more than WP:RS. I.e., on policy rather than guideline. If a consensus of editors agrees that a fact in an article is verifiable, that is higher, on principle, than RS. And I take the word "consensus" to include any reasonable dissent on the "fact," rather than wikilawyering over sourcing guidelines. I don't challenge facts I don't like, when I know them to be facts, on the basis that sourcing is defective. If everyone agrees it's a fact, then RS is a matter of time, it can, in fact, take a lot of research to find, sometimes, facts that are common knowledge in a field.--Abd (talk) 13:12, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Hyper Beam 9000

Resolved

 – indef blocked 2 days ago. No action needed.

User talk:Hyper Beam 9000 Special:Contributions/Hyper_Beam_9000. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 11:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks like he's been blocked indef. Rudget (Help?) 11:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Resolved... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 12:36, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Extended or perm block on 208.125.206.26

Resolved

 – schoolblock-- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:46, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I've been noticing and fighting User 208.125.206.26 for a while and it's not getting any better. They have engaged in multiple instances of vandalism. So much so that theyhave been banned each month since January (except March) and are well on their way to get banned this month. It doesn't appear that this user cares about policy since they are never affected for more than a few days. They also show no signs of regret or of stopping. I realise this is an Anaon IP but there should be something we can do. Padillah (talk) 12:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Probably a school, now blocked until the end of the school year. Next block will probably be measured in years. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:46, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I count 5 "last warnings" on the talk page. There needs to be a warning that says, "And this time we really mean it." Don't mess with these guys. Turn them in to WP:AIV ASAP. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Egyptzo

This editor appears to have problems with WP:OWN and with using sources. He created an article Siege of Gezer (mainly a direct unattributed copy from Siamun which I have been editing for accuracy and references, and he has deleted those with a personal attack on me in an edit summary and no justification given for the deletions. See [189] (it's a minor point that he restored the Biblical reference to a statement about an archaeological excavation, although indicative, but a major one that he removed anything he disagreed with.). This may stem from the time he was blocked for numerious copyright violations I discovered. Note that he has also restored a paragraph of original research in addition to deleting my reference to Paul S Ash. While writing this he has restored some original research to Siamun. He has come into conflict with a number of editors over lack of references and his interpretation and use of sources.--Doug Weller (talk) 13:27, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

And we now have [190] - I removed the OR again, explaining it was based on one sentence from the Bible, but he's replaced it. He didn't write it, but it is clearly OR based upon an interpretation of one sentence in the Bible, "Pharaoh King of Egypt had come up and captured Gezer; he destroyed it by fire, killed the Canaanites who dwelt in the town, and gave it as dowry to his daughter, Solomon's wife." I am concerned that if I remove the OR from Siamun and Siege of Gezer again I will run into WP:3RR, so I'm forced to leave it there for the moment.--Doug Weller (talk) 13:51, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I have restored what he removed because there are also archaeological and documental evidence for such claims.Egyptzo (talk) 13:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Editor Dougweller edits things as he likes and there were even requests that he remove himself as editor of some pages in wikipedia [191]. Most of his edits are either paragraph removal [192][193], abuse reports, or delition requests without any bases[194], removal of supposed copyvio that is not viewed as such by other users[195]. It is pretty much clear who creates most problems.Egyptzo (talk) 13:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Please note that I did not remove the copyvio in the link above, I added a tag. Yes, a user claimed I was blocking other editors from editing a page and I had to explain that the page was not blocked and I had no blocking powers. I spend a lot of time researching for and adding references to articles (even to Pin the tail on the donkey) to help save it from deletion. And quite a bit of time on anti-vandalism. I do remove original research when I find it (often but not always suggesting in the edit summary that replacement with sourced data would be welcome, as I have done when removing the OR (the 2nd time) from Siamun but not Siege of Gezer - which I note now has a 'synthesis' tag on it.--Doug Weller (talk) 14:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Just remembered -- I have tried to encourage Egyptzo and praise him, see the bottom of this [196] - the section on Edit summaries. Doug Weller (talk) 15:16, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: Pin the Tail on the Donkey - Awesome. Punch it up a little bit, and I'll consider submitting it for FAC. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused

Resolved

 – Jimboss69 and Jrsmcmillan indefinitely blocked. --Onorem♠Dil 13:57, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone have any idea about what this means: [197]? I have no idea. I have never interacted with the user before. I have a feeling that it's a sockpuppet. - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 18:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

You reverted vandalism on the user's userpage, and they think that you are changing something. Gary King (talk) 18:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I dunno...something's weird about this...[198]. --Smashville^BONK! 23:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

He hasn't done anything constructive. Can someone give him a warning for personal attacks? - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 00:27, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks like User:Jrsmcmillan is a obvious sockpuppet. - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 00:29, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Marking as resolved. Both users have been blocked. Not sure what other action you're hoping for. --Onorem♠Dil 13:57, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

(e/c) quick note to Smashville, obviously the user wasn't here to constructively edit, but there wasn't any personal attack, warning for one wasn't neccesary. Also, Dill Terr, make sure to notify someone if you start an ANI thread on them. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 14:03, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Violation

I report violation of DIREKTOR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) on Istrian exodus against this restriction. He reverted twice in last week: 1 and 2. Regards.--Agazio (talk) 14:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Since you just started here yesterday, how do you know so much about this guy? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:22, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

In fact, Agazio seems to be the one doing the edit-warring. [199] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:26, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

It is my very firm belief, judging from the 'contributions' so far, that Agazio is in fact User:PIO in a rather flimsy disguise. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 14:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Can somebody please put a stop to this obvious sock nonsense [200]? AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 14:39, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I didn't violate anything, PIO. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

You are sock and troll!--Agazio (talk) 14:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

(Its like he's talking about himself... :P) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Please, don't encourage him. I've tagged him as a possible sock, although it's very likely that he is a sock. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 14:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Whoever it is, he's already up to 7RR on Istrian Exodus in the last 24 hours. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 14:49, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked Agazio for a month for violating 3RR, along with personal attacks and possible socking. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 14:55, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I took the liberty of reverting Agazio's 7RR. That's not a content judgment, though. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:57, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Prima Facist

Someone (possibly Majorly (talk · contribs), who seems to hold a grudge against me) has created an account "Prima Facist" and used it to support RfAs that I have opposed. There's nothing intrinsically wrong with that, but in this case the combination of the choice of username, signature, and contribution history ([201]) makes it clear that this is nothing more than a bad-faith attempt to parody and ridicule me, rather than a good-faith attempt to help Wikipedia. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 14:22, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I've notified Prima Fascist about this thread. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 14:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

And I've notified Majorly, who may be interested as well... Fram (talk) 14:31, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks...I was just getting ready to do so myself (I'm on dialup, and my connection died right after I posted the above) when I saw your posts. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 14:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I am not Majorly, but I am an alternate account of a different Wikipedian, having been using ym primary account for ~3 years. I admit that the initial intention of this account was merely to "cancel" Kurts votes in RfA, because I percieve the statements he gives in opposes are personal attacks. This changed after the first edit I made, when I decided that maybe I could do some actual work from this account as well, lest something like this happened (alas, too late it seems). I had that signature for one edit and then decided it would be a bad idea and that it would be too close to a personal attack and would be quite hypocritical and so I changed it to what it is currently.

Once I get a chance to escape the pressures of every day life, studentism and such, I shall be doing a lot more substantial work on articles (which, I'm sure you'll agree, takes a lot more time than simply voting in an RfA or two) and I'm sure you'll see that this account is quite serious about wanting to improve the encyclopedia (even if its inital intentions were not so). Prima Facist 14:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

• I suggest that an admin removes Huggle from the user - a disruptive sock puppet should not be accessing such tools. EJF (talk) 14:42, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

• I don't see any disruption yet. Martinp23 14:46, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I can't use huggle anyway, not being an autoconfirmed user (yet) Prima Facist 14:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, I should probably point out that I was one of the earliest users of huggle and have made thousands of edits on my other account. Prima Facist 15:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that if and when the sockpuppet policy is breached, a post is made here and action is taken. Until then, nothing is being done wrong, I feel (though do enlighten me if I'm indeed incorrect). Martinp23 14:46, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, Martin. I will not be using this account to double-vote or do anything else in breach of the sockpuppet policy. Prima Facist 14:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Prima Facist/Aha! is, interesting... Carcharoth (talk) 14:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

But there is still nothing that requires administrator action. Nor has there been any violation. seicer | talk | contribs 14:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Interesting it may be, but no-one has yet voiced any opinions on the page... Prima Facist 14:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't know if I missed something, but Prima, are you admitting to having another account? Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 15:03, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Prima Facist 15:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Have you ever participated in the same RFA with both of your accounts? · AndonicO ^Engage. 15:27, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

No. And as stated above, I never will. I have been here for 3 years, I'm aware of sockpuppetry and am not partaking in such. Prima Facist 15:29, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Of course. · AndonicO ^Engage. 15:35, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, so it does like this the sockpuppet policy is being violated, per WP:Sockpuppet#Avoiding_scrutiny. Or do I misinterpret that? Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 15:26, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Not unles you assume the account is going to be used disruptively. It would be better for the accounts to be linked in some way, but I don't think the policy requires it Fritzpoll (talk) 15:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Gwen Gale seems to think so. Prima Facist 15:35, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

(e/c)Well, creating a new account in order to make certain types of opposes in an RfA could certainly be considered disruptive. This means we can't review a certain users voting history in an RfA, when said user wants to vote for a certain reason... they just log into another account. Also, I just don't see how this account is anything but trying to avoid scrutiny for the other account. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 15:35, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure. The user says they aren't going to use the other account for the same things, and there is not reason to disbelieve them. If the two accounts do demonstrate similar editing patterns, however, I'm sure this would be picked up in time - especially since the RfAs this user contributes to are likely to be watched carefully for patterns of support/oppose by other accounts. Fritzpoll (talk) 15:40, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

But Fritz, I do doubt that Prima Fascist will ever be abusive as sock in regards to double-voting or messing with consensus. I'm not suggesting that is the problem, but rather this account was created in order to avoid scrutiny over certain types of votes in RfAs. It looks quite clear to me in policy linked above that this isn't allowed. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 15:49, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

My proposal, in the spirit of WP:AGF, would be to ban Prima Facist from participating in any RfAs for at least six months (to avoid the account becoming a point-driven SPA sock), tell him not to use the "Go Clots!" sig anymore (which he/she already agreed to), and move on, with the understanding that there will be zero tolerance for any disruption coming from this account. --Jaysweet (talk) 15:41, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

The "Go Clots" signature went after one use, when I decided it was a bad idea. My other account does not vote in RfAs of users I don't know anyway and I have promised, several times to not sockpuppet by dual voting. If I wanted to do that, I'd be a lot more discrete about it (This is not a self-invocation of WP:BEANS, incidentally). Prima Facist 15:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't creating an account that directly mocks a user who himself creates drama... thereby leading to the creation of additional drama, an act of disruption? Hiberniantears (talk) 15:43, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I think disruption would rather much end the sweeping assumption of good faith needed to get by the poilcy against undisclosed multiple accounts. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Personal info posted on a RFCU page

Some IP thought it funny to post my real-life e-mail address on a RFCU page [202] (page linked, but not specific diff - for obvious reasons). Would it be possible for an admin to remove this info from the history of the page? Thanks!--Ramdrake (talk) 14:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC) Actually, the same IP seems to have published addys for at least 3 editors [203]. Can someone look into this?--Ramdrake (talk) 14:28, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I took care of the RFCU page but you'd better ask for oversight to deal with the user talk pages as they have a lot of edits. Thatcher 14:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Where do I ask?--Ramdrake (talk) 14:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Look at WP:OVERSIGHT Fritzpoll (talk) 15:07, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Balin42632003 adding people to Category:Polyamory

User Balin42632003 (talk · contribs) has added a lot of bios to Category:Polyamory with no reliable sources. Can this be mass-reverted? Thank you. --Damiens.rf 15:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

This looks very suspect (the adding of the category), Balin has been notified but an admin may want to take it further if he carries on adding categories with no reliable sources to back it up. RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 15:38, May 29, 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the dubious categorisations, in no cases was there even an attempt at sourcing, nor mentioning the subject's sexuality in the article text. Also, some of the articles in question were about living people, raising BLP concerns. If I have acted foolishly, please use the fish. Hopefully I got 'em all. RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 15:50, May 29, 2008 (UTC)