Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

• Before posting:
  • Read these tips for dealing with incivility
  • If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
  • Try dispute resolution
  • Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.

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

---

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

Start a new discussion

Problem with Ave Caesar & CadenS on Jesse Dirkhising

I'm having a problem with two editors on Jesse Dirkhising, an article I've fully vetted, re-written and am trying to get to GA status. The article has been largely free of disputes and stable since the rewrite several months ago.

Another editor and I were discussing converting over the citation style to make editing the HTML easier for them when Ave Caesar (talk · contribs) added the {{citation style}} tag, which was odd because the discussion was already in process and the tag is about the uniformity and appearance which was already done. Our discussion was about switching over from one system to another. I explained in my edit summary "rmv tag as unneeded, they are all consistent at present and there is presently a discussion on converting them". They re-inserted the tag so I tried to explained the tag wasn't addressing any relevant issue to Ave Caesar and they deleted the thread citing my concern should only be placed on the article talk page. They didn't join in the discussion but instead re-added the tag. I, tried again to explain how the tag was unhelpful - they deleted this thread as well. As far as I know tagging the article and reverting my edits has been their only involvement on that article. Looking at some of their recent edits I was a little shocked to see edit warring over the WP:LGBT project tag on Lindsay Lohan with Dev920 who has, as part of their signature "who misses Jeffpw". Stunningly Ave Caesar follows up with Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:Jeffpw/Isaäc's Memorial Page.

My introduction to CadenS (talk · contribs) was a bit more blunt as they were a newbie, as far as I can tell, and on the Jesse Dirkhising article they plain out just accused me of a few things and lobbed a few personal attacks my way then left the article about six months ago. We had been dialogging on their talkpage as I tried to help find them some grounding and on-wiki resources so thought that whatever hard feelings were there had dissipated. Then again within the last month or so on E.O. Green School shooting I could feel the level rise a bit and CadenS takes a bit of a dig at me and follows it a day later by accusing me and two others of "hateful attacks". No requests for explanation are answered but they seemed to be dialogging with others on their talk page so I left well enough alone. Now CadenS is back to Jesse Dirkhising and their first edits there were to change instances of gay to homosexual, which is generally considered pejorative outside a research context - for instance, it's not the "Homosexual Pride Parade" except to some conservative religious folks - it's Gay Pride. They also changed some content thus misrepresenting what the sources stated. I reverted back and point out the concerns and they respond by calling me a POV pusher. At this point Ave Caesar reverts "restoring encyclopedic language" which i revert and going back to the sources to see if there is a better way to reflect what they state I return to the article to insert a quote in hopes of resolving misrepresenting a source to find CadenS has again reverted.

I'm unsure if they are working together on purpose but they are effectively causing the article to fail the GA process for being unstable, amongst other concerns, and I see no future in trying to complete the clean-up with two users edit-warring and inserting problematic and POV language. I would appreciate others looking at this and I'm uncomfortable reverting either of them and don't see engaging them any further as a good path for me. Just writing all this up has taken away the rest of my time for editing today. I have to get some sleep but I think the above lays out what I see as the issue. -- Banjeboi 14:11, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree that these users should be discussing on the talk page instead of reverting. Have you contacted kotra (talk · contribs), who is CadenS's mentor? Although that is an option, I expect editors to be responsible for their actions, and not require a mentor talk them out of disproportionately defensive posts. CadenS is clearly passionate about gay-themed articles and has been asked to avoid them in the past, to my memory. Though his comments about E.O. Green school shooting correctly indicated the poor writing and layout of the article, the stressful way it was brought about was unnecessary. --Moni3 (talk) 15:08, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Moni, Benji never once initiated any type of discussion on this matter. He went and filed this report instead. Let me remind you that Mr. Benji was reverting left, right and center. How convenient to see how you leave that part out. Furthermore, Kotra did not talk me out of anything. You insinuating such a thing is insulting to both Kotra and I. And another thing, since when is rape, murder or shooting's suddenly classified as "homosexual-themed" type of articles? That's a narrow way of thinking on your part and I'm shocked that you would post such a thing here. Caden S (talk) 10:50, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I find Benj's choice of words ("they", "their", "them"), to describe me personally, as very offensive. I have a name. My name is Caden. That's C-A-D-E-N. I'm also a male. That's M-A-L-E. Therefore my gender is "he", and not "they" or "them" or "their". Got it? Now, in regards to the word "homosexual", this is the correct word to be used. It's used in the same way as the word "heterosexual" is often used. Homosexual is only considered pejorative by those who support the political correct movement. I did change some of Benji's POV content because he was misrepresenting what those sources stated. He deliberately did that to mislead the readers just like he's been doing with the E. O. article by adding the POV "see also" sections that serve his biased POV. The real issue here is the issue of POV language used by Benji and him misleading the readers by insinuating this in the main article. I also find it highly insulting that he is accusing me of working together with Ave Caesar on purpose. I've never spoken to User:Ave Caesar, and he or she has never had any contact with me. Furthermore, Benji claims I took a dig at him? Please. I was defending myself. I was replying to an attack made by him (on the E.O. page) towards me when he had the nerve to say: "Let's not paint all gay people as predators or liars or anything else". I found his statement offensive, bizarre, and completely uncalled for. Caden S (talk) 17:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Caden: Chill, no one can tell your gender on teh Internet. A simple "Oh, btw I'm male" would have done. Your "get it?" etc is very hostile. I am sure no rudeness was intended. People on Wikipedia refer to other editors as "he" "she" and "they" almost at random it seems, and it is generally best to ignore or tactfully inform the editor using the incorrect term. As regarding "homosexual" vs. "gay" that is a content dispute and belongs on the talk page of the article - but the parade is certainly the "gay pride" parade and not the "homosexual pride" parade, so at least one of your edits is simply wrong. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:53, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello, it's me. I haven't been contacted, but as you say, all editors are responsible for their own actions (though I would appreciate it if these issues were discussed with me occasionally). I want to clear up a few things, though. Caden has already apologized for some of the issues raised above, and has voluntarily maintained long breaks from LGBT-related articles in the past. As for this recent incident (changing "gay" to "homosexual" on Jesse Dirkhising), that seems like a minor content dispute that you should discuss with each other first before bringing up here. So concerning Caden, I'm not sure what this incident report is for, since it's a minor dispute and has not yet received much discussion. Concerning Ave Caesar, I don't really have an opinion about their edits, except I very much doubt they are conspiring in any way with Caden. -kotra (talk) 18:18, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Killer, I'm sorry but you are so wrong. Benji knows full well that I'm a male and he knows my name very well. He and I have had conflicts in the past concerning the Dirkhising and E. O. pages. Furthermore, I know nothing about such parades and have no interest in them. And for the record, I made no edits on any parade so I have no clue what you're talking about. Also, I agree with Kotra. He should of have been contacted regardless of my actions. He is my adopter. Caden S (talk) 18:36, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, did he? Still not seeing why you should bother to care. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:03, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I beg your pardon? How would you like it if I called you "it", huh? Because that's basically how he's referring to me on this report. And that sir, is why I bother to care. Caden S (talk) 09:40, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

A bit of a side-note concerning this: "I expect editors to be responsible for their actions, and not require a mentor talk them out of disproportionately defensive posts.". I actually disapproved of that comment, and I did not "talk him out of it". -kotra (talk) 18:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, this is a content dispute and not really a matter for ANI. This should be on the discussion on the article talk page. The issue is over the inclusion of encyclopedic language. The user wishes to replace "homosexual" with the slang term "gay." --Ave Caesar (talk) 20:50, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. Sorry I see this as an editing dispute. Ave Caesar's only participation there has been disruptive, IMHO, coupled with their other, apparently anti-LGBT concerns are also alarming. With CadenS, his changing gay to homosexual, reinforced too by Ave Caesar, along with misrepresenting sources is basic vandalism that should be reverted under normal circumstances. Gay is not considered slang and that both these editors fail to see its pejorative connotations is also disquieting. That CadenS couples this with bad faith accusations and hostility aren't encouraging. Wikipedia isn't a battleground or a place for POV pushing. If any of the gay people involved self-identified as homosexual it's usually good to put that in the article as such. Instead mainstream society and media outlets use gay. I find having to explain this is this decade a bit odd - homosexual is used predominately in conservative religious venues to vilify LGBT people - its use on Wikipedia is dubious - especially on biographies. I came here because I'm trying to get the article to GA, I see these two as disrupting that process. I want to nip editing warring in the bud here. Considering each of their recent actions and looking at editing histories of these two my concerns are justified. The article had been stable for six months - with gay intact - why now the interest? Why now the changes?

To CadenS specifically, you assert "Please. I was defending myself." here is the comment I made in full

“ CadenS, please stop, taking little digs at me, or anyone, isn't helping improve this article. You could have let it go with Exploding Boy's comment that indeed another person in the source stated it was likely untrue. And just as some gay kids lie about heterosexual boys, heterosexual boys lie about such things as well. Let's not paint all gay people as predators or liars or anything else. People lie, let's stay on to improving the content. ”

If you felt I was attacking you I apologize, that was not my intent at all, I was trying to figure out what actionable items on that article needed to be addressed as there was a POV tag you had re-inserted and the consensus was that POV concerns had largely been addressed. -- Banjeboi 23:41, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

You are correct that it is an editing dispute. Therefore, it should first be discussed at Talk:Jesse Dirkhising. It is not proper to escalate it to WP:ANI until lower levels of dispute resolution have failed, as you must know. Regardless, I believe you are seeing an example of bias where there may not be one. "Homosexual" as a derisive term is very subtle and recent and depends largely on regional dialect and context. It is not unlikely that it has been used in Wikipedia bios without any actual bias intended, particularly since Wikipedia strives to be somewhat academic in tone. So I don't think there are any actionable items for an admin here. To get more eyes, WP:RFC would be the proper place. And I sympathize that this dispute has come at an inconvenient time for your GA review, but these things happen. -kotra (talk) 01:08, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, upon rereading, I now realize you mean "editing dispute" to mean "a dispute over how a user is editing", as opposed to "a dispute over particular edits". If that is what you meant, I disagree. I don't see any problem with how users are editing, except that there isn't enough discussion (which is the fault of all three parties). -kotra (talk) 02:00, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

My experience with CadenS on this article in particular and then again on E.O. Green School shooting was generally being on the receiving end of bad faith accusations and hostility. Ave Caesar deleted talk page threads about the concern on their talkpage and never discussed any concerns except in edit summary comments. Either are welcome to engage in civil discussion on the talk page but edit-warring is unproductive and, really, do we need an RfC to confirm that homosexual is pejorative and gay should be the default? Or that we shouldn't misrepresent sources? Both have indicated they feel their edits are fine - they really aren't. I'm looking for the edit warring to stop and I've been on the talkpage consistently. -- Banjeboi 03:00, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I had thought the hostility at E.O. Green School shooting was over, so it surprised me that you would bring it up again here. But as for this recent dispute, I still haven't seen any discussion about it on Talk:Jesse Dirkhising, from them or you, so I guess I'm still at a loss as to why you brought this up here, without hardly discussing the issues first. And, you acknowledge that "homosexual" is not always pejorative, so perhaps it is not being used in that tone here? These things should be clarified first before one assumes bad faith; this is why I suggested RfC before ANI, if talk page discussion fails (which has still barely been explored). I think we're going in circles, though. (by the way, since blanking is usually ok on your own talk page, that particular part of Ave Caeser's behavior seems fine) -kotra (talk) 07:05, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

My experiences with Benji have been unpleasant. I feel he's anti-heterosexual, anti-Christian and anti-conservative due to his biased POV. I don't know what his problem is with conservatives, or Christians or even us heterosexuals. But his edits are more than clear he has some serious issues concerning the three. He often assumes bad faith and he's assuming bad faith once again by attacking my good faith edits as "vandalism". My edits are fine and have all been done in good faith. Benji's edits are questionable, in my opinion. "Gay" is a slang liberal word. "Straight" is a slang liberal word. Homosexual and heterosexual are the correct words to be used in a encyclopedia. I am not using the word "homosexual" in a pejorative way (like Benji accuses me of), and I highly doubt that Ave Caesar is using it in a negative way either. But as always, Benji assumes bad faith over any edits made by any editor who does not share his homosexual POV, regardless of the topics. I wonder why? Could it be because of his problems with heterosexuals, Christians and conservatives? He claims: "homosexual is used predominately in conservative religious venues to vilify LGBT people". Please. That's PC nonsense and is not true. You cannot group all people together as one just so you can push your POV on here. Doesn't Benji understand that not all christians are conservative? I assure you that not all conservatives are religious. Furthermore, the slang word "gay" is a liberal mainstream word that liberal society and liberal media outlets use for political correctness. Regardless of all this, Benji's issues are focused on a individual editor's way of editing. That's bad faith on his part. It should be focused on the true issue, which is a content dispute. I don't see any problems with how I edit, nor do I see any issues with how Ave Caesar edits. I do have some serious concerns with an editor who vilifies other editors as, "they" or "their" or "them". That's extremely rude. On a final note, Benji failed to initiate discussion on the talk page. Had he done so, I would of gladly taken part. Instead he filed this report. This alone was bad faith on his part. Caden S (talk) 09:00, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

As soon as you throw "liberal this" and "liberal that" and "political correctness" about, then you are showing your prejudices very clearly, thank you. Never mind what you think should be the correct wording and usage, what does the community think? This is after all a collaborative project. Black Kite 09:41, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Your statement above shows me where your prejudices are. But yes, what does the community think should be the correct words to use? Caden S (talk) 10:50, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

"Gay" is hardly a "slang liberal word". Conservatives use it as well. So does the mainstream media. I'm more interested in the terms used by reliable sources to describe the subject than in a community referendum, though. MastCell ^Talk 16:16, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

You have zero idea what my politics are. However, it is a standard Wikipedia (and general) fact that editors who rail against what they think is "political correctness" and use "liberal" in a pseudo-pejorative manner are rarely very good at editing articles in a neutral manner. Black Kite 18:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

The use of the word "gay" to refer to the LGBT community, or it's members, is entirely appropriate and is in accordance with the Wikipedia community guideline WP:Naming conventions (identity)#Sex and sexual identities that states: For people, the terms "gay" (often, but not always, used for males only) and "lesbian" (which is used for females only) are preferred over "homosexual," which has clinical associations and is often considered pejorative. However, homosexual may be used in describing people in certain instances, in particular in historical contexts. Homosexual is considered pejorative, and gay is very mainstream usage. It has nothing to do with liberal bias and it's not slang. — Becksguy (talk) 20:50, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, "gay" could still be considered slang, in the same sense that "Coke" could be considered slang for "Coca-Cola". Both terms "Coke" and "gay" are widespread, though, and much more commonly used than their alternatives. Even so, we use "Coca-Cola" instead of "Coke", though we use "gay" instead of "homosexual". I think the reason we don't use "homosexual" too is because of its pejorative meaning in many contexts. In any case, WP:Naming conventions (identity)#Sex and sexual identities is pretty clear which we should use. But back to the topic at hand, I don't think either user was trying to be disruptive or particularly POV-pushing by using the more clinical term. Many people are unaware that "homosexual" is considered pejorative. -kotra (talk) 22:41, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

The point is that if an editor informs you clearly that the word you're using is pejorative - perhaps your first action should not be to revert them. That just maybe if someone brings an issue to them your response should not be immediate spite, deletion or sarcasm. This is not a battleground and we can work with people even if we don't agree with them. That CadenS also chooses to add more POV and heap bad faith accusations towards me is also unhelpful. That they were misrepresenting sources also seems like a bad prospect for the article. I too had thought their hostility towards me had ended when they again lobbed a jab and personal attack me on E.O. Green School shooting - that's why I mentioned it. They also accused me and two other editors of attacking them. I didn't really see it myself but I apologized anyway as I certainly didn't mean any offense. Up above they attack me a few more times. What exactly do I do to prove I'm not anti-conservative, anti-Christians and anti-heterosexual? Ave Caesar chose to simply revert me as well, I rather doubt either of these editors really thought much but simply reverting someone they disagreed with. If they honestly think homosexual is the default word for gay and lesbian people I'm concerned what else they are changing and inserting. That neither has accepted that just maybe the choice to simply revert without discussing was a bad one also seems alarming - yes it happens but we have a pattern with each separately - unfortunately - of what certainly seems to be edit warring. That each save their most troubling conduct for LGBT-related subjects and hostility towards an editor and have no ownership of their actions bodes ill for the project. -- Banjeboi 10:53, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

CadenS' behavior

• Comment. Another hostile attack this time on my talkpage. -- Banjeboi 10:53, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Do I have to bring up my past ANI reports and links against CadenS or is he going to stop editing articles relating to sexuality like he promised last time to avoid a block? — Realist² 15:59, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Would it be possible to provide a diff or pointer to his promise to avoid these articles?

MastCell ^Talk 16:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

• • • • Here. Basically to diffuse the post I made at ANI, that would have likely resulted in Caden being blocked. He instead declared that he quit, thus making a block pointless, came back 5 hours later wanting adoption and promising to avoid sexuality articles. He was back to sexuality articles very quickly. That said, and I must stress this, Caden contributes in a very positive manner to articles unrelated to sexuality. --— Realist² 16:57, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I can't believe it but my wiki stalker Realist2 is back at it sticking his nose where it don't belong. He was warned by several users in the past to stop harassing me. He agreed and promised me that he would stop. And now he's back at it with more threats. I'm fed up with you harassing me. I'm sick of you stalking me and watching my every move on Wikipedia. Get a life. Stop stalking me Realist. You have been stalking me since May 2008. Caden S (talk) 16:33, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

CadenS I'm not stalking you at all! There is a HUGE post about you at ANI. It's quite hard to avoid you know. You also broke your promise not to edit articles on sexuality. Then I see a post where you tell another editor that they disgust you. Christ CadenS, I'm not out to get you, I tried to help you the other week. I'm strongly advising you as a friend (I consider use on friendly terms) to stop editing these kinds of articles before your blocked. You are doing some wonderful work on other articles on wikipedia, but this other stuff is too much for you I think. I don't want to see you blocked, I really don't. Please calm down, before you get yourself into more trouble, please Caden. You love wikipedia (I hope), and we want you here. But you have your hot buttons for understandable reasons. Please make yourself some coffee or tea, take a chill and come back to what you do best. :-) — Realist² 16:38, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm certain this thread about the content dispute and the use of "gay" vs. "homosexual" did not have to come to ANI as members of WP:LGBT would argue about this, but Caden's posts must be addressed. Caden is an impulsive editor who allows his past experience to color his responses, which are disproportionately vehement in the scheme of natural discussion and disagreement editors have over article content. He has posted before that he has had a traumatic experience with gay men in the past, but his trauma should not define how editors communicate about problems within an article. In short, he's making his problems everyone else's problems. It sucks time away from what needs to be done to an article, and requires further intervention by his mentor kotra (talk · contribs). I can only imagine how draining this must be for kotra to have to calm Caden down this frequently. This diff provided by Benji regarding Caden's umbrage taken to non-gendered pronouns is a prime example. I can't think getting this stressed out is fun for Caden, and I suggest taking a break and doing something else that is much more enjoyable. The bottom line, however, is that other editors should not be forced to avoid his temper, especially when it's this unpredictable. He needs to take some responsibility for his behavior, tone it down, drop out of LGBT articles, and come back when he behave calmly and dispassionately. --Moni3 (talk) 16:27, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I would agree with Moni's assessment here - it's disappointing to see the same user here again for the same thing, as I remember the original AN/I from a few months ago quite well, and the promise made which essentially got him out of that one (noting I don't edit in the area but do watch AN/I fairly consistently and have done so for almost two years). Orderinchaos 17:17, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

After reviewing all of this, I'm afraid that I agree that Caden's temper flares when working on sexuality-related articles. That said, I just want to note that he has sometimes been a positive help on these sexuality-related articles, but unfortunately I'm not sure if it's worth all the anger and fighting behind the scenes. So I would be ok with a restriction on articles about sexuality. I agree with Realist, though, that he has usually been very helpful and an asset to the community on other articles, and his behavior had improved greatly until this recent flare-up. So I would support a topic restriction, but in the interests of the project, not a complete block. -kotra (talk) 17:43, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

As his mentor, I'm glad you suggested a possible solution that was also at the back of my mind. I think a sexuality topic ban is not necessary at this stage. Caden has every right to feel the way he does, but if he can't keep his feelings from disrupting the project in future, I think implementing such a ban is the next step, if only on a temporary basis. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:45, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you SheffieldSteel! Yes, I do have every right to feel the way I do, but many editors have attempted to strip me of my rights. At least that's how it appears to me. In regards to why my temper flared, it had nothing to do with the article content dispute. It was based on Benji's offensive description of me in all posts (as "they", "their" and "them"). I asked him many times as did my adopter, for him to refrain from describing me in gender-neutral languge. He has continued to disrespect my wishes nevertheless. A sexuality topic ban, or even a restriction on articles about sexuality is not necessary. My work on these articles speak for itself. If it weren't for me, both the E. O. Green School article and the Jesse Dirkhising article would not be NPOV. There are few POV issues still remaining on the Dirkhising page. Regardless of that, I fought hard against many POV pushers to save these articles and my good edits reflect that. Although those editors created an extremely stressful environment for me and painted me as the bad guy, I'm proud that I did what was right according to NPOV policy. I'm proud that I have the balls to speak up, the courage to be bold, and the strength to take action by doing what's right. Caden S (talk) 17:28, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I think a temporary topic restriction should go ahead, Kotra and even Caden himself seem to think it's probably for the best. We had a similar ANI post a few months ago, Caden said he would stay away from sexuality articles then, yet somehow we are back here. Caden has taken multiple cool of breaks (that last for weeks at a time) in the past yet things soon heat up again. Caden's talents as an editor should be kept to what he does best on other articles, without these other articles as a distraction. We really don't want another overblown ANI episode in the future, something I fear will put Caden off any interest in wikipedia. — Realist² 22:03, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Realist, please do not speak for me on my behalf. You have no business to put words into my mouth. I mean no offense to you, but I never agreed to any type of agreement in terms of avoiding any sexuality articles. All I said to you, was that I understood your suggestion, but I did not agree to any terms. Although I believe your intentions are good, I'd appreciate that you refrain from speaking on my behalf. At this point I have not been contacted by any admin, therefore I have no clue what options are available to me. Caden S (talk) 12:54, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

As an outsider here, it seems obviously better all round if Caden avoids topics that wind him up, however justified the reasoning, and in the long run it's better that he does that of his own accord than have it forced upon him. There are topics I specifically avoid because I know I'd only get het up, and to reduce the risk of threads such as this, er, um, I don't go there. Caden, whatever your past, its a cliche to say that "Wikipedia is not therapy", and neither (to a lesser extent) is it a soapbox for anger. Two and a half million articles should give you plenty to do. Your edits are generally good, from what I've seen, and you just need to point those talents to where they'll make you feel appreciated in the right kind of way. You have good guys on your side here; time is one healer, but doing something else is another, particularly if you've got people batting on your side. --Rodhullandemu 22:16, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Rod, I can see your point on this but I disagree with you. If I were to avoid these type of topics, they would end up being the horribly biased and POV articles they once were before I fought for them to be NPOV. However justified my feelings are concerning these subjects, the articles do not wind me up. It's some of the editors on those pages that get me going, like for example Benji. But I'm working on keeping my cool even when I'm personally attacked, which has been often. I do agree with you that it's better that I choose on my own accord, whether I shouldn't work on these articles or not, instead of it being forced upon me. I am open to feedback and suggestions though. As for working on other articles, I do work on many unrelated type of articles. I enjoy doing so. But as it stands today, I'm not sure what's going to happen with me or this ANI report. I'm not even sure why Moni went and shifted the spotlight from the original content dispute (of which this report is supposed to be about) to my behavior. I have a lot of questions but no answers. Am I going to be blocked or not? Am I going to be given a topic restriction or not? Why is the content dispute not being discussed anymore? What about the other editor Ave Caesar? This ANI was filed against this editor as well, not just me. Why am I being singled out? Why has the real issue here (the content dispute) been forgotten? Caden S (talk) 17:28, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

With the best will in the world, what worries me is that I doubt you are sufficiently disinterested to preserve NPOV, and that is why I think you should avoid those articles, for the very reason that this thread came to be. Up to you, of course. --Rodhullandemu 17:40, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

There's several categories of articles I never go anywhere near for that exact reason - I know that no matter how good my intentions, my personal opinions on the area are so strong that I know I could not be neutral and hence it is best left to others who are. Orderinchaos 18:42, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

L::Well, User:Mastcell has suggested a restriction, at this point though what's most important is ensuring that we don't have another ANI thread like this. This is the second and I'm not sure the community will tolerate a third incident like this. We should be looking to help Caden make the most of his abilities without all this other stuff muddying it up. If a restriction is the best way to prevent that, who knows. — Realist² 18:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Rod, you didn't answer any of my questions. Furthermore, this report is not about just me. It was filed against another editor as well. And Realist, this report is not about me. I already told you this before. Caden S (talk) 18:50, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Outdent. The other user - Ave Caesar - basically only reverted and I personally saw their contributions there as disruptive although generally adding tags is usually helpful. That they reverted without discussing and in doing so restored pejorative language and content not supported by sources was also not great. They seemed to be following your lead but in doing so affirmed they felt those edits were correct, they weren't. However, your actions coupled with your previous talkpage conduct and given the recent issues on E.O. Green School shooting put you on a more prominent level. That you interpret my nearly universal use of gender-neutral language as a personal attack against you was news to me. That you coupled that with another personal attack against me didn't help. The issue from the beginning was two editors' conduct on the article using content examples to illustrate the problem. I've held off reverting the problematic changes - switching gay to homosexual and adding an extra molestation in, etc - as well as fixing the refs until I know things are more resolved. Just to be absolutely clear, I don't believe I've ever attack you but if you felt attacked then I apologize as that was never my interest or intent. -- Banjeboi 12:02, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Refactoring this page is hardly a great demonstration at this point. [1] Guyonthesubway (talk) 21:43, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Options

As CadenS's Adopter, I have been asked to impose whatever restrictions I feel are appropriate. However, due to my status as Adopter, I feel I am too involved to make the decision on my own. Therefore, I would appreciate input and/or a decision from other editors, particularly uninvolved editors and administrators. The options I see are as follows (please suggest any others you feel are appropriate):

1. Do nothing (assumes CadenS is not at fault).
2. Continue to urge CadenS to assume good faith and remain civil in disputes with editors.
3. Recruit an additional mentor to help guide CadenS.
4. Suggest a temporary/permanent voluntary topic ban on Jesse Dirkhising.
5. Impose a temporary/permanent involuntary topic ban on Jesse Dirkhising.
6. Suggest a temporary/permanent voluntary topic ban on all sexuality-related articles (including E.O. Green School shooting and Jesse Dirkhising).
7. Impose a temporary/permanent involuntary topic ban on all sexuality-related articles.
8. Temporary/permanent block. (above discussion seems to indicate consensus is against this)

Whatever the restrictions meted out, both CadenS and I would prefer the decision be made sooner rather than later. So please comment! -kotra (talk) 21:08, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I feel I'm too close to this as well so would prefer others input here. CadenS has genuinely good feedback and concerns but they need to be dialed down - we can disagree without being disagreeable. -- Banjeboi 02:06, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I was going to say a voluntary topic ban, but actually Kotra has come up with the idea of an extra mentor. I think two mentors is bound to be better than one and could help. I think an additional mentor is the best way to go 100%. I recently saw some of CadenS comments at an RfA and he's even passing on advise about civility in a brilliant manner to other people. This proves Caden has and will continue to learn from mistakes. With guidance he will be a strong asset. — Realist² 14:41, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Ave Caesar's behavior

We seem to have been distracted from the other user in this report. Only a few of the issues with Ave Caesar have yet been addressed, so for the purpose of discussion, I'm copying Benji's original report on Ave Caesar below:

Another editor and I were discussing converting over the citation style to make editing the HTML easier for them when Ave Caesar (talk · contribs) added the {{citation style}} tag, which was odd because the discussion was already in process and the tag is about the uniformity and appearance which was already done. Our discussion was about switching over from one system to another. I explained in my edit summary "rmv tag as unneeded, they are all consistent at present and there is presently a discussion on converting them". They re-inserted the tag so I tried to explained the tag wasn't addressing any relevant issue to Ave Caesar and they deleted the thread citing my concern should only be placed on the article talk page. They didn't join in the discussion but instead re-added the tag. I, tried again to explain how the tag was unhelpful - they deleted this thread as well. As far as I know tagging the article and reverting my edits has been their only involvement on that article. Looking at some of their recent edits I was a little shocked to see edit warring over the WP:LGBT project tag on Lindsay Lohan with Dev920 who has, as part of their signature "who misses Jeffpw". Stunningly Ave Caesar follows up with Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:Jeffpw/Isaäc's Memorial Page.

Is there anything that needs to be addressed here? -kotra (talk) 21:17, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

• IMO - Caden needs to stop letting his POV influence his editing, and Ave Caesar needs to stop being a WP:DICK - that MfD of the memorial page was particularly dickish. If they can manage both of those things, we can close this, I think - there's no need for prescriptive blocks or topic bans yet. Black Kite 10:32, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Homosexual is a more formal word than gay, and I expect it would be used more in encyclopedias etc. I've not read all the ins and outs of the discussion, but I would like to disagree with the claim that 'homosexual' is always a slur word- it's more often just a formal word. And I'm a bisexual woman so I'm not being shockingly homophobic by saying that.:) It does sound like Benji was trying to get Corden into trouble by posting here, but no-one could really deny that AC's attempt to delete the memorial page was wrong. Sticky Parkin 17:41, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Guys, let's stay on topic here (just to be clear, I'm not singling out Sticky Parkin). This section is only about Ave Caesar, not CadenS. There is another section above to discuss CadenS. -kotra (talk) 19:23, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Sticky Parkin, I wasn't trying to get anyone into trouble - I was working to stop edit warring as outlined in my original post. And has been discussed homosexual is generally pejorative on biographies and should be used with care elsewhere. It's a loaded word persistently used in American culture wars - we don't need to perpetuate it's use needlessly just as avoid doing so with other terms used as such. -- Banjeboi 21:05, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Suicide threat - cross posted from WP:AIV

Suicide announcement?

I don't know if this is serious or just a hoax: [2]. But you never know. The IP is registered to St. John's Memorial University, St. John's, NFL, Canada. De728631 (talk) 13:09, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I think we have some framework in place to deal with these things but I can't remember what it is. Perhaps someone in the area should phone the uni, just in case. — ^.^ ^{[citation needed]} 13:16, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

In most cases WP:RBI. D.M.N. (talk) 13:17, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I suggest the possibly less harmful and lifesaving Wikipedia:Responding to threats of harm. — ^.^ ^{[citation needed]} 13:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I found that too, sent an email to the NFL Constabulary, maybe that helps. De728631 (talk) 13:30, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

That likely wraps it up. Nothing more we can do here except move on. Cheers, guys, and good work. lifebaka++ 14:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

We probably want the edit deleted from non admin viewable history, but we'll probably need an oversighter to do it.--Tznkai (talk) 15:51, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Sent an email to stewards AT wikimedia.org, so it'll either get taken care of or not. Cheers. lifebaka++ 16:10, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely to NOT WP:RBI this. There has been a specific threat of violence made and pursuant to WP:TOV this should be taken seriously and reported to the authorities. I am currently on a bus from Boston to New York so cannot do this. Can someone please take point on this? Bstone (talk) 16:03, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Give me a moment to set up a subpage, with two active threads this is getting to damned confusing.

FYI, action has already been taken - Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Suicide_threat_-_cross_posted_from_WP:AIV. Cirt (talk) 16:08, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I would not suggest to use RBI, instead contacting local users so effective measures can be taken. Caulde 16:09, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

This may be helfpul: Wikipedia:Responding to suicidal individuals --Flewis^(talk) 03:46, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Suicide threat - cross posted from WP:AIV

Resolved

 – authorities notified Toddst1 (talk) 15:36, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

134.153.184.17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has threatened to commit suicide. The Whois look up indicates the address is registered to a university in Newfoundland. I've emailed the university and the Wikimedia foundation, however I'm not based in North America, and would be grateful if someone could phone the Canadian emergency services. PhilKnight (talk) 13:48, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Per WP:TOV, if anyone finds these threats of suicide credible, please feel free to contact the relevant authorities. I have blocked the IP for the vandalism, but have not taken any additional action myself. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:49, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I reported this one level above on this noticeboard. An email was sent to the Newfoundland Constabulary and to the Wikimedia foundation (who just replied that they're going to monitor this). De728631 (talk) 13:55, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

The AN thread resulted in the local government being emailed, so there's nothing else we can do here. Cheers. lifebaka++ 14:33, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I also followed up via email with the IT department at that university. Toddst1 (talk) 15:36, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

See dup thread: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Suicide_announcement.3F. Cirt (talk) 16:09, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Unified

This is now a transcluded so both pages are up to date simulatiniously--Tznkai (talk) 16:10, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Oversight

I have been asked to oversight the revision concerned here. I have declined to do so, with the advice of some other Oversighters, on the grounds that it may be helpful for ISP/authorities to see the revision. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 16:24, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Should we have it deleted/oversighted sometime in the future? --Tznkai (talk) 16:50, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

No point, I think. Stifle (talk) 18:27, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I cannot see why this should ever be oversighted. If blatant vandalism is not oversighted or deleted than things which the authorities may need access to should certainly not be oversighted. Bstone (talk) 22:38, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

To clarify, the Threats of harm essay above suggests deleting, not oversighting the offending edit. Usually to avoid people doing something really stupid misguided with a potentially suicidal person.--Tznkai (talk) 04:06, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposed change of confusing jargon

Why do we call it oversight? Oversight usually means some sort of independent review or process, often to try to keep people honest. Wikipedia usage of oversight really means "Removal", "Content deletion" or "Censor" (censorship doesn't need to be bad; some countries have a censorship board). Propose making Wikipedia more user friendly and less jargon by renaming the term "oversight" to "content removal" or "remove". So the first sentence of this section would read "I have been asked to do content removal of the revision concerned here" or "I have been asked to remove the revision concerned here". 903M (talk) 03:56, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Not meaning to seem like I'm muting discussion here or anything, but you probably should head over to WP:VPP for things like this. You'll get a much wider group of editors there. Cheers. lifebaka++ 03:59, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I forget where I read this, but IIRC, the name came from the fact that all members can hide revisions and also see those hidden revisions, thereby providing oversight of each other to ensure that no one is hiding revisions that don't need to be hidden or hiding them for ulterior motives. Or it may have been that a narrow group had that oversight role and more could hide revisions, but now the groups are congruent and inseparable.--chaser - t 05:00, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

The way I've always looked at it is since the GFDL requires attribution of all edits, exercising this tool is sort of "overlooking" that license, as we're deleting part of the history. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:04, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't have anything to do with it (admins can do that with deletion and selective diff restoraton).--chaser - t 06:04, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

The GFDL also only requires us to have the major contributors. Almost universally when we oversight whatever is left has little to no contribution from the edits in question. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:10, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Advice needed on abuse reporting

Hi, chaps. I'd like some advice on what do with banned user Jacob Peters (talk · contribs). Jakey's a pro-Soviet POV-pusher who got banned way back in the day for monomaniacal nuttery and has since been socking merrily ever since (Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Jacob Peters, Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Jacob Peters, Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Jacob Peters). He just made a reappearance on Vladimir Lenin - up to his old tricks.

For a while now, Jakey seems to have become very reliant on the IPs of the California State University network: specifically, those belonging to Glendale Community College (California), where he is apparently an undergraduate (heaven help us). This has caused me to apply some very serious blocks, effectively shutting out the whole college. The IPs in question are 204.102.211.115 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), coming to the end of a year-long account-creation-blocked logged-in editing-prohibited block, 207.151.38.178 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) approaching the end of an identical block, and 204.102.210.101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), currently out of play for a month. A shame, because even from the IPs we were getting some good non-Jacob contributions (along with the inevitable vandalism). Is it worth someone phoning up the college and seeing if they're willing to deal with this persistent abuse of their network? Or would they view it as none of their business? I don't have a real name to give them, but they could easily figure it out from the editing times, I'm sure. Moreschi (talk) 21:40, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I went to Cal State, and those librarians ain't exactly super-sleuths. Plus, you don't even need to use your student ID to use most of the computers, so I really doubt they would do anything about it. I can't really picture them poring over security tapes. I don't have much of an opinion about the blocks—if I had my way, no IPs would edit—but that's my two cents about the phone call, at least. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 21:48, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

They might be able to do something, might not. No harm in calling. It really depends on the attitude at that college. Maybe they'll do something when enough students whine that the whole campus is blocked from Wikipedia. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:14, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

"if I had my way, no IPs would edit" - Hear, hear! Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 01:22, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I see a lot if IP edits on my watch list every day, and I'm always pleasantly surprised when one of them turns out not to be either blatant vandalism or English-as-a-third-language content. The attitude of the average IP address is "IP on U". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:12, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to disagree strongly on IPs in general. (Though this one certainly deserves it.) Sure, some IPs vandalize, but often as not they're reverted by other IPs. I see far more problems from registered users - hoaxes, attack pages, blatant POV pushing, edit warring, etc. Just take a look at this incident page - almost every problem on it is a registered user, not an IP. Edward321 (talk) 05:10, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

That's because IP's come and go, and it's easier to deal with (and block) registered users. The majority of IP address updates I see on my watch list every day are junk, one way or another. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:07, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

BB: I don't know if I'd subscribe to "majority", but I notice that I cringe a bit when I see an IP edit on my watchlist and, like you, I am pleased at those that turn out to be constructive. Maybe I'll start putting a note on those IPs, thanking them for their contribution and suggesting that they register - it would be a welcome respite from posting warnings. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 22:11, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

You have to admit though, 'majority' or not, it is always nice to see a random IP behaving itself. HalfShadow 22:13, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

We seem to have a substitutable template that urges good-edit IPs to register Template:Register Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 03:37, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Remember, one of those anon IPs is Ward Cunningham. Why does he edit Wikipedia without using an account? In his own words: "Because I can." -- llywrch (talk) 07:20, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Presumably, if he couldn't, he'd use his account. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 20:28, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Lightmouse again

Lightmouse (talk · contribs) is no longer using his Lightbot to remove links to dates, but is now doing it using AWB. He still refuses to discuss this. Corvus cornix_talk 22:23, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I left a message on his talk page asking him to stop using AWB in this manner until he has discussed the issue with the community. Since his bot was halted for this kind of behavior, using AWB or other scripts to perform the same kinds of edits is unhelpful and inappropriate and might even be construed as disruptive. If he continues to edit in this fashion without addressing the concerns of the community, additional warnings regarding the behavior may be appropriate. Shereth 22:33, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

This edit shows the reckless use of a bot without regard for the proper date format for the article being edited. This user must be blocked. Lightbot should be blocked indefinitely --Gerry Ashton (talk) 22:56, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Let's not go overboard, here. I dont' actually have a big problem with a semi-automated script as long as discretion is being applied. Most dates should probably be unlinked. It's only the automated unlinking of all dates (and reformatting of dates/units/etc. in quotes, etc.) that I think is the issue. Still, it would be nice if this editor would respond in some way to the concerns that have been expressed. -Chunky Rice (talk) 23:09, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Whoa, calm down! Lightmouse hasn't used his bot since it was stopped, and he appears to have stopped using AWB as requested when I left the comment on his talk page. It's unfortunate that he appears uninterested in discussing the situation here (or anywhere) but so far he's complied with requests to stop making these edits and this talk about blocking is, at this point, quite unecessary. Shereth 23:11, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

If not blocking then at least his permission to use AWB should be revoked. This is looks fully automated to me. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 23:13, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Please try to assume good faith. Even if I agreed that there was something wrong with the edits, he hasn't used it since Shereth asked him to stop. There's no reason to block or revoke privileges or anything like that. -Chunky Rice (talk) 23:17, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec) As I said, he stopped doing it as requested. We don't use blocks and the like to punish, we use them to prevent - and at the moment, it appears that Lightmouse is not out to cause trouble and thus there is no bad behavior to "prevent". It'd be one thing if he ignored us and just went along with these edits, but he stopped. What's the rush to punish? Shereth 23:19, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

My thankfully limited experience with Lightmouse has been that, as with Betacommand, it's his way or the highway. Where do these characters come from? And what's more important, who turns them loose here to do whatever they feel like, including not bothering to answer questions? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I consider this closed if Lightmouse has stopped editing dates, however I will point out that the link posted above shows that he was not just delinking dates; he was changing from one style to another, from "August 24, 1814" to "24 August 1814". This is the equivalent of switching era styles (CE to AD) or from British to American spelling (colour to color) or vice versa without a substantive reason. This is strongly discouraged by the relevant guidelines. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 03:16, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I have found a clear example of where the bot operated by Lightmouse (talk · contribs) is not behaving in accordance with the manual of style [3]. This diff [4] to British Rail shows a clear change of a date that was in the correct format. Lightmouse must explain why a date that is compliant with the manual of style was changed, else the bot must be permanently stopped and Lightmouse given a temporary block as punishment. Olana North (talk) 08:39, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Not sure how that is a "clear example", considering all that was done was removing the autoformatting. It was left in British style of date formatting, as per MoS. Am I missing something? — Huntster (t • @ • c) 10:27, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Olana North's complaint has no merit whatsoever. Thie date in question was in UK (dmy) format, and linked for autoformatting. All Lightmouse did was to remove the autoformatting, entirely in conformance with the manual of style, which deprecates autoformatting. The date is still in UK format. There is no case to answer. Colonies Chris (talk) 10:52, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

This looks to me like a debate about the Manual of Style. I am not sure if ANI is a place where the MoS can be redebated but this is what it says:

• Dates (years, months, day and month, full dates) should not be linked, unless there is a particular reason to do so
• The linking of dates purely for the purpose of autoformatting is now deprecated.

Discussion of the meaning of those words is best undertaken at wt:mosnum. That way, you won't just get my opinion.

With respect to the example of 'Burning of Washington' given by Steven J. Anderson, I agree that it should have been in US format. There are several editors on Wikipedia that are working to clean up the mess left by date links (they conceal inconsistent and wrong-side formats from registered editors but leave them visible to ordinary readers). One part of that work is auditing date links in articles and making the dates consistent. This involves choosing one format or the other depending on the MoS guidelines for mdy or dmy format. In that case, it came up in a search for articles containing 'British' in the title (and hence likely to require auditing to dmy format) as a redirect. It was incorrectly set to dmy and you are quite right to say it should be mdy.

With respect to the example of 'British Rail' given by Olana, Lightbot delinked '2001'. Lightmouse delinked '1 January 1948'. If those are not in accordance with the Manual of Style, then perhaps Olana and I have different views on the Manual of Style. I am under the impression that debates about MoS wording are best dealt with at the MoS talk page rather than at ANI.

Having done 300,000 edits relating to the MOS, it is inevitable that some people want to debate the MoS with me. I have probably spoken about date links and MoS wording on more occasions and with more people than anyone here. I am reluctant to stop editing just because some people regard the MoS as unfinished business - the MoS is always unfinished business - so is Wikipedia. I really strongly encourage people to debate MoS implementation at the MoS talk page. Is this an ANI issue? Lightmouse (talk) 10:49, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Lightmouse, thank you for the response. I know several people, myself included, have been concerned by what seemed to be a lack of communication on your part. I agree that discussions of the manual of style are best handled there, but what is appropriate to discuss here are your actions related to the MOS and linked dates. What is troubling is that in neither case do the guidelines above completely support your actions.

For your first point, the key phrase is "unless there is a particular reason to do so". Without engaging the editors involved with articles with linked years, there is no way for you (or your script, or your bot, Lightbot) of knowing whether or not the linking has a particular reason.

For your second item: deprecation of auto-formatted dates does not equal their prohibition. There are compelling reasons to not auto-format dates, which is why they are now deprecated by the MOS. But I have not seen any consensus for immediate, mass-removal of auto-formatted dates. Further, to tie your two reasons together, there is no way for a bot or a script to tell if a date is "merely" auto-formatted or if there is "a particular reason" for its linking.

There's an somewhat disturbing old bumper sticker/t-shirt slogan (of which I am not very fond) that usually says something along the lines of "kill them all and let God sort them out". Regrettably, that seems to summarize your approach to your MOS date-related edits, an approach that some people find disruptive. — Bellhalla (talk) 12:45, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I think this is more about being perceived as over-keen to enforce the MoS, than the MoS itself. I recently had to head off an impending edit-war caused by Lightbot delinking not only formatted dates (no problem there), but wikilinked 'year-on-TV' dates too. This was, in my view, an unnecessary aggravation. If some linked dates remain in an article for now, so what? It's really not a big deal; I seriously doubt if a single WP reader would care or even notice. However, causing needless conflict amongst those who write the encyclopedia is a big deal, when it can be avoided with a little tact and forethought ;) EyeSerene^talk 13:35, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Lightbot is not programmed to delink autoformatted dates so I am bit puzzled by your suggestion that it did. Please can you give me a link and I will investigate. With regard to 'year-in-X' links, they are often concealed to look like solitary years, or concealed within full dates so that they break autoformatting. Some editors had, reasonably, considered that solitary years are not as useful as targetted years but in many cases had simply replaced solitary years with a concealed link. Many projects recommend that 'year-in-X' dates are not hidden so that the reader only sees yet another blue solitary year. One recommendation is to make it visible by showing at least one non-date term to the reader, and the MoS is considering the same. If a link looks like a solitary year, it readers will treat it just like one. Consequently Lightbot did delink concealed links on the basis that they were just as likely to be ignored as solitary years. However, that feature has been switched off. Some year-in-X links actually break autoformatting and that is an extremely common error and that error-correction feature remains switched on. I wish some of the energy that was directed into keeping date links was directed into fixing the errors and inconsistencies it causes. I know that people like to ask me lots of questions, particularly if they disagree with the MoS or its implementation. I have probably expended more effort communicating about this issue, and to more people, than anyone here. Whether this is about the history of MoS text, the text itself, or the legitimacy of acting on MoS text, I am not the spokesperson for the MoS and sometimes it feels like people treat me as if I am. I still feel like this is all MoS talk. Is this an ANI issue? Lightmouse (talk) 14:38, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Just a note: What I'm speaking of above is directed at Lightmouse, the person, who controls both the account User:Lightmouse and the bot User:Lightbot. I know that he/she is very precise about which one has performed specific actions, but I'm speaking of the combined effects of both accounts. — Bellhalla (talk) 15:14, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

And as an FYI, he is again actively removing date links through User:Lightmouse account and AWB. — Bellhalla (talk) 15:17, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

It is an ANI issue because the primary concern is the method of enforcement of the MOS. If nothing else, the MOS is a style guideline and its application is thus open to debate and consideration. Furthermore, MOSNUM itself explicitly creates room for exceptions to the rule - linked dates are not always subject to unlinking per the guideline. Currently you are using AWB to make semi-automated edits to this effect at the rate of about 4 per minute, or once every 15 seconds. Do you mean to tell me that in a 15 second timespan, you have adequate time to load the page, read it over to contextually determine whether unlinking is necessary, and perform the edit? I think not. Your strict and unconsidered enforcement of MOSNUM is what is causing issues with editors. Again I will ask you to refrain from this behavior - while there is an open debate regarding the method of enforcement, it is not appropriate to continue to do so. Shereth 15:28, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps an RFC is the best way to handle this? — ras52 (talk) 15:55, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Previous discussions have brought up the possibility of an RFC on the bot. I think it would be an excellent way to clear up the confusion on how Lightmouse is choosing to enforce MOSNUM and get a better idea of how the community feels regarding the issue. Shereth 16:01, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Olana North provides this example of an edit that does nothing about except remove autoformatting. This could be brushed off as a MOSNUM issue, or issue about how quickly statements in the MOSNUM should be carried out, except that Lightmouse state above "Lightbot is not programmed to delink autoformatted dates". Now, the edit was made by Lightmouse (using AWB), not Lightbot, but this action suggest that Lightmouse is not fully in control of, or does not fully understand the operation of the bots he is using, which is an ANI issue. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 16:11, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

With respect to the example of 'British Rail' given by Ashton, I delinked '1 January 1948' deliberately. What is wrong with that? Have a cup of tea guys. Lightmouse (talk) 16:28, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Lightmouse managed to make 8 edits during the minute 22:25, 25 September 2008. He sure deliberates a lot faster than I do. Perhaps what he realy decided was that the AWB bot should process a list of articles he had compiled, on the basis that that the word "British" was in the title, remove all date links in those articles, and put all dates in those articles in the order day month year. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 16:55, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

This is not an issue with the MOS. This is an issue with Lightbot. There is no consensus at MOS or anywhere else that all dates, whatever the format, should be unlinked. There is a consensus that dates should not be linked unless there is a reason to do so. "reason to do so" is something that can only be determined by a human being, not a bot. Also, please clarify: does your bot make format edits to direct quotes, categories, and other non-prose sections? -Chunky Rice (talk) 16:36, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Note related discussion at MoS talk started by the user in question here. Shereth 16:41, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

• Note this appear to also have some relation to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Tony1 dm (talk) 16:49, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

In response to Lightmouse's diff request: I was incorrect about Lightbot removing fully-formatted date links; please accept my apologies. I appreciate your explanation of the other issue (this was the edit I had in mind), and that this function has now been deactivated. My concern about over-zealous enforcement of the MoS remains, though - not specifically directed at you, but at any editor (or bot) who takes it upon themselves to globally apply one interpretation of an often deliberately vague document. I've followed the various discussions at WT:MOSNUM, and agree with delinking dates that are only linked for formatting reasons, but so far it's only at FA that I've encountered this as a de facto requirement. It may become more widely adopted, or it may not... but where there's leeway in the guidelines and an article is not up for formal assessment (and therefore not subject to strict application of a set of criteria), I think we end up doing more harm than good by being too prescriptive. EyeSerene^talk 16:51, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

• I think that what Lightmouse is doing is correct, appropriate, and desperately needed. The MOSNUM policy stating that dates should not be linked was thoroughly debated for a long time and is the result of a properly-arrived-at consensus. Links should be strictly limited to topics that are topical and germane to the article. Links to rambling lists of mindless trivia are virtually never topical and germane and just clutter up articles with excess blue that anesthetizes the mind. There are simply far too many of these links in far too many articles for any human to possibly hunt them all down and correct them; automated tools are the only way to go. And if the bot removes too many, it is far easier to restore the few false positives than to manually remove all those linked dates.

  Jimbo himself posted the most important rule of all on Wikipedia: Wikipedia:Ignore all rules: “If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it.” Well, in this case, Lightmouse has followed all the rules in his effort to improve Wikipedia. He just shouldn’t have to put up with any more flack from people who flat disagree with MOSNUM, just love their links to trivia, and want to drag this out with even more debate; such views have been discredited and Wikipedia is now well on the road to improvement. Greg L (talk) 20:23, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

• • Very few of us are debating the merits of the MOS. What's in question here is how Lightmouse (here used to mean either User:Lightmouse or User:Lightbot) is going about imposing his/her interpretation of the MOS without discussion or a clear consensus. Take a look at what you wrote:

    Links should be strictly limited to topics that are topical and germane to the article.

    How does User:Lightbot determine which links are "topical and germane"? (Hint: it doesn't.) How does User:Lightmouse determine which links are "topical and germane", especially when he/she edits at an 8 article-per-second clip? I'd like to know the answer to that one. — Bellhalla (talk) 22:13, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, I understand your issue. It is a legitimate one. But look at what else I wrote above:

There are simply far too many of these links in far too many articles for any human to possibly hunt them all down and correct them; automated tools are the only way to go. And if the bot removes too many, it is far easier to restore the few false positives than to manually remove all those linked dates.

There is no point having a MOSNUM guideline deprecating linked dates if the remedy (hand-removing them) would essentially take forever. Even at eight per second, it would take a bot 89 hours (24/7) to go through all 6,930,662 articles on en.Wikipedia. There is just no reason for the knee-jerk reaction to what his bots are doing; it is far, far easier to restore the false positives than to do what you propose. Greg L (talk) 03:36, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Another possibility, which I'm amazed the ancient history projects haven't already put forward, is a whitelist - articles which contain BCE dates or whatever else poses a problem can be added to it, and the bot then just goes "If on this pre-supplied list, ignore." That would allow the majority of articles to be fixed without issue. Also, people need to realise the bot is not the final arbiter, it's simply doing a system-wide task. Essentially if 98% of the switches should be flicked off and 2% left on, it's a tremendous waste to leave them all on or switch them off one by one ... makes more sense to switch them all off then switch back on the ones that are needed. Orderinchaos 11:15, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

• I think that is a good idea and a great attitude, Orderinchaos. Why not propose it to Lightmouse? Clearly, de-linking dates is too monumental of a task without the assistance of a bot. So any suggestions that better marries the talents of humans and the productivity of bots is a good thing.

  I completely agree with your last sentence: “makes more sense to switch them all off then switch back on the ones that are needed.” That gives humans an opportunity to revise both the sentence and the link to avoid Easter egg links. We editors know what to expect of year links. But the supply of new and inexperienced readers is limitless. Easter egg links like this:

…but the 1821 death of Napolean was felt across the nation…

Now, you and I know what will happen if we click on that link. But I actually made the above link a reverse-Easter egg. Click on it. That’s how many new readers expect this form of link to work: as if it was “1821 death”.

Were it me, I wouldn’t even link “1821” in this context to a list of notable historical events. Furthermore, I suggest they be piped so new readers understand precisely what they are being taken to. This is in keeping with WP:Principle of least astonishment. I’d reserve links to years to especially notable years, such as a major point in the relationship of states. This properly anticipates what aficionados of history might like to further explore. They might naturally wonder “what else was going down at this time.” I’d do it as follows…

However, tensions were building between the two nations and, by 1811 (notable events of 1811), Alexander was under strong pressure from the Russian nobility to break off the alliance.

The above is just food for thought. The above suggestion has the virtues of…

1. The link is in an intrinsically historical article. As such, it is a link that is germane and topical to the subject; it properly anticipates what the reader would likely be interested in further exploring.
2. It is a year, not a date (2 May) that is linked. Dates should never be linked because they are nothing but rambling lists of purely random trivia that are always, entirely unrelated to the article in which they are imbedded.
3. It is an especially notable year within the article, where it is natural to wonder what else was happening throughout the world at that time.
4. The link is aliased (piped) so readers know precisely what they will be taken to, which is in keeping with the principle of least astonishment.

As you said, the first step is to let a bot do the mind-boggling enormous task of de-linking all those dates and years that never should have been linked in the first place. Greg L (talk) 16:20, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

The first step is to suggest that the bot (and the user) not automatically unlink years in articles under the perview of Wikipedia:WikiProject Time and subprojects; that the bot check for other links to year articles and note that manual supervision is required if, say 1st century, 2nd century, and 3rd are present, etc.

And that Lightmouse be blocked if he continues to vandalize Wikipedia by removing year links in timeline articles. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:16, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

• Lightmouse always tries to do the right thing for Wikipedia and is a responsible, mature member of the community. Like everyone else here, he is a volunteer. He takes his contributions seriously and the bots he labors over do a lot of good for the community. He’s been the recipient of two barnstars for his efforts over the years. So characterizing his activities as “vandalism” is a gross mischaracterization of what he does for Wikipedia. He tries his best to take a reading of the general consensus and move accordingly only after a policy is posted to MOSNUM. In most cases, simple oversights and unintended consequences in how a bot goes about its business are easily handled just by dropping Lightmouse a note; he has always struck me as being a reasonable fellow who is often quite busy tweaking new bots as a result of editor feedback.

  But on much rarer occasions, editors who’ve never had an occasion to weigh in on WT:MOSNUM, and who have had their articles affected by his bots will come to MOSNUM with less-then-enthusiastic support for a new guideline and the resulting bots. It is often these editors who accuse Lightmouse of vandalism and accuse him of witchcraft and all manner of activities that are supposedly responsible for all the plague and pestilence that has befallen their village.

  If his bots aren’t properly bringing Wikipedia’s articles into compliance with MOSNUM guidelines, then they just need tweaking. Simply advising him of that is all it has ever taken in the past. If that doesn’t resolve the issue(s), then, IMO, the dispute goes deeper than just a bot, and the problem really lies with the fact that the MOSNUM guideline itself is the source of the friction. If that’s the case, I suggest you take up your issue on WT:MOSNUM, where you could advocate adding some nuances and subtleties to the new guidelines. Greg L (talk) 23:42, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

  P.S. I took the word of Bellhalla above literally that his bot goes through 8 articles per second. Uhm… no. It appears to be more like about 2.52 per minute. At that rate—which is far faster than any human could do it—it would take a bot 706 days (24/7) to go through all 6,930,662 articles on en.Wikipedia. I hope he has special searching algorithms that greatly reduces the number of articles that must be addressed. The shear magnitude of these numbers speaks to how this job could only be handled with a bot. Greg L (talk) 02:25, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• Greg, I was on WT:MOSNUM just now, reading your characterisation of other's attitudes, and I think you are going too far. Please comment on the arguments, not on the people making the arguments. Overblown comments like "all the plague and pestilence that has befallen their village" really are not going to help. Please try and keep this specific to examples. Your example of "but the 1821 death of Napoleon was felt across the nation" misses the point. If an editor wants to direct people to reading about the death of Napoleon, they should do so as follows: "but the 1821 death of Napoleon was felt across the nation". And your argument that new readers are misled by 1821 is disingenous. You seem to be basing this on one person's experience - your own. When I first started reading Wikipedia, I clicked on year links expecting an article on a year, and that is what I got. What price now your assertion? Arguments based on what editors think readers want are notoriously unreliable, both yours and mine. Responding to your poitn about bot and bot operator behaviour, I see a mixture of helpful and unhelpful comments. This is primarily because global Wikipedia issues are poorly handled by a single user, no matter how diplomatic or skilled. The better approach is a team. This is what has at times been done with images, with multiple people working together, and the result is almost always better than if you have a single person using a bot to audit the whole of Wikipedia. Instead of defending Lightmouse and Lightbot, why not gather together a team of 4-5 people that will work together to build up a set of pages and achieve more, with more efficiency and diplomacy, than one person and their bot can do alone? Carcharoth (talk) 20:09, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Please note that the term “deprecation” means that a feature has been superseded and should be avoided; however, the feature remains, rather than being removed (although deprecation may indicate that the feature will be removed in the future). In this instance, it means that editors should henceforth cease adding autoformatting links for dates. As for the removal of those already extant, there has been no consensus developed for this to date. In fact, during the course of coming to consensus on their deprecation, I have pointed out several times that failure to obtain a consensus for their automated or semi-automated removal will generate a ruckus because it’s disruptive. Askari Mark (Talk) 04:13, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Andrew Kelly

Resolved

 – Nothing here seems to require administrator action. Back to editing, everyone. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:00, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Andrew has recently been taking part in the RfA of another user and in doing so has expressed some extremely offensive opinions. Andrew, who is "too conservative for conservapedia" (his words not mine), has claimed amongst other things that; atheists support murder, those who do not believe in god will burn in hell, and atheists should not be given a role of authority (even on a website). Infact, I don't even need to provide links for this, feel free to review Andrews "contributions" in recent days, it's all there. Personally, I don't think I support murder and I don't want to burn in hell either. God only wonders what poor Andrew thinks of my gay friends. Would appreciate if this is dealt with, it would be a little hard to hand out 3 million incivility warring for all the "non-christian" editors insulted. — Realist² 03:25, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

If a legitimate Christian user is blocked (I've seen it happen several times), it would take an admin to unblock them. And, like I said, there are very few, if any, Christian admins. Most admins are atheists and they would not want to risk loosing their admin status to unblock a user they don't agree with / I do not believe that a Christian should willingly vote a non-Christian into a position of power, whether it be the power to rule a country or the power to delete a page on a website. - This is just a taster of what you will witness upon reviewing Andrews edits. — Realist² 03:30, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Fear not - hell doesn't exist, so you won't go there.

To be honest, he looks like a straw man to me. Don't feed the trolls. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 03:35, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

To those reviewing my edits, please review all of them, not just the edits that my opponents bring to your attention. Please read them in context, please do not only read the misquotes. Thank you! --Andrew Kelly (talk) 03:38, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Andrew, we have given you ample space to express your opinion accurately, it's crystal clear that you have offended many, and don't seem to understand why. — Realist² 03:40, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I understand why people are offended. I am just asking that people read my comments in context. --Andrew Kelly (talk) 03:42, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Context of what? Your version of the good old book? You have expressed the opinion that non christians should not be given a position of authority. — Realist² 03:44, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I just want to make sure they read what I actually said, not what you say I said. There is no need to yell at me using all bold comments. You are just as biased as I am, just in the opposite direction. --Andrew Kelly (talk) 03:47, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

My comment was not meant to appear in bold, check my edit summary, I quickly corrected it. — Realist² 03:48, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

All right, I won’t hold it against you then. --Andrew Kelly (talk) 03:51, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Evidently I was just talking to myself. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 03:49, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Is therea violation of policy or I dunno, something for us to do here instead of complaining about the views of an editor, I'd like to hear it. There was no lasting harm done on the RfA so thats out. Has the user (diffs here needed) injected his biases into an article? If not, ignore what you find offensive until it becomes egregious to the point where it would be disruptive without you engaging. (Like Kafziel said, don't feed.)--Tznkai (talk) 03:56, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Enough. The only place where Andrew Kelly's personal life philosphy is relevant is article space. If people do not want to be offended by his beliefs, they should stop talking to him about them. The abuse to which he has been subjected, for an oppose at RFA that any bureaucrat would likely have discounted, is probably the most graphic violation of WP:CIVIL that I have seen on Wikipedia in a long time. I have refactored the title of this section instead of blocking for making a personal attack. Everybody, cut it out. Risker (talk) 03:58, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't you two have separate corners you can stand in or something? Jtrainor (talk) 04:06, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I propose trouts all around and some sort of article editing penance. John Reaves 07:19, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

• This has been closed too early. A remark like the abortion loving atheists who support senseless murder requires a bit more than dismissing this as a case for simple troutslapping. Such religiously fueled hateful generalisations have no place in talk and Wikipedia space, either. Everyme 12:00, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

  Agreed, but only if Jimmi Hugh (talk · contribs) gets the same treatment; Jimmiy's preceding comments caused Andrew's response, and included inflammatory gems such as "laughing at the fact they believe in an imaginary man in the sky" and "masses of drone religious idiots". fish&karate 12:13, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

• You're right. Both indulged in uncalled-for antagonisation against large groups of people. But I still don't see how that makes any of it better, to the extent that it requires no more than a troutslap? Everyme 12:17, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I've given strongly worded warnings to the pair of them, for making inflammatory and unhelpful comments. Further rubbish from either of them will result in a block. Wikipedia is not the place for inflamed religious soapboxing and poisonous generalisations. fish&karate 12:20, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Why are you so offended, Everyme? What have you to do with this? --Andrew Kelly (talk) 12:18, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Everyme is, I presume, rightly reluctant to see Wikipedia serve as a venue for this unhelpful, endless fighting. fish&karate 12:20, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

And right he is. I am feeling very bad that it started with a userbox on my page and I agree that everyone descending into personal attacks because of that, even those defending me, are not doing the encyclopedia a favor. I hope we can just get back to editing now and admins who are not involved like fish&karate can sort out through it and give out warnings / deal with it where necessary.

@fish&karate: On a side note, if I may request it from you, would you mind checking my RfA and moving the discussions to its talk page where necessary (i.e. where they only clutter the RfA). I don't want to do it myself and I think it should be done by someone who has no involvement. Regards SoWhy 12:39, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Will do. fish&karate 13:10, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Done. fish&karate 13:29, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

• Feh. Andrew is free to state what his religious beliefs are, and others are free to ignore or discount them. What he may not do is assert opinion as fact, especially not in article space. I don't think that is happening here, and I think everyone would be a good deal happier if they disengaged at this point. We're not going to ban him for being a fundie, and we're not going to ban the thers for being Godless heathens. Try to respect sincerely helf religious beliefs even while disagreeing with them, and focus on content please. Guy (Help!) 12:48, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
  • There are good and bad ways to express oneself. I think Andrew is smart enough to know when his comments crossed the (fuzzy) reasonable line from debate to polemic, but I think a warning will suffice at this point. You're right that everyone should disengage, and that content should be focussed on. fish&karate 13:10, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Guys, let's leave it. Andrew Kelly and others have their beliefs, and others have theirs. Perhaps his statements are inflammatory, but it's not surprising to hear them, given that many people have literally asked for his opinion. Now, perhaps throwing the bible around isn't the best way to respond to challenges by non-Christians, but it's not helpful to throw fuel on the fire by harassing him about it. This drama may be avoided by not talking to Andrew Kelly about religious matters, aptly described above as "sitting in different corners". I don't see that this thread has a further purpose other than to inflame things. Werdna 12:53, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

• I don't think this can accurately be filed under "freedom to state what one's religious beliefs are". What's worse, Andrew replied to my suggestion of striking the remark in question (like Jimmi Hugh struck his initial oppose) like this. Everyme 13:06, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Not wanting to comment on the issue itself but from what I can see Jimmi Hugh struck this comment because he decided to withdraw his support. I don't know if he wanted to withdraw the comment itself or not, but I find it best not to speculate about it. SoWhy 13:17, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Please stop throwing that comment down my throat if you are not going to quote it in context. As I have already told you, I was responding to a ridiculously stupid comment about religious people who worship an imaginary man in the sky who supports the senseless killing of innocent people. --Andrew Kelly (talk) 13:15, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

You responded in an exactly as unacceptable way. And your comment remains unstruck. Everyme 13:25, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Let it go, please, Everyme. Andrew has been warned for his comment already - further prodding is unhelpful. fish&karate 13:29, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Everyme 13:59, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Give it a rest everyone. Andrew Kelly is entitled to his views just as SoWhy is entitled to his. I think it is a mistake to dump on SoWhy for the userbox (and a mistake in principle, though not necessarily in strategy, to change the userbox) and it is a mistake to provide AK a forum where he can vent his views. --Regents Park (sniff out my socks) 13:45, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Does the WMF have any non-discrimination policy?

If so, provide a link? If there is, how would that relate to RFA and volunteer community actions? I have a very queasy feeling about the allowance of supports or opposes in any kind of official community actions, or "standing" in response for any kind of religious belief, political belief, or private standing. Opposing someone for RFA for not being Christian? Whats next, opposing for being a Muslim? A Jew? Black? Gay? For not being a Jew? For not being from a given country? This is a slippery slope to allow any of that kind of thing in, and should be encoded out before we get nasty situations that could have repercussions beyond our silly little RFA practices. rootology (C)(T) 12:57, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Users are already opposed regularly for being "too young". It wouldn't surprise me if people went further and started discriminating against certain religious beliefs. -- how do you turn this on 13:04, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Or lack of religious beliefs. Everyme 13:07, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Please see here To quote: "The Wikimedia Foundation prohibits discrimination against current or prospective users and employees on the basis of race, color, gender, religion, national origin, age, disability, sexual orientation, or any other legally protected characteristics." Hope this helps, Gazimoff 13:08, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Also see WP:DICK for something that applies on-wiki. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:09, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kelly Martin. This is hardly new. I think prohibiting grounds for opposing is very dangerous. If someone is opposing for spurious reasons, ignore them. If they are being offensive, tell them so. (I don't see "Oppose. Is atheist." as offensive, just as ridiculous.) Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 13:22, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Closing bureaucrats are entirely capable of assessing the validity or invalidity of a oppose's (or a support's) reasoning. fish&karate 13:31, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, Sam, some people do find it offensive. We can't help that. What would you say if someone said "Oppose - is black"? -- how do you turn this on 13:34, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

If someone wants to say oppose because a candidate is black, or an atheist, or a christian, or has a lame user name, or whatever, I say let them do it. That sort of statement says more about them than it does about the rest of us and we should just move on. What is the point of trying to change the vote when the vote is a !vote and the entire discussion is visible to the closing bureaucrat anyway. And, if a crat starts seriously considering this sort of !vote, it'll get noticed soon enough. No. There is absolutely no sense in trying to shout down a !vote of that sort. --Regents Park (sniff out my socks) 20:18, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I hope you are not going to drag this around to yet another discussion on "age discrimination" on RFAs. fish&karate 13:40, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I was more hoping that Sam would answer my question. He says above the solution is to ignore. That doesn't solve anything. People are still going to be offended. Unnecessary hurting of other editors should be avoided at all costs. -- how do you turn this on 13:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

HDYTTO, I really do think you're taking this way too far. In the hopefully very unlikely event someone is enough of an idiot to oppose on such spurious and discriminatory grounds, they're probably going to get torn up by the community, smeared across five different noticeboards, blocked, unblocked, and reblocked until they get some sense knocked into them, just like all the rest of the drama we put up with here. Comments like that aren't tolerated and you know they aren't, so this is a non-issue. The reason people occasionally oppose for being too young is not because they believe teenagers or pre-teens shouldn't be admins, it's because the nominee hasn't demonstrated that they are trustworthy or responsible enough to use the tools. Maturity level has a lot to do with how much we trust someone not to abuse the buttons, and so is taken seriously provided the person commenting that is being sensible and not dickish. Spurious comments like the one you're hypothesizing above are completely irrelevant and will be treated with the appropriate weight (that is, none) by the 'crats. Anyone who says that is very likely to get a very stern warning and/or blocked. This is the end of the story called common sense. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 16:37, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

(Undent) This is my read on the situation. Don't be a dick. If someone is being a dick, and it has to do with prejudices, you can try, calmly and patiently talking with them, explaining why its inappropriate to express their opinions in that way, or you can ignore them. If it rises to the point of a disruptive personal attack there is a case by case balancing test to be made, and contact a third party, a mediator, or an adminstrator at your discretion. Now, is there anything that an admin actually needs to do here?--Tznkai (talk) 16:44, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Closing bureaucrats are allowed to discount such spurious opposes. Practice has, however, shown that they never do. — Coren ^(talk) 21:43, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

The non-discrimination policy has little relevance. Admins are not hired by the foundation and the foundation is not saying "we don't want this person or that person as an admin" so this has little bearing on things. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:51, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

• I fail to see how the Wikimedia Foundation and its policies have any relevance to the factors the Wikipedia community chooses to apply when supporting or opposing candidates for its internal roles. Guy (Help!) 19:08, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

What someone has on their user page is a perfectly valid question to raise, and should not be censored. For example, if the guy who had the "I can make crystal meth" user box applied for adminship, it would be fair to question that. Raising a question doesn't mean the question has any merit. That's up to the deciders to decide. But censoring it is not good. Let the extremist editor expose himself (pardon the ironic metaphor) for what he is. Don't censor. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:12, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

An aside

I found this discussion based on the issues raised on foundation-l. On that list, it was made to appear that the user is simply saying "Oppose, user is not christian", but based on the above discussion, if I understand it correctly, his real complaint is having to do with a perceived lack of admins willing to unblock christian users, and a lack of christian admins. While I think that's completely ridiculous, I can see how that's a logical line of reasoning for someone who feels that way. I can see that this guy is actually opposing in good faith here, unlike, say, Kurt. So, while it may be a good idea for 'crats to discount this (I don't have much faith they will, but anyway), it'd be a bad idea to sanction the editor in this case, and I say that as a person who mistakenly was going to come in and strongly consider blocking the editor for disruption. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 23:34, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

As an extra aside, can we get some admin eyes on Andrew's talk page? It's getting into a complete mess with raging religious debates, and Andrew saying he's going to preach, etc., and I advised him not to do such a thing. rootology (C)(T) 00:22, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Bickering archived, page watched, invite other admins to do the same. Further incivility will bring the wrath of the almighty cabal on everyone's head.--Tznkai (talk) 16:39, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Or the wrath of El Kabong. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:52, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

*Usertalk watchlisted* L'Aquatique[talk] 03:46, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Opis (Users: Ariobarza, CreazySuit and Larno Man; Admins Kafziel and Khoikhoi )

Conversation moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Battle of Opis subpage because of length.--Tznkai (talk) 22:32, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Avril Lavigne

Resolved

 – RBI - KnightLago (talk) 18:37, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

No, there is a deeper issue here. Thatcher 18:51, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I see "The Wikipedia Community would like to wish Avril Lavigne a happy birthday!" at the top of the article on South Africa and related articles. It appears above the article title! I have no idea how this is done, because I can't find the text in the article. Over to someone more aufait than me ... AWhiteC (talk) 18:28, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Fixed here, vandal blocked, but I'm a little unclear if we protect templates that have previously been targeted or not. --barneca (talk) 18:43, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

• Lonely lost soul (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Birthdaygirl84 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wubwubus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Vancouver cornetto1989 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

These vandal accounts and the template vandalism they caused were enabled because Blueboy96 unblocked 82.198.250.0/24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and replaced it with a soft block. As I explained at Template:Checkuserblock-Synetrix, even though these are shared IPs, almost all the edits are vandalism from the Avril vandal. These accounts were created recently on Tor, then used to vandalize from school. Therefore a softblock is worthless. The template further gives several helpful instructions to good editors who might be affected. I was hoping that a hard block would annoy enough of Synetrix' clients that they would take some sort of action.

I am disappointed that Blueboy96 lifted this block without informing or consulting me. Expect the Avril template vandal to come back on a daily basis. Thatcher 18:50, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I've put this block back in place; checkuser blocks are obviously not to be undone. east718 // talk // email // 19:00, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I had thought there was a provision in the blocking policy reflecting that "checkuser blocks," designated as such, should not be undone by another (non-checkuser) administrator without checking with the checkuser. However, I'm not finding that provision in a skim of WP:BLOCK, so perhaps I am misremembering (although it seems a sensible enough suggestion in any event). Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:02, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

It's just one of those things that's accepted practice but the recording of which as such has been neglected. I suppose this is as close as you'll get to instructions of this sort. east718 // talk // email // 19:05, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of the type of block, it would have been courteous for Blueboy to ask Thatcher first, or at least inform him of unblocking, whether it was a checkuser block, or a plain admin one. -- how do you turn this on 19:11, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll admit, I thought it was bad form to hardblock such a large range from editing due to the large potential for collateral damage, unless there was a lot of spam involved. If I had known that the range was being used exclusively by one editor, I'd have left the block in place. I'll do better on this in the future ... Blueboy96 19:16, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

There should be no future. You shouldn't be unblocking anyone unless you know exactly what is going on. It is extremely bad form to reverse another administrator's block, especially a checkuser, without consulting them first. Have you unblocked anything else we should know about? KnightLago (talk) 21:45, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Your tone is inappropriate KnightLago. He realised his mistake & apologized for it. If you want to check his blocking/unblocking history the logs are there to browse at your leisure. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 23:05, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

You infer too much. KnightLago (talk) 15:29, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I would have to agree with KnightLago here. Blueboy may have realised his? immediate mistake, but it's not clear if he realised the wider mistake which is that admins should not go around undoing the actions of other admins, without being sure that they are doing the right thing. Particular with a checkuser, admins need to be damned sure the blocked was inappropriate and there wasn;t a wider issue. As it was, a quick look through Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Avril Vandal or otherwise digging deeper into the history of the Avril vandal probably would have told Blueboy there is a wider issue. Yes the earlier discussion didn't really mention any of this, but Blueboy should have, given the circumstances, either done a bit of searching or asked what was going on. Note that this doesn't mean checkusers have free reign to do whatever they want simply that admins (or anyone else for that matter) should request an explanation if they have doubts but may not be aware of all the circumstances. Nor does it mean that Blueboy, or anyone, should be hang, drawn and quartered; simply that it is important that the proper lessons are learnt here. Also, people have a right to feel aggrieved if someone else makes a mistake that costs other people time and effort, the fact that a person may have apologised and accepted their mistake may mean there is no call for further action, but it doesn't remove the right for others to be aggrieved by the mistakes. Intrisincly, part of accepting you made a mistake is accepting that others may be annoyed at you for a while for that mistake (and I see no evidence BlueBoy doesn't accept this, it's simply J.smith who appears to think apologising means everyone should be happy and we should at once forget about the issue) Nil Einne (talk) 17:05, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I am not the strawman you have constructed, Nil Einne. My comment was in reference to KightLago's hostile and incivil tone. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 01:29, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Similar issue on Template:Infobox Television? -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 15:34, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Wubwubus

Wubwubus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) adding "AL birthday" message to widely-used templates; previously done under Khrono1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) account, now blocked. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:24, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Already blocked, see thread immediately above. --barneca (talk) 19:27, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Converted into a subsection of above thread.--Tznkai (talk) 19:28, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

 Confirmed and blocked. Also blocked one open proxy - Alison ^❤ 19:34, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

More

More vandaliasm from:

• Laven84 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Jennifercole21-01-94 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Samanthamckay (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Block and semiprotect? Zain Ebrahim (talk) 15:38, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Yep. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 15:40, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Although if they are sleeper accounts, and he has more of them, then semi prot won't work. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 15:41, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it's all cleared up. Checkusers will find more in my blocking log. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:01, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Proxies and sleepers blocked. Thatcher 02:26, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

A different strategy

After looking carefully at the checkuser logs, it appears that the Avril vandal only has access to about 34 addresses within the range, not the whole range. So I have individually blocked the affected addresses and will unblock the range. Note these 34 addresses are still massively shared by a number of London-area schools. There is an awful lot of vandalism, and not just the Avril vandal. It should be ok to create accounts and grant block exemptions for users who have legit school or residential ISP email addresses. When in doubt, ask. Thatcher 02:26, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

They're just school-IPs. School ips are always way more trouble than they're worth. You lose nothing by blocking them. HalfShadow 16:57, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

user:Tohd8BohaithuGh1 again

Resolved

 – (for now at least)

• See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive475#Tohd8BohaithuGh1.C2.A0.28talk.C2.A0.C2.B7_contribs.29_recent_edits for previous discussion about this user.

In the previous discussion surrounding this user 3 different editors had to go and tell him about the discussion and finally warnings had to be given that if he didn't show up to discuss his edits they'd be viewed as disruptive and he would be blocked. Since that time he's accumulated 9 more warnings on his talk page about his editing behaviour (a wide variety of things, misuse of vandal templates, misuse of automatic tools like twinkle, and failure to respond again at times) and was recently blocked for his behaviour. All in just 10 days. He seems completely unwilling to take any advice, and in the most recent exchange said he wouldn't give up twinkle because if he does patrol, that means other people fix things faster. To me this indicates some kind of motivation for his behaviour outside of what is best for the encyclopedia. Several users have reached out to him and have made little if any difference. As well now because he's on rapid fire patrol it has become increasingly difficult to check his edits for problems as the volume has increased. At the least this user needs to have his access to this tools and any other tools stripped for the time being and if his disruptive edits continue in the face of all effort to help him, he needs to be blocked for a little longer than 12 hours.--Crossmr (talk) 02:11, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking about bringing him up here again. His userpage is a string of 'final warnings', he's back at it after his block and unrepentant. I suggest removing all semi-automated tools such as twinkle from him, you never know he might be ok underneath what he's doing with them. Then if he still acts bizarrely disruptively, we'll have to think again. But he's not the most collaborative of users. Sticky Parkin 03:38, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Even without the tools he has a serious issue with communication which is a big part of the problem and frustration for other editors.--Crossmr (talk) 05:19, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked him for 24 hours and will keep an eye out. I still think he's well-intentioned but we can't tolerate the constant disruption. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 03:45, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

There is definitely something not clicking with this editor. Today, while I was on RC patrol, I noted an IP that he had given SEVEN final warnings to in quick succession. I'd definitely support complete removal of all semi-automated tools. -MBK₀₀₄ 04:05, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

This editor seems to be trying to do approximately the right thing. It's the "approximately" that's the problem. Maybe with some coaching... --John Nagle (talk) 07:26, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Not only are this editor's bad edits requiring so much effort to check and clean up that they swamp any benefit from his good edits, he is also - I would surmise - chasing off potentially good editors. Final warnings given as first warnings for simple newbie errors are just not acceptable (and the irony is not lost on me). I accept this editor means well but Wikipedia is not for everyone, and I think it is time to recognise that the project would be better off without him. Ros0709 (talk) 07:32, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

He was given plenty of chances before I issued him a final warning. Several editors reached out to him and he ignored them until he was given a final warning and told he'd be blocked if he didn't discuss. I agree that an editor that continues on this path and basically has to be forced in to discussion does not benefit this project.--Crossmr (talk) 09:07, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

It would help people relate to him if he had a readable username too. I keep thinking it's text speak and trying to decipher it, but I think it's just a random jumble of numbers and letters, which if it were longer would definitely breach the username policy. Sticky Parkin 12:11, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Crossmr - I was referring to the final warnings Tohd8BohaithuGh1 was issuing: minor transgressions by newbie editors were getting a really unwarranted response. Ros0709 (talk) 19:03, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you mentioned irony, I thought you were referring to the fact that the first warning I'd issued him was a final warning.--Crossmr (talk) 22:18, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

No, I thought it ironic that he is so intolerant of newbie errors when he is making so many errors himself. Ros0709 (talk) 06:56, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I notice that he as asked Sticky Parkin to adopt him. This is a more postive sign. Ros0709 (talk) 16:44, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

He also made two good wikignome edits 'by hand' as far as I can tell rather than using any tools, and I agreed to adopt him.:) Sticky Parkin 17:28, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

We thought we had lots of good signs last time too and look where we are. Great if he shapes up though.--Crossmr (talk) 22:03, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

IP Hopping Sockpuppet

Resolved

 – IP range blocked, and pages semi-protected --Flewis^(talk) 13:15, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

This user continues to 'ip-hop' in order to continue editing the articles: Lech Kaczyński and Law and Justice. Despite cautions, warnings and polite notes and reminders [5], this user obstinately continues to vandalize these articles by inserting non-NPOV and biased info.

Here is the WP:AIV report I compiled: (this would make things a lot easier)

• 149.254.192.218 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) – vandalism, including 1, 2, 3, 3 – Flewis^(talk) 13:24, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Please Note: This user is "ip hopping" in order to edit the article "Lech Kaczyński". S/he was previously here: 149.254.192.208 (talk · contribs) --Flewis^(talk) 13:26, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Now here: 149.254.192.224 (talk · contribs) - Could someone please report this to AN/I? Thanks --Flewis^(talk) 13:34, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Here as well: 149.254.192.208 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) – vandalism, including 1, 2, 3, 3, 3, 3 – Flewis^(talk) 13:39, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Just rangeblock the range that all of them are coming from. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 13:50, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

ec I've blocked 149.254.192.208 and semi-protected Lech Kaczyński and Law and Justice for two weeks.--Slp1 (talk) 13:52, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

As Erik the Red 2 pointed out, why not simply Range-block the entire isp for a short period of time? (Persistent vandalism calls for drastic action)--Flewis^(talk) 13:58, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Done. Might be worth waiting a short while to un-semi the articles in case they find another IP range to edit from.Black Kite 14:04, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Pigsonthewing

After the recent debates in which Pigsonthewing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was told, in no uncertain terms, to leave Docu, and particularly his signature, alone, Pigsonthewing made two blatantly trollish edits to posts signed by Docu: [6] and [7]. The second, in particular, is simply harassment. Docu had signed, but not timestamped, as is his wont - [8] - and there was absolutely no need whatsoever for Pigsonthewing to amend Docu's signature. It is impossible not to see this as deliberate trolling, and Pigsonthewing has been asked numerous times to desist, but is still doing it. Enough, I think. I have blocked Pigsonthewing for 24 hours. Guy (Help!) 14:26, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose block. Having followed the Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Mcumpston thread above, which resulted in Mcumpston withdrawing, in particular this diff, I don't think User:JzG should be blocking Andy a few days later. It looks like revenge rather than the impartial wielding of the sword of justice (and Docu should pay some attention to the dozens of people who find his sig irritating). I would ask User:JzG to unblock asap and let someone else consider the matter. Occuli (talk) 14:45, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

• [fault, edit conflict, fault, fault, edit conflict - bah!] I warned Pigsonthewing for this exact behaviour towards this exact editor [9], prior to which I do not recall having any previous involvement with Pigsonthewing; if you're going to discount every admin who's commented on Andy's behaviour as being somehow involved then you are going to run out of admins very fast - his history is long and controversial and includes ArbCom sanctions for edit-warring over trivia, which is basically what he's doing here. Guy (Help!) 14:55, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

• All this is true but Docu is also to blame for today's exchanges. Has Docu been asked to 'keep away from Andy'? (Difficult as they both work, in disharmony, on Coordinates.) Occuli (talk) 15:02, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

• Not really relevant; Pigsonthewing knows full well that Docu does not want to change his sig, and has been warned for doing so once before, this is an act of deliberate provocation of an editor with whom he is in dispute. Andy has a very long history of provocation, on and off Wikipedia; he seems to be playing Wikipedia-the-MMORPG. Guy (Help!) 15:06, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I've looked at this. There are two issues, Pigsonthewing doing what he was explicitly told not to and Guy's involvement. Pigsonthewing definitely is doing what he was told not to, so I totally support the block. In fact, I'd have made it 31 hours vice 24. Guy maybe should have asked someone else to look at this but the bottom line is the block is solid, Pigsonthewing simply needs to cease and desist doing this and leave Docu alone. No editor should me messing another's sigs and comments like this, especially not after they were emphatically told to stop. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:50, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Pigsonthewing has posted an unblock request, which I've declined on essentially the grounds you've just stated. -- ChrisO (talk) 14:52, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Endorse. Moreschi (talk) 14:53, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Endorse. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:07, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Endorse. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 15:09, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Another unblock request on the basis of WP:BUTIAMRIGHT. Guy (Help!) 15:08, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Declined on the basis of WP:NOYOURENOT. -- ChrisO (talk) 15:11, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

And a third, on the basis that [10] apparently didn't specifically tell him to stop. Guy (Help!) 15:13, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, we shouldn't be getting any more - his user talk page is now protected. -- ChrisO (talk) 15:21, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Good decisions. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:22, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Admins gone Wild, Wikipedia Edition. You're a janitor with a mop, you're not the police. You don't make up the rules as you go. How was this block supported by community (or foundation) adopted policy? —Locke Cole • t • c 19:43, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to pitch in again after this was marked resolved, but I am a bit concerned here. Per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing 2 Andy was banned for a year, and the ban expired on August 19. That's just over a month ago, and since then he's been blocked twice for disruption. Given that the last one-year ban was also for disruption, how much longer do we go before our patience wears out? Guy (Help!) 16:49, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

There could, maybe, possibly, be a trend here. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:54, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

This particular transgression is trivial. No-one would be paying any attention if it were not Andy (for whom I am beginning to have some sympathy). His behaviour in 2006 and 2007 was much worse than this. I would also like to see Guy withdraw from this for the time being as he does not seem sufficiently detached – there are plenty of eyes on AM. Occuli (talk) 17:11, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

When an admin tells you not to do something that's a rule violation, and you do it anyway, it's not trivial. Especially for a user who has been blocked many times, sometimes at great length, and is still defiant. It's kind of like a paroled felon who steals a pack of chewing gum. Stealing the chewing gum, by itself, might be considered trivial. But it's still a violation of the law, and given the parolee's background, it's not at all trivial, and he goes back to the slammer. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:19, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, calling Guy "involved" is misleading. If Guy were involved in a content dispute with the editor in question, that would be one thing. But that does not appear to be the case here. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:27, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Admins enforce community (or foundation) adopted policy, they do not make up the "rules". So unless you have a policy (or even a guideline) which says modifying another editors sig in a harmless way is a blockable offense, I can understand why Andy wouldn't heed such "warnings". —Locke Cole • t • c 19:43, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Your buddy has been here long enough to know that you're not supposed to mess with other people's talk page comments, even with good intentions. And when it's to prove a point of some kind, that's a rules violation. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:11, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

• Now here's a funny thing. In the second arbitration case, one of the disruptive edits cited in evidence was this one: [11]. Compare that with this edit: [12]. Banned for a year, comes back and immediately makes one of the edits that got him banned? In what way is that not a violation of WP:POINT? Guy (Help!) 17:30, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

In no way at all. But for today this looks resolved to me. Jd2718 (talk) 17:49, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

The second of those diffs is broken, I guess you meant [13] --82.7.39.174 (talk) 18:33, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

You're a little late there JzG: that matter was dealt with over a week ago IIRC. —Locke Cole • t • c 21:00, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure, the problem (for me) is that while I was happy to AGF and let Andy have another go, aleit sceptical given his off-wiki reputation, here we seem to have two incidents, close together, of the same type of problem - in one case the same problem - as got him banned. Can we come up with a way of forestalling what looks painfully like the inevitable here? Perhaps invent a "disengagement parole" or something? Guy (Help!) 21:25, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Or, perhaps since this incident is silly and trivial, Andy should be asked not to do what he did again and unblocked so he can continue contributing in a productive manner? Unless there's something more serious here, I don't see how a block helps things... —Locke Cole • t • c 22:46, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

At what point will he promise not to do something and really mean it? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:27, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Or to put it a better way - before unblocking him, try to get a commitment from him. Unblocking in the hope that he'll commit is not likely to work, given his past (and recent) performance. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:54, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't much matter now, since his block will expire in an hour - then we'll see how well he lives up to the promises Locke Cole is making for him - that is, whether he behaves himself, or whether he makes Locke Cole look like a fool for standing up for him. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:22, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• In view of Guy's diffs I suggest we archive this discussion now, and get prepared for the seemingly inevitable "ban or block for another year?" discussion in a few days time. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:51, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
• I seem to recall Tony Sidaway used to modify signatures all the time, removing special formatting and so forth. I don't recall him ever being blocked, much less banned, for that behavior. What makes this so different? *** Crotalus *** 00:30, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
  • He got blocked for other things, none of them lasting anywhere close to a year. [14] Maybe nobody thought to complain about the signature deal. (Assuming it's true. Do you have any diffs?) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:10, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• He was warned for amending Docu's signature, and he then did it again. It's quite unambiguous. And edit-warring over trivia is precisely the problem identified in past arbitration cases. He seems to be obsessive about some things, well beyond their actual significance. Guy (Help!) 09:20, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• Another way of looking at this - if user:Docu, an admin, were to amend his signature, as requested repeatedly by a multplicity of editors, some of them admins, then the present incident would not have arisen. Some of the evidence for this is in user:Docu's talk page history (as Docu seems to like making things difficult, by declining to archive his talk). For instance 2 editors, 2 more editors, 2 threads, 3 more editors, one being AM, 2 more, another, another, all in 2008. And there is ANI, Sept 08, with several more expressions of disquiet. Occuli (talk) 13:32, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• Begorrah, another "look what you made me do" game. It's Docu's fault that Pigs-whatever got himself blocked? Wrong. If there's a rule that Docu has to sign his posts properly, and if there's a penalty for not doing so, then take him to the authorities for it. If not, then leave him alone. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:55, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• It doesn't matter anyway, since his block will end in half an hour or so. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:57, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• And there is a peaceful alternative. There's a bot program which goes around and tags untagged IP address comments in talk pages. That's one bot program on here that actually does something useful. Maybe it could be programmed to look for all incomplete signatures, and complete them. Shazam! What an idea. Ya know, sometimes I'm so smart, it actually frightens me. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:04, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• An even more peaceful alternative is to ask him nicely to fix it himself. I suspect he will not do that before Andy is banned, as Andy apparently cannot resist changing it. Guy (Help!) 14:38, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• Well, that user's departure would make things more peaceful, yes... but what I'm saying is that there are plenty of instances where users don't sign their posts "properly". Sometimes I forget to sign, and the bot program fixes it. So if the bot can do that, why can't it fix incomplete signatures? Not just Docu's, but anyone's? Is there a technical reason that can't be done? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:55, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Andy Mabbett

I have never amended Docu's sig - not one character of it. I have sometimes placed a note after it, in the manner of {[unsigned}}, with links, for the benefit of other editors, worded to make clear that the addition is not Docu's. I have done this a good few times, and neither he (and he has replied below such edits several times) nor any other editor has previously complained, nor even asked me not to do so.

A while ago, on 20 September, I did so at the same time as I refactored one of Docu's comments. JzG (who signs himself "Guy") threatened me over that edit calling it "trolling". His supposed warning made no reference to placing links after Docu's sig. The compete wording was:

This [15] is blatant trolling. Drop it, please, or you are very very likely to end up blocked. If you are not capable of discerning that you are skating on thin ice right now then you are far less astute than I give you credit for. The time to pull back from the edge is about now.

I pointed out that not only was it not trolling, but that I had been thanked by Docu for that very edit. JzG did not reply.

JzG was later advised by more than one editor that his behaviour towards me on WP:ANI was inappropriate, after labelling me a "dick" for making a valid copyvio report in precisely the manner prescribed.

On 22 September, refactored one of Docu's TfD comments, to remove risk of double-counting. He reverted and asked me not to refactor his comments again and I have never done so since. However, another editor refactored that same comment, albeit differently, and Docu did not revert, nor complain about that. Once again, Docu made no objection to me placing a note after his sig.

Only after I raised the matter of what appears to be WP:POINT editing by Docu did Docu complain about the later refactoring; not on my talk page, not on the pages concerned, not on WP:ANI or WP:WQA, but to an admin who had already made inappropriate, derogatory comments about me, and who has previously made a grossly misleading statement about my user name.

JzG blocked me, and claimed on WP:ANI that "After ... recent debates [I] was told, in no uncertain terms, to leave Docu, and particularly his signature, alone". I dispute this: evidence, please.

On the bass of such false claims by JzG, other editors refused to unblock me.

If the purpose of blocks is "preventative not punitive", why was I blocked for edits which were five or more days old? Why did nobody discuss those edits with me first? What has been achieved, other than to stop me from carrying out useful work to develop Wikipedia? Why was my talk page blocked, with no warning?

Baseball Bugs refers to Locke Cole as "my buddy". What is that supposed to mean? Is he accusing Locke Cole of behaving improperly?

JzG also makes unsubstantiated references to my supposed activities off-Wikipedia and makes vague comments about my "off-wiki reputation". How is that relevant to the issue at hand? Why is that ad hominem personal attack allowed?

He also says that I am 'edit-warring over trivia" - where is this edit-warring? Diffs, please.

The block was listed as being for "disruptive editing" - what was "disrupted"?

Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 17:07, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Egyptair 990 article linked to by fraudsters

African - at least, 'African' - fraudsters have been linking to Wikipedia's article on Egyptair Flight 990. The article's talk page displays where I have discussed this with some members of an anti-fraud forum. Technically, I don't think policy allows any obvious solutions to the problem but then this is an unusual situation. I have therefore said I will raise the issue here to discuss what we can do, especially in line with WP:EL/WP:RS and wether the information is suitable for inclusion. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 16:21, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm thinking it's better to keep the actual discussion over at Talk:EgyptAir Flight 990 instead of here, so I'll be replying there. lifebaka++ 17:06, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I would agree there. I just wanted more eyes. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 17:07, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Depending on the results of said linkage, it may be best to take this issue to the Fringe theories, Neutral point of view, Original research, or Reliable sources noticeboard(s). Last I checked, linking to other places on the web wasn't a crime (despite the best efforts of a couple "mainstream" companies a few years ago - the names may escape me, but the hilarity never shall). Are these "409" ("DEAREST FRIEND, I WRITE TO INFORM YOU blah blah blah") fraudsters? Badger Drink (talk) 04:48, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

People still fall for the Nigerian scam? HalfShadow 05:01, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

you can't fool all of the people, all of the time, but you can always fool some of the people, some of the time. --Ludwigs2 05:22, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

They don't need to fool all the people to get rich, or even very many of them. It only takes a few - the "carpet-bombing" approach that is what spam is. However, I fixed 'em - I made a donation in their name to a well-known charity that sends out endless mailings and sells their mailing list to other spammers. What goes around, comes around. >:) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:50, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Dan Debicella

Edit skirmish over the last few days here: [16]. I attempted to offer some thoughts on the article talk page, but I think the two sides will just have at it until an administrator has a look. Thanks, JNW (talk) 19:35, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Semiprotected for a week, since the two edit warriors are just IPs. Cheers. lifebaka++ 23:38, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I would greatly appreciate having someone else read the content of both contested versions and offer their thoughts re: objectivity. Cheers, JNW (talk) 01:17, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think semiprotect is a good idea in this case. The article is in dire need of cleanup, it started as a near copy/paste of the link at the bottom of the page, and reads like a vanity page. One editor (User:69.177.150.62) seems to have been trying to fix the article [17] indicating so in the edit summary ("Tried to fix POV/Make it no longer a complete vanity page as it was"), and everything was reverted over and over without explanation from two IPs :

• User:204.136.112.10, which is registered to the Pepsi-Cola company. The same IP has been used in the past to make very questionable edits to the Pepsi article. [18][19] (incidently, those edits made it to the New York Times no less [20]). Guess who is the Director of Strategy @ Pepsi ? The answer is in the article here: Dan Debicella.
• User:76.23.169.18. Been blocked after warnings for removing comments from the talk page [21] (6x). Needless to say, a traceroute on the IP shows the end node is in Shelton. Guess who's from Shelton ? The answer is in the article here : Dan Debicella

User:69.177.150.62 is a bit annoyed (and a little confused) [22], and quite frankly, I would be too, he is editing in good faith, warring with someone who should not be editing this article and probably not edit *any* article as he is obviously not interested in improving Wikipedia.

Anyway, I'll revert to a non vanity version. Equendil Talk 07:21, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Done. Wikified and added refs as well. Equendil Talk 08:14, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh and while I am at it, I went further down the rabbit hole and here are my findings :

• Article was created by User:Shelton2. Needless to say, that account only "contributed" to a very narrow set of articles.
• Various editors tried at one point or another to alter the article. This was invariably reverted by IPs, even the slightest edits:
• User:64.252.73.154, User:64.252.65.220, User:64.252.6.115, User:64.252.99.185,User:64.252.107.152
• User:64.148.1.113. There was a bit of a mess on 10 December 2007, resulting in that last IP being blocked as well as User:Ratsofftoya for 3RR violation, a case reminiscent of this one. A trigger happy vandal fighter also accidently reverted to what was pretty much the original version of the article (see also comment by Ratsofftoya on the revert and answer [23][24].
• User:64.252.5.117 after a few months where the article was not modified. Reverted cleanup tags.
• User:64.252.5.2, User:64.252.133.54, User:64.252.113.233.
• The obviously similar IPs listed above all trace to New Haven County, Connecticut (if you wonder that's not far from Shelton).
• Note that some of the IPs/accounts who edited the article to attempt a more neutral / shorter rewrite or altering a sentence were spa/spi's, though Dan Debicella being a public figure, and given the advert like quality of the article, that's not really indicative of anything.
• So basically, there isn't so much of a revert war here as "someone" who has prevented virtually every change to the article since its creation, 15 months ago, see the diffs: http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Dan_Debicella&diff=241169162&oldid=139568743. Equendil Talk 09:40, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Equendil, for your research into this, which is greatly appreciated. The promotional content was not acceptable, but I was ambivalent about substituting it with content, even if well-sourced, that also has the potential to be seen as partisan. That's why I stated on the article's talk page that news sources would be preferable to assessments by action groups (even though they are organizations with which I may be sympathetic). The concern is that such information can be cherry-picked to suit any editor's agenda, i.e. original research. JNW (talk) 00:10, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

This is distubing

Resolved

 – indeffed as vandalism-only account --Rodhullandemu 20:08, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I think that http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Rob_Dyrdek&diff=241383858&oldid=241383308 this edit I just reverted is disturbing. I think that this needs attention before this keeps happening. SteelersFan94 20:02, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Revert, block, ignore. Seen it a thousand times. – iridescent 20:05, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

If you think that is 'disturbing', you're not going to last long here. HalfShadow 20:06, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Now, come on, when you saw such stuff for the first time on WP, didn't it shock you just a little bit? It did me, anyway. But some 20,000 odd diffs of this type since and I don't think I'd notice now if someone spraypainted such things on my door. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ is repressed but remarkably dressed 20:16, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Not really. First thing I thought when I saw '...the encyclopedia anyone can edit' was 'I bet the place is just crawling with stupid...' HalfShadow 20:18, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah. I saw the encyclopedia that anyone can edit rather than the encyclopedia that anyone can edit and thought, "ooh, an encyclopedia, that'll be full of like-minded people who want to increase the sum of knowledge in the world then. This should be good". I learnt quickly. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ is repressed but remarkably dressed 20:22, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

If Britannica's editor is to be believed, it's more like "the toilet wall that anyone can scrawl on." Sometimes I think he has a point... -- ChrisO (talk) 20:26, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

An infinite number of monkeys will indeed produce the complete works of Shakespeare, but while you're waiting they'll also produce a very large pile of monkey shit. – iridescent 20:30, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Not to mention the complete works of Jacquelyn Suzanne. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:08, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Please don't say such hateful things about the monkeys, thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:16, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

The monkeys always act in good faith. Their output, whatever it turns out to be, comes naturally. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:22, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

This is Jimbo's happening, and it freaks me out... (oops, wrong...) — CharlotteWebb 21:52, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

The first time I saw in a search engine Wikipedia, I thought it to be another one of those web page hosting things like Myspace with an educational twist where a bunch of professional share their knowledge, the first time I considered editing it, I decided not to because I didn't want to screw something up, and when I actually started seriously editing, I thought "this place must be full of scammers, phishers, and 419 scammers; I think I'll try an hunt 'em down and get 'em shut off" GO-PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 21:48, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Abusive commentary

I believe that recently user Eleland (talk · contribs) violated WP:CIV and WP:NPA by making incivil speculations and personal attacks. Best I'm aware, he claims to have been provoked into doing such a thing, but being noted by three separate editors that this activity was offensive ([25], [26], [27]), he appears to have continued in personally attacking other editors and suggesting he has no intention on curtailing his offensive style.

I was only lightly involved in the discussion on Eleland's talk page, but feeling that the issue affected me directly (as an editor who often reviews discussions on said article), I chimed in with what I believe to have been a constructive comment about Eleland's behavior. Instead of getting a constructive reply, or even being ignored, I was blasted back with a revert and an incivil edit summary. I was deeply insulted by his commentary, and am concerned about the fact that no action was taken so far, as this does not appear to be Eleland's first or even second time making personal attacks on Wikipedia.

Nishidani (talk · contribs)'s complete support of Eleland, especially regarding racist and antisemitic comments, and his extremely long commentary which buries all other discussion, does not help the matter any.

Another relevant diff and quote showing that Eleland intends to continue with this behavior:

• [28] - Eleland - "I still think Saxophonem is a cunt. I mean it. He's a huuuuge douchebag. He can go fuck himself."

--Eternalsleeper (talk) 00:44, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Unless he suffers from Tourette's, he's got some 'splainin' to do. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:04, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

[29]. Toddst1 blocked and then unblocked this user. He seems to be tweeking the block currently. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:12, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I think we're done here folks. Nothing to see. Please move along. Toddst1 (talk) 03:19, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

There appears to be a much deeper issue here than one editors lashing out and using profane language at wits end. Eleland clearly needs to calm down and reminded that this type of language is not appropriated but its pretty clear that what provoked him isn't anywhere near appropriate either. I hope that whoever looks into this does it thoroughly.PelleSmith (talk) 03:26, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I guess that's not going to happen ... PelleSmith (talk) 03:28, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

His informal request for unblock is missing the obvious question: "Was it something I said?" Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:34, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Larry Miller (actor) did a standup act on HBO back in the 1980s in which he described a pub crawl. At one of the taverns, he said, "We decided to leave, right after they threw us out." Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:59, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

indef blocked for deliberate abuse and declarations not to abide by wikipedia policy Toddst1 (talk) 03:19, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

While the word "cunt" is offense, and does warrant a block, the provocation by Saxophonemn (talk · contribs) was far, far worse! I have changed this from resolved to unresolved as an indef block is not appropriate given that the user is aware that they stepped over the line, self-reverted their unsavoury comment, and explained that they lost their head on their talk page. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 08:57, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

The block was warranted, although it should have been of a definite duration. I can't see how Saxophonemn's provocation was worse, or indeed how it was a provocation. A convincing unblock request with a credible promise not to do it again should be granted, I think, but eleland currently seems to be disinclined to make it.  Sandstein  09:07, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Saxophonemn quotes Mark Twains Concerning the Jews, but adds "[The Palestinians too.]". Saxophonemn is in effect writing the future history books to say that the Palestinians will be extinguished. For context, the full text can be found on Wikisource at s:Concerning the Jews#Point No. 6., however that isnt a high quality page:- resembles most online editions in that it is roughly correct but isnt very accurate about the typography.

eleland is doing a sensible thing by not requesting an unblock at the moment, in order to cool off. But the indef block is unreasonable for a long standing editor who has let a vile comment get to them. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:41, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I did ask Eleland to knock it off earlier, as noted above, but it's a pity that he seems to have persisted, notwithstanding the provocation that he perceives. I also think that an indefinite block is excessive, especially considering Eleland's relatively clean block log. I've reduced it to three months - which is still a substantial period - and suggested to Eleland that he consider Sandstein's suggestion above. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:06, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I see what you mean, John, but in that text, Twain mentions peoples that were once glorious but have now passed the height of their glory. I'm not sure how adding the Palestinians to that list is tantamount to asking for their extinction. Comparing them to the ancient Greeks and Romans is even a (probably unintended) token of respect. Saxophonemn's comments seem to reflect not much more than the narrow-minded ethno-religious supremacism that is unfortunately common on talk pages related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. It's best ignored and certainly does not warrant Eleland's reaction.  Sandstein  10:20, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Eleland called that comment for what it is: supremacism, or at best it is an intentional jibe intended to infuriate the opposition. I agree that he over-reacted, but that was quite probably the intended reaction. I dont think Eleland is any harm to our community if he occasionally gets very pissed off at comments like these. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 10:58, 28 September 2008 (UTC) Mark Twain is rolling in his grave right now!

Hi,
The diff of Eleland are not given in this discussion.
Is all this discussion [just] about this that was reverted by Eleland himself 15 minutes later ? (48 hours ago...)
If so, I think undefinite is not acceptable and 3 months far too long. 24 h more than enough and just not talking about them, the wiser...
But there may be something else I missed... ???
Ceedjee (talk) 10:36, 28 September 2008 (UTC) (edit) Eleland deleted a comment later (and was uncivil in the edit summary : [30] but it is not false he was accused to be antisemite [31] (!) in the comment he deleted... user:Eternalsleeper was uselessly provocative. Ceedjee (talk) 10:40, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• I think 3 months is still far too long given the provocation as mentioned above. If Eleland was to post an unblock request with a promise to cut that abuse out, I'd be tempted to grant it. The conduct of some of the other editors in the episode shouldn't be ignored, too. Black Kite 10:41, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• I would have no objection to anyone granting an unblock request in the circumstances you describe. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:50, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

There is not a shadow of doubt that Eleland violated policy. Eleland can't stand racist cant, and varying the vowel, called the cant-ranter a 'cunt'. There is not a shadow of a doubt either that, within 15 minutes of his outburst, he reverted. The punishment now in place deals with his reactions to an admin warning to be civil. The admin, well-meaning, did not check the provocation, which was racist. In a similar situation, another well-established editor revertede a profoundly racist remark against Palestinians within 3 minutes. I don’t think much was made of this. To revert a slip is itself an acknowledgement of wrong-doing, and a form of apology to the encyclopedia.

Comment by Jaakobou: Despite my quick retraction, Nishidani was among the people making a huge fuss over my angry response to his provocation and the end result, despite my taking all but 3 minutes to recant and apologize, was a topic ban of one week.[32] I take pride that -- despite his repeated suggestions that it's extremely moral to attack Jews if they happen to be Zionists (i.e. support Israel) -- I not once called him a "goose-stepping loon" and/or "enthusiastic Nazi" like Eleland did in response to his block.[33] Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:20, 28 September 2008 (UTC) clarify 11:22, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I used the diff illustratively, Jaakobou. It is not intended to reflect on your present editorial status, but simply to underline that Eleland copped a lifetime, then a three-month ban for opposing a racist, while your unfortunate remark was met with a one-week topic ban. These sorts of disparities in judgement are what disconcert many. I would also note that Eternalsleeper mischievously, and in tone with his earlier provocations, has given as the header of this incident 'Racism' as though Eleland had engaged in racist comments. This is pure and vulgar misrepresentation. Both Eternalsleeper and Saxophonemn indulged in racist comments, and Eleland's response consisted of an objection to racism.Nishidani (talk) 11:36, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, discussions of a master race and comparisons between Jews and Nazis are considered antisemitic. Eleland should have known better really to apologize rather than insist on "his prerogative" to attack other editors. Three months seems like a fine way to note other editors that comparing Jews with Nazis and calling them "cunt" is a shitty way to request an unblock. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:44, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Again, I can only insist that this speed-reading damages Wikipedia. What you say reflects nothing in what was said. Eleland responded to an offensive remark about Palestinians by someone who boasts of his Torah-based nationalism. His response occasioned a further attack. Mark Shabazz, one of the coolest heads in this area, called Saxophonemn's use of Twain, an example of 'national supremicism', a euphemism for what was, contextually, Saxophonemn's ethnic supremicist use of Twain. Ethnic supremicists think of themselves as 'Herrenvolk', and the undercaste here consisted of 'Palestinians'. It is useless to engage in a dispute unless one has the good-will and patience to master what Nietzsche called 'the art of slow reading', which is the only way to read. Eleland did not speak of 'Jews'. He addressed specific individuals, and called them for their contemptuous attitudes, and this habit of taking a criticism of a fellow in one's group, clan or tribe as a criticism of the group, is extremely archaic, and injurious to intelligent discussion. An American might take offense were I to call GWB what Eleland called Saxophonemn. That happens to be what I think, but it has nothing to do with Americans. Is that clear?Nishidani (talk) 11:53, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

An admin, without checking what Eleland was upset about apparently, made a civility caution on Eleland’s page. I, like Eleland, noted that, once more, the agent provocateur goes unexamined, and those who respond, if intemperately, are cautioned. In comes, curiously out of nowhere, for I have never crossed paths with the editor on the many I/P pages I work on, Eternalsleeper, informing both of us he tracks our editing, and considers us ‘anti-semitic’. It is one of the absurdities of Wikipedia, that this smearing, devoid of diffs, is never punished, while those who get pissed off about racism, and being labelled antisemites, get banned for telling the smearers to rack off. The irony is what Saxophonemn did not complain about here (I don’t complain when Einsteindonut told me to ‘get fucked’ on my page) is now the object of a complaint by Eternalsleeper, who played a key role in supporting Saxophonemn’s racist remark by chipping in to remark that (a) Eleland embraces the violently racist tripe of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, (b) I apparently mock the shofar for having called a Saxophone-player a hornblower (= someone who ‘blows their own trumpet’) (c) both of us are accused of anti-Semitism.

’many edits both make tries to portray Jewish Zionists as the crux of the world's problems. As no one makes a big hoopla of the Islamic occupiers of Eretz Israel, I find your commentaries offensive and racist.’

There are no diffs in this to document the outrageous assertion. It is patently false, since neither I nor Eleland have ever identified ‘Jewish Zionists’ as the crux of the world’s problems.. It is coded language for insinuating our editing is inspired by the conspiracy-mongering of the Protocols of Zion. Eternalsleeper calls this remark ‘chiming in’. (d) it describes the Palestinians as ‘Islamic occupiers of Eretz Israel’, and thus delivers up the chiming kibitzer as someone with a pronounced ideological and historically completely unfocused knowledge of the area.

Outcome? Sandstein’s suggestion (I hold that admin in high regard) that Saxophonemn’s use of Twain was innocuous, is patently wrong. To place the Palestinians with the Egyptians, Babylonians, Greeks and Romans is not to honour them by association (such subtleties are not in Saxophonemn’s style). It is to associate them with peoples whom Twain said oppressed the Jews, and were beaten by them. The tampering delivers the message: Palestinians oppress the Jews, they are ‘history’, and are ‘beaten’. That this is what Saxophonemn meant, were there a shadow of a doubt, is shown by several other remarks he made about both blacks, and his Torah-based nationalism.

The two people who provoked this flare-up get off scot-free. One of them, Saxophonemn has yet to make one useful edit, Eleland has made thousands. The other, Eternalsleeper has had the hide first to insult Eleland by calling his outrage at a racist put-down ‘antisemitic’, and Eleland a true-believer in the Jewish conspiracy, and then step in here to make a formal complaint about a violation of Wiki proprieties. Eleland deserves a ban. Perhaps I do too. But is there no such thing as cause and effect. Is calling an accomplished and valuable editor an anti-Semite okay round here? Is reacting violently to such cheap insinuations a crime, instead of a robust defence of one’s integrity as a humanist? It would be comical were it not ridiculous in its puerile bureaucratic superficiality.Nishidani (talk) 11:03, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Lost in all this is that invoking the C-word in the manner he did also expresses extreme hatred of women. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:47, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Rubbish. Now Shakespeare and Chaucer are misogynists because they wrote of queyntes. Nishidani (talk) 11:56, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not the word, it's the way it's used - equating female genitals to inferiority and uncleanliness. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:17, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Rubbish, and you're giving yourself away, associating female genitals with uncleanliness. Eleland did not say S. was 'unclean' or 'inferior'. It's you who are associating the organ in the metaphor with uncleanliness and inferiority. The best you make make of this is that E called S a female, by the figure of speech called synecdoche, i.e. calling a part for a (w)hole:). In any case, this is off-topic, and disturbing one's view of F1 at Singapore.Nishidani (talk) 12:27, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

His use of language is precisely on topic. He's playing the "look what you made me do" game. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:19, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

And contrary to your statement about "giving myself away", that word can be sweet and beautiful in the right context. This ain't it. The editor uses it in an ugly way. It's not the word, it's the thought behind it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:29, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I have changed the malice in the header, which is question-begging. The complaint is about Eleland's abusive language. The racism is what Saxophonemn brandished, and the plaintiff Eternalsleeper used in wantonly attributing without any diffs to prove it, racist sentiments to Eleland. I still am waiting for some administrator to check both Eternalsleeper's unprovoked smear of Eleland (forget me) as an anti-semite, and Saxophonemn's use of what Malik Shabazz called 'nationalist supremicism'. There is no more place in wiki for wildly smearing editors with insinuations about racism, than there is for abusive language.Nishidani (talk) 12:34, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

One's integrity as a humanist? Please read the article on baptismal rite. Ottre 12:31, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

And please read the O.E.D. on 'the price of fish'.Nishidani (talk) 12:47, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Nishidani seems right to me.

If we take care to read all the edits in chronological order, trying to understand the chain of causes - consequencess, I think that if it is Eleland who wrote the uncivil comments, they were not as terrible as it could seem out of their context, and that he is not really responsible of the whole mess.

Nevertheless, taking some distance (a short wikibreak) cannot be bad for him so that he cool down and he is an editor with an experience long enough to know when he can come back (and ask to be unblocked)

I suggest we let him decide when it is ok and consider the issue as resolved...

Regards, Ceedjee (talk) 13:20, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

"Not responsible"? No, he is fully responsible. He chose the words, not someone else. He's playing the old "look what you made me do" game. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:27, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs, are you saying that if he said "dick" instead of "cunt" he would have been expressing misandry? The literal referent of those words hardly plays a role in their use as swear words, and while they are unfortunate terms I find it a bit of a stretch to claim misogyny or misandry in these types of contexts.PelleSmith (talk) 13:42, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

And I do not agree. In any case, he chose his words, no one else did. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:50, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes but you chose to interpret them in the manner that you did (as did I). Just out of curiosity, do you think "dick" displays misandry in the way that "cunt" displays misogyny?PelleSmith (talk) 14:00, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Yep. In this context, it does. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:04, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I guess we just disagree about this.PelleSmith (talk) 15:19, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not contesting the technically serious nature of Eleland's policy violation. I am shocked once more by the insouciance of administrators failing to look into the context before making rapid judgements, which will cost Wiki the three months disappearance of a fine editor, while several useless ***** in good part responsible for his banning stick around. If Eleland is to wear a ban, then those who provoked him to an exasperated outburst in defence of a national dignity, and his own integrity, should be called to short order, and be subjected to some attention to see if their own execrable behaviour in this smutty little hitman campaign bears scrutiny.

Especially now that Eternalsleeper persists in his assertion, as per the header he has now reverted back, after I corrected it to 'Abusive language', that Eleland's offense was one of racism, I would ask the administrators who have participated on this thread to examine his conduct for smearing and insulting language, specifically here.

Sure, and there's nothing wrong with an established editor who calls Jews "master race" or another calling them "horn-blowers" when many edits both make tries to portray Jewish Zionists as the crux of the world's problems. As no one makes a big hoopla of the Islamic occupiers of Eretz Israel, I find your commentaries offensive and racist. Eternalsleeper (talk) 20:32, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

The offense, grievous in my view, is that Eternalsleeper:

(a) asserts, without evidence, without diffs, that Eleland called a whole people, the Jews, the 'master race', when the record shows he simply called Saxophonemn for touting a master race concept, or what Malik Shabazz called Saxophonemn’s 'theories of national supremacy' which Malik asked Saxophoneymn to refactor, and in doing so, gave indirect support to Eleland's own original assertion that the remark was racist. Eternalsleeper maliciously twisted this, a challenge to Saxophonemn’s theory of Jewish ethnic supremacy, in order to make it appear as if Eleland embraced the ideas of the antisemitic smear The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. This understandably outraged Eleland, who promptly elided it here and was reproved for deleting the smear In turn, Eleland remonstrated with the administrator for denying him a natural right to kept smear material off his page. The administrator was mistaken, no malice, just haste, and Eleland was fully in his rights to remove Eternalsleeper's smear from his talk page. It was the flagrantly patent injustice of being reproved for removing smear material, and for telling an ethnic supremacist to shove off from wiki, that is the germinal spur to the outburst that has now be sanctioned.

At a minimum, Eternalsleeper should be obliged to provide the diffs from Eleland's record which support his judgement. If they are not forthcoming, then Eternalsleeper will have in fact smeared a fellow editor as an antisemitic racist. It's about time behaviour characterized by frivolous baiting and denigrating of people as antisemites, when they are simply defending Wiki neutrality, gets as vigorously an administrative riposte as the reprehensible behaviour of antisemitism does.

(b)He should be asked to provide diffs for the assertion that both Eleland and I abuse Wikipedia by endeavouring in our editorial practice to portray Jewish Zionists as the crux of the world's problems.

(c)He designates Palestinians as ''the Islamic occupiers of Eretz Israel', ultra-Zionist cant. I don't know if nescience is sanctionable. Probably not. The comment about a fellahin indigenous community gradually converted from paganism and Christianity to Islam after the 6th.century CE being, by retroactive paradox, 'illegal occupiers’ of Eretz Israel, is so outlandish, the said editor should be warned to stay clear of articles dealing with historical events in the I/P area. We have no use for purblind ideologists here. He should clarify why the indigenous population of Palestine is both 'Islamic' and 'occupiers' of their native land, as Maoris are occupiers of New Zealand, Indians of the United States and Aboriogines of Australia, all having stolen title from the English immigrants.Nishidani (talk) 14:16, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

And while I'm at it, another of the crowd who suddenly drifted in here after the Camera contretemps, and militates on the Islamic threat and wiki's woefully anti-semitic POV, asked me to Get fucked, when I turned down his fishing expedition last night. I don't ask for punishment, since I don't complain about these outbursts. But the fact that I've been called an antisemite now, six times or so, and been told to get fucked for refusing to talk to ultra-Zionist flag-wavers who don't edit much, gives you some idea of the kind of atmosphere people like Eleland find exasperating. We've lost the invaluable Eleland on formal quibbles, and are now stuck with vapid ranters like these, as once more, formalism's etiquette provisions, which I think was intended for naive high-school geeks, trumps mature substance editors. Nishidani (talk) 14:44, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Before coming here, and aside from arguing with the other user, what dispute resolution channels have you followed in this case? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:52, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't get into dispute resolutions. I dislike whingeing to administrators. I try to ignore idiots, and not get distracted by their drifting in to waste our time. I have no intention of taking the Onestonedonut to the knackery. I cite the instance to document what those unfamiliar with the absurd shenanigans of some I/P actors may not know. I don't even read the rule books, which I think are necessary but mainly for many who haven't had a tertiary and post-tertiary background, and that is why etiquette is everywhere, and substance struggles to get past cunctatorial finagling by the astute. What worries me about the present case is that it is an old pattern: an intruder jumps at an exchange, in which neither of the two involved give administration reason to arbitrate, and uses it to wipe out one of the two, in a stupid game of scalp-hunting that mars the creation of a liberal and informed collegial editorial spirit, tolerant of lapses.Nishidani (talk) 15:23, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

What form of dispute resolution did Eternalsleeper attempt before coming here? Let me answer: none. This board is for incidents, and fellows ... I think we have one. Baseball Bugs and Nishidani, your respective points have been made by now; please wait for others to chime in before continuing this batter banter between the two of you. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 15:17, 28 September 2008 (UTC) batter->banter correctionJohn Vandenberg ^(chat) 17:53, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

There is no "batter" going on. However, I admit I should have asked the dispute resolution question much sooner. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:05, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

An indefinite block is an overreaction, and 3 months is still too long, if he posts a conciliatory unblock request that should be granted, otherwise the block should be reduced to 48 hours. PhilKnight (talk) 16:14, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

48 Hours? That would be letting him off way too easy. This is an editor who has already been blocked twice before for incivility and edit warring, and has declared that he is deliberately flaunting wikipedia policy in order to cause disruption. A one month block, possibly coupled with a longer topic-ban seems to be in order. NoCal100 (talk) 16:54, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Eleland's last block was over 6 months ago. Also, I don't share your interpretation of his comments. PhilKnight (talk) 17:11, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

His exact words were "not only did I knowingly violate Wikipedia's various "civility" and "personal attacks" and "play nice in the sandbox, kids," policies, I did it with the very deliberate intention that it cause what we euphemistically call "disruption" here". There is no need for "interpretation" here, just basic reading comprehension skills. NoCal100 (talk) 17:43, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

He was upset and these comments and his message were second degree... Ceedjee (talk) 20:30, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I get upset sometime, too, but I don't go around intentionally disrupting the project when that happens, nor do I vent my frustrations by calling other editors 'cunts' or 'huuuuge douchebag's or telling them to go fuck themselves. If Eleland can't act in mature way when he's upset, then he needs a time-out. NoCal100 (talk) 21:33, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

PhilNight's suggestion of a drastic reduction may be too lenient, but it was conditional on a conciliatory unblock request. As to your remark, NoCal100, that in the diff you cite, Eleland admitted to 'deliberately flaunting wikipedia policy in order to cause disruption', this is incorrect on two grounds. The first is, petty: you confuse 'flaunt' with 'flout'. The second is that, even so, he did not deliberately 'flout' wikipedia policy to cause disruption, pure et simple, but to a purpose. His words are:-

'Let me confess; not only did I knowingly violate Wikipedia's various "civility" and "personal attacks" and "play nice in the sandbox, kids," policies, I did it with the very deliberate intention that it cause what we euphemistically call "disruption" here. Quite simply, I was, and am, at wits end, and I have neither the patience nor the passive-aggressiveness to work through the normal WikiPolitical methods that EternalSleeper has so evidently mastered.

He was warned by one admin for incivility, and the judgement was correct. The admin did not warn the other two who provoked his incivility, and this was incorrect. He was insulted by the second with a vile accusation (these things if unchallenged stick in the record), and further offended when, in removing a patent and vicious smear on his own talk page, was notified that this quite perfectly just action was a matter of concern, in the same administrator's view. Since, as an experienced editor Eleland knows what cranking up the huge creaky machinery of administrative appeal means, (endless wasting of many editors' time, administrators harassed by pettifogging etc.,), he spoke his mind in a way that was, yes, deliberately disruptive, attention catching. It caught attention, all right. Instead of his original grievance being reviewed and some measures taken out on both Saxophonemn and Eternalsleeper, Eleland was further punished. The refusal by administrators to examine his original complaint roundly and neutrally, means effectively that Eleland is correct. Antisemitism is subject to immediate sanctions, rightly so. A blind eye is turned to people who flay other editors with smears insinuating they are antisemitic, when they are simply trying to cope with dogmatic intruders who barge about without significant contributions and make editing in the I/P area difficult. This intolerable inequivalence is the 'purpose' behind his outburst, a 'disruption' to protest systemic bias in the use of administrative sanctions. Both Eleland and I have a good deal of collegial esteem and respect for many colleagues who are Jewish, and play impeccably by the rules. We dislike newbies or shysters with an ideological chip on their shoulders, pro-Zionist or pro-Palestinian as the case may be, fooling around provocatively with articles that require immense patience, hardwork, and a nose for facts. Eleland's remark is a call for more speed in administrative oversight, less bureaucratic longueurs, in handling real 'disruption', which is what we wish to draw attention to. Had this simple incident been dealt with swiftly and equablyand the administrator posted an incivility remark to my page, and those of both Saxophonemn, and Eternalsleeper, we should not be here, wasting our time. It was a simple, and forgiveable oversight, but that is what caused the frustrated outburst. The Japanese even have a technical word for what Eleland did, funshi (憤死) remonstrative suicide to draw an authority's attention to an ignored grievance, in the finest samurai tradition.Nishidani (talk) 17:36, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Fine, then let's have a proper funshi - Eleland should be perma-banned, the Wiki equivalent of death , so that enough attention be drawn to this cause . Nothing less would achieve the desired result, it appears, nor be appropriate for this Samurai. NoCal100 (talk) 17:49, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I think this thread has drawn enough attention to this matter that all the involved parties here will be carefully watched from now on, including Eleland if/when he returns. Black Kite 18:17, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Attention drawn to Eleland, not to those who used racist language or smeared him. Zilch. The message is, you can call innocent people antisemites, or a living people 'history' extinct, with impunity, but can't be told you're a **** when the offended party calls you on these racist and smearing cracks. I don't se much attention paid. I see a good deal of silence standing to attention. Nishidani (talk) 19:09, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Let's please remember that we're engaged in a particular enterprise here, an encyclopedia. If Eleland has transgressed the rules, fine -- but the rules are meant to advance a particular type of goal here, and if in applying those rules we lose sight of that goal then we've lost something significant. Without disputing the claim that a temporary block on Eleland is appropriate, I'm disappointed by the apparent fact that other editors/admins apparently fail to perceive other aspects of what has happened here and are allowing a highly inflammatory action by another editor to go unnoticed. This is what I mean by drawing attention to the intellectual nature of the enterprise here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:07, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

That particular talkpage is full of unnoticed, unnecessary and inflamatory statements that have little to do, if none at all, with the content of the article. -- fayssal - wiki up^® 20:56, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Before this is filed, as done, could some administrator look at the header, and change it, with authority to simply 'Abusive Language'. As it stands, it will remain as an indecently mischievous slur on Eleland, who used abusive language, but did so attacking racist language, which he has a zero-grade tolerance of. As it stands, the smearer, who then accused Eleland of being a racist antisemite, and made this complaint, will get away with part of his defamation, which I have shown to be untrue. Thank you, and good evening, and perhaps goodbye if the warning now on my page, for my having done what I believe was essentially a civil defense of someone who erred for a just cause, is acted on. Nishidani (talk) 21:21, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, I don't see any evidence of racism (by Eleland) here. Refactored accordingly. I've also started a discussion re the block warning with Toddst1. Black Kite 21:30, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Disagree. Calling other editors Nazis just because they have a national perspective rooted in the history of the Jewish people is racism. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:48, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

That's not what he meant, and I think you know it as well. Racism would be implying that all people with a certain ethnicity were "Nazis", and he was talking about the politics of an individual editor. He was certainly abusive, but I don't see racism. As you are not uninvolved here, I'd ask you to alter that back. Black Kite 21:53, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Edit: User:Jaakobou has changed the title back, and I am disinclined to edit war over it, though I believe the header is misleading. I am more concerned about other issues that are raised here, to be honest. Black Kite 22:13, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Article history merge help needed

Resolved

 – Done. Caulde 14:46, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Kikkokalabud asked me for help restoring an article that I had taken to AFD. I told him if he wrote a good article, I'd help. So, he wrote it at User:Kikkokalabud/Sandbox/Say OK, and once he passed the basics of actually having sources for his statements, etc. I put notices on the talk pages of everyone that had voted for redirect. As you can see by comparing WP:Articles for deletion/Say OK and User talk:Kikkokalabud/Sandbox/Say OK, everyone that argued for redirect has said the article can be restored. The problem is that the original talk page and article page have an edit history, and multiple editors have made changes to the sandbox version and talk page, so they have an edit history, too. What I need is for the sandbox versions to be moved to mainspace, and the histories merged. If this isn't a good place to ask, can someone please tell me the right place?Kww (talk) 01:39, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

 Done. Cheers. lifebaka++ 03:06, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Blatant Personal Attacks

User:ㄏㄨㄤㄉㄧ has been making blatant personal attacks recently. This user has made defamatory statements about two editors by claiming that they may be living in "lala land".[34][35][36]

Also, there is a similarity between the edits listed above and this user page User:Nefbmn (they all involve information on genetics data regarding particular populations).

Furthermore, the user has created an article titled Mandarin people that I suspect could be frivolous. As far as I know, there is such a thing as "native Mandarin-speaking people"; however, I have never heard about ethnic Mandarin people, only North-Easterners (of China), Hebei people and the like. It needs to be thoroughly reviewed and possibly split. 122.105.150.242 (talk) 04:26, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I've deleted the article and I, as well as a few other administrators, are looking into this user's contributions.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:53, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

While you're at it, could you please also investigate the possibility of a connection between User:Vietnameseischinesenotcantoneseisvietnamese and User:ㄏㄨㄤㄉㄧ? According to the user log for User:Vietnameseischinesenotcantoneseisvietnamese, User:Nefbmn appeared after an indefinite block was placed for a violation of the username policy. As I have remarked above, there is a disturbing similarity between Nefbmn's userpage and some of User:ㄏㄨㄤㄉㄧ's recent contributions. If this alleged connection is proved, then it will become very clear just what the user's agenda is. Thanks. 122.105.150.242 (talk) 06:04, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

You might want to post a request at WP:RFCU for this. I doubt that anything will be achieved from a check on User:Vietnameseischinesenotcantoneseisvietnamese because the edits are too old.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:48, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Vietnameseischinesenotcantoneseisvietnamese's edits were made just over two months ago. This should be usable for CheckUser. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 21:11, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

All three are the same. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 03:36, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Consistant spam link additions to Online classified advertising

Online classified advertising, which may not deserve an article to itself admittedly, is a target for User:Peterbisset, whose user page says he is the MD of PoundAd. This user originally created an uncited article with external links to advertising sites including his own. I and others changed the links to internal links, fact tagged and warned him with a uw-spam warning. Since then an IP address has reverted back to the spam-ish revision; in fact this has happened numerous times, and new user, User:HotCityAds has also joined in. It's not serious enough for a check user, but it is, to my mind, serious enough for a block or two for some period of time. --Blowdart | ^talk 06:16, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I've just redirected the page to Classified advertising, as it was unsourced and as noted above a great target for spam dumps. There wasn't enough in the article to worry about, but if anyone wants to merge anything to the bit discussing online classifieds on the new target, that would be fine. I'll keep an eye on it as well. Tony Fox (arf!) 06:24, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Good call. There is nothing obvious that one can say about online classifieds which is not inherently obvious from the title, and it's an open invitation to spammers. I guess they will now move in to classified advertising, so some watching of that is in order as well. Guy (Help!) 09:15, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I whacked in a {{NoMoreLinks}} for good measure. MER-C 10:50, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Watchlist Not Updating

Resolved

Currently, my watchlist shows the most up-to-date edit (even for this page) as about 1:27am EST (current time 4:01am EST). Obviously, something is goofed in updating of watchlists and edits. - NeutralHomer • Talk 08:02, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Me too, but the best place for something like this is probably Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical) since there's not much any administrators can do. AniMate 08:08, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I just wanted to bring it to everyone's attention. I figure it is being worked on as we type. - NeutralHomer • Talk 08:11, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

There's a note at the top of the watchlist saying "Watchlists are currently broken! This will be fixed shortly." I presume that means they're onto it. Orderinchaos 08:29, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Just talked to someone on the tech IRC channel and I was told "there's nobody around to look into it" and "it's not sufficiently urgent to summon anybody". So, I doubt this will be fixed anytime soon. - NeutralHomer • Talk 08:42, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

So, ironically, this happened on no one's watch. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:43, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks like it's working now. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:56, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Return of banned user USEDfan

Resolved

 – Blocked for obvious block evasion.  Sandstein  08:58, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

This user has an extremely long history of disruption, checkuser has confirmed sock accounts of his on three different occasions, and a couple others have been blocked under WP:DUCK. It got so bad that all his favorite articles had to be semi-protected. He is back under the account User:Less than you and claims that he has decided his ban is over, guess he took that amongst himself. See here and here for proof. Landon1980 (talk) 08:07, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of it. He has been using the same IP for months, would it be possible to block account creation for a month or so maybe? Im asking because he usually returns the next day or so after his latest sock is blocked. In the past the articles had to be protected, and he is the only one disrupting the said articles. Landon1980 (talk) 09:20, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

What IP would that be, and how do you know it is his?  Sandstein  09:24, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

A few months ago he used his IP to edit and it was blocked as a sock of his. Just the other day when he was making a series of edits on The Used he used that same IP that was blocked earlier. I'll go see what it is hold on. Landon1980 (talk) 09:28, 28 September 2008 (UTC) See User_talk:66.195.30.2 and the contribs of the IP. Landon1980 (talk) 09:32, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

To give you an idea of how likely it is he will return look at this] Landon1980 (talk) 09:46, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, 66.195.30.2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) blocked for 3 months. Seems to be only used by him.  Sandstein  10:28, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, hopefully that will take care of it. Cheers, Landon1980 (talk) 10:35, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

It's probably impossible to verify, but this look a lot to me like User:Michael. Corvus cornix_talk 19:20, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Nope. USEDfan is a fanboy of The Used, and he also has a habit of editing Aqua Teen Hunger Force articles, whereas User:Michael is all over the place. Completely different editing patterns. --Pwnage8 (talk) 22:23, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Michael/Mike Garcia loved to edit band articles. Corvus cornix_talk 00:40, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Not like that behaviour is out of the ordinary here at Wikipedia. USEDfan sticks to The Used. Like I said, completely different editing patterns. --Pwnage8 (talk) 02:31, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Happy puff and ips such as 61.7.183.25

Resolved

 – 61.7.183.25 (talk · contribs) has been blocked by Bongwarrior (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) and Happy puff (talk · contribs) has been blocked by Academic Challenger (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Report to vandalism noticeboard if more IPs vandalize the same way. SoWhy 12:24, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

don't know if this rises to the level of sockpuppetry, but Happy puff and this IP (and maybe others) are posting the same boilerplate vandalism about 'President Lee Kuan Yew Singapore'. can someone look into it? --Ludwigs2 08:51, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Academic Challenger blocked User:Happy puff about 5 minutes ago, not sure about the anon user. - NeutralHomer • Talk 08:54, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• This ip has recently been blocked for spamming the same message. It looks like they will ip hop to achieve their aims, so can admins keep an eye out for AIV reports. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:29, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

simple vandalism - no response at AIV

Resolved

 – Blocked by WBOSITG (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). SoWhy 12:20, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

61.7.179.33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) -- look at the contribs since reporting at AIV. — Alan^✉ 09:52, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, blocked at last I see -- thanks. — Alan^✉ 09:54, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Heads up

We've been having some issues with block evasion on Wikiversity the past week or so by User:Moulton, using IPs and signing with "characters" he uses for dramatic flair. Apparently he's doing that here now: see this edit for example. Just something to keep an eye on... his IPs are dynamic and probably widely shared, so be cautious! --SB_Johnny | ^talk 14:30, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

A bit of background for those editors – like me – who do not follow events on Wikiversity: Moulton was blocked indef by Jimbo[37], who subsequently posted his rationale here. – Sadalmelik ☎ 16:03, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

A little more background: Moulton was blocked during the situation that has sparked claims of an "ID Cabal" (these claims were mostly instigated by him). He spent time after being blocked on Wikipedia by collecting personal information on those involved and "analyzing" their contributions. He began using Wikiversity servers for that purpose, and started posting personal information there, which brought about the first censures against him. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:18, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Gwp-like account

I don't know where is the right place for this nowadays. User:DrinkThineCookies was found (via checkuser) vandalizing grawp-like on kab.wikipedia. I see it's an active account here, so I thought I would drop a note (the account is globally locked now anyway). -- m:drini 15:25, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not Grawp, it's the Zodiac vandal I think. D.M.N. (talk) 15:30, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

It was indef blocked before this comment, and indeed used template vandalism instead of requesting unblock - so they have got hit by the new fangled edit permission denial thingy. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:32, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Swamilive sockpuppet activity

Resolved

 – Sock drawer cleared out

Indef blocked user Swamilive (talk · contribs) seems to be spending a lazy Sunday using their sockfarm to create nuisance mixed drink hoax articles. Rather than reporting to AIV, which seems sluggish today, or poking individual admins, I'm giving a heads up here. Recently blocked socks are:

• Lorries and owt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log),
• Stanley Jacobsen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log),
• Colin Jacobsen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log),
• Stanley Collins (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and
• GilfordJames (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:31, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

New, as yet unblocked, sock: Delicious Jacobsen (talk · contribs). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:32, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey, does anyone know if there's a noticeboard where I could report ongoing problems to admins? You know, to tell them about active vandals and sockpuppets that need blocking? Anyone? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:57, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it took that long, but if you need help faster you can try to look through the deletion log and poke whoever's first on the list. Anyways, blocked the new sock. Cheers. lifebaka++ 16:04, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Swamilive Black Kite 16:05, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, it was over half an hour to get an identified sock blocked after I posted it here. Just saying. Thanks to you both. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:18, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

You guys did a great job. I used to work on Sundays too. I recall the day passing by very slowly. TomStanRobert (talk) 16:23, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

*cough*sockpuppet*cough* Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:30, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Already done :) also see the RFCU, where User:Sam Korn has done the job. I've blocked the two that weren't already. Black Kite 16:33, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

This user's been very helpful in reporting himself to me from quite a few of his accounts. Not sure why I get to be the lucky one. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:16, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Pioneer Courthouse Square‎

This is an edit war that has been taking place since 2006. A user who has operated multiple sockpuppets has been attempting to repeatedly re-insert content via WP:SPA accounts that read "There are lots of people that go to Pioneer Courthouse Square. Some are businessmen stopping for a bite to eat. Others are families out to see Portland. And some say that the square has many homeless persons who congregate there although most are harmless."

Multiple established editors have reverted this content over the last two years, only to have it restored periodically by the involved SPA accounts. In the process, at least 15 sockpuppets have been banned. Now, User:Beenturns21 appears to be the latest sockpuppet incarnation.

I was going to wait until the current semi-protection expired and if it continued to then request indefinite semi-protection if the vandalism continued; but a new (incorrectly placed) mediation request has been created at Pioneer courthouse square where the user appears to be taking the issue to while waiting out the current semi-protection that expires on Oct 2nd; so I believed this needed to be escalated to WP:ANI.

The user involved has demonstrated a complete disregard for Wikipedia policies and guidelines ... some of the onces involved are WP:NPOV, WP:WEASEL, WP:OR, WP:SOCK and WP:3RR. Because of this, I would request that the latest user be banned, and due to the tenacity of the user involved that the article placed in indefinite semi-protection. Is a mediation case required for this - or can such action be taken here given the evidence below?

Here's a summary of the accounts that have attempted to inserting the content ... due to the large size of the evidence involved, I've listed it within a toggling collapse box.

Thanks for taking a look. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:40, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I have moved it to Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Pioneer Courthouse Square. hbdragon88 (talk) 18:53, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Is your comment to indicate that this does need to go through mediation despite the provided evidence of past sockpuppetry/trolling, or is it just informative that the "mediation" request has been moved to the proper location? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:05, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I would support indefinite semi-protection of Pioneer Courthouse Square. When there has been the amount of past abuse documented at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Pioneercourthouse I'm not sure why mediation should still be considered appropriate. New SSP reports should be filed as necessary to deal with probable socks such as User:Yourew21 and User:Beenturns21. See also Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Pioneercourthouse. If it is possible that all this abuse may trace back to a single editor, a Request for Checkuser might be considered. EdJohnston (talk) 19:07, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Just to indicate that it is in the proper location. I detest when things are not in the right place. hbdragon88 (talk) 21:58, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• This is a job for... RBIman!. Guy (Help!) 22:12, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Shucks, Iridescent beat me to it. I was going to block for "WP:SOCK and general lameness", vandalism is so much more prosaic. Seriously, guys, this is someone trolling us, keep the sockpuppet page to hand and there should be no great drama about playing whack-a-mole with any more that come along. Guy (Help!) 22:15, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I am not related to these so-called "sock puppets" that you speak of and I certainly do not appreciate your accusation. I am simply an interested user who has been observing this conflict from a distance - until now. It appears to me that the person who has been inserting this text about homelessness may have an argument that you have not considered. Rather than rudely reverting and banning him/her, you should try to engage in a conversation or mediation with him/her. The text he/she is trying to put in is not THAT ridiculous. In fact, maybe there's a way to get his point across in a way that is encyclopedic and will please everyone. I have seen much worse things that trolls have said. Instead, It looks like a case of a new user who has been harassed and abused by Wikipedia "elitist know-it-alls" who have automatically assumed that this is a troll. Why not see if a compromise can be reached. It does not appear that a good faith effort to compromise has even been attempted. This is why I nominated this article for mediation and I would be pleased to be a mediator if this user does in fact return It appears that this is what's needed. But I fear that these editors/admins are so stuck in their ways and convinced that this is a troll. I am 70 percent sure that he is not a troll in the traditional sense but merely a confused and harassed editor. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beenturns21 (talk • contribs) 22:26, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Blocked the above as a sock, but I'm thinking that there may be a better way to solve this. It seems the user would like to try this a different way, though the end goal is the same. I'd support an unblock on the condition that conversation about the inclusion happen instead of adding it back into the article. It may also be necessary for the mediation. So, unblock if need be. Cheers. lifebaka++ 23:43, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I am friends with the original author of this controversy, pioneercourthouse. He informs me that he is willing to discuss this dispute. In fact he is very eager to discuss it and hopefully come to a compromise. I urge you to unblock him immediately so mediation can take place. He tells me that it is very important (in his view) to have information in the article about homelessness but he is willing to compromise if others will rationally discuss this. Mediman43 (talk) 00:49, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

How many SOCKS is this editor going to use to push their POV? I sincerely doubt someone is going to call a "friend" and have them create an account on wikipedia to belabor an obvious removal of POV information in an article. Two years of debating the addition of this material and still no reliable source for the information? That in itself should point to the unreliability of the information or if not completely unreliable, the undue weight it carries for inclusion. If it were noteworthy, why no reliable coverage by media in all this time. I'm frankly astonished at the tenacity of this editor.--JavierMC 02:28, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Please note that I did not say pioneercourthouse "called me." Indeed, he did not call me but e-mailed me. We are good friends and have been so for quite a long to. I beseech you to please use common sense and attempt to listen to the points of myself, merely a common editor who wishes for you to listen to reason. And by extension, you should listen to pioneercourthouse. I have a feeling that he is terribly sorry for the trouble he's caused and merely wants to explain himself and discuss how to put information about homelessness in the pioneer courthouse square article. I happen to be from Portland and I do know for a fact taht there are many homeless people there. Perhaps he was trying to force the issue, but you should try to have a civilized discussion with him instead of just banning him. That is rather rude. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mediman43 (talk • contribs) 03:34, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Even if we assume good faith that you are not a sockpuppet; you would still be a meatpuppet, which per established arbitration rulings would still be treated as a single entity sockpuppet for purposes of Wikipedia policy and guidelines.

As to being rude; from what I can find in the article history, Pioneercourthouse is the one who brought the actions onto himself by engaging in sockpuppetry to force an issue, and lied about doing so (first confirmed via a Checkuser on Dec 26, 2006 performed by Jayjg and later further explored during a review of suspected Sockpuppets).

On the content of the article, any new sources should be discussed on the article talk page - the only current source mentioned fails as a reliable source. This is important because the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. First hand experience is original research, and not a basis for statements in an article. A third party reliable source is needed for the content. Also, any source provided should establish why it's notable to mention it in relation to the article - from the suggested text addition, I fail to see where it's any more notable than any other location. Homelessness exists in all major cities throughout the world; it is hardly unique to Pioneer Courthouse Square‎. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:58, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Excessive image uploads

User Talk:Paaulinho see his talk page for the ridiculous amount of image uploads and copyright vios he got away with. He was given a warning a few days ago but while i was looking through his contributions today, I noticed an image upload that had gone unnoticed. I tagged it and warned him again . The image is now deleted. I think a block is well overdue. OgiBeaR (talk) 19:33, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't appear to have uploaded any images in the past week. It would be somewhat punitive to block for that. Let me know if he uploads another, though. Cheers. lifebaka++ 19:56, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikiport cubed

• Wikiport (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Fresh back from being blocked for "disruptive editing, and unfounded accusing of Blaxthos being at fault", Wikiport's very first edits again make sideways accusations that I am either lying or editing in bad faith, and he continues to take an adversarial approach (including condescending "quotation marks" and snarky statements) while stedfastly refusing to acknowledge the longstanding consensus that exists. This editor has yet to make any constructive contributions, and has proven time and time again that he's more interested in fighting battles, canvassing (here and here), and pushing an agenda than he is in building a community project and respecting consensus. Not sure what to do, so I'm bringing it here again for a third time. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 19:55, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

With respect, I think the "canvassing" may be nothing more than an invitation for concensus with perhaps an overuse of "". As for this comments, he does appear to be baiting you slightly, however I am also wise to the possibility that you may be reading more into it than there is intended, as you have been a previous victim of his attitude (note, I am assuming good faith in your report, don't get me wrong, I am just exploring all angles.) I will have a word regarding his baiting, assuming as much good faith for him as warranted, but I personally think that canvassing issue may be taking it a litle far. SGGH ^speak! 20:07, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Appreciate the outside perspective. I think the major challenge here is his persistant baiting of admins and established editors, his refusal to acknowledge previously decided positions, and his snarky attitude. Given that he's been given plenty of warnings, and even blocked for his behavior, and has returned with the same agenda and tactics, I think it's time to call a spade a spade here. If there had been any constructive contributions, or indication that there was any sincerety in his comments or that he's interested in participating in the community (rather than battling), I'd be a lot more understanding. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:21, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it is clear what you are attempting here. I have made no such allegations towards you. Please do not spin my conduct in such a way, and then portray it as an attack against you. If an editor has an opposing viewpoint then you, fine. I have made every effort to make "editors" PLURAL and not singular, just for you. Regarding the quotation marks, I'm not sure you can make them condescending. Wikiport (talk) 20:34, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I have reviewed the diffs above. I think Blaxthos needs to look beyond minor baiting or blowing off steam by an editor who was recently blocked. Wikiport needs to try to follow civility policy more closely. Further difficult communications can be discussed at wikiquette alerts, since they are unlikely to need blocks. I note that Wikiport has familiarity with Wikipedia that is unnatural for a newcomer.[38] They could have experience at another wiki, or might be an alternate account or replacement account of another editor. Wikiport is under no obligation to reveal those facts, of course. Wikiport should avoid disruption and honor the collegial spirit of Wikipedia. That is the salient point. Jehochman ^Talk 20:47, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe Wikiport should be indefinately blocked. His recent re-factoring and removal of comments here (which he claims he did in error) is not the first time that this editor has felt fit to remove other editors contributions on talk or project pages. I believe this is a troll we would be well rid off. No useful contributions have been made by this account. None are likely in the future. Pedro :  Chat  20:52, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I strongly support Pedro's statement. With all due respect to Jehochman and any other admins/editors with no previous contact with Wikiport, it's clear to those of us who have had extensive interaction with him that he's a troll. Browse his entire edit history... tt's good to AGF to a point, but there is a clear history of his intent in a very short amount of time, and it's quite unlikely that he'll do anything more than become better at gaming the system, baiting other editors, and disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point. In this case, it's more prudent to give some credit to your longstanding administrators and editors than it is to continue to bend over backwards extending good faith to an editor who has never given any reason to continue doing so.

Posted from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Non-autoconfirmed postsGreetings to all. I'm sure some are aware of the now three ANI entries that Blaxthos has levied on me. I think it is clear that Blaxthos and I have differing opinions, although I don't believe it warrants constant ANI entries. I have not attacked him, or degraded his character in any way. I think it is clear that he is using the ANI process to further this feud which quite frankly doesn't need to exist here. I believe that these constant attempts to have me blocked is contrary to the existing philosophy of this section. I would be appreciative if this issue of constantly reporting me could be addressed. He is reading a bit too much into this, to the point of accusing me of making condescending quotation marks! Thanks Wikiport (talk) 21:06, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

NB: I have advised Wikiport regarding RFC or Peer Review to help reach concensus in a stable fashion regarding the articles he works on. SGGH ^speak!

If the user is trolling, there is not much harm is assuming good faith and giving them a chance to prove it beyond a doubt. If you think they have already proven it, post diffs and I will look. Jehochman ^Talk 21:50, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

We're probably coming to a point of handing out enough rope anyway. As it goes I consider myself uninvolved on this, having not being involved in the Fox News article that seems to be the issue. Simply put, I don't want to sound all Big Brother ish but if Wikiport continues with snide remarks let alone outright WP:POINTy edits I'm afraid my patience has become exhausted. Pedro :  Chat  22:09, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Some highlights of (not all-inclusive):

1. Spurious G11 nomination 1
2. Spurious G11 nomination 2
3. Spurious sockpuppet accusation
4. Spurious POV accusation
5. Removing admin comments from talk pages
6. Patronizing comment (also here, here)
7. Spurious warning of an admin (another fake warning here)
8. POV addition to established FAQ
9. More trolling
10. Smart assery

The list goes on... you could almost pick any diff and chances are there's going to be trolling somewhere it in. Go read his talk page (or, should it be blanked, browse through the history) and see if you don't find some very disturbing indicators. Also, please don't be fooled by his faux friendliness, a detailed examination of his edit history reveals the truth. I've never before suggested or voiced support for an indefinite block, and Pedro is a very well known/respected admin. The suggestion is not made lightly. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:06, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not seeing this the same way you are, obviously. It looks to me as if he is trying at least not to escalate the dispute, and you are not doing much to damp it down. The two of you disagree, big deal; see if you can find the points of agreement or get a WP:3O. There's nothing for us to do here. Guy (Help!) 22:10, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Come on, JzG... third opinion on what? Spurious G11 nominations? Smart assed passive-aggressive comments? Removing admin comments on talk pages? This has nothing to do with a content dispute. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:20, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I have agree with Blaxthos. This feels like passive-aggressive behavior intending to drive everyone crazy. I'm not sure I support a complete block now but I would have a single last warning to stop this nonsense. I mean, [proposing to deleted Fox News Channel]? And twice? Even his first comment at talk indicates a very high level of knowledge. This has gone on long enough. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:10, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

We are trying to come to a consensus regarding wording for a sentence in the lead of the MSNBC article, based on what is being reported in sources, and Wikiport's remark here accusing us of bad faith isn't helping things. Switzpaw (talk) 22:25, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Posted from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Non-autoconfirmed postsI have seen many concerns regarding the speedy G10 deletions of the FNC article I made a little while ago. I should have researched it a bit more, but I was mistaken thinking that people would vote on it. I was corrected by Pedro. I know I don't know everything here regarding Wikipedia, but I do think a couple of growing pains are natural. I am passionate about the issues that I believe are important, as I believe many editors are. This feud with Blaxthos is quite simply childish on both sides. I believe much has been taken out of context, and elevated to a point where it doesn't need to be. My goal here is to address the FNC article, and edit a couple other of articles which interest me. My goal is not to perpetuate a "back and forth" argument with Blaxthos in a community setting. We disagree, yes; but, that's how progress is made in history. It isn't made by silencing one side of the table. Thanks again..Wikiport (talk) 22:37, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Please don't characterize it as a "feud with Blaxthos", as it's not. You were blocked by one admin, and have now had another call for you to be indefinitely removed from Wikipedia. You've made more than a few really inappropriate comments. You've outright lied in accusing me of sockpuppetry, and even tried to misrepresent an anon editor's request for assistance at WP:RFCU as a sockpuppet report against me. When you get your ass in a sling, you start trying to play nice, but every time you're given good faith you turn right back to the same disruptive behavior that got you into trouble in the first place. You've made no constructive contribution to Wikipedia, and you've not shown any remorse, humility, or respect for policy, consensus, expectations, polices, norms, or mores of Wikipedia. In short, you've already shown what your real agenda is, and you've thus far been the epitome of what Wikipedia definitely does not need. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:41, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Posted from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Non-autoconfirmed posts: I don't wish to continue the back and forth. Blaxthos, it is clearly a feud ok? I am not trying to play nice in the wake of a 3rd ANI. I believe you are a bit quick to nominate here quite frankly. Otherwise, I have explained my prior actions. I did nominate the FNC for speedy deletion, prior to me actually understanding it - which was addressed and corrected by Pedro on my talk page, in fact, I thanked him for his patience and viewpoint. I never accused you of "sock-puppetry", I stated I had SEEN controversy regarding the issue which I quoted. You explained what I saw on your talk page. Now, I have tried to establish sections within the talk page of FNC to address this issue, which you continue to perpetuate a back and forth argument. I understand there is a consensus, I am challenging that consensus in the wake of new information given current events and objectivity. I appeal to you to stop this silliness and move on. You have been in constant argument with several editors, that's apparent to see in your history. Please stop the back and forth on the FNC talk page, and move it to my page if you want to continue slamming me for being a novice and etc. etc. Thanks..Wikiport (talk) 00:01, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

You're a liar who has tried to re-write history; the fact that I've never made such an outright accusation in my four years on Wikipedia should indicate the ferocity of the charge. Though you claim to have honest intentions, your actions belie your purpose. Slick tongue you may have, but at least two admins and multiple editors have already reached the same conclusion. In this circumstance, WP:AGF works in your favor, and few admins/editors will take the time to read all of the history. However, given how quickly you've gone from "newbie" to potential indefinite block I'm sure at some point the community writ large will reach the same conclusion those of us who have interacted with you already have. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:13, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

LGBT COI and POV pushing or not?

There was a well sourced paragraph about some gays being arrested in Iran added to our article about Iran's third largest city of over 1 million people, Esfahān. It was removed due to undue weight. At Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies#Esfahan a request was made to help "get our news on city articles where we are persecuted, jailed, killed." LGBT COI and POV pushing or not? WAS 4.250 (talk) 20:57, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

First of all, please do not include navigation templates here, it does not make any sense. Second, what exactly are you asking? Whether it is okay to post at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies to help discussing the issue or whether the removals were correct? SoWhy 21:18, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

The editor has trimmed the section down now, and - as he says - it's better sourced than the entire rest of the article. The question is whether it belongs in that article (we do have similar sections on notable incidents in other city articles) or in an article such as LGBT rights in Iran. This is a content issue, and I don't see that any administrator intervention is needed here. Black Kite 21:27, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

It seems this part is against the Wikipedia policy about "Undue Weight", it is well sources but mostly from non neutral sources and does not have the conditions of notability.(77.5.67.93 (talk) 21:49, 28 September 2008 (UTC))

I'd say it belongs at Wikinews, with a link to the Wikinews category for stories about Esfahān. Guy (Help!) 22:03, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

They chop off the hands of thieves. I wonder what they chop off in these cases? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:14, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I want to know, BB. :-] — Becksguy (talk) 23:40, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Serious answer: in Iran, being gay is punished by death. Hanging, in the cases I've seen. I'm open to discussion on whether that's an important part of the article, but I hope you'll forgive me if I don't think it's very funny. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:28, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this is a content issue and discussion should continue on the article talk page. If there are serious issues that prevent consensus from being formed, then apply the dispute resolution processes. This is not an ANI issue, unless behavior gets out of hand. — Becksguy (talk) 23:40, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

extremely biased editor

user:Wehrmachtvnn edited totally biased anti-chinese and pro-vietnam article, have been doing so just days ago. admin ignored this earlier because he was not on, but now he is on again and has reverted my biased edit removal, see original article here, he's totally rasist and biased views are extremely provoking. also this user has edited nothing but the article mentioned, so it's a vandalism only account Btzkillerv (talk) 20:49, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

'Idiot' is not an acceptable term to use when involved in a dispute, even with someone who is manifestly in the wrong. I see that you undid the user's edit and warned him on his talk page already; is there a further administrative action you require? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:15, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

It should be noted that the complaining editor is a highly POV Chinese nationalist editor. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 00:52, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

"Job" perks

I just got an "I kill you" barnstar for my work at FAC. Not sure where I'm supposed to take this, anyone? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:17, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

This is the right place, Sandy. I have asked Hadrianos1990 (talk · contribs) to come here and explain himself; other action may be appropriate as well. Risker (talk) 21:23, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

It is possibly just a weird motivational barnstar, I'll check if Sandy has come across this user before and/or is working on the article he mentions. If not, then it is a strange thing to do. SGGH ^speak! 21:25, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

It's because I just archived the FAC for Real Madrid C.F.; if Hadrianos prefers to explain in Spanish, that works for me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:26, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes I noticed, was checking for any previous interaction but can't locate any, no abusive behaviour on the article, your talk page (aside from barnstar) or the FAC. See what he says. SGGH ^speak! 21:30, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Based on his pointy FAR for the Chelsea F.C. article, it seems likely he's taking his struggles at FAC personally and just lashing out. Resolute 21:50, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Is something going on in the football (soccer) world leading to all of this? Or is this just football? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:18, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm surprised the barnstar image Image:Ikillyoubarnstar.png exists to be honest. However, it's on Commons, so not much we can do about here. However, I don't think this is an issue, rather a poor taste joke. -- how do you turn this on 22:24, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I will perhaps agree if it's followed by a profound apology when the contributor realizes that it's not funny. Otherwise (and possibly even if), I tend to think it's an issue. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:27, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Well it appears to have originally come from the Italian wikipedia when someone botched an edit on a highly used template. I'm back and forth over whether a request for rename on the image or outright deletion. It was meant to be taken lightly, like saying I crush your head, but since sarcasm translates so well, and an image of crosshairs with the words I kill you couldn't possibly be taken out of context as a threat, it may need to be deleted. -Optigan13 (talk) 22:54, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Also the turning around and nominating Chelsea for FAR after using that as the model for Real Madrid seems a bit pointy. -Optigan13 (talk) 23:00, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

To me, the barnstar itself is less the issue here than the use of it; such jokes are only really acceptable if shared between people who have some kind of understanding or a relationship that allows them to expect it will be well received. In this case, it seems flatly out of line. I agree with you completely about the issue of sarcasm. :) As User:How do you turn this on notes, though, as the barnstar is on Commons, it's fate is not an in-house situation. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:38, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

User talk:96.250.19.231

Look at their contributions. They are more than likely to do vandalize Britney Spears again. They've gotten 2 warnings, they know if they do it again they'll get blocked. I think an admin should be on standby. OgiBeaR (talk) 23:07, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Follow the warning templates and report to WP:AIV if they go past. AIV is usually decently fast and more effective than trying to report in this wall of text. We don't do preventative blocks and with IP addresses, there's a chance the person could change. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:10, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

User:FMBlogger

Please block this user's account as his/her updates have been disruptive to both the WPRS and WPTVS projects. Several users have complained and I'm now reporting it. Thanks. --RoomDownUnitStage (talk) 00:56, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

As a member of both of those projects, I have only seen one complaint about User:FMBlogger, when he linked the frequencies in the state-by-state lists. If there are others, I am not aware of them.

Also, RoomDownUnitStage isn't doing anything to really help the situation. RoomDownUnitStage first called User:FMBlogger "Mr. Idiot" in one post (later removed it) and tagged the user's talk page with a "Banned" template. That isn't doing anything to help the situation.

The edits FMBlogger is making appear to be good faith edits, as a non-admin, I see no reason for FMBlogger to be blocked. - NeutralHomer • Talk 01:24, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

While I'd agree that User:FMBlogger has been causing a bit of havoc recently and it's been tough to engage them in discussion, I'm highly inclined to assume good faith. However, it seems odd that User:RoomDownUnitStage created their account only an hour ago, and has done nothing in that time other than revert a change, insult User:FMBlogger on their talk page, improperly add the banned user template to both their user page and talk page, post to the talk pages of multiple administrators asking for them to be banned, and file this report. Seems a little like trying to swat a housefly with a bazooka, but maybe it's just me. Mlaffs (talk) 01:36, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not just you, I smell something fishy here. Mainly on User:RoomDownUnitStage's end. Check out [39] (mainly the last couple of votes and their editor's histories). User:MrMarkTaylor ^{What's that?/What I Do/Feed My Box} 02:08, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, the plot thickens. Dlohcierekim 02:24, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Spitfire19 making a template just to make a personal attack

Resolved

 – Not really anything to see here. HalfShadow 03:06, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Spitfire19 (talk · contribs) Earlier I came across yet another maxis/sims related stub that didn't have the remotest hint of qualifying for an article. For those not familiar with the The Sims series, user (especially brand new users) really enjoy making stubs about every single aspect of this game and all the various words that get created in the forums or the game itself. These inevitably end up redirected/deleted. Stumbling across yet another, I was bold and redirected it as the only source was a primary source of a single usage of the word in a commercial. [40]. I explained my reasoning on the talk page of the redirect Talk:Creatiolutionism. Spitfire took it so personally he felt the need to create a template[41] just for the purposes of a personal attack[42]. Initially I told him any further edits like that would be reported [43], but then I took a look and noticed he made the template just for that purpose. That's certainly not in line with how community members should be treating each other...He certainly did apply it to his own page first, but that doesn't change the fact that he made it after I redirected his article and put it on mine and after he made this comment on my talk page [44]--Crossmr (talk) 02:09, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I put it up for speedy as it serves no other purpose than to insult the person it's applied to. JuJube (talk) 02:19, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

It is not created for use as a personal attack. It's on my User Page. I was unaware that it would be taken in such a way as this.Spitfire (talk) 02:20, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Apology accepted. In the future I'd refrain from putting anything sarcastic on anyone's page. Sarcasm doesn't translate very well over the internet.--Crossmr (talk) 03:46, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I declined the speedy. If it is only used on the user's page, it should not be a problem. Might be better userfied or could be deleted via MFD. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 02:32, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

If it's only on the userpage, I consider it quite funny/self-deprecating and some other users might possibly like it for themselves (if they're brave enough) :) Sticky Parkin 03:06, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

*Goes to add it to her userpage* L'Aquatique[talk] 03:27, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

If a user puts it on their OWN page maybe, but to go out and apply it to another users page can and likely will be seen as an insult. It implies the user is trying to throw around some authority reserved for admins and is acting in a way they shouldn't. If people want to make that statement about themselves thats fine, but the issue here wasn't exactly the template, but the message the template had and the fact that it was stuck on my user page as a result of a content disagreement.--Crossmr (talk) 03:43, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

He added it to your userpage? That wasn't shown in the diff you provided. Shana tova!-- L'Aquatique[talk] 05:29, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks to have been added here [45], which I wouldn't have taken too kindly to, either. Dayewalker (talk) 05:32, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Dayewalker. I had not looked through all the diffs properly it seems. However, Spitfire has apologized so I think we can call this one resolved for now, although further passive agressiveness should be reported. I'm hoping that we have all learned our lesson about editing other people's userpage! Shana tova!-- L'Aquatique[talk] 05:35, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Major Vandalism and Sockpuppetry on KOOP (FM)

Beginning with earlier today (9/28), multiple users have removed part of all of the "Fires" section of the KOOP (FM) page. KOOP-FM is a radio station in Austin, Texas that was the site of an arson in January of 2008 by a former employee (according to referenced sources).

Different accounts were made and within moments (sometimes just a minute after creation) would remove the same section. Reverts were made and new accounts were created remove the same information. As of this writing, vandalism to the page continues.

The following accounts are being used in the vandalism:

• Joeyv1000 (talk · contribs)
• AndrewDick69 (talk · contribs)
• DJMD01 (talk · contribs)
• YellowRoseHooker (talk · contribs)
• Whistler1889 (talk · contribs)
• Kutguru (talk · contribs)

Multiple warnings have been issued for all accounts by myself and other users. I have requested full protection for the page and have also requested a checkuser to confirm the sockpuppetry angle.

Since those "departments" (checkuser and page protection) are kinda slow, I bring it to your attention. - NeutralHomer • Talk 02:47, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I have protected against new and unregistered users, pending review here by other admins. Please let me know if i have protected the wrong version. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 02:57, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:IUP violations

Jdxboom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked for edit-warring IUP violations into the Miley Cyrus articles. Today, he re-inserted one of the exact same violations. I reported at AIV, and was told that this behaviour didn't warrant a block, because This user was blocked for image-use violations, not edit warring, and he's only edited once today... I don't think that warrants a block. Look at the contributor's history: he inserted those images over, and over, and over, despite the number of times I explained he was violating IUP. He tested today to see if he could get it in without me taking it back out, and I see no reason to go back through a warning cycle.Kww (talk) 04:33, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Could we get a diff as to where the request was denied? Going back through a warning cycle is pointless.--Crossmr (talk) 05:16, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Rollosmokes

Rollosmokes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has requested (from me) an unblock on en.Wikipedia. This user was a user in good standing until a few months ago, when a series of unfortunate decisions left him permablocked on this project. Rollosmokes has expressed to me, in e-mail, remorse for some bad behavior and would like to move beyond the old arguments. Any objections to an unblock? Firsfron of Ronchester 05:32, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

User: User:Arbiteroftruth

This person, after coming off a block for incivility has altered my user page without permission, made snarky comments to me on my talk page, and then proceeded to drum up sentiment against me behind my back. (to User_talk:Chaser) See all recent contributions for diffs. I think perhaps a re-block is in order to teach this person how to treat others civilly. Bilodeauzx (talk) 05:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC)