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

User:Donald Duck behavior

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

---

I want to report User:Donald Duck behavior. I'm clearing wikipedia from User:Zombie433 fake edits. I reported it there[[1]].

User:Donald Duck reverted my good edits, then I post a message with explanation on his talk page [2]. But he is deleting my messages and posting some stupid warnings on my talkpage. Could you explain with him his freaky behavior?--Wrwr1 (talk) 17:32, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

• You need to notify any user you discuss here. I'll be doing that now. elektrikSHOOS 17:41, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I can't do it because he's deleting my messages.--Wrwr1 (talk) 17:52, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
    • If an editor deletes a message you leave on their talk page, that's an implicit acknowledgment that they've read the message. If you leave them a notice of this discussion and they delete it, your obligation is over. -- Atama頭 18:07, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
• Calling you a vandal for posting an explanation of what you are doing on xyr talk page is inexcusable behaviour on Donald Duck's part. However, you could have acted to prevent yourself from getting into this mess in the first place. You're removing what you assert to be false information that one editor systematically added to Wikipedia. But there's no clue in your edit summaries that you're doing this. Your edit summaries do not provide any way to distinguish between what you are doing and what vandals do to Wikipedia every day. You're blanking parts of articles and statistics from infoboxes, and the very best that your edit summaries have been are "fake, pov". In many cases, you haven't provided any edit summaries at all. How on Earth is anyone to tell that you're doing this with good intentions, as part of a WikiProject Football cleanup effort, if you don't say so in your edit summaries. Link your edit summaries to a WikiProject Football discussion showing consensus amongst editors to systematically revert these additions.

  Here's a maxim for you specifically to remember (that will have Arthur C. Clarke spinning in his grave like Rama):

  Any sufficiently poorly made well-intentioned edit is indistinguisable from vandalism.

  Uncle G (talk) 18:04, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

• This isn't the first time that I've run into this issue with Donald Duck. I don't believe that they have the firmest grasp on WP:VAN. See here where there were two good faith edits reported as vandalism (which I'll admit eventually led to the editor's block after some uncivil responses to the vandalism templates, but that's beside the point), and even some edit warring on the editor's own talk page. These good faith edits reported as vandalism are accompanied with less-than-stellar edit summaries, so probably no more than a trout is warranted, but I do see something of a pattern of mistakes here. -- Atama頭 18:22, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

• Harrassment is a blockable offense. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 20:36, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes, but this would be borderline at best; harassment usually occurs when an editor targets another editor or group of editors and specifically tries to make them miserable through various means. Donald Duck's behavior has been untargeted, and more importantly I believe that they truly believe that their vandalism warnings are genuine. Mistakes can be blockable if they cause disruption and the editor has been warned about them and willfully continues them, but that hasn't happened here from what I can see. I still feel that a nice fish-slap is all that's needed. -- Atama頭 21:06, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
    • I agree with everything Atama has said. I know I'm not perfect and make mistakes, but there is a bit of a pattern I see with Donald Duck. Tommy! [message] 01:25, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Actually I was referring to Wrwr1's repeated harrassment of Donald Duck. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 06:07, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
      • Then you need some sense of perspective. Three user talk page edits and no interactions other than on the football articles that the user talk page edits were discussing and explaining is not harrassment by any stretch of the imagination. This edit summary should not be taken as gospel. It's Huggle Happiness, just hitting the Huggle buttons that one hits all of the time because it's easier than doing things right according to specific cases. Notice that Donald Duck reverts and dismisses/ignores every editor who doesn't have an account or a user page, whatever the discussion. This response is a good indicator that Huggle Happiness is setting in, too.

        Indeed, the talk page message there, again blithely ignored by Donald Duck because it comes from someone without an account whom xe has dismissed as a vandal, is an attempt to communicate, made by an ordinary editor, with someone who has gone Huggle Happy. The recent edit history of Worksop makes for interesting reading: Two Huggle using editors ganging up with robotic edit summary explanations against that editor, not only whose information is correct but whose intent to correct is explained in the talk page edit that just gets ignored by the Huggler.

        If this weren't bad enough, at Milieu therapy Donald Duck has just used Huggle to reinsert a blatant copyright violation four times. Attempts to communicate about that were ignored too, and the editor who was doing good work keeping us free from content that is "Copyright Focus Alternative Learning Center All Rights Reserved" is now blocked for "vandalism". Huggle Happiness is not acting to the betterment of the encyclopaedia here.

        A quick word in the ear of Spencer (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) seems warranted at this point.

        I'm going to leave it up for the next few hours for the edificiation of people without administrator privileges reading this discussion, but since the copyright violation in Milieu therapy goes back to its very first version (as noted in 2007), the entire edit history is a copyright violating derived work, and has to go. It's unacceptable that a Huggler should edit war to keep copyright violations in Wikipedia and blatantly ignore the people coming to xyr user page to discuss it. Uncle G (talk) 13:59, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

        • @Everard Proudfoot: I assumed you meant Donald Duck because I couldn't imagine how Wrwr1's communications could be considered harassment.
        • @Uncle G: Thanks for that extra information. I didn't realize how extensive this problem was, I've apparently only seen the tip of the iceberg (and I admit I didn't take the time to really look into their behavior, I've only seen Donald Duck's behavior in passing a couple of times this week). This looks like a serious problem and I'm wondering if this uncommunicative editor is far too disruptive to allow unblocked. I think I will take the time to look into this. -- Atama頭 16:23, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
      • I see nothing disruptive in my edits. Per Ungle G's comment, he / she should have put clearer edit summeries. "Fake" is not a clear edit summary. Anyone in my place could have done the same as me. - Donald Duck (talk) 17:09, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
        • Edit summaries are not always clear, hence why we have diffs. Anyone in your place would have looked at them. ANowlin ^talk 17:13, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

• He posted a very rude response to a warning I gave him after he reverted a blanking at WP:AfC, that was done after the original author. He asserts that he has done nothing wrong, and that we are treating him like he is dumb. He also says that everyone makes mistakes with HG. IMHO: Someone needs to be brought back down to earth. HG doesn't make you God. ANowlin ^talk 17:08, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I don't think that "HG doesn't make you God" is fair or applicable in this case, let's try not to make this discussion unnecessarily heated. Donald Duck, I am glad you have decided to participate, but don't you see that the sheer volume of mistakes you're making is a problem? I'm willing to cut any recent pages patroller some slack, fighting vandalism is very admirable, but all of the "friendly fire" going on is really worrisome. Even more troubling than the mistakes is ignoring the repeated pleas to be careful, and an unwillingness to listen when someone protests a vandalism tag. -- Atama頭 17:20, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Anowlin, there is nothing rude in my response; don't accuse me. Atama, how's this for a start at resolving this discussion? - Donald Duck (talk) 17:26, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
      • I simply do not understand how you reverted the removal of copyvio 4 times at Milieu therapy despite clear edit summaries asserting it was copyvio. Most users would be blocked for that. Dougweller (talk) 17:35, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
        • Woah! He wasn't blocked for this? ANowlin ^talk 18:56, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
        • His / her edit summaries actually weren't that clear. Yes, he pointed towards WP:COPYVIO and such, but what was copyrighted in the article? He / She never said what was copyrighted by linking to where the text came from. - Donald Duck (talk) 17:41, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
          • If it's a removal, that points to WP:COPYVIO, maybe you should check, instead of pressing Q or R. ANowlin ^talk 18:57, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
          • Thanks for striking out those warnings, that's a helpful gesture. I'm wondering, is Huggle the whole problem here? Maybe avoiding that tool is a good idea. Just throwing that out for consideration to all here. -- Atama頭 17:46, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
          • Also, I agree, the response to Anowlin wasn't rude... Curt, perhaps, and dismissive, but not necessarily rude. (Rude would be saying that Anowlin was stupid.) -- Atama頭 17:49, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
            • Actually, I recently came back from a hiatus because my PC was broken down from July 1st, 2010 to July 26th, 2010. In that time period, I either used my mom's PC or my Dell, which I now call a substitute PC since the Dell is just there as a back-up PC now. Neither of them had Huggle, so I figured it was a good time to take a break. - Donald Duck (talk) 17:55, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
              • Not an excuse. Calm down, and lay off the Q and R keys. You're wearing them out. ANowlin ^talk 18:56, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
                • I wasn't using my PC as an excuse; quit accusing me of things. - Donald Duck (talk) 20:03, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
                  • Please. If you see anything in an edit summary that suggests text has been removed as copyvio, don't put it back unless you are sure it isn't copyvio. Ask someone else to check if you don't think you are able to check it properly. Ask me if you want to, I'm not bad at finding copyvio although (like today) I hate finding it as it can cause a lot of work. Dougweller (talk) 19:30, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
          • Actually, xyr edit summaries were fairly clear, and the content being removed had "captured from: www.focus-alternative.org/milieu.htm" in a section title and a {{copypaste}} tag at the top. 75.173.6.133 wasn't exactly being mysterious and secretive (unlike 71.198.107.182 who, if xe had pointed this out more clearly all those years ago, would have saved us a lot of this trouble).

            Incidentally:

            edit

            What's wrong with 67.87.110.178 trying to tell us what Connecticut judicial marshals are armed with? Uncle G (talk) 20:45, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I also have had numerous problems with DD's edits. A quick look at his/her talk page will show three different reverts that were unwarranted and unexplained by DD which I protested. This has now moved from annoying to disruptive, IMHO. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 22:30, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

And I've just discovered that s/he's also filing false vandalism reports.[3] Will somebody with some authority around here wield a trout, or perhaps even remove Huggle access? 69.181.249.92 (talk) 22:46, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Here's a saying to remember: "Everyone makes mistakes". Anyway, your edit summary "stupid 'bot" was very misleading. Please use clearer edit summaries in the future. Thank you. Also, here's a suggestion. If you don't want your edits showing up on Huggle, create an account. - Donald Duck (talk) 22:49, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Why should I cater to your inability to actually look at an edit as opposed to over-relying on Huggle and making assumptions based on an edit summary? Creating an account isn't going to correct the problems you exhibit. Even a quick look at the history would have shown that I very clearly indicated at every step what I was doing and why.69.181.249.92 (talk) 00:29, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

It's called being civil. Also, I did look at the edit, and I found nothing wrong in ClueBot's revert. You removed content without an explanation. Creating an account will solve the so-called problems I don't have. You'll be automatically whitelisted by Huggle, meaning your edits won't appear while someone's using Huggle. - Donald Duck (talk) 04:50, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Just as a heads up this was an incorrect revert (which is what the IP is talking about) rollback and warning is only for clear vandalism - which this was not. A good look at the diff (and the used edit summary) should have prompted you to check the article history - which would have provided good context. Even then rollback is inappropriate - it is a content issue and so should be undone instead then discussed on the talk page. I agree anyone can make mistakes; but you have made a good number in a short space of time - it might be worth refreshing on vandalism policy (in a nutshell; err on the side of caution and prefer to treat it as a content issue if you can). --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 09:32, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I too have noted incorrect warnings, reverts, and uncivil behaviour from this editor. This reversion was incorrectly marked as vandalism in the edit summary and posting a level 3 vandalism warning was also uncalled for. When the editor queried this on User talk:Donald Duck, the response was a warning about test edits on User talk:Donald Duck, which was also inappropriate. A question or comment about an editor's actions cannot be considered a test edit. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:10, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

The above behaviour came to light following a post at WP:Editor assistance/Requests#Threats from Editor. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:24, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Where I also saw it. I considered posting here but Jezhotwells beat me to it. Not good. Dougweller (talk) 14:41, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, this has gone long enough. The original post / report was regarding Wrwr. I stroke out my warnings on his talk page, so this has been resolved. The above issue, which is unrelated, is from August 12th; therefore, it's not necessary to post about it. Next thing you guys will do is look for something else to use against me in my 2009 discussios. - Donald Duck (talk) 14:49, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I take your point, and I'm sorry I hadn't checked the date that the actual edits occurred. By the way, I almost didn't look at your edit here, you marked it M. Dougweller (talk) 14:55, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

It's quite all right. I'll post on your talk page shortly with a question. - Donald Duck (talk) 15:11, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

What people are trying to do, DD, is to ensure you understand that you have a long history of bad reverts, misuse of rollback, not responding in a meaningful way to legitimate questions, and, most of all, that you understand the missteps you've made and will strive to do better. Simply dismissing something as old when you haven't learned from it is just continuing the pattern of unrepentant, errant reverts. I'm still not seeing acknowledgement of any of this. And nine days is not that long ago. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 15:01, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Reading that sounds very patronizing. - Donald Duck (talk) 15:11, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

If nine days is so long ago that it's the mists of memory, how about three hours? Take these edits:

• edit
• edit

Tolgagurcan is happily and quietly writing an article on the TAI Hürkuş. A 'bot warns on the article's talk page that one of the links is to a disambiguation. Writers fix the problem and Tolgagurcan removes the warning from the talk page since it has been deal with. Then you come along, put the 'bot notice back (even though it's no longer true) and give the poor article writer a Huggle vandalism warning. And this is while this very discussion on this noticeboard is drawing everyone's attention to your use of Huggle. What on Earth are you thinking? Uncle G (talk) 17:28, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking, and I did what any normal Huggler would do, which is to revert unexplained blanking of content or removal of content. I also gave the appropriate warning, which was a "huggleblank1". In that message, there is nothing that says the edit was vandalism. Quit looking for things that aren't a problem as excuses to get after me. - Donald Duck (talk) 17:34, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

"Any normal Huggler" is expected not to warn editors for undertaking normal talk page maintenance. If you don't see such behavior as a problem, that's a problem. — Gavia immer (talk) 17:51, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Donald Duck, you don't seem that understand that your editing behaviour is the problem. Why do you think som many editors came here to report so many diffrent incidents. Please desist from this behaviour is it is disrupticve. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:23, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

DD, no it is definitely not what any Huggler should be doing. Lack of an edit summary does not mean vandalism - it means the user might need a friendly (NON template) talk page note about using edit summaries. If you see no ediit summary you should (even must) take time to check the edit and it's context before reverting. I will consider edits for anything up to a minute when Huggling. --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 20:01, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, guys, can we just call this resolved? Let's let bygones be bygones. If anyone has a problem with me a in the future, please don't hesitate to come to my talk page and discuss said future problems, and, if I don't respond within 24 hours, feel free to also bring it up here at WP:AN/I. - Donald Duck (talk) 00:31, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it. I see no evidence that you've actually learned anything from this, only that you want to ignore past mistakes and move on. No apologies, no regrets, no answers to still-outstanding concerns on your talk page, just "let bygones by begones." 69.181.249.92 (talk) 00:47, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

You really shouldn't be posting if you're just going to be negative. Also, did you not read the part about my talk page? - Donald Duck (talk) 00:56, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but I also see quite a few complaints there that are still unanswered (including my first interaction with you, when you issued me a vandalism warning for putting a spam tag on a page). Are we expected to just sweep those under the rug and pretend that they didn't happen, that you're starting anew with no prior history? In that case perhaps you should retire this persona and create a new ID, one without Huggle and/or rollback privileges. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 01:25, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I never said that, but one shouldn't hang onto the past; instead, they should just move on and learn from any mistakes they've made. That doesn't mean said events in the past didn't happen, it just means they're moving on. You're trying to take this out of proportion. - Donald Duck (talk) 01:44, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

DD, a frequent response to misuse of Huggle is for us to remove it. But we need not do so if you are willing to promise to edit without using it, or any other automated editing tool? DGG ( talk ) 03:14, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

There's also the option of improving. There are a lot of people, myself included, that have bad streaks of things sometimes, whether they're in real life or something on said person's computer. Also, there are more good Huggle reverts from me than there are bad. It just seems bad right now because of what's being read. In fact, there were a few months this year where I barely got any messages. Here's an example: For my July 2010 archive, there are only four archived discussions. Here's another one: Although there were a lot of discussions for February 2010, a lot of them were positive. - Donald Duck (talk) 03:25, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

You could demonstrate a true desire to improve by going back and dealing with some of those unanswered posts on your page, rescinding the bad warnings you've issued and otherwise dealing with the problems that already exist because of the way you've been using Huggle. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 04:26, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

There you go. I replied to you on my talk page and took care of my bad reverts / edits that remained for August 2010. Also, I apologize for reverting you. I believe I've only reverted you twice, but I'm not sure. - Donald Duck (talk) 04:48, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

The only concerning thing is that this has been going on for a while looking at those archives - i.e. you haven't taken on previous advice about what does constitute vandalism. If you've read the advice above, though, and taken it in, then this thread is probably over. You do have a lot of previous "false positives" for a Huggle user --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 11:15, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

In that case, can someone mark this as resolved? - Donald Duck (talk) 19:42, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Donald Duck has a history of Huggle abuse, unwillingness to communicate, disruptive editing, harassment, and attacking others by accusing them of vandalism and/or harrassment. He does not stop even when informed or blocked. AAAACCCCDDDDCCCC (talk) 22:24, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Donald Duck reverted one of my edits too, deleting a redlink. Had Donald Duck paused to consider, or even looked at my other edits, Donald Duck would have seen there was a good reason for my edit. On Donald Duck's talk page are some complaints about how Donald Duck uses Huggle ... I guess this is a tool for fighting vandalism. Donald Duck seems to have trouble telling the difference between vandalism and good faith edits. Perhaps it is time for Donald Duck to take a break from fighting vandalism and instead spend some time learning how to contribute to Wikipedia. That will help Donald Duck understand what other contributors are trying to do, and be able to help them rather than revert them. 68.167.224.215 (talk) 22:27, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Really? I understand there have been some issues with me, which I have no problem admitting, but it is not necessary to bring up every, little petty thing on here. The same goes for any user. Bring it up on their talk page first; then, if they're unwilling to discuss said issue, that's when one brings it up at WP:AN/I. 68.167.224.215, I've replied on my talk page. - Donald Duck (talk) 22:32, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

In reply to this Donald Duck replied with the remark I saw that you created the page, so I have no further objections. Objections? Further objections!? Is Donald Duck a designated gatekeeper here? I find this behavior rather disruptive. Even if each inconsiderate edit by Donald Duck were as trivial as Donald Duck suggests, would the cumulative effect be trivial? I think not. If it is Donald Duck's job to raise the bar for contributors like me, then whose job is it to raise the bar for Donald Duck? 68.167.224.215 (talk) 22:48, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

The main issue seems to be Donald Duck's misuse of Huggle. Can this tool be taken away from this editor. Studying his talk page and contributions and his responses here leads me to believe that he really does not learn form these "mistakes". There is a futher incident today where a comment by another editor was removed from another thread on this page. DD blamed it ion edit conflict! talk#ANI deletion. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:12, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

That's because it was an edit conflict issue. Do you really think I would lie? This has gone long enough. - Donald Duck (talk) 23:17, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the main issue is Donald Duck's consistent reverting of other editors' appropriate edits. Huggle is merely the tool at hand; the problem is in the user. This ANI has been open 5 days now and in that time Donald Duck has continued in this disruptive behavior. 68.167.224.215 (talk) 02:25, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Although the repeated misuse of Huggle after many warnings warrants at least a month block, the continued trolling and harassment is what really concerns me and makes me fully support an indef block. Donald Duck was already blocked on 24 April 2009 for harassment [4] and should have learned his lesson, but continued to troll afterwords [5]. David Kovic (talk) 02:40, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

The Huggle misuse is continuing [6]. I have removed Huggle for 6 months. Given that the last block was a year ago, I am not willing to block indefinitely at this time. I will, however, support a blcck for a substantial period if problematic behavior continues. DGG ( talk ) 03:16, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Donald Duck also has rollback permission. It was removed once before and given back. Can it be taken away until Donald Duck demonstrates a good understanding of what is not vandalism? In the meantime, perhaps Donald Duck will try contributing to articles. This user has so few contributions here that perhaps this user has not experienced being on the receiving end of disruptive reverts. 68.167.224.215 (talk) 03:41, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I bet you're happy that this happened, and yet you're still trying to cause trouble for me. You and others accused me of continuing my "disruptive" edits, but that is not true. When this discussion was supposed to be over, I learned and improved and made no further disruptive edits. I don't see where I continued my so-called disruptive edits. I've raised my concerns of this unfair removal of Huggle to a couple administrators. - Donald Duck (talk) 03:51, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

What about your trolling? AAAACCCCDDDDCCCC (talk) 04:12, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

What trolling!? - Donald Duck (talk) 04:13, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Try this. 68.167.224.215 (talk) 04:22, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

[7] AAAACCCCDDDDCCCC (talk) 04:27, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, no. I made one little mistake. Now the world will end! Seriously, get a grip. I don't want to play the blame game, but I feel part of this is your guys' fault. The discussion was pretty much over, and then you guys had to come and heat it up again by pointing out petty things. As to the IP address, that's not stalking nor trolling. The talk page was on my watchlist, I saw an edit was made, and I commented. Speaking of mistakes, please see the very last part of Oh-No-It's-Jamie's second comment here. - Donald Duck (talk) 04:36, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I do not consider trolling as being petty. AAAACCCCDDDDCCCC (talk) 05:03, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

As already stated, Huggle was removed from you because your amount of mistakes was extremely high. AAAACCCCDDDDCCCC (talk) 05:05, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Your comment on User talk:Pinethicket was trolling as well as it was a personal attack. AAAACCCCDDDDCCCC (talk) 05:11, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

It was a bit uncivil, perhaps, but it was by no means a personal attack. - Donald Duck (talk) 05:14, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Accusing someone of "trying to cause trouble for this user" can be considered a personal attack and harassment. Your comment was also disruptive because it did not belong on Pinethicket's talk page. AAAACCCCDDDDCCCC (talk) 05:19, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:TALKPAGE, I see nothing wrong there. Again, a bit uncivil, but nowhere near a personal attack. Also, one edit does not make it harassment. It also wasn't disruptive. There was no accusing there, as I simply made a comment. However, it's a different story here since it's a much bigger discussion on a more important issue. - Donald Duck (talk) 05:24, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

A user's talk page is for discussing that user's work. Since your comment was directed at 68.167.224.215, it should have been placed on User talk:68.167.224.215. AAAACCCCDDDDCCCC (talk) 05:38, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

( ← outdenting ) I understand completely why people are so angry here, truly, but things have spun a bit out of control with name-calling, and such. I think a rest of a few hours or so could be really helpful at this point. I'm weighing in, very briefly, because I was referred to above by Jezhotwells re DD's claim of an edit conflict, which he doubted, and because DD asked me to do so re that mention. I do understand Jezhotwells skepticism in this context – I might doubt the explanation too, if I were in his shoes – but I'm certain that in my own case at least, where DD deleted my edit, that his doing so was an entirely good-faith mistake. I've explained here what happened, and have also made a now-somewhat-belated recommendation for resolving this unpleasantness, too. Best regards,  – OhioStandard (talk) 06:14, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

While editing mistakes, personal attacks, and other disruptive editing may be good-faith, trolling[8] is not, nor is it "little" or "petty" as he calls it. AAAACCCCDDDDCCCC (talk) 08:10, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment I am sympathetic to DD and made a good amount of mistakes when I first used it. However, it seems that there are 2 fairly upset users here, DD. I'd recommend being more careful about the intent of the edits when reverting with Huggle. There are many seemingly unconstructive edits, but few of them qualify as VAN. Tommy! [message] 10:33, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I suggested that Huggle was the biggest problem here, or at least it was enabling many of these problems, and now that DGG has removed it I hope that most of the conflict will die down. Donald Duck does have rollback, and it has been misused in the past but has it been misused any time recently? If not, I don't see why it can't be left in place. I don't believe an indefinite block is warranted (or any other kind of block); I do believe that Donald Duck has been unnecessarily combative with some editors who questioned certain reverts, warnings, and accusations of vandalism, especially considering that in many cases (as noted above) those reverts, warnings, and accusations were wrong. WP:CIVIL and WP:BITE have been issues. I weigh this against the positive things that Donald Duck has done, and note that trying to clean up after vandals does often bring one into conflict with disruptive people, and suggest that the Huggle removal is all of the action warranted at this point. I very much hope that Donald Duck can be more civil when dealing with new and anonymous editors in the future and be more open to criticism and more careful when reverting other editors. -- Atama頭 16:07, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

So am I allowed to use rollback or not? Even though it's enabled, I'd rather wait so I don't get in trouble. - Donald Duck (talk) 17:32, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, temporarily stopping Donald Duck from using Huggle may be enough. I agree that Huggle is a factor here. Huggle is a rollback tool and I think abuse of Huggle is abuse of rollback. In terms of both operations and policy, I would suggest that the corrective action should be to revoke rollback permission rather than disable one of several tools that rely on rollback permission. 68.167.224.215 (talk) 17:01, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

You know, it seems like your only intention is to get everything that you can revoked from me. First you do it with Huggle, which, unfortunately, succeeded; now you're trying to do it again. - Donald Duck (talk) 17:32, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Donald Duck, I could be dredging through your edit history to make a case that you should be blocked again. I am not doing that. I think the fundamental problem is your very apparent lack of experience on Wikipedia doing anything other than fighting vandalism. Responsibility for that lack is not yours alone. People who contribute content here have their behavior scrutinized in every detail, and quickly learn or leave. There is no comparable scrutiny of so-called vandal fighters such as yourself. 68.167.224.215 (talk) 17:48, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

You only started editing yesterday. However, I've been here since December 30th, 2008. While, yes, no one knows everything, myself included, you only started editing yesterday, meaning you're pretty much new to Wikipedia. No offense, but if anyone should be going over Wikipedia's guidelines, it should be you. - Donald Duck (talk) 18:10, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Donald Duck, DGG has said on, I think, your user page that he considers his 6 month "block" to cover all automated tools - I read that quite explicitly not to cover use of rollback/undo. I'd advise getting clarification from DGG but I think that using rollback/undo manually should be fine. I'd suggest spending a month or so doing "normal" editing and maybe some light new page patrolling etc. - taking care over rollbacks and keeping up to date on what can be considered vandalism (which is the main issue here I think). I think very little is served by continuing this discussion; 68.167.224.215 if you still have specific complaints you are going to need some diffs to show systematic "abuse" of rollback (and specifically rollback rather than automated edits). Otherwise I'd support closing this. I think the main "issue" has been that DD has not overtly taken responsibility for his actions (i.e. "mistakes happen") when his number of errors seems disproportionately high. A short break using manual rollback seems the right medicine in this case. --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 18:02, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, looking at Donald Duck's last 1000 edits to articles I find just 6 edits using rollback.

• Donald Duck used rollback 5 times directly after using Huggle, correcting Donald Duck's own mistakes. (Why doesn't Donald Duck use Huggle for this?) Affected articles are Sexual Offences Act 2003, Larvik HK, Body modification, Monarch Park Collegiate, Ah Kin.
• In July 2010 on Charborough House Donald Duck used Huggle repeatedly against 86.7.164.107 and rollback once against User:Drakesfamily (probably the same person as the anon).
• Since the July 2010 incident Donald Duck has used rollback twice on User talk:88.246.253.242.

To me, this abuse of direct rollback seems minor. But that is not my point. My point is that rather than removing access to tools that use rollback, it would be better to remove access to rollback itself, for the sake of transparency. We can all see from logs that Donald Duck has had rollback taken away only once before, but here Donald Duck mentions also having had just Huggle taken away. How many times has Huggle been taken away? And has Twinkle ever been taken away too? 68.167.224.215 (talk) 19:39, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to see if I can get it down to three months, as I think six months is a bit much. This is only the second time Huggle's been taken away from me, although last time it was because I edit-warred with it, which I have not done since. If this were my fourth time getting it taken away, I would understand. I do think, though, it would be a little more fair if this were to follow in the same category as blocking IP addresses (Ex: Starts at 24 hours, then 48 hours, then 72 hours, etc.), but I won't ask for that much reduced time -- I'm just stating a suggestion that could possibly become a good one in the future for Hugglers. Anyway, for now I will just use the "undo" button or "rollback" button since those two are my only choices to continue my reverting vandalism work -- unless, of course, Twinkle isn't disabled. - Donald Duck (talk) 18:10, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Is anything going to be done about the trolling? The "Don't try and hide it" comment shows that he saw what he was doing and was not accidental. AAAACCCCDDDDCCCC (talk) 20:19, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm being WP:BOLD and closing this discussion - I think the original issues that required admin attention have been addressed with DGG removing access to Huggle and other editors explaining to DD where he needs to review his actions. A cooldown of manual rollbacks is probably the best medicine for all. The other issues being raised by AAAACCCCDDDDCCCC and 68.167.224.215 appear to be matters of civility/behaviour which do not necessairily need admin intervention - I suggest raising the issues as WP:WQA or through a WP:RFC. It doesn't look like there is anything else to be served in extending this discussion, and, in fact, it is going downhill somewhat rapidly. (admins; feel free unequivocally to revert my closure if you disagree) --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 21:06, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

just to clarify. I did not intend to remove rollback. If abuse of rollback continues after this, please notify me on my talk page and I will do. I do not intend to shorten the removal of automated tools to 3 months--I chose 6 months after first considering even longer periods. DGG ( talk ) 22:42, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

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

Request for community ban of Jimmy McDaniels

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

---

This user, Jimmy McDaniels (talk · contribs), after editing tendentiously from various IP addresses for many years, finally created an account and continues to edit tendentiously. The individual's behavior has demonstrated a clear conflict of interest with respect to the Jason Leopold article. Multiple editors have requested that this editor desist from editing the article and restrict himself to making suggestions on the talk page. However, the editor refuses to get the point, and the conversations about it tend to get rather surreal. Currently the article is protected, but the editor doesn't seem to get the spirit of cooperation and consensus necessary to participate in Wikipedia process, but seems to see Wikipedia as a battleground, gloating when he thinks another editor has made an "error", not really discussing but asserting, proposing unreliable sources to promote his opinions of the subject, etc., etc. All the facts are laid out ad nauseum at a recent RfC, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jimmy McDaniels, in which the editor received no support from anyone and multiple editors agreed he should not edit the article. Yet he still will not voluntarily agree to restrict himself to the talk page and continues to be combative on the talk page. As this is a long-running situation, which I've described in the RfC from 2008 but which actually goes back further, I believe it is time to have a serious discussion about whether a community ban might be appropriate. Yworo (talk) 05:28, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I was asked by this very user to create an account, which I did. When I started editing from this account and expanding the article as requested and providing additional material I was attacked, accused of being Jason Leopold and my edits reverted. This article is biased and the fact that it's protected and the neutrality of it questioned is an issue that should be of concern. In the past two weeks, since I created this account and started editing this article, I have abided by the policies and guidelines set forth and I request that you look at my editing history as an example. Yworo, however, seems to take issue with the fact that I am working to improve this article and that means providing context, balance and, yes, positive material to balance it out. The surreal nature of the discussion is certainly true but if you look at the discussion page of the article you will note that each time I suggest a link or an inclusion of new material I am attacked, accused of being Jason Leopold, a sock puppet and told the material I am trying to add is "resume padding." Look at the conversations surrounding the California Energy Crisis and Enron. I added material that was in line with Wikipedia policies and standards. Yworo routinely changed the material I was including, going so far as to remove it or revert it back without providing a legitimate reason. One time, Yworo said the link I provided was not working and reverted it back. I went in and fixed the link and readded the material in the Enron section and again was attacked and threatened for doing so. As I have stated dozens of times at this point, I would like to improve this article. That means expanding upon it and not make it one-sided. I would be perfectly happy to bow out of editing it if in fact Yworo was removed as well. Frankly, I think the conversations on the discussion page will illustrate the biases of many of the people who are working on it. The users do not need to like me, but I believe my contributions to this article, especially since I created an account have been important and within the guidelines. And I would like to continue contributing without fearing that each suggestion or citation I add or section I create is going to end up with me being attacked or accused of being the source.

I would like to note that there is an anonymous user who has been contributing to this article in the past few weeks: 69.17.54.2: that may be in the same vicinity I am: Los Angeles. I was accused of being every IP address that contributed "positive" material or tried to expand the article. But because the contributions and comments of this IP, as recently as Wednesday, have been negative with regard to the substance and content of the article, Yworo seems to be supportive of this user. Mind you this user has been making changes to this article since 2007 and those changes have been well outside wikipedia's policies and has not been asked to create an account, threatened with banning or complaints leveled. Is it because the IP's opinions about the subject of the article and Yworo's are in sync? I don't know. But I do find it curious. That is part of the surreal nature of the issues and discussions surrounding this article. It is not one sided. It's clearly complex. But I should not be the one who bears all of the blame. Jimmy McDaniels (talk) 06:30, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Finally, multiple editors have not requested that I, Jimmy McDaniels, refrain from editing this article. Yworo has. Jimmy McDaniels (talk) 06:32, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Please learn to indent. The requests are all over your previous IP address talk pages, on the talk page of the article, on the BLP noticeboard, etc. And there's a long section on your current talk page from Off2riorob, here. Yworo (talk) 06:36, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

i have also requested Jimmy refrain from editing the article and think its a real good idea, he has a massive WP:COI and is disruptive to the BLP when he edits it, this has been going on a length of time and also occurred at the Truthout article and the related AFD which was swimming with fishy socks. I can handle him on the talkpage but he should please stop editing the article. Off2riorob (talk) 11:20, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm curious, what is the conflict of interest? I've looked at the RFC and Talk:Jason Leopold and of course this ANI report, but I see nothing to suggest there's a COI. What connection does Jimmy have to Jason Leopold that would be a COI? He claims to be a fan, and he seems to have POV issues, but that doesn't constitute a conflict of interest. Being Leopold's relative or employee or PR person or something along those lines would. What am I missing? -- Atama頭 17:42, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

He has claimed multiple times to be Leopold's lawyer (four examples: [9], [10], [11], [12], and admits he did here), and nearly everyone ever involved believes he is Leopold himself. Besides his unintentional admission of identity with the IP editors, I believe I've thoroughly established continuity of identity in the RfC. Yworo (talk) 17:51, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

That's a pretty blatant COI then. I'd support a page ban enforcement of suggestions at WP:COI, restricting the editor's article edits to non-controversial edits and otherwise making talk page suggestions for content changes. I do see some constructive talk page input so I think such a ban would permit the editor to contribute while at the same time prevent further disruption. -- Atama頭 18:18, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I think that would help a lot and as you say, still allow him to contribute as he does have some input that is beneficial to content. Off2riorob (talk) 18:38, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I would love to see him voluntarily comply with this. If a topic ban is applied, I suspect we will simply see and have to deal with sockpuppetry. I could be wrong about that though... Yworo (talk) 18:58, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I have written a lengthy statement here on the edits and contributions I have made to this article over the past two weeks and I'd like to know why that is not being discussed. These edits and contributions have expanded the article. I have not done anything that violates policies or guidelines here. I was asked to sign up for an account, which I did and since then I have been very vocal about suggestions to help improve and expand this article. My edit history, since I signed up for the account, shows the value in my contributions and I again ask that they be looked at as well as the commentary I have made during the course of editing and on the discussion pages. This article needs to be improved. Twice the neutrality of it has been challenged and tagged as such. It asks to be expanded. The bottom line, once again is that attempts to improve or expand this article is unsupported. I do not have any relationship to the subject of the article whatsoever. Jimmy McDaniels (talk) 19:41, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

How many times do I need to say that I am not Leopold?? Stop suggesting that I am. The snarky comments that you continue to make are disturbing and underscores further bias. As I said above, I should not shoulder all of the blame. If there is a conflict of interest I believe Yworo now has one too because this is clearly becoming personal for him/her. Jimmy McDaniels (talk) 19:48, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Please address why you claimed to be Leopold's lawyer. And became offended that I referred to the IP address that did so as a "nutcase", self-identifying with the IP. If you continue to refuse to admit that it was you who repeatedly made this claim, and explain why you did so, there is no reason to believe anything else you might say. Yworo (talk) 20:30, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree, if you claimed to be his lawyer and now claim you aren't, you were being deceptive either now or then. This inconsistency doesn't engender trust. I deal with conflict of interest issues quite a bit (I hang out at WP:COIN) and it's not uncommon for an editor to claim some sort of connection in order to gain the upper hand in a content dispute, but it almost always comes back to bite them later. Editors with a conflict of interest are generally allowed to contribute until other editors object to their edits, in which case a topic ban isn't uncommon. I believe you're trying to have your cake and eat it too but it's not going to work, you've already let the cat out of the bag and your COI has already been established by your own words. It's too late to claim that you're uninvolved with the article subject at this point. -- Atama頭 21:04, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Two things. First, Yworo. It was clear from your "nutcase" comment that you were referring to me and the comment you left on my talk page saying as much would make that apparent to anyone. Your comment was directed toward me. You were playing a game of gotcha. As far as being Leopold's attorney I made a comment saying I was trying to be his attorney and I did see evidence of defamation and libel on this article and brought it to Leopold's attention. I never heard back from Leopold following my correspondence. The contributions I have made are valuable and the arguments I put forth are worthy of discussion. The discussions on the article page show the bias of some editors toward the subject matter. Arguably, that is in and of itself a conflict of interest if the editor is only interested in adding negative commentary to the article and does not even want to entertain the thought of balance or neutrality. Many of the editors, again, based on the discussion page, show deep disdain for the subject of the article: Leopold. To me, that is an issue that needs to be dealt with and one that at least one other editor agrees with. At the end of the day, that is what should be the topic of discussion regardless if I am here or not. This is the first thing that pops up on Google and therefore it should represent the most up to date and neutral point of view and material about the person. I would expect the same for every other article but editors do not seem to treat the entries of other media people the same. There is a real desire to make this one as negative as possible. Jimmy McDaniels (talk) 02:32, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

"Arguably, that is in and of itself a conflict of interest if the editor is only interested in adding negative commentary to the article and does not even want to entertain the thought of balance or neutrality." (Buzzer sound) Jimmy, you're likely "referring" to WP:NPOV; which cannot be achieved when an editor has a very serious conflict of interest. Much like one who is (at least) "trying" to be the attorney for the subject of the article. Editors are actively trying to make this article as "negative as possible"? See WP:Consensus. Cheers... Doc9871 (talk) 13:12, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

"I am Mr. Leopold's lawyer..." "I am Mr. Leopold's lawyer..." "I am Mr. Leopold's lawyer..."

That is not "a comment saying [you were] trying to be his attorney". That is saying you are his attorney. I think it would be a cut-and-dry COI if you had just said you are his attorney, but your actions could (could, not all may see it this way) be interpreted as editing beneficially on his behalf in order to gain favor with him. Hazardous Matt (talk) 13:22, 20 August 2010 (UTC) Still a conflict of interest anyway you look at it, though. Hazardous Matt (talk) 13:30, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

It looks to me like we have consensus that a topic ban is in order here. Does anyone (besides Jimmy) object to this outcome? Yworo (talk) 14:57, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

If he's not Leopald's lawyer, he wants to be (as Jimmy has stated above) and can't be expected to abide by NPOV. I think topic bans get thrown about a bit too freely but this is clearly an example of why they exist. Hazardous Matt (talk) 15:44, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

• support - A topic ban on Jason Leopold and Truthout, talkpage discussion allowed. Off2riorob (talk) 13:09, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support - Per Off2RioRob's proposal. At least he can still try to contribute to the article without risking an NPOV edit. Hazardous Matt (talk) 19:30, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support topic ban due to the COI issues... Doc9871 (talk) 10:46, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support wasn't really involved though, apart from when I tried to stop Jimmy's IP edit warring with Regent, if he does get banned he will just use his IPs--Lerdthenerd (talk) 10:51, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support obviously, since I started this discussion. I agree that requesting a community ban was too severe and that a topic ban should be sufficient. Yworo (talk) 14:16, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

How do we go about closing this thread and notifying Jimmy of the decision? The protection on the article has expired so it would be a good idea for someone to do this soon. Obviously, it's not appropriate for me to do so. Yworo (talk) 14:16, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Somebody should be along reasonably soon. I didn't feel comfortable closing it either way, so I added my opinion to hopefully make it easier for the closing admin.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:24, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support, either per COI of being his lawyer or per disruption claiming to be his lawyer and then claiming never to have claimed to be his lawyer. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:22, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
• Logged in Editing Restrictions and User notified (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:49, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

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

Dipso IP jumper

We have an IP jumper, who claims to be under the influence of strong drink, attacking Materialscientist. Is there basis for some range blocks or other remedies? Favonian (talk) 12:41, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Looks like it's been handled. TNXMan 13:04, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

doc was also attacked, frankly just block all of his IP addresses till he sober.--Lerdthenerd (talk) 13:08, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

110 just posted another comment, he is still at large--Lerdthenerd (talk) 13:12, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, he "sort of" attacked me - I'll weep about it later, I'm sure. The most pertinent question is one he posed to me: "Is it possible to block someone who can continually change his IP address?". That's the question of the hour... Doc9871 (talk) 13:23, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

now 110 is posting his drunkern ramblings here at ANI board for incidents, he is also asking for bears (i assume he means more alcohol, someone block his new IP already--Lerdthenerd (talk) 13:37, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the process for disruptive trolling dynamic IP addresses is something like, IP block, IP block, IP block, range block (small as possible) block, revert contributions and ignore. Serious infractions can be reported to his service provider. Off2riorob (talk) 13:41, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Favion just blocked the latest IP address, hopefully this is the last we see of him--Lerdthenerd (talk) 13:44, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

If someone has a handy list of the IPs, I'll look into a rangeblock. TNXMan 13:46, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

he mentioned he was using a laptop , so far all the IPs 110 and one 114, we could block the entire pub for a week--Lerdthenerd (talk) 13:53, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I've put down two short rangeblocks: 110.20.0.0/18 and 114.72.192.0/18. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:57, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Not quite. A rangeblock encompassing 110 and 114 (even if it were possible) would block up to 536870912 users, which is slightly larger than your average pub. TNXMan 13:59, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Both ranges resolve to the same ISP in Sydney, NSW. [What time, if at all, do the pubs shut in Australia?] David Biddulph (talk) 14:11, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

block the ISP then, and tell the barman/maid to send their patrons home--Lerdthenerd (talk) 14:14, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

We can't be sure that he's at a pub, or even if he's actually drunk. It's not terribly likely, but this could hypothetically be a twelve-year-old Australian bug-"squisher" having a "giggle-fit" for all we know. He's certainly being very disruptive. It shouldn't be terribly difficult to figure out who this is, considering the subjects being edited. We'll see... Doc9871 (talk) 14:17, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Nota Bene: This guy is back to disrupting ANI by posting "apologies". I suggest a bigger rangeblock until he gets tired. — Gavia immer (talk) 01:56, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm serious. I regret my actions and I'm apologising to the people here. Please understand. I don't want to vandalise anymore nor do I want to disrupt the ANI. I just came here to apologise. I am sincere about this. If you don't believe me, fine, but at least don't block me. I am not doing any wrong by apologising. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.20.26.196 (talk) 03:17, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll take this as resolved, in future don't edit wikipedia while drunk 110--Lerdthenerd (talk) 08:59, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

No, this is most certainly not resolved. This user is extremely disruptive. He continues posting personal attacks (e.g. [13], [14]), and removing information that can be used to deal with him ([15]).

It's clear that his stories about being drunk and his "apologies" should not be taken seriously.

He is using IP ranges 114.72.191-255.* and 110.20.0-63.*. Please block those before things get out of hand. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 12:00, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

They were blocked a couple of hours ago. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:22, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

the one that posted on the maths reference desk and called Rosenfeld a dobber on Material's talkpage and the one that apologised here are still unblocked, (no red block label at the top of the contributions page).--Lerdthenerd (talk) 11:11, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Jiujitsuguy and Eric1985 blocked indefinitely for off-wiki canvassing regarding Israel/Palestine

This is going to be a tough one, so bear with me. Today, I blocked Jiujitsuguy (talk · contribs) and Eric1985 (talk · contribs) for two independent incidents in which they have been inciting people, through off-Wikipedia blogs, websites, and political magazines, to come to Wikipedia to correct what they believe is an anti-Israel bias on Wikipedia. I received evidence about their actions via e-mails from two separate editors, following a thread at WP:AE. In the case of Jiujitsuguy, I can't really point to the specific websites I'm talking about because they include his real name. In the case of Eric1985, the actions come from a website called WikiBias (the writer intentionally omits his name there); once again, though, I can't explain how the connection to this website was made because it includes exposing personal information.

You can see for yourselves the nature of WikiBias. It's not heavy on personal attacks and he also seems to caution potential recruits about violating Wikipedia's policies (noting what sockpuppetry, edit-warring, and the concept of NPOV are). However, the website is a clear violation of WP:MEAT, not merely expressing his views about Wikipedia in a general manner, but repeatedly pointing editors to discussions and asking them to participate in them (e.g. "View the discussion on the move, and chime in with your opinion if appropriate, on the discussion page." [16]). He also has a how-to guide that isn't just about getting started on Wikipedia, but rather about gaming the system.

With Jiujitsuguy, again, I can't post the particular websites, but it's more of the same. He's less systematic than WikiBias -- he's only got a couple of articles on various websites advocating disruptive behavior -- but his rhetoric is far more inappropriate, referring to Wikipedians as, for example, Islamofascists. Again, he provides a how-to guide for gaming the system on Wikipedia, with the intent to push his agenda. Further, Jiujitsuguy has a very colorful history on Wikipedia, one which -- trust me -- his block log doesn't fully express.

I'd like to get a review of the situation, but I'm not sure the evidence should be freely handed out to every single admin that requests it. Concurrent with this post, I have forwarded the evidence from Nableezy (talk · contribs) and Supreme Deliciousness (talk · contribs), the two editors who sent me e-mails, to ArbCom. But at the very least, the concept of this kind of off-wiki canvassing can be discussed here. During the ArbCom proceedings for the CAMERA debacle (May 2008), there was the conclusion that simply being a meatpuppet wasn't grounds alone for an indefinite block, and that one's on-wiki actions were paramount. But in both these situations, it wasn't that they were the meatpuppets; they were the meatpuppeteers. Still, some might argue that these blog posts are outside of our interest, as people are free to hold whatever positions and opinions in real life. Surely, many of the editors in the Israel-Palestine area hold similarly firm views and may even be coordinating efforts over secret mailing lists.

However, I feel both of these cases are of very serious concern for Wikipedia. The Israel-Palestine area, as I'm sure you know, is still a minefield, with protections, bans, and blocks being doled out on a weekly basis and some bitter dispute always brewing (and the ArbCom proceedings of January 2008 not sufficiently putting an end to the nonsense there). I don't see any reason why editors who seek to bring additional agenda-driven editors to the equation should be permitted to edit in this area or, given the clear subversion of Wikipedia policies, anywhere else on Wikipedia.

Any and all remarks on the matter are welcome. -- tariqabjotu 18:39, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Don't forget this quote from Eric1985s Wikibias: "So, I have started this blog to publish the often hidden problems of the world’s free online encyclopedia. I plan to work with other Wiki editors on this site, and we must be totally anonymous in order to keep our accounts on the site." and his post at WP Israel: "Occassionally, I send people here to help with the efforts." --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:33, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

On a side note, people might also want to note the wingnut that posted a comment on the blog post you just linked to, who seems to be hosting training conferences for Zionist Wikipedia editors ... -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 20:09, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I saw the blocks and the report at WP:AE earlier. I believe that, assuming the blocked editors are responsible for what you say they are responsible for, then the blocks are within the terms of the WP:ARBPIA discretionary sanctions. However, rather than relying purely on your own judgement, I think your best course of action is to submit all the evidence you have to the Arbitration Committee for review. CIreland (talk) 18:45, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I forwarded the evidence to ArbCom at the same time I made this post. I fixed a typographical error to clarify that. -- tariqabjotu 18:49, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Excellent work to protect the wiki. I applaud your blocks. Binksternet (talk) 18:47, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

This is not directly related to the case above, but it is relevant. Perhaps ARBCOM and Wikipedia in general should, in the future, investigate if certain articles and areas should be restricted to edits made by a some sort of "board" comprised of appointed or elected individuals. While this goes against the mantra of "an encyclopedia that anyone can edit", its blatently obvious that the current system has failed and attempts to "fix" it are only met by abuse of the system. ARBCOM rules are routinely circumvented, and enforcement of the rules are not consistent; that is to say, we currently have editors who have stated its their mission to bring for "such and such truth" to the situation, when in reality they are just battlefield warriors intent on making sure their own position reigns supreme (with numerous blocks, bans, etc..etc to their edit history). Assume Good Faith editing has failed, and while it is a main tenant of Wikipedia, its being used as a tool to promote agendas and can potentially open the door for all sorts of liabilities. --nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 19:06, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

This is actually an area where I had hoped that sighted edits/flagged revisions would be useful. The higher level of protection would mean that you and I and other users who have been around for a long time without getting banned or blocked can edit the articles without problem; constructive contributions by new users and IPs can get through after a little while; and trouble making socks don't get their material through without it being reversed without getting its publicity. In order to get to put stuff in directly, the sockpuppeteers would actually have to do a substantial number of constructive edits over an extended period of time which should mean that Wikipedia gets some useful work out of them before they can go to town with their POV-pushing.--Peter cohen (talk) 00:10, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Seeking other editors is acceptable. Unfortunately, Jiujitsuguy did word it in a way that was asking for some inappropriate covert tactics. I think a indefinite is a little harsh but do understand how big of a concern it was.

I still believe Nableezy outing Jiujitsuguy on a forum related to all this terrible in a completely different way. It was not his place to do that. That could have led to harassment or something even worse. And he shouldn't have mentioned it on Wikipedia since it came across like he was asking people to dig out the information.

Hopefully we can put this situation behind us. If Jiujitsuguy does come back way down the road and request reinstatement it should be considered and watched closely.Cptnono (talk) 19:41, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I still believe Nableezy outing Jiujitsuguy on a forum... He did no such thing. Not here, not anywhere. I never suggested he did, and I don't think Nableezy has either. -- tariqabjotu 22:44, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes he did. I'm not the only one who has commented on this.Cptnono (talk) 16:44, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

No I have not. Such a serious charge should not be made without evidence and repeating it without evidence should result in a block. nableezy - 21:24, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

You most certainly have, and you are aware of this fact, so your denials ring hollow. Enigma^msg 03:25, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Some person wrote a piece in a certain online magazine saying that as a Wikipedia editor they did A, B, and C and that the reaction to that was X, Y, and Z. I, on a "bad site", said an editor who did A, B, and C which resulted in X, Y, and Z is editor D. That is not outing, even if outing applied to off-wiki actions. WP:OUTING requires me to post private information. The person who wrote the piece in this unnamed online magazine gave that information, I posted nothing that was not made publicly available by that person. Connecting dots that person freely provides is not outing. nableezy - 07:23, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

That is the very definition of outing, actually. How do you think anyone's identity is discovered? Someone "connects the dots" and decides to inform everyone else of the editor's identity. Every outing case I can remember was like that. So yours is a textbook case. You can call it what you like, but it was certainly outing. Enigma^msg 12:31, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Id like to call it what it was, which isnt outing. nableezy - 19:00, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

It most certainly was outing. Would you like me to conduct an informal poll? You have no protection here. Tariq apparently has decided he can block people based on comments on other sites, and you outed another editor on a widely-read Wikipedia related site. Feel free to connect those dots and tell me the answer here. Enigma^msg 22:50, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Outing requires releasing private information. The editor himself made all that information public, so it cannot be outing. I am not looking for "protection" here or anywhere else. If I did not release any private information then I, by definition, did not out anybody. Can you please tell me exactly what private information I released? If not, kindly stfu and take your inane threats to somebody who might be scared by them. nableezy - 23:32, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Once again, we can conduct a poll if you disagree. Insulting me is not going to help your cause. Enigma^msg 23:52, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

The very definition of outing is at WP:OUTING and involves "posting another person's personal information" which includes "legal name, date of birth, identification numbers, home or workplace address, job title and work organisation, telephone number, email address, or other contact information". Was that done here? I don't see it. Outing is a constant problem at WP:COIN and I deal with it all the time but I don't see it here unless I missed something. -- Atama頭 16:33, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

No, that was not done. This is exactly what happened; somebody wrote an article on a somewhat well-known online magazine that was subsequently published in an Israeli paper. In that piece they said that they were a Wikipedia editor who made certain edits to certain articles and that those edits drew certain responses. I, on WR, wrote that an editor who had made those exact edits that had generated those exact responses was editor D. I did not post any information that was not publicly available either from the author's own words or from the edits here. nableezy - 19:00, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I really can't see any effective difference! Saying "JoeEditor is (click here for name)" , or even providing a specific means (say through Google Search) is no different than naming him outright. If you connect all the dots but one, and then put the pencil in someone's hand, guiding it carefully, you haven't done anything less than connect all the dots. Especially when Nableezy is asking for a very broad interpretation of policy to allow Tariq to keep the two editors blocked through AE, to ask for a very narrow interpretation of policy on outing seems, well, self serving. Especially when he is asking for people to be blocked for stating, or repeating statements, that he committed outing.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:28, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I have not asked for anything, much less "a very broad interpretation of policy". I provided evidence to tariq and he made his own decision as to what the appropriate action for him to take was. To your first "point", the "effective difference" is that the editor himself provided all that information and made it public. Let me repeat that in case it you couldnt understand it the first time. The editor himself made that information public. It cannot be "outing" when no private information is revealed. nableezy - 23:28, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

n(edit conflict) Exactly. You connected the dots when it wasn't your place to. You made it known that editor x was the blogger (or whatever that stuff is) y. It was also a forum discussing Wikipedia so it was obvious that there were fellow editors there. Others might have been able to figure it out. That is fine. They weren't the ones to broadcast it on a forum as you did. And then you went on to discuss it on Wikipedia which JJG thought was in an effort to get people to start digging themselves. That makes sense to me. Also might just be over analyzing it. But at the end of the day, it was not appropriate for you to make a post with your findings over there. You should at least admit that it was a lapse of judgment. To assert that there was absolutely nothing wrong just isn't right. Cptnono (talk) 19:32, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

uggh. There was nothing wrong. nableezy - 23:28, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but if an editor publically says, "I made edits A, B and C," they've outed themselves. There's nothing to "connect the dots" with; pointing out the account name isn't outing, at that point. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:30, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. nableezy - 23:28, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Well said Hand. Enigma you should let this go. If you took a poll it would not come out in your favor. Maybe you should both disengage since this entire conversation is pretty pointless and is now just turning uncivil.Griswaldo (talk) 23:58, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I would love a poll. There is a chance that I am wrong so I would be curious to see what people think. Several editors have called this outing and I agree. And how has it turned not civil?Cptnono (talk) 04:38, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

There is more than a chance that you are wrong. Can you, or anybody else say what private information I revealed? You can call it outing if you wish, that just makes you wrong. I am not going to respond to anymore of these bs accusations. Unless you or anybody else can say what private information I revealed there is nothing to respond to. nableezy - 06:03, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Arbcom Amendment?

I started to write an Arb amendment request and I still think that may be what's needed to deal with this. I think there's a number of troubling aspects about the situation:

1. You have the WP:ARBPIA decision and discretionary sanctions which were put in place to help control these types of disputes. It has clear guidance for admins on how to deal with these disputes (though It's debatable about how effective they are given the repetition of names on the log).
2. You have the WP:CAMERA decision (note: any reference I make to CAMERA is to the decision and not the organization) which is almost an extension of ARBPIA. Here it clearly covers the topic of canvassing and in this case it was on ARBPIA articles. However, CAMERA did not put forth guidance or discretionary sanctions like ARBPIA did and it doesn't offer much direction on how to handle the very sensitive issue of reviewing the outside wiki evidence. You get into issues of WP:OUTING so you can't really make it public but if it's not public then how do you determine who gets it and who reviews it? CAMERA says to bring it to Arbcom but I don't know if that is practical.
3. I have a growing concern of witch-hunts. Those who bring these accusations of off-wiki canvassing may not have the purest of motivations themselves. In this case those involved have consumed many admin resources themselves with warnings, bans and blocks for ARBPIA violations.

I think going to Arbcom requesting some guidance is what's in order. I think the CAMERA principles of dealing with external groups and collective guilt should be added to ARBPIA. This would bring those actions under the same process of sanctions. Then a method of dealing with off-wiki evidence should be set up and I think that's something Arbcom needs to facilitate given the sensitive nature of it. Perhaps a workgroup with a mailing list solely for that issue.

All in all I think you did the best you could with the guidance we've been given Tariq. I am a bit concerned we may be condemning by association or condemning for off-wiki acts without corresponding evidence of an organized campaign on wiki. --WGFinley (talk) 19:13, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

In addition to the CAMERA Arbcom case, I think the more recent WP:EEML case is also relevant to the issue of off-wiki actions. CIreland (talk) 19:28, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm a bit surprised by Tariqajotu's actions. First, I think he should have given the editors in question the opportunity to defend themselves. Second, if he was minded to do it, he should have consulted with other admins. Third of all, if he did do it, the thing to do is allow for actual review of his actions here, rather than shove it upstairs to ArbCom. I see no difference waiting a few hours would have made. Frankly, if we're dealing with off-wiki actions, I'm a lot more concerned with Nableezy's alleged outing of another editor. In response to Tariqajotu's offer to email the evidence to any admin, I do so request.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:49, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Where did Nableezy out another editor? Diff please? All I can see is his comment "There is unambiguous proof that Jiujitsuguy has violated WP:MEAT several times, though that proof requires linking to sites which contain his real name so I cant do that here." That seems to me like an explicit refusal to out another editor. The allegation that he outed another editor appears baseless, and should be withdrawn.RolandR (talk) 20:06, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Read the thread. I did not say it was on wiki. Apparently it was in a forum. Since I have not yet seen it (Tariq has not yet responded to my request for the evidence), I have added the word "alleged".--Wehwalt (talk) 20:10, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

What editors (allegedly) do off-wiki is none of our concern. Are you proposing to start investigating and taking action against the many people (some of them apparently Wikipedia editors) who have identified and denounced me in countless forums? RolandR (talk) 20:24, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

It is when they're essentially saying: "Hey, let's cause shit on Wikipedia, but make sure they don't catch you: here's how..." HalfShadow 20:33, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah so. Does that apply to Jujitsuguy and Eric1985? If so, I suggest you remonstrate with Tariq, he's your go to guy on this. I have not proposed taking action about anyone, I have asked for more information and suggested fuller investigation of the circumstances. Something wrong with that?--Wehwalt (talk) 20:27, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

But the allegation against them is not that they made comments off-wiki, but that they were actively seeking to recruit and guide people to edit Wikipedia in a tendentious manner. In the absence of any evidence, it is unacceptable to make such an accusation against Nableezy. RolandR (talk) 20:34, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah, but the alleged actions took place off-wiki, and you just said what people do off wiki is none of our business.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:40, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Members of the community who may have information regarding similar efforts by external groups to unduly influence our content are urged to forward that information to the Committee for review. -quote from ArbCom in the CAMERA case. The commitee is responsible for determining who did/didn't do what others accuse, Phearson (talk) 20:12, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, and that's just it. I have no opinion on whether it is a good or poor block yet, Tariq has not yet sent me the evidence as I requested following his kind offer to all admins. I am however very concerned by the procedure here.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:20, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Wehwalt, you seem awfully aggressive about this. I have a life; it's not a crime to not respond to you within two hours. You don't need to repeat in every post that you are waiting for me to respond to your request to forward you the e-mails. In that time, I wish you had reread what I said, because I did not offer to send the evidence to all admins. What I said was "I'm not sure the evidence should be freely handed out to every single admin that requests it." -- tariqabjotu 22:42, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Why the need to involve ArbCom here? I think we are quite able to discuss a principle of "If you are found to be organising a large-scale campaign to undermine the neutrality of the project, you may be indefinitely blocked" just fine on our own. I don't see much opposition to Tariq's action, or why advocacy of this type is beyond our ability to deal with; generally speaking, the impulse to run to ArbCom at the first sign of drama is a worrying indication of creeping paternalism. Skomorokh 20:40, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, Tariq sent it there concurrently with his action. It might actually be wise to let them handle it in this case, if they are willing, as it is hard to judge Tariq's action without the evidence (still waiting) and so then then there would have to be a process of sending the info to admins who want to participate in the discussion. ArbCom has confidential listservs and other resources that we don't have.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:06, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Good points all, but I think there is enough publicly available information in this instance to make a call that does not rely on private correspondence; my main concern however is that the policy aspect of this is reflexively booted to the Committee without an attempt at hammering something out first. Skomorokh 21:11, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a suggested starting point for the discussion?--Wehwalt (talk) 21:26, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

It appears that you are coming very close to imposing a ban on off-wiki criticism by WP users. I suppose that you guys can do that if you choose, but the description control freak comes to mind. If you choose to prohibit these things, it will not change anything for the better more than have past arbcom decisions on I/P issues. Can anyone who proposes these restrictions show that past restrictions have benefited WP by improving I/P articles, or talk page discussion? Simple observation indicates the answer is no. Just lots of WP users (on both sides of the issue) blocked over the years, without any improvements to show for it. 173.52.134.182 (talk) 21:50, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

The problem isn't that he expressed opinions about Wikipedia or even about deficiencies. In my initial comment, I tried to contrast the acts of these two people with what would have been okay. An article on how to join Wikipedia and some information about how it works and its policies is okay; an article on how to game the system is not. An article talking generally about perceived biases on Wikipedia is okay, but an article specifically telling people to chime in on a particular discussion so they vote a particular way is not okay. In this area, many people's political positions have come out in their comments on talk pages, and they have not been penalized for them, even if the existence of them inevitably leads to battlegrounds. We can't prohibit people who have some opinion on this conflict -- many people do, in one way or another -- but we can prohibit disruptive actions. And meatpuppetry, which is what this is, is clearly disruptive. -- tariqabjotu 23:03, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Did they ask people to vote a certain way in discussions? And btw, you were going to provide evidence, I'd be grateful for a copy.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:08, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

It seems a control freak approach. Not to mention thought control. But all the trials I see occurring in the USA, of those accused of 'conspiracy' (essentially the accusation here too), strikes me as punishing those who might have bad thoughts, but have not actually done anything wrong. You have punished those you think have bad intentions, even though you may not be able to prove they have actually done more than talk. I am sure your intent is good, but think what you have done is more problematic than what those you call meatpuppets have done. 173.52.134.182 (talk) 23:18, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, I haven't called anyone anything. And that word "meetpuppet" is being thrown around awfully loosely here.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:22, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Wehwalt, you can read WikiBias yourself and make your own judgment, but yes, essentially, yes. If someone were to post this kind of comment on someone's talk page here, it would be unacceptable, as it's clearly intended to sway someone's vote a certain way. Also, I am not forwarding you the e-mails. -- tariqabjotu 23:30, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

As I understand it meatpuppet is essentially an accusation of conspiracy against WP. But can an act be proved, or is the accusation just that there seems to be what might be a bad thought? 173.52.134.182 (talk) 23:34, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't know. The individual, if it is one of those blocked, which has yet to be proved (and it seems evidence will not be forthcoming to support the allegation) gave his opinion, and then wrote "View the discussion on the move, and chime in with your opinion if appropriate, on the discussion page." I do not see the problem. Is this Wikibias web site only frequented by those sharing the views set forth in the post? And as this discussion seems to be going nowhere, it would be nice if some arb would let us know if the committee is considering this, or not. I am frankly very troubled by the utter lack of opportunity to respond to what was clearly not an emergency situation.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:50, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Well Eric has already said it himself as posted above:"So, I have started this blog to publish the often hidden problems of the world’s free online encyclopedia. I plan to work with other Wiki editors on this site, and we must be totally anonymous in order to keep our accounts on the site." and his post at WP Israel: "Occassionally, I send people here to help with the efforts." .. He has also called some Wikipedia users "anti-Semites" [17] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:12, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Called them anti-Semites, hmmm? Sounds to me the focus of argument is shifting. He is free to call anyone anything he wants, off the wiki. Come on. I've probably been called a few choice things in my time by other Wikipedians! But off the wiki, it is no harm no foul.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:24, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

What shift? "Occassionally, I send people here to help with the efforts" What is this? Explain this to me. "I plan to work with other Wiki editors on this site, and we must be totally anonymous in order to keep our accounts on the site" In that entire blog he is wikistalking me and presenting his biased opinion and pushes his pov about my and other peoples edits and then redirects his followers to the talkpage and gives them a guide on how to game the system --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:36, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know it is the same guy. How can he wikistalk you off wiki anyway? The mind boggles!--Wehwalt (talk) 00:43, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

"Game the system"!? It's a guide on how to not get banned, which includes recommendations such as: don't edit just one controversial topic, don't edit-war, keep cool and civil. How is that "gaming the system"? --OpenFuture (talk) 00:54, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Anyway, I've got other things to do. I can't tell if this is a good block or not, but I am appalled by the procedure. I urge Arbcom to step in.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:02, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

In my view, it's about gaming the systems because it gives advise how to act in a way that improves the chances of having edits stay in the encyclopedia that would otherwise be deleted, and to create the appearance of being a encyclopedia-oriented editor, while actually staying ultimately focused on the partisan agenda.  Cs32en Talk to me  01:11, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Of course with CAMERA we also had the Wikipedians for Palestine group, which never saw any consequences and for which no one was ever investigated. It is obvious that the CAMERA group and these pro-Israeli groups were simply more niave than the Wikipedians for Palestine. At the time of CAMERA, WfP was a secret group of about 12 members, whose membership was sanctioned by requirement of Wiki-name and evidence of acceptable edits. *This group disbanded almost immediately upon discovery. As far as we know, these 12 undiscovered members are still right here at Wikipedia (in whatever capacity). There is no reason to think they are not. It is also forgotten by many that the mailing list was brought forward by a Wikipedia editor who was also an employee of Electronic Intifada, who has since changed his name. If you can't act in a fair and evenhanded way across the I-P conflict area, you should do nothing. 66.186.163.30 (talk) 01:32, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Not having access to any of the evidence against JJG and Eric, I will take Tariq at his word with regards to the nature of the evidence against them, though I am disappointed by his refusal to provide the evidence to administrators who asked for it. With regards to the publicly available information, I must say I am underwhelmed by the nature of evidence brought forth against Wikibias. I do not share the characterization of the how-to guide as a guide to 'gaming the system' - is seems like a straightforward guide for new users, providing tips on avoiding disruptive actions that may lead to blocks. I also fail to see a big difference between Wikibias, and a site such as Wikipedia Review, where multiple Wikpedia editors (including administrators) regularly participate. That site, too, has wiki editors calling upon other editors to edit Wiki articles in a manner that could be described as recruiting meatpuppets - see this as one such example. HupHollandHup (talk) 02:28, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Question - I would like to know why Jiujitsuguy's off wiki activity produced no action when it was reported to the functionaries list/oversight team by nableezy in July but resulted in a 1 year block when reported at AE. nableezy was told to contact the oversight team. He did that. Nothing happened. I want to know why. This seems like an important matter to me. The lack of action by the oversight team after that report and lack of clarity on these off wiki issues (together with some email discussions I had with Jiujitsuguy about these matters) played a large part in my decision not to pursue the matter myself. Apparently, assuming that the 1 year block is the right decision, I made the wrong decision to not follow up on the report based largely on an assumption that the oversight team would act if action was necessary. Something has gone wrong somewhere. It would be good to know what went wrong, why and do something about it. Inconsistency in the I-P conflict area isn't helping. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:55, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think this is the answer you're looking for, but maybe the Oversight saw noting egregious that was worth following up on.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 06:06, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, perhaps but I would expect them to say that if that is what they decided. Having seen all the evidence that isn't Wikibias related it wasn't until I saw new evidence that I decided to take the matter up directly with nableezy and Jiujitsuguy. Even with all the evidence there is, in my view, a lack of clarity on how policy applies. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:32, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

• Question 2:

Has anyone thought of simply asking the editors under question to cease whatever they are doing wrong?

Like everyone else here, I don't the extent of the evidence against the two editors, but a basic perusal of Wikibias.com does not reveal any blatant meatpuppetry or policy dogding. If anything, [18] how-to-guide is a pretty good instruction manual for editing Wikipedia and should perhaps be incorporated wikipedia's how-to pages.

The unilateral and drastic nature of user:Tariqabjotu's blocks are certainly questionable, at best, as noted above by User: Wehwalta and other editors.

I also note the inconsistency with how other alleged meatpuppetry groups are treated. As noted above, Wikipedians for Palestine is ignored. See also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive557#Facebook event to recruit Arab and Muslim editors to contribute to the Gaza War articl, where zero action was taken.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 06:12, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

But I really have one question that nobody seems to be discussing. Why can't we just ask the editors to stop doing whatever they are doing wrong? What's with our obsession with blocks and bans?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 06:04, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Brewcrewer and the one real question here is why Tariq chose to block indefinitely when ArbCom has seen the same information and chose not to act? Poor judgment to go ahead and block without first seeking input on a issue he had to know would be contentious. Enigma^msg 03:25, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Meatpuppetry is a serious offence and experienced users like Juijitsu have no excuse if that is what they have been engaged in. Since I have not seen all the evidence, I won't make a judgement, but for a clear case of meatpuppetry by an experienced user that would certainly be grounds for an extended ban in my view. Gatoclass (talk) 08:31, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree. The relentless efforts of outfits such as the Jewish Internet Defense Force to alter the fundamental tenets of fairness on Wikipedia makes any organized offsite meatpuppetry unacceptable. Meatpuppetry in defense of an article on a fictional character at AfD pales in comparison. Abductive (reasoning) 09:43, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't see anything sinister about a "how-to-guide." "Don't edit war," "Keep your cool," "Do not accuse editors of bath faith..." I'm sorry but this does not look like gaming the system. Also, how do we know the editors behind this scandal are Eric and Jiujitsuguy? No mention of wikibias is made by either, it seems the administrator made the inference. An indefinite block should require more concrete evidence. Since there really isn't an historic precedent for something like this, and clearly it is a big problem - I don't understand why the admin made a block unilaterally. I also think the offending editors should be given a forum to defend themselves, why they haven't is suspect. I imagine many editors here are afraid to say anything for fear of being lumped into the wikibias movement. I don't blame em'...Wikifan12345 (talk) 10:28, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

There is concrete evidence, but I'm not going to present their personal information publicly to show it to you. Obviously, they're not going to say "Oh, I edit this site" on the user page, because they know it's a problem. The author of WikiBias, who, again, I'm sure is Eric, says the same on the website. You quotes of that page are highly selective. Here are some others:

• "So you want to become a Wikipedia editor and join the fight for truth and fairness? Excellent, we are looking for a few good men (and some great women)." Not even hiding the fact that he treats Wikipedia like a battleground; he's even using a battleground metaphor.
• "A simple piece of accurate information works. Just add it. Don’t use a proper footnote, genuinely new users rarely do." He could just tell people how references should be written, but he doesn't. He wants people to feign ignorance on how to edit properly, so they don't appear as meatpuppets, people instructed to come to Wikipedia for some purpose.
• "Sooner or later you will notice that something that you regard as a simple fact, like the fact that Mt. Hermon is located in Israel, will be deleted by an editor who doesn’t agree with your worldview." He knows his audience.
• "Keep in mind that there have been lengthy edit was over the monumentally trivial topic of hummus. An edit war can break out on any topic at any time. Some anti-Israel editors will start an edit war with a pro-Israel user with the intention of making the pro-Israel editor so angry that he will do something stupid and get himself banned." Right. And this is why he advises against edit-warring and accusing others of bad faith. Blocked and banned users can't win content disputes.
• "While you are making a lot of effective edits, the anti-Israel gangs may take it to the next level." Again, he knows his audience. It doesn't matter if he, in reality, gets readers from across the political spectrum; the point is he intends to bring people to Wikipedia solely to advance his pro-Israel agenda.

Frankly, I'm not sure what's unclear about this. The fact that he may not be the leader of an influential organization shouldn't matter. The intent is still there, and the effects are impossible to measure. We shouldn't be sending the message that it's okay, so long as your website isn't very popular, or it's okay, unless we can prove that people are following your commands. -- tariqabjotu 11:46, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Tips and suggestions on how to avoid getting banned is not illegal nor against policy. Reference to Mt. Hermon is irrelevant, if anything it is positive because it tells article x is an article that is often vandalized, watch out for it. We have wikipedia projects that do the exact same thing. The comment about hummus is accurate, editors do often bait other users with differing POVs into an edit-war, often stirring up the pot and provoking conflict, then editors go to enforcement boards to get their opponents banned. It happens all the time around here. The only real problem with the guide is the 1st bulletin, telling users that "we're looking for a few good men." But this isn't the same thing as meatpuppetry, you inferred there is some conspiracy going within wikibias, grouping like-minded editors to attack articles that aren't considered pro-israel. I see no evidence to support such a conclusion - you made this inference. I'm not defending wikibias, but you are exaggerating the crime. IMO I don't see anything wrong with referring users to articles that are problematic, even if it might have a pro-Israel/pro-Palestinian slant. We have wikiprojects that group articles based on their quality class, and alert fellow members of problems and issues that should be corrected. This isn't 1984, we don't know his "intent" other than your own interpretation. For all we know wikibias was created in good-faith. I'd imagine most meat puppetry occurs behind the scenes, in a private yahoo group or something less obvious as "wikibias." Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:09, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I advised Jiujitsuguy that he and anyone he recruited to edit on Wikipedia was expected to edit appropriately. The question is whether he has done so, and whether there are other editors, meatpuppets, which mirror any inappropriate activity. I'm going to take a look at his editing, and at the editing of others editing the articles he has been editing. When I've done that I'll have a better idea of whether we are actually dealing with extreme POV editing by either him or others. His actual role in the "call" for editors is not that clear and he denies a central role. That is why the emphasis was placed on how he, and possibly others, edited. There is no license to engage in systemic POV editing, but that is the offense which would justify a ban, not suspicion of off-wiki plotting. Fred Talk 09:05, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary Break

I imagine that at this point arbcom or an otherwise select group have the evidence in question and is reviewing. For obvious reasons most of us will not be able to review the evidence or make any particularly insightful comments about it. un☯mi 10:50, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I've not seen the evidence, but I trust Tariqabjotu to evaluate it competently. Under the assumption that the evidence linking these editors to offsite meatpuppetry activities holds up, therefore (and they do not appear to deny that it does), I entirely endorse the indefinite block. Engaging in covert and systematic activities to make others edit this site according to a particular POV is incompatible with the position of editor of a neutral encyclopedia, whether in the I-P conflict area or elsewhere.  Sandstein  11:12, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I would again like to remind people that the Wikibias website is the sum of the meatpuppetry I'm talking about. You can look at the website and comment on whether you believe the person running the site should be indefinitely blocked (even if you don't yet believe Eric is behind that). It is merely how I know it's him that I'm not publicly sharing, because it requires exposing personal information.

I would love to share the evidence with more people, but I don't want to step on ArbCom's toes. I've specifically asked them whether it is okay to send the evidence to any admin who wants it, but they have not responded yet. I'd prefer to wait until they do, and I hope they allow me to do so (or do so themselves), as it seems a large number of people are withholding judgment until they see it (even though I think Wikibias provides the basis behind the meatpuppetry I'm calling Eric out on). -- tariqabjotu 11:21, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I can share some of the content that is linked to Jiujitsguy, because it doesn't seem to show any personal information about him (the two other websites mention his real name). This comes from a website that I'm confident is owned by him. Once again, it's a guide to gaming the system. I'm confident he personally wrote it, considering it mirrors what was said in other articles clearly written by him (including one where he admits that he's Jiujitsguy on Wikipedia). -- tariqabjotu 11:33, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

There are three problems that I think people are clouding people's views of your actions. First of all, yes, that you are withholding much of the evidence under which have handed out a severe penalty from fellow admins, who are given the function under ARBPIA of reviewing an AE block. Second of all, the Wikibias blog, while containing criticisms of Wikipedia, is facially neutral when asking people to look at the discussion. What you are saying is that by putting this up there, he's hinting what he wants. Maybe so. Facially neutral semi-canvassing goes on all the time on wiki. People ask other people directly on here to comment on an issue. That's considered acceptable, because of the fact they aren't actually asking for support, although they are, by posting at a friendly wikiproject say, really hoping for it. Even if someone went too far with that, the result would be a note asking someone to be more cautious. Third, you handed out an indef block as an arb enforcement sanction, and when it was pointed out to you that wasn't allowed, you said, OK, one year is the arb sanction, the rest is on me. That seems very result oriented to me. It strikes me that a far more balanced approach would be a request to take down the offending material, assuming identity was satisfied (and as I haven't seen the evidence, I cannot say that it has been. Note I do not accuse Tariq of bad faith, I merely say he is capable of being wrong, and would more readily trust a checkuser on this), was a block until the offending material was taken down. After all, your instant-reaction sanction has done nothing to stop the evil complained of. The blog, after all, is still out there, and the editors can sneak back with new IPs and names. I would rather see the blog down, if it is such a problem.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:41, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Since you seem to think it's so difficult to comment on these websites without seeing the proof of who ever is behind them, I'm tempted to just give the information to you (along with Sandstein and the couple other admins who have requested it) -- I'm not the only one who has seen it, for sure -- but your attitude is extremely abrasive. You can't even recognize why I might to wait until hearing back from ArbCom, even though you yourself said earlier I should have doled it over to them in the first place? What are you suggesting? That I should leave to ArbCom... and also just you? And yes, my explanation for the indefinite block despite the one-year piece on the ArbCom ruling was result-oriented. Why does it matter what it's called, whether it falls within the scope of the ArbCom decision or not? People hand out indefinite blocks for any number of reasons. I am entitled to do so as well. And what does checkuser have anything to do with this? There have been no allegations of sockpuppetry. -- tariqabjotu 12:05, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Even if the apparent intention of Wikibias is to sway results to one side, doing that on a publicly available blog can hardly be called (as Sandstein does call it) "covert". Since those on both sides have read the blog, the accusation of "meatpuppet" seems absurd. Not only is the accusation unsupported, it is unsupportable. Wikibias is just a blog where someone discusses what he/she thinks is wrong with WP in general, and a few articles in particular.

In my view the administrators responsible for indeffing the user (assumed) responsible for the Wikibias blog, without supplying any evidence that WP rules have been violated, should be desysoped. In that I see rules have been violated. 173.52.134.182 (talk) 11:59, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

(to Tariq)Please feel free to do so, if you feel inclined. Possibly you should have followed one of the above procedures I suggested. Possibly, since there was importance, but not actual urgency in the matter, you should have communicated with ArbCom immediately and let them handle it. I am also struck by your comment here where you dwell on the difficulties of someone else undoing your AE block. I believe in fairness to everyone here, possibly I have been overfair from time to time. But what I see is an admin hand-selected by parties to an AE (Yes, I saw the initial skepticism you stated), that admin acting quickly to block two editors without giving them the chance to respond, despite ARBPIA, which urges admins using AE sanctions under ARBPIA to consult, use blocks as last resorts, etc. The "secret evidence" is an issue, as it makes it impossible for anyone else to review the justice of the block, including the question of identity. I continue to express no opinion on the whether the block was warranted. The procedure I strongly denounce.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:26, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I mean, look at it like this: If you had gotten the email, and been convinced by it, what harm would have been done by either asking the editors in question for their views or just asking for advice from ArbCom or a member thereof? What harm would have been caused by waiting? I will put it this way. People are sufficiently annoyed about the reports out of Israel, in my view, that if this had been handled well, there would not have been one word of dissent.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:33, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

( Housekeeping: My comment below is out of temporal sequence because I originally top-posted, recognized the error, and couldn't insert it back into strictly correct temporal sequence because doing so would have interrupted the continuity of a discussion re meaning and indenting. This was the end-of-thread location when I placed it here. But I've evidently disrupted the space-time continuum! Sorry! - OhioStandard )

I want to express my thanks for the blocks you've made. We need people editing here who are willing and able to subordinate their own political beliefs to the higher goal of working cooperatively and openly to create a great educational resource for the benefit of the entire world. Those who come here to champion any particular political agenda just subvert that goal, and that damage is multiplied by orders of magnitude when they do it in covert groups organized for the purpose. I have nothing but respect for your decision to defend the encyclopedia.  – OhioStandard (talk) 09:58, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Many editors view Wikipedia as a battleground. This is very clear to anyone who was closely involved in any articles on Israeli-Arab conflict. I think it is very important to view this indefinite block (the wiki capital punishment) in this context. There is a wide range of behaviours of these 'warring' editors, and these two editors have been punished because they have been caught in action which apparently violates WP polcies. So the editors on the other side (who actually exlosed this behaviour) can claim temporary victory. It is possible that Tariq's actions have been technically correct and made in good faith. However they do ignore this wider picture of the battleground. I also recognise that Tariq is not some kind of god who can solve a fundamental problem of Wikipedia. But he needs to think if his actions are in the broader interests of Wikipedia. Just like in criminal law in many cases charges are only laid if it is 'in the public interest', even if the particular action is technically illegal. I also think the lack of consultation BEFORE the indefinite block is very surprsing and will inevitably be viewed as suspicious. Sincerely. - BorisG (talk) 12:41, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I have now briefly reviewed the evidence, sent to me by Tariqabjotu. The evidence identifying Eric1985 (talk · contribs) as the author of http://wikibias.com is convincing and, in my opinion, sufficient to support the indefinite block. On the other hand, I am not absolutely certain that the evidence linking Jiujitsuguy (talk · contribs) to various offwiki publications is compelling enough, and/or these offwiki publications problematic enough, to warrant an immediate indefinite block. While the evidence is substantial, and the offwiki publications are clearly of the "go forth and edit Wikipedia from a pro-Israel POV" sort, I am not sure that the border separating mere offwiki advocacy and exhortation from active offwiki coordination and meatpuppetry has been crossed. This would probably benefit from a more thorough discussion. The block may still be justifiable, but the situation is not entirely clear-cut and, as such, I think that a more thorough review of the case by the Arbitration Committee would be helpful.  Sandstein  13:30, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I've also seen the evidence and agree with Sandstein's take. I still think we need to go to Arbcom for some clarification on how to act on it though. --WGFinley (talk) 17:16, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I note that User:Shuki has removed the block notices from both user's pages, claiming that Tariq has no authority to issue such blocks. I have asked them what they're playing at (though having the indefblock tag on the userpage is fairly trivial in itself). Black Kite (t) (c) 15:28, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I imagine it comes from my past involvement in the Israel-Palestine area (e.g. Israel and Jerusalem), but this has long been ignored by them, and basically everyone else in this area, until they don't like the action. Then they bring it up. I don't care about the talk page notices, so this angle of disputing the block. The block ought to be discussed on its own merits. -- tariqabjotu 18:25, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

After much digging, and without access to any evidence other editors may have collected, I was able to independently discover who Jiujitsuguy is. I've read the off-wiki material they've written, and while it's highly critical of Wikipedia, and extremely biased, I didn't see anything that warranted an indefinite block. Unless other editors found something more damning that the materials I myself did, I don't think anything harsher than an indefinite topic ban (on topics related to the Israel-Arab conflict) is called for. ← George ^talk 16:39, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Both blocks should be reverted. There was no urgency in blocking two users by an involved administrator. --Broccoli (talk) 16:48, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

You need to re-read what involved means, none of your diffs constitute involvement. --WGFinley (talk) 17:16, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Of course all the differences I provided clearly demonstrate the involvement of the administrator in content disputes. He didn't revert vandalism. He reverted the edits and in the process changed the content of the articles in the area of the conflict. Broccoli (talk) 18:11, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Are you saying that he shouldn't have reverted this? I think you have only skimmed the revision without looking at it closely at all. un☯mi 18:16, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Right, and the first edit was followed by this one. The third -- frankly, I don't even recall performing that edit -- but I'm confident it stems from the deficiencies of the pending revision system (is someone not approving an edit engaging in a content dispute?). Notice how I didn't follow up on any of the reverts you mention -- because I don't care about them. -- tariqabjotu 18:23, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I've now spent almost two hours reviewing the three edits that tariqabjotu reverted, including following and reading all the refs that they introduced. Here's what I found about the three:

(1) Made by an obvious sock with only two edits in his history. First two changes it included contradicted the sources they ostensibly were based on. Third change was nowhere supported or even mentioned in the source. Fourth and fifth change were original research based on the editor's interpretation of the Law of the Sea. The sixth change introduced a section entitled "Israel's Stand" (sic.). That short section had some potential in that it cited a ref to a French news site that gave an account of the Israeli Prime Minister's statements to an Israeli commission formed to investigate the boarding of the Gaza aid ship. But its first sentence was garbled, the vertical spacing was off, and the section also was surrounded by original research. Further, the editor misrepresented the French article's title in filling out the "cite news" details in such a way as to give a false impression. The seventh change introduced a new section about rockets fired into Israel. That content could be useful elsewhere, but it was entirely out-of-place to introduce it into this Gaza flotilla article.

(2) Pure racist vandalism. Anti-semitic crap calling Israelis "pigs", etc.

(3) Consisted of four simple factual errors introduced by an account with just two edits.

@Broccoli: did you mean to suggest that tariqabjotu is "involved" in a biased or negative way? If so, the three reverts you cite demonstrate precisely the opposite. They show a diligent editor just doing his job. Any responsible, neutral editor would have done exactly the same thing with these three edits. Disagree with him if you like, by all means, but you owe him an apology for introducing these three reverts as evidence of any improper motives or involvment.  – OhioStandard (talk) 19:42, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

( Please note that by "you", below, Broccoli is referring to tariqabjotu.  – OhioStandard (talk) )

Well the differences speak for themselves. One will never find something like that by Sandstien for example. The fact you did not follow up on your reverts does not really matter. You are involved in editing the articles and you should not have blocked two users. There was no immediate threat to Wikipedia by any of them. The blocks should be lifted.-Broccoli (talk) 02:52, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Broccoli, I might feel the same way you seem to if I were in your shoes; I probably would, actually. I'm sorry that your people have been through such intense suffering in the past, and that Israel has enemies all around. I mean that. But not everyone who disagrees with you here is your enemy, and I'm afraid your feeling of being attacked has blinded you a bit to that. That's understandable, but please look more carefully at the three edits that Tariqabjotu reverted. I spent almost two hours reviewing them; it wouldn't hurt you to spend half that long yourself. The diffs do speak for themselves, but only if you'll actually read them, and compare them to the sources they cite. For example, Tariqabjotu was defending Israel from a racist attack in the second revert: How can you possibly object to that? He's earned your thanks for that one, at least, not your scorn. If you'll carefully review the other two edits he reverted, made by socks, btw, and read all the sources the first one relies on, I trust you'll come to a better opinion of his reverts. I hope you can accept this recommendation in the spirit it's offered, but you really do need to take a closer look at the three. This isn't the place for content disputes, but if you'd like help putting back what's legitimately admissable in the first revert, let me know on my talk page. I'd be glad to help. Best,  – OhioStandard (talk) 07:10, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Application of EEML

Per another editor's suggestion I went and looked at the more recent EEML case and it has the following: (bolds are mine)

Off-wiki conduct

11) A user's conduct outside of Wikipedia, including participation in websites or mailing lists in which Wikipedia or its contributors are discussed, is generally not subject to Wikipedia policies or sanctions, except in extraordinary circumstances such as those involving grave acts of overt and persistent harassment or threats or other serious misconduct. The factors to be evaluated in deciding whether off-wiki conduct may be sanctioned on-wiki include whether the off-wiki conduct was intended to, and did, have a direct and foreseeable damaging effect on the encyclopedia or on members of the community.

Passed 8 to 0 with 1 abstention at 17:29, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Having reviewed the evidence I'm not sure if the action of either of the editors meets the level of the bans imposed because I'm not certain we've established a "direct and foreseeable damaging effect on the encyclopedia or on members of the community." Thoughts? --WGFinley (talk) 17:34, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

From what has been made public, I agree, and would unblock, my opinion subject to what is disclosed down the line. I believe ArbComm's language to mean conduct that almost rises to abetting harrassment, such as posting sensitive personal information, such as their phone number. At worst, this was hoping his readers would help him out. He could have tossed a message in a bottle with about equal effect.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:41, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

If the Wikibias website is indeed the work of Eric1985 (and it appears that it is) then an indefinite block is absolutely correct. Having not seen the evidence on Jiujitsuguy, then I cannot make a judgement on them. Black Kite (t) (c) 17:55, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Grave acts of overt and persistent harassment... -- No, I don't think so. But direct and foreseeable damaging effect on the encyclopedia -- I certainly think in the case of WikiBias, that is the case, unless the ruling is saying that the conduct must have both the intended effect and the actual effect (as the former exists, while the latter does not necessarily). Regarding the websites pertaining to Jiujitsuguy, it is less so the case; it was less systematic. In Jiujitsuguy's case, though, his past conduct on Wikipedia did come to mind when blocking him. -- tariqabjotu 17:59, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the Wikibias website constitutes, or describes, the sort of serious misconduct the EEML decision outlines. Whether this is also the case with Jiujitsuguy is considerably less clear to me. This requires closer review, which ArbCom is best qualified to do (either sua sponte or on appeal).  Sandstein  19:44, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

A "direct and foreseeable damaging effect on the encyclopedia" is relevant for what Eric did. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:47, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

In what way?--Wehwalt (talk) 17:52, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Reading the Wikibias website should answer that question very simply. Linking to discussion pages and suggesting that people chime in there (i.e. canvassing); repeatedly referring to other editors (and naming them) as anti-Semites and racists; a "how-to" guide on how to appear to be a "good Wikipedian" by inflating your edit-count in non-controversial area before hitting the IP articles; "It is possible to fight and win edit wars."... Black Kite (t) (c) 18:08, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the worst post from Wikibias is his first one, that's clearly out of line, no doubt. The one you cited about becoming a "good Wikipedian" has things about what edit warring is, explaining revert rules, a lot of it I actually would like to see among many of the participants in these articles! There's issues there, no doubt, but are they indefinite ban issues for off-wiki activity? I don't know about that and it's probably why we need to strongly consider how off-wiki content is handled in these types of instances. --WGFinley (talk) 18:14, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I certainly don't think it was worth an immediate indefinite block under AE provisions (modified when it was pointed out the admin had erred, but emphatically retaining the AE provisions), with no opportunity for defense. After all, where was the fire?--Wehwalt (talk) 18:18, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd disagree on that. Indef doesn't mean infinite. My take on it is that he's only explaining those things to people so that they don't get blocked. I can imagine that new IP editors with a particular POV might get blocked very quickly if they weren't cautioned how not to behave. If you're recruiting people with a certain POV into an already controversial area on Wikipedia, and then telling them how to game the system, I don't think we need editors like that. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:24, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Similarly, blocks are not irreversible. Admins come here all the time asking for reviews of their blocks. Sometimes they're approved, sometimes they're not (and then they're reversed). The same exists here. If there is consensus that the block of either or the both of them was not appropriate, it'll be reversed or shortened. Calm down. I understand you're big on this process thing, but I don't think you're adding to the conversation by harping on certain points over and over. -- tariqabjotu 18:31, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Wehwalt, "In what way?" how many times do I have to bring this up? What Blackkite said above, his "how to guide" which is really a guide for gaming the system, all the canvassing posts and: "So, I have started this blog to publish the often hidden problems of the world’s free online encyclopedia. I plan to work with other Wiki editors on this site, and we must be totally anonymous in order to keep our accounts on the site." At WP Israel: "Occassionally, I send people here to help with the efforts." --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:22, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Most of it is facially neutral, good advice for getting along on WP, as has been pointed out by several editors. The fact that you had to characterize it as a "guide for gaming the system" means that there should have been the opportunity to defend, rather than a block out of the blue.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:29, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

How come you don't comment on the two quotes above where he straight out says that he is meatpuppeting? In his "guide" he has a plan for the editors on his side, and its obvious who his side is by reading all the canvassing posts in that blog and texts in that "guide": "So you want to become a Wikipedia editor and join the fight for truth and fairness? Excellent, we are looking for a few good men (and some great women)"...."Some anti-Israel editors will start an edit war with a pro-Israel user with the intention of making the pro-Israel editor so angry that he will do something stupid and get himself banned"..."There are roving gangs of anti-Israel editors looking to pick a fight.".... So we know now that he wants to recruit editors to edit articles in a pro-Israeli way, and then he gives them advise on how to at the beginning appear to be normal editors who later on in they're Wikipedia careers just stumbled upon some Arab-Israeli articles. The sole intent by this is to build up a false image for these new pro-Israeli editors when they're real goal from the very beginning is to embark on the Arab-Israeli articles pushing a pro-Israeli view. "Sooner or later you will notice that something that you regard as a simple fact, like the fact that Mt. Hermon is located in Israel, will be deleted by an editor who doesn’t agree with your worldview." --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:29, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Question, have you read through all of the posts on wikibias.com? un☯mi 18:34, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Are there more that have not been linked to?--Wehwalt (talk) 18:36, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

By my count there are 14 blog posts there, perhaps you would care to review them so we can move beyond "facially". un☯mi 18:42, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Personally I think we should simply leave it to arbcom to decide at this point, but as you are obviously keen to continue discussing it then perhaps it would best to do so after being able to commit to having read through the whole site, 14 posts aren't that many. This would hopefully work towards a better heat / light ratio. un☯mi 18:55, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Will you help me with any big words? Why don't we make an agreement to agree on the waiting for Arbcom bit and agree to slowly put down the sarcasm and back away? I will if you will.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:59, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Deal :) un☯mi 19:02, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

What is the role of WP:COI in all of this ? It says "A Wikipedia conflict of interest (COI) is an incompatibility between the aim of Wikipedia, which is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia, and the aims of an individual editor. COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote your own interests or those of other individuals, companies, or groups. Where advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest." The statement is crystal clear and yet it isn't a policy, it apparently doesn't have any teeth and it's ignored in the I-P conflict area where many editors have a transparent conflict of interest and either no interest in policy compliance or no real understanding of what that means in terms of content decisions. If editors complied with WP:COI and admins were able to sanction editors for failing to comply with it we wouldn't have this mess. We can argue about details and nuances of policy and how they apply to these cases but a good start would be for Wikipedia to take conflict of interest seriously and act upon it. Tariq's actions are consistent with the kind of Wikipedia that takes COI seriously. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:59, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

According to WP:COI, "if you edit articles while involved with organizations that engage in advocacy in [an] area, you may have a conflict of interest." So I'd say that POV-pushing for purely personal ideological reasons does not constitute a COI. COI only exists if one is also personally involved with an advocacy organization, but in practice I think the point is not very relevant: POV-pushing, especially of the organized sort, is bad no matter whether a COI is also involved.  Sandstein  19:39, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikiprojects exist that refer users to problematic articles. Editors can post articles they feel have issues, including bias. The fact that the website may have been pro-Israel doesn't matter. Editors are allowed to advertise their opinion on their userpage, including boxes that say they support the actions of Hezbollah, Al-qaeda in Iraq, Hamas (excuse me, right to "resist"). Editors can also announce their status as a hard-core Zionist and makes no differentiation between antisemitic and anti-Zionism. These editors can still edit articles, as long as they don't violate rules. Until there is evidence that edits are being made by behind-the-scenes groups with real wikipedia editors, collaborating as a unit and design strategies on how to violate the rules without breaking them, rather than explaining the rules and say don't break them - which is what the guide ultimately says - I don't see grounds for an indefinite block. I also have issues when editors are banned for alleged-actions offline or on actions made on other websites. Admins have jurisiction on wikipedia, they shouldn't take it upon themselves to battle other editors off-line without a serious discussion here or with other admins. Unilateral blocks like this should also be treated like a grain of salt.

On another note, I've witnessed plenty disputes that start from 2 or 3 involved editors trying to gain a consensus, and then a day later 20 editors with no involvement in the article show up to support their buddies. This is a real problem that should be stopped. I think this scandal has been turned into a lightening rod to distract from the real issues on wikipedia. I personally don't feel victim to an Israeli conspiracy. Many editors, who will remain name-less, have a vested interest in banning users they don't like for ideological differences. We all know this happens so let's not kid ourselves.Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:29, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah yes, the good old anti-Zionism = anti-semitism and 'they support the terrists!' canards. I was wondering when somebody was going to pull those out. --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 00:15, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, according to Martin Luther King, Jr. "Anti-Zionism = Anti-Semitism". Martin Luther King repeated the same thought at least one more time Martin Luther King responded to a black student who harshly criticized Zionists "Don't talk like that! When people criticize Zionists they mean Jews. You are talking anti-Semitism."--Broccoli (talk) 12:15, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Have you or are you going to apologize to Tariq over your misunderstanding regarding the reversions? By the way the MLK quotes are regarded to be a hoax see here. un☯mi 14:21, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Only by some. Whether King actually said it is still open to debate, I beleieve. See Anti-Zionism#Anti-Zionism_and_antisemitism. -- Avi (talk) 06:19, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I never said that. Editors can openly advertise their political agenda on their own userpage. You have this userbox on your page:

This user recognizes the right of Iraqis to resist occupation.

.

RolandR makes no differentiation between Zionists and Nazis on his own page.

Of course I distinguish between Zionists and Nazis. It is an unwarranted smear to insinuate otherwise, and I request that you strike out this comment. RolandR (talk) 12:57, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

This user advertises his sympathies with Hezbollah. Does this mean they cannot edit articles even though they clearly have a POV that is obviously not neutral? No, of course not. Just like editors who openly profess their gushing, unconditional support and obsession with Israel are allowed to work on articles regardless of whether they are about Palestine or Israel. The fact that Wikibias is inherently pro-Israel does not necessarily mean it is criminal. what if wikibias had no political agenda, but still referred editors to problematic articles? I have a feeling users would be less blood-thirsty for bannishment. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:34, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

"Openly advertising" your political beliefs on your user page, is not the same as saying that you have a political agenda for editing Wikipedia. Wikibias, Yesha, et al. have specifically said that they want to inject their Zionist bias into Wikipedia (see [19], for instance). This is not the same as saying they are Zionists, but want to try to neutrally edit Wikipedia without a POV. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 04:17, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

The issue is about wikibias, not some settler Zionist fringe organization. I don't see anyone saying they want to "inject their Zionist bias into wikipedia." That's just you talking, and that's biased. No evidence has been provided that any meatpuppetry going on. It looks like a pretty honest website directing anyone interest towards articles that are considered to be biased (hence, wikibias). I don't see a forum or a place where people can apply for membership. It doesn't look like an organized movement, other than the reference to "we need more people like you" but that's vague and shouldn't be interpreted by Israe/Palestine admins. My main beef is that an admin acted unilaterally beyond his jurisdiction. Wikipedia admins are not supposed to police the internet. Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:02, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

"No evidence has been provided that any meatpuppetry going on.".. Amazing how some people read only what suits them: [20][21] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:29, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I've just been reading through this thread and the sites in question. They are certainly disturbing, and certainly a matter for Arbcom. Blocking the accounts involved for admitted meatpuppetry is probably necessary to protect the project at this stage, although I do believe the final decision should be arbcom's. To Wehwalt (and anyone else who is concerned about the indefs), would you be satisfied with a reduced-length block that would nevertheless keep the accounts blocked until Arbcom could issue a ruling? It may be more semantic than anything, but at least it's not an indef handed out against an AE guideline. Throwaway85 (talk) 03:19, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Sure, were it understood that if Arbcom chooses not to take the case, any admin can unblock the usual way in his discretion. I suspect that the ominous silence we hear from Arbcom right now means something is up, but I'm fine with that. Say thirty days on each account, AN/I to consider a topic ban if Arbcom doesn't act?--Wehwalt (talk) 03:27, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I was going to suggest something very similar. I like that approach better than leaving the current indefs in place. The topic ban would undoubtedly be a necessary consideration should Arbcom decline to act. Throwaway85 (talk) 04:18, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I still believe, based on what I've been able to personally find from the person I believe to be Jiujitsuguy, that a topic ban would be more appropriate than an indefinite block. However, whoever the author of Wikibias is was clearly trying to organize a campaign to subvert Wikipedia's neutrality (per tariqabjotu's analysis above, at 11:46, 22 August 2010), and deserves a full an indefinite block. ← George ^talk 03:38, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that in Jiujitsuguy's case it isn't clear from the evidence and from what policies actually say right now that there has been a violation. Furthemore, the full story can't be obtained by simply looking at the evidence out there. Jiujitsuguy has his version and interpretation of events and that information does impact on what the evidence means and the conclusions that can be reliably drawn from it. There are already ambiguities here in terms of how policy applies based on the evidence but those ambiguities are magnified when you add in J's version of events. Now, I personally don't think J should be editing in the I-P conflict area because I consider his objectives to be in conflict with Wikipedia's but from his perspective his objectives are entirely consistent with Wikipedia's. Arbcom do need to look at this case because it's not straightforward. I can understand why Tariq would block J given the nature of the I-P conflict area here, the nature of the evidence and exisiting policy but there are lots of grey areas here. It would be better if there were simple bright line rules but there aren't. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:02, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll also add that while I personally favour the merciness crushing of persistent POV pushing beneath the full weight of an Israeli targeted killings-like approach to dealing with partisan editing here (and I applaud the recent efforts of both Tariq and WGFinley in acting to reduce conflict in several flashpoint articles by imposing editing restrictions quickly in response to trouble), the existing policies and sanctions don't really seem to support my views. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:35, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Is there a thought that we should see if there is consensus on Throwaway85's proposal?--Wehwalt (talk) 13:22, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't see the point. Keeping the current block in place, which can end at any point by nature of being indefinite, and then modifying it if there is consensus or ArbCom decision to do so, produces the same effect. -- tariqabjotu 13:55, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

If you are willing to drop the AE part of it and leave it as an indefinite block for violation of WP, that is not unreasonable. However, if you are insisting that your block is AE-related, then I think we should discuss whether to move ahead.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:09, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Fine. It really makes no difference to me. -- tariqabjotu 01:00, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. As far as I am concerned, I'm satisfied with that and the unblock. The indef block is within your discretion, and if someone else (I'm not doing it, in case you were wondering) wants to unblock, they can consult with you and move from there. As far as I'm concerned, we can put this one to bed.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:07, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

With respect to Jiujitsuguy there is a pattern of poor editing (By which I mean less than stellar in the I-P context) but not the sort of sustained aggressive POV editing that is required to support an indefinite block. I think Tariqabjotu's closing of the Arbitration Enforcement debate, which was quite inconclusive, and then adding on an indefinite block in addition to the permitted one year block was over-reaching. It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that he is very much an involved party and should never have closed the discussion or blocked anyone. Fred Talk 19:16, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

As someone who has followed Jiujitsuguy's edits from the start, I fully agree with Tariqabjotu's assessment of Jiujitsuguy. I know I speak for many fellow Wikipedia editors when I say that encounters with Jiujitsuguy has been very frustrating as Jiujitsuguy's editing patterns has been marked with aggressive POV-editing from the very start. Tariqabjotu has shown great integrity as an administrator and he should be applauded for that. --Frederico1234 (talk) 19:44, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

That, if true, would support the block, even a ban. I'll keep looking at his edits. Fred Talk 19:57, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

It could. However, we should deal with this block first, not look for alternative justifications, then consider what is to be done through the usual processes, if anything.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:00, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Fred, I did not close the AE debate; in fact, it's still open. Unless by "closed" you meant "blocked one of the editors in question for a charge completely unrelated to the one the initial report was about". Also, please check your e-mail; I sent you an e-mail more than twelve hours ago, which you have not yet responded to. Or at the very least, look at Jiujitsuguy's talk page.

Secondly, I'm really tired of this "I disagree with the block; therefore you are involved" conclusion. Aside from this being a non sequitur of epic proportions, I have not, insofar as I can remember, had any involvement or disputes with Jiujitsuguy. I would expect that kind of attempt to make things personal from one of the editors who has traditionally sided with Jiujitsuguy on content disputes, but I certainly didn't expect it from you (and, for the record, Jiujitsuguy's own responses to me on his talk page and via e-mail have been nothing but cordial, avoiding suggesting any personal reasons for the block). You are entitled to disagree with the block, but it's borderline insulting to see you join the attempts to divert attention away from the merits of the block and toward the merits of me. I can see reasons to oppose the block on its own merits; stick to talking about those. But regardless of whether the block is overturned, and it's increasingly looking like it will be (I offered to do so myself on Jiujitsuguy's talk page, pending your response to the e-mail I sent you twelve hours ago), this shouldn't come down to "oh, the fact that his action was disputed by the community indicates he has a bias in this area and should never involve himself in Israel-Palestine issues again". Really, Fred, I expect better from you. -- tariqabjotu 23:31, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

And, as a follow up, I have unblocked Jiujitsuguy. -- tariqabjotu 01:00, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Fred, I agree with Tariq, he's said nothing about closing the AE that I've seen and in fact I think he put this on AN/I in a good faith effort to have peer review of his action so I think you have misread something here. However, I think there is little to be gained from going on like this, we have the usual names on each side of the debate and a few people that are trying to give honest opinions but end up getting drowned out by the partisan sides. I started to work this up for an Arbcom amendment request and I think that's the route to go with this. --WGFinley (talk) 23:41, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Reasonable, I would say, do you think asking for a full case would be better?--Wehwalt (talk) 23:46, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Although I really loathe the drawn-out process of a whole ArbCom case, I have long argued that this area needs another ArbCom case. First, the conflicts on Israel-Palestine issues are pervasive and never-ending; the first case has done nothing, it seems, to put an end to them, although perhaps it's just a reality that there isn't a whole lot we can do. Many here, including myself, seem to agree there are a lot of editors who treat Israel-Palestine articles as battlegrounds (not to say all editors who edit in this area do). And it seems we're tacitly, if not explicitly, agreeing that we ought to tolerate it to some extent (what that extent is is a matter of debate). That we are agreeing to compromise on one of our five pillars (and a point that has repeatedly been upheld as a principle in ArbCom cases) is a point that should be addressed, in my opinion. -- tariqabjotu 00:07, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Would you be happy skipping Arbcom and simply starting an RfC/U in support of a topic ban? Alternatively, as the issue doesn't seem to be going anywhere, we could start an arbcom case asking for a ruling that *any* offsite canvassing/astroturfing/meatpuppetry of this nature is grounds for a topic ban, of a length to be determined on a case-by-case basis. Between Camera, this, the JIDF, DailyKos, and the inevitable future cases, we really have a pretty well-established pattern. If we can get a clear ruling so that each new case need not go through Arbcom, that would clear things up a bit.

Footballer BLP enabled pending changes

• Ola Toivonen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There have been more edits to this article in the past 24 hours than in the whole of 2008. I've turned pending changes on, but the actual facts of the article need sorting out. At the moment it's a self-contradictory mess thanks to the silly back and forth by people who think writing things in Wikipedia will make them come true. Uncle G (talk) 20:31, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

• I'd suggest semi-protect, just so the little bastards stop. I think I've finally fixed it. HalfShadow 21:20, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
  • That smells like 4chan... GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:32, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
    • No. It's the Daily Mail. Uncle G (talk) 21:37, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, it definately isn't 4chan; all the IPs seem to be UK based, and the chantards have their own 'style', if you could call it that. HalfShadow 21:39, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I didn't geolocate the IP addresses, but I'd only ever seen such enormous anon-only attacks from 4chan. I guess they're not the only source of vandal armies. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 13:36, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I highly doubt it's 4chan, they really don't care about soccer. Throwaway85 (talk) 03:27, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

We see it on the hockey side from time to time off forums - particularly from Detroit. Resolute 03:29, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

• • I'll keep an eye out when I can for the next day or so. If the back and forth is goes up again, I might swap pending changes to semi-protection. Thank you for helping to sort out which Wrong Version is the right one. ☺ I haven't envied you that task. Uncle G (talk) 21:37, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Persecution by another editor

Resolved

 – RewlandUmmer (talk · contribs) indeffed by Andonic (talk · contribs) for sockpuppetry

An editor called Smatprt is following me around, calling me a "vandal" and a "sock", gratuitously deleting my posts deletions and has even deleted this edit of mine (which cites a scholarly source) for the second time [22] even though another editor restored it after the first deletion!! He's even deleted my post on a mediation page listing my objections to his behavior [23]. People disagree in life but one should not try to stop the other from speaking ... everyone has a right to be heard. RewlandUmmer (talk) 20:45, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

No, not everyone has a right to be heard. You've been accused of being a sock puppet of Barryispuzzled (talk · contribs), see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Barryispuzzled/Archive and Wikipedia talk:Suspected sock puppets#Can someone intervene here?, who edits on Baconian issues and, specifically, targets Smatprt's edits. He and his socks don't have a right to edit. Someone will probably look into this shortly (I'm out of time here now). Dougweller (talk) 21:03, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I've no idea who you are, sir, but I'd thank you not to address me as if I'm some common criminal. There is no courage in joining in with the mob when you are hiding behind a computer screen. I'm an academic at a top UK University and deserve far more respect than you are giving me. My username is a sockpuppet for me because like thousand of other editors here, and because of reputation, I don't want to reveal my identity on these forums. I'd also like to see the evidence for what is shaping up to be a false attribution of another's identity to me, presumably because you and this Smatprt fellow are in collusion to protect the Oxfordian theory article at which I made perfectly valid scholarly edits which this Smatprt reverted without justification (another editor reverted his change). But I'm interested how you plan to plant a convicted person's identity on me, which is undoubtedly your dastardly scheme. For example, if you want to claim that I am Professor Roger Penrose, would the fact that we use the same network at our establishment be sufficient? Unless you can satisfactorily answer this question then I ask you to show more respect. RewlandUmmer (talk) 21:30, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Calm down, whoever you are. And don't attack administrators. They are doing a thankless task that is both onerous and time-consuming. The first lesson here is to be patient. If you are not a sockpuppet, then Smatprt's behaviour will be held against him. It was certainly not wise to make an attack post against him, or anyone, within your first series of edits, a mere two days after registering. And your first edits were to Baconian theory, which led Smatprt to the not unreasonable suspicion (though he should have acted more cautiously) that you might be a sockpuppet of the Baconian Barryispuzzled. Nishidani (talk) 21:45, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your measured mediation. But just for clarification, are you saying that anyone who adds a Stratfordian citation to the Baconian article is a Baconian? Are you also saying that there is only one person who has ever edited the Baconian article? RewlandUmmer (talk) 21:53, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

No. I'm trying to understand why Smatprt, with whom I have a long-going disagreement, behaved this time in such a precipitate manner. He may well be, and I hope he is, mistaken in the intuition that led him to make those reverts. But I had remonstrated with him, and you appeared out of the blue, with a dismissive remark about the page he edits (not unlike somethings I have said in exasperation in the past). That might well have struck him as less than coincidental. In fairness, therefore, I have written a note to him. I have absolutely no opinion on this. I can understand your indignation. I can understand why Smatprt may have thought you were a previous editor. But the rest is best left to the sober, quiet and patient work of admins. They do clear up these matters eventually. Nishidani (talk) 22:03, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Doug, neither of the links you provided mention RewlandUmmer. Simply being accused of being a sockpuppet is not sufficient cause to delete someone's edits. Furthermore, while I was suspicious of a new editor finding their way to mediation and AN/I within days of arriving, AN/I was recommended to them and I'm assuming mediation was mentioned on the relevant talk page. Also, the mere interest in Shakespearean Authorship and Baconian Theory is far from damning, as I'm sure there's many an english lit major who might find the articles and decide to contribute. Be wary of WP:BITE and be careful not to confuse a new editor with an WP:SPA. I'll look into this issue further and see what the deal is, specifically if there's any quacking going on. Throwaway85 (talk) 21:23, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I found the mediation link on Smatprt talk page. RewlandUmmer (talk) 21:32, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

No one's edits should be removed until they have been found to be a sockpuppet or a clearly such (not this case), and the blanket removal by an involved party as here is troubling. This is not a good thing for Smatprt to be doing. Verbal chat 21:36, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Here is the link to the BarryisPuzzled sockpuppet archive (one of 3!)[[24]]. Feel free to examine the edits and come to your own conclusion. It's painfully obvious that Barry is attempting a comeback. (Amazing how this "new" editor is so familiar with WP editing practices, including some complicated linking formats!) Smatprt (talk) 22:13, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

But that's easy, my 10 year old son could do that! I simply copied the linking formats from other posts. I also notice that other editors (see Xover below) are starting to see my willingness to provide information here as a welcome opportunity to join in the baiting. So I intend to back away from here and wait for the admins to look into it. RewlandUmmer (talk) 22:40, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Just for the record, the pattern exhibited by RewlandUmmer since the account was registered matches Barryispuzzled and his socks so well that I was considering whether a case should be filed at WP:SPI to determine the truth; Barry's favorite target was Smatprt, for reasons related both to the topic (SAQ and Barry is a Bacon guy vs. Oxford for Smatprt) and because Smatprt was instrumental in getting the socking shut down; and Barry's MO is definitely to try to stir things up and play mind games (he used one sock to attack one of his other socks to try to garner sympathy and defenders). Incidentally, an IP edit made to RewlandUmmer may be helpful in determining who's who here (and it is geographically plausible as Barry). --Xover (talk) 22:24, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Just for the record, I don't care for attacking this Smatprt person. The conflict arose because this guy turned up and deleted a Stratfordian citation I had added to the Oxfordian article which, by the way, another editor put back in. Those are the facts. RewlandUmmer (talk) 22:53, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

It may be plausible, and RewlandUmmer did say that he is at the same institution. I would recommend a checkuser take a look at things. As someone who was caught in the splatter of a checkuser's looking into sockpuppetry of a user at my school, I would simply recommend caution. The usual tools can return a false positive in this instance, so a more careful analysis is, I believe, in order. Given their location, and area of interest, it is entirely possible that the two editors may hold the same views and edit the same articles, from the same IP range, even with the same useragent data, and still be separate people. This still doesn't address the issue of Smartprt's actions, which I believe are at best premature, and inappropriate in any case. Throwaway85 (talk) 23:47, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, I indicated that I'm an Oxford University academic. Throwaway85 correctly perceives that we should not allow ourselves to be deflected from the issue at hand which relates to the unjustified deletion of a scholarly citation that I placed in the Oxfordian article. It is a citation that at least two other editors were comfortable with. I wouldn't mind betting that if you look back through the post records, the same editors who are trying to intimidate me have used the same tactics on others who have tried to edit this article. Looks to me like two of them (Xover and Smatprt) have a working relationship here. RewlandUmmer (talk) 00:36, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I also immediately took the view RewlandUmmer was Barryispuzzled, though admittedly the user name strongly implies an anagram of a particular 'real' name. However, Barry loves anagrams and the editor's grandiose style is very close to Barry's. The apparent disingenuousness is also typical of him. Paul B (talk) 01:43, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I've been out of town, but just for the record since I have been solicited to add my opinion (I have absolutely zero interest in getting involved in another time-wasting dispute):

Regarding the citation that RewlandUmmer added and said "at least two other editors were comfortable with", I'm assuming he means this edit, which he made on several pages, including the draft article that Nisidani, Peter Farey, and I have worked on. If that is in fact that edit and if in fact he is an Oxford academic, it is remarkable that he has misconstrued the conclusion of my paper so badly, because it does not reaffirm "the orthodox view that William Strachey's 'True Reportory' was used a source for The Tempest", but only (as stated in the abstract) preserves its accessibility as a source for Shakespeare. I have not removed it from the draft article because I haven't yet gotten that far in my editing, having just begun the history section.

Although Smatprt might have been hasty, I know he has shown good instincts when it comes to identifying Barry's sockpuppets and has successfully identified them in the past before anyone else did. I'm sure that if RewlandUmmer turns out not to be Barry, Smatprt will apologise, but it does seem suspicious to me that he has with such vitriol called for Smatprt's banishment so quickly, an action that I have not even suggested with all the conflict we've had, because I think contrary opinions are necessary to a scholarly enterprise (even when misplaced), if for no other reasons than to keep us honest. One must wonder why an Oxford academic would even bother with the Shakespeare Authorship Question, much less insist upon banishment of an editor with a different viewpoint.

Again, he may not be Barry, and if he isn't I'm sure Smatprt will apologise, as well as everyone else involved in this matter, but the amount of harm done by a false accusation is not all that great IMO, especially since RewlandUmmer's real identity is not besmirched if it is not known. Tom Reedy (talk) 03:02, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

It's not about harm so much as the violation of principles and policies that allow us to maintain an environment that is conducive to the building of an informative, reliable encyclopedia. I have no position, stated or otherwise, on whether RU is Barry. That's not my concern, and there are others far more qualified than I to make that determination. My concern is with the violation of WP:BITE, WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL (both parties are guilty here, so it's not central to my concern), as well as several others. The removal of contributions in the absence of any finding of sockpuppetry is especially concerning. We are permitted to remove the contributions of banned editors, not merely those who are suspected of wrongdoing. It is my belief that Smartprt should apologize and reverse his removals. If, indeed, RU is found to be a sockpuppet, then those reversals can, themselves, be reversed. Throwaway85 (talk) 03:10, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we can say that there is any straightforward violation of WP:BITE, WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL. A sock is by definition not a 'newcomer' being bit, and for the same reason we don't assume good faith of editors who have already been demonstrated to behave with bad faith. Equally, it is not 'uncivil' to delete edits by sockpuppets of banned editors. It's policy. So this all depends on the problem of how we identify socks of banned editors. Do we always have to go through the elaborate official procedure? I have to say that I feel quite confident that RewlandUmmer is Barry. Some socks are obvious, and it has been practice to delete without prejudice in some cases. Some banned editors enjoy playing the system, and 'tangling up' their opponents in it. Paul B (talk) 03:42, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

If he's an obvious sock, then a checkuser will waste precious little time in determining so. You presume his sock status, then use that presumption to justify the removal of content and the violations of bite, agf, etc. Your argument is that those policies and principles don't apply because he's a sock, and that presupposes his guilt. It is absolutely *not* acceptable to remove contributions from editors who are in good standing. Suspicion does not equal guilt, and it is this presupposition of guilt that is the violation of AGF, BITE, and others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Throwaway85 (talk • contribs)

You are mistaken about checkuser. Barry lives in London and uses internet cafes (see User talk:Barryispuzzled). Millions of people live in London. If he happens to be visiting Oxford for some reason he may easily 'create' a new identity there. In such a case, the only way to determine his identity is by old fashioned analysis of style and content. I don't presume he is a sock, I take the view that he is, on the basis of the evidence, as did Smatprt. Paul B (talk) 04:15, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Does that mean that when comparing the Shakespeare work with that of another candidate, you are saying that it's possible to determine common identity on the basis of verbal parallels alone? RewlandUmmer (talk) 11:42, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Just going by intuition I'd say it's a sock. And if the name's an anagram it would likely be Andrew-something. -- œ^™ 06:25, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Registering 3 days ago isn't 'good standing'. That aside, this user does smell like a sock. I would suggest this be taken to SPI.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:32, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I once witnessed a policeman in Oxford being set upon by four soccer hooligans in a market place. He succeeded in handcuffing one but had trouble subduing another who he was wrestling with on the ground. The other two gleefully watched. After several minutes a crowd of about twenty had gathered round and by this time the handcuffed hooligan was taking running kicks at the policeman on the ground, striking him in the head. No one did anything to help the policeman whose strength was slowly ebbing away. So I grabbed the handcuffed hooligan around the waist to distract him. This gave the policeman time to radio for help and a couple of minutes later reinforcements arrived and the culprits were arrested. I tell you this not to trumpet my own virtue. I tell you to illustrate the point that in my experience that when a crowd see blood they either stand by hoping to see more or actively induce it. Interesting how the real point of this thread, that an editor is deleting a post without justification, has been set aside in favour of the much more pleasurable activity of mob violence. Looking over this thread, it is also interesting for me to see the over-interpretation people can give to evidence and presumably this is why they are interested in the Shakespeare Authorship problem where this weakness is particularly prevalent. In the last analysis, I came here to do one edit, to add a single scholarly citation to three articles the SAQ, the Baconian and the Oxfordian. In the process, I have met some quite sadistic and deluded people. It's like a dysfunctional family who are fighting one another. As soon as you upset one of them they all unite and support each other! Go and find yourself another victim. RewlandUmmer (talk) 10:49, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Of course this guy's a sock. Doesn't smell remotely like an Oxonian. --Epipelagic (talk) 11:21, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

LOL. Someone mentioned anagrams. Read your name backwards it says cig-ale-pipe! That doesn't suggest that you know much about an Oxbridge education! Actually, I might stick around for a while, I'm starting to enjoy this! :) RewlandUmmer (talk) 11:30, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the point of joining wikipedia is to edit articles constructively, not tie up other editors, or administrators, with a game you now say you are enjoying. If you are beginning to enjoy the way the men who administer wiki law are distracted by this puzzle, or the way people who put paid to a former sock known to enjoy entangling the enforcement of rules may be wasting their time, you might consider for your delectation, one of your possible anagrams, 'Murder lawmen'.Nishidani (talk) 11:48, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

And editing articles constructively, my friend, is the whole point of this thread which, try as hard as I might, I have not yet succeeded in getting you or others (apart from Throwaway85) to focus on. I think I understand why and it relates to what constitutes sound evidence in the Shakespeare Authorship debate. In my experience, people who are interested in this topic are usually given to over-interpreting evidence, because that's the only way to convince oneself that something can be proved when in fact it can't. (That includes Stratfordians too who visit here in great numbers and take any biography of Shakspere as gospel when it's a gratuitous interpolation.) It needs a personality that makes the kind of assumptions that are being made on this thread, and covertly on various talk pages, to think there is certainty in the face of few facts. It would have to be a mind that believes that someone who posts messages in Oxford actually lives in London; one that believes that no one is smart enough to pick up linking format in three days; one that believes that a person who edits for the first time has spent no time reading any of the discussions or examined the procedures before editing; one that believes that someone who "smells" like a imposter actually is one; one who believes that in comparing two texts a common authorship can be attributed on the basis of verbal parallels alone. That's why I'm enjoying this, because it's the sheer crudity of some of the logic that I find enthralling, and in Elizabethan England the innocent were wrongly hanged with this kind of arguing. Stick to the point of this thread (see first post) and so will I. Oh, and one final example of over-interpretation, Nishidani. Have you never heard of Roland Emmerich? RewlandUmmer (talk) 12:16, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

R Emmerich? Of course I have. I've edited his page, and, his name was discussed in an email I exchanged with another editor last night, on this very question!

If your mind wanders, with theatrical hyperbole, to things like the scavenger's daughter when mulling the 'crudity' of argument used against you here, I am tempted to think of Lord Bacon and his Apologia, recalling the passage where he argued against Queen Elizabeth, who wished to use the rack to extract the identity of the real author of a book she believed written with a pseudonym.

'Nay, madam, . .never rack his person, rack his stile; let him have pen, ink, and paper, and help of books, and be enjoined to continue his story, and I will undertake, by collating his stile, to judge whether he were the author or no.'

I'm sure you're familiar with the source in James Spedding's edition, if not from Mrs Henry Pott (she does need a wiki biography by the way).

To adopt a phrasing from your neighbour Roger Penrose's The Emperor's New Mind (1989:414), creatures with the better ἀλγο-rhythms survive, even on wiki. Stiff upper lip and all that, old chap. I'm sure you'll save your bacon :)Nishidani (talk) 12:58, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - As no one has yet so much as requested an SPI, it is inappropriate to deal with RU as if he is a sock. If you think that's the case, request an SPI. If he is a sock, he will be indeffed. If not, then he keeps editing, and is owed several apologies. Defending Smartprt's actions because you agree with his findings is not helpful. RU's contributions should not have been removed before he was blocked for sockpuppetry, period. Throwaway85 (talk) 01:49, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

You are right, of course, and I do apologize for acting hastily. Franky, though, when one has had to deal with scores of socks all going back to one user (Barryispuzzled), it does get tiresome. Regardless - I apologize for jumping the gun. I have now started the SPI here: [[25]]. Smatprt (talk) 01:56, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, both for the apology and for the SPI. RU, is Smatprt's apology satisfactory to you?

Well, this can be closed down. It was obvious from the start something queer was afoot. Smatprt deserves credit for sighting it quickly. For a bright guy and a Shakespeare man, Barry is extraordinarily dumb about the requirements for theatrical realism in creating a plausible sockpuppet. That something odd was on was evident from the name, and the first edit, though discretion and the rules required reservations. Nice to see a virtual unanimity of all editors, irrespective of their/our conflicts, in calling the bluff from the beginning. A final irony. Barry has lectured at the Brunel University course on Shakespeare's identity, the very course adduced, many think wrongly, by proponents of Oxfordism to argue that the theory is not fringe. Nishidani (talk) 14:53, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok, just so the archives of this topic will point at the relevant stuff. An WP:SPI was filed (here) by Smatprt. Shortly afterward RewlandUmmer admitted to being a block-evading sockpuppet of indef-blocked user Barryispuzzled (diff). The sock account was then promptly blocked by Andonic (block log). Thanks to everyone that helped out. Hopefully we'll get some peace for a while before he pops up again. --Xover (talk) 15:57, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Editor creating low quality content

Everything created by Paedea2008 (talk · contribs) has been of extremely low quality and unsalvageable. While some of their content seems to be hoax, such as TV Animal Farm, others seem to be good faith contributions about real things, but of such low quality that they're unsalvageable articles. Per WP:TNT, can someone please blast through this user's contributions, and maybe give some kind of warning? Many of their contribs have already been speedied. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 18:11, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

funny: when I read the header in the table of content, I knew who was gonna be discussed before scrolling down. User doesn't respond to any warnings... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 03:37, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Without getting into the specifics of the specific user:Paedea2008 I would like to address the philosophical implications of saying a user's contributions are "good faith contributions about real things, but of such low quality that they're unsalvageable articles". Really? When was policy rewritten because last I saw it said quite clearly that an AfD reason that was "bad quality" was NOT acceptable or legitimate, not being notable was the main primary reason for an article deletion, not that it was of bad quality. We are an encyclopedia that admits it is continually under construction and we never discriminate based on poor use of English or grammar, bad citation forms, or bad formatting or procedural misteps as long as it is all in good faith. Now I know Ten Pound was stating this in all good faith and there were other more legit reasons why Paedea2008 was a disruption, but WP:TNT which is an essay and not a policy (nor apparently a llama, though it may be a camel) is not a great thing to be quoting and using as justification and in fact flies in the face of multiple statements found in numerous policies and guidelines.Camelbinky (talk) 03:56, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I haven't yet looked at the specifics either, but while I agree that we need to be careful with somewhat degrading terms like "crapflood of low quality content" (in fact I would encourage TenPoundHammer to choose a more suitable title for this thread), WP:COMPETENT does come into play if a user's contributions are consistently of sufficiently poor quality that they cannot be deciphered or repaired, and in some cases, the only option is to "blow it up and start again" as WP:TNT suggests. I don't think AfD is what is being suggested here Camelblinky, read WP:TNT again. Removing the content or "stubifying" indecipherable or unsalvagable articles may be necessary. I'm going to have a look at some of the user's contributions in a moment. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 13:43, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

This editor is creating a lot of unnecessary work for others. All of their contributions have either been speedied, prodded, or taken to AfD. The editor has had warnings/notifications placed [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], including 1 only [31], and 1 final [32] warning. The editor has been unresponsive to each of the warnings, and has not made an attempt to communicate to save the articles (as a lot do), so I feel that it would have been pointless to try and talk with this editor directly. Instead, I am proposing a block of some length on this editor for what I (and others) consider to be disruptive editing. Whose Your Guy (talk) 14:52, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

• Note: there is already a thread about this user; maybe this should be merged with the "Crapflood of low quality content" thread above. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 14:54, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

• Good point, there is so much stuff on this page that I missed it, but it is now merged. Whose Your Guy (talk) 15:54, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

This is always a hard one but bluntly his contributions are of such a low quality and creating so much work that he should be blocked because he's actively degrading the project (not out of any malice as far as I can see). --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:05, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I've just taken a look at some of his contributions, and I think it's a little harsh to take such a stance simply because his english isn't up to par; I've seen worse attempts at pages than The Gold Axe and Silver Axe, for example, which I've generally cleaned up (or at least marked for cleanup) rather than prodding with an unhelpful and irrelevant message such as "Extremely low quality contribution from editor with a ton of low-quality article work." given in this case. A better approach here would be to either mark it for improvement or improve it yourself, which I intend to do now. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:29, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

 Done: I removed the personal commentary and POV, cleaned up the encyclopaedic information, and tagged it as needing references; I'll take a look for some myself in a little while if none emerge. Has anyone discussed with the user how to improve their edits? Explaining the proper tone and register of an encyclopaedic article is probably the most important here. I have to agree that language appears to be a barrier here, but I don't think we should just write this user off as useless just yet, nor is the blind prodding of all of his recent contributions acceptable, as several of them may well be notable subjects and relevant to wikipedia. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:50, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

To answer my own question, I don't see any discussion with the user, discounting warning templates and deletion notifications. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:56, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm rather shocked by this, but sadly not altogether surprised. The concept of "civility" here on wikipedia is definitely screwed. Malleus Fatuorum 22:36, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Malleus, do you have anything to contribute to this discussion? This isn't the first time I've noticed you've commented on a thread just to take a sarcastic snipe at the wikipedian community, while failing to actually contribute towards improving it. If you're shocked by the apparent incivility with regards to this matter, by all means give civil advice to the user, help them improve their work, or pose an alternate option here. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:47, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Giftiger that those warnings and deletion notifications are not "communication" can those that came to this thread stating that they tried to talk to this individual but got no response please let us know if there was real attempts at communication? I know if I did something wrong and all I got was a stern warning or bureaucratic templates and English wasnt my first language then I'd be confused how to respond. Perhaps a nicer better approach to this editor and attempt to turn them into a good contributor is in order rather than just pushing them out.Camelbinky (talk) 23:03, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, maybe we have some general communication-problem here. I, for one, was assuming that when I leave a non-templated note on someone's page, and that someone has any questions, s/he will ask. That's at least what I would do, esp. when there's a floodload of such messages. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 00:52, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Alright, one more time... this includes an "edit-new section"-link. If that won't work, I don't know what ele to try... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 00:55, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

We do not even have any idea if this user ever even clicks on the new message warning when they sign in as there is no evidence he/she has ever edited their talk page or user page it is possible they have never gone to the talk page! Is there anyone who can think of a way to contact this person? They may not visit article talk pages either... other than using an article that they edit directly (and this may be the only way and a case of breaking policy just to contact this editor).Camelbinky (talk) 01:02, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

The new messages warning is pretty clear, so if they're not seeing the messages, it's likely a language barrier problem, or they simply haven't bothered to read the messages. In the former case, I fear this may well be a WP:COMPETENT problem; in the latter case, I've seen short blocks be used to get the attention of users who have failed to respond to repeated warnings; perhaps this would be a good option before resorting to a long-term block for incompetence. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 07:40, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I remember a couple years back we had an Indian editor who created relatively useless articles on encyclopedic subjects, but wrote in Hindi very well. They were eventually advised to submit articles in Hindi and then list them on wp:PNT; does anybody else think that this would be feasible with this (apparently Korean) editor? We've got a few active users who are ko-N, so to me it's just a question of finding a volunteer to watch over Paedae2008. — east718 | talk | 07:48, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Verbal long-term revert warring on my user page.

Verbal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
This user has been attempting to speedy delete or full blank a file in my user space, revert warring, that was used to hold evidence for an RfAr in which I was involved. The actual case pages were courtesy blanked, and, on Verbal's request, I blanked this page as well. That wasn't enough for him. The situation is well enough explained, with full diffs, in my response to a Request for page protection, permanent link, that he filed, attempting to get the page protected in his preferred form, as he has done before. Please encourage him to stop, this is wasting everyone's time. Thanks. --Abd (talk) 23:47, 21 August 2010 (UTC)add bold for Toddst1's benefit. --Abd (talk) 00:09, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

User was warned at [33], and previously about speedy deletions at [34] --Abd (talk) 23:54, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of wasting everyone's time, now that this page is protected, what was it you wanted from ANI? Toddst1 (talk) 00:02, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for your concern, Toddst1. I had not seen the protection when I filed the report. Further, the long-term behavior indicates that, unless he is discouraged, he will just come back later, when the protection expires in a month, and repeat this, leading to more waste of time. I asked for what I wanted. I've bolded it. I still want it. --Abd (talk) 00:09, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

• Changing to indefinite protection. It's a userpage, so I suppose there's no reason not to; in any case it can be overturned at a later date if circumstances change. · Andonic ^Contact 00:13, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

• Why that's exactly what I thought. Thanks, Andonic. --Abd (talk) 03:08, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Contrary to what Abd claims above, the page was never used in an RfAr or in any other capacity and should therefore be blanked or deleted. Wikipedia is not a webhost, and especially not one for hosting unfounded and untrue complaints about other editors that cannot be responded to. These kinds of misleading statements and half truths have got Abd into trouble before. Verbal chat 09:14, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

• Apparently Verbal wants to belabor these old issues. ArbComm decided the case, and it decided it based on, at least partly, the evidence presented, which may or may not have included Verbal's evidence and my response. Voluminous evidence was presented by others against me, and part of my evidence was a claim that this was no accident. Accident or not, I had the right to respond. Because there is a limit on the size of a direct presentation on an ArbComm evidence page, I and many others have used evidence subpages, each one dealing with something specific, in detail, and there were many subpages which were responses to individual submissions, as shown in the link to the page from the case. The response to Verbal has been the only one blanked, and it was blanked, by me, at his request. If my evidence was "over the limit," a clerk could have and would have addressed it. If it is deleted, a redlink will appear in case evidence, leaving Verbal's presentation with no response. Yes, the pages were labelled DRAFT. However, that was partly to invite correction, plus, responding to so many people,I was overwhelmed. Nobody informed me of errors, so that I could redact the pages.

• Here is what I'd do now, if warranted. I'd edit the page or a copy of it and use strike-out and append a note as to why. The original unamended version would be referenced, so that the page could then be seen as viewed by ArbComm. If not for full protection, made necessary by Verbal, I'd simply save it like that, and blank it again, with the link from the top level referring to the redacted version. Without specific objections, also invited on Talk for the page, and which still could be placed there, there are only vague claims.

• Verbal is personally attacking my work, and me as a "problem editor," supposedly repeating "what got me into trouble before." I won't review the "before" except maybe before ArbComm itself, it would be disruptive. But this is now, and Verbal is carrying on the dispute now. Revert warring on a user's page. Repeated and denied speedy deletions, a phony MfD notice, and gamed requests to RfPP, each taking up administrator time. Someone should let him know how disruptive this is. --Abd (talk) 16:35, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what the problem is here Verbal; I had a look at the recent history, and the page was blanked with a notice that it had been blanked, and you reverted multiple times to a version with no notice. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 09:22, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Also, that blanking notice provides a link demonstrating that the page was at one point used as a response in an arbitration request; it was linked to as a response. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 09:26, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

No, the page was never part of an arbitration request (and one in which Abd was waaay over the limit anyway). The problem is the link Abd keeps inserting to the misleading smears. Verbal chat 09:31, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Since it serves no purposes in the encyclopedia, why don't we just MFD it and Abd can save himself a copy offline. --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:26, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

It should simply be deleted and in the meantime protected at teh properly blanked version. It is not a courtesy blanking if you give a misleading summary and a link. Verbal chat 09:31, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Since it formed part of the response to an arbcom investigation, it might be worth keeping it so that anyone who wants to see exactly what Abd's responses in the investigation were, can look at the response in history. I believe that's why it has been kept and courtesy-blanked. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 09:28, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

As I said above, you are wrong. It did not form part of the arbom investigation. Verbal chat 09:31, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

The link in the blanking notice demonstrates that it did. Simply saying that I am wrong without justification doesn't change the fact that the user has provided a permanent link showing that he produced the page in order to respond to the arbitration investigation. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 09:33, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

No, it was not used. Please present evidence it was used, you'll not find any. Note that until long after the case closed it was marked draft, and only abd has attempted to move it to Arb space, long after the case closed. It was never used. If it was I would have responded then to the smears. Verbal chat 09:36, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

The link the user provided, to here, seems to indicate that the page was linked to on the arbcom page. The fact that it still said it was being drafted doesn't mean it wasn't included. If you think that the courtesy blanking message is inappropriate, you'll need to produce evidence that it is deception, not the other way around. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 09:44, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Giftiger. At that link can be seen that all these pages were how I responded to evidence presented by others, Verbal's page is no different, but seems to be the only blanked one. With the case already a monster, if i had responded on the case page to all that presented by many, it would have been far larger. At the end of discussion on the attached Talk page is what I'd said before: I have many times requested that errors on the page, and pages like this, be noted, so I can correct them with disclaimers, strike-out, etc, and no specific errors have been alleged. --Abd (talk) 18:38, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

That echoes what I originally wrote (see the link), All but one are currently drafts; they may be read for the sense of my response, but they are long and have not been boiled down and checked. If there are significant errors, I'd appreciate notice on my talk page. I received not one such notice, not from Verbal, not from anyone. He is continuing an old conflict. I haven't even read this page since then. Maybe I should, and maybe I should look at the original Verbal evidence, and maybe others could as well. But I'm not asking for that. The page should be left for the record. I blanked it on his request, and what Verbal was revert warring for is very close to what he was given, without conflict, originally, and it was only his many attempts to have the page deleted entirely that caused me to need to add the note so people could find what some arbitrators may have seen, instead of only seeing a series of blank pages with or without notices. Is he ashamed of something? You know, he could ask me to do something about this. I don't take very well to being bullied. Most people don't. --Abd (talk) 00:34, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Incivility / harassment by User:7mike5000

Hello. I've posted links and diffs regarding a problem between another user and myself on the Wikiquette alerts page, but nothing has come of it (See: Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#Incivility_by_user_7mike5000). I've tried to determine what board is best to report this problem, but the chain of command isn't clear, so I'm posting here. Would an admin either direct me towards a functioning committee or group which covers this sort of thing or bring other users into handle this? Since I'm not sure this is the correct page, can someone else notify User:7mike5000 of this comment if it's appropriate to do so? Thanks. TeamZissou (talk) 02:41, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

He's been informed. - Donald Duck (talk) 02:56, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

The diffs from WQA
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I'm not quite sure how to go about reporting this as the instructions were a bit confusing, but I'm running into a conflict with user 7mike5000. This began when I undid a significant amount of text he added to the Smoking article. The edit he made was this: [35] I undid this and in my edit summary pointed toward the talk page of the article (I wrote, "undone -- see talk page"), providing an explanation here: [36] 7mike5000 then reverted to his edit, stating "Something called an edit summary/ try using it": [37] I then reverted that here: [38] , stating "The edit summary is on the talk page -- I'm invoking the 3-revert rule until issues resolve." 7mike5000 replied then replied to my explanation with this: [39] , a somewhat less-than-civil tirade. Notice the part at the bottom which reads: Thank you for the condescending answer. So I take it that means you have nothing to back up your claim with. --Saddhiyama (talk) 19:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC) 7mike5000 (talk) 20:36, 20 August 2010 (UTC) The edit history doesn't reveal a user Saddhiyama making any changes -- I'm not sure why this is there, unless it was a botched attempt at sockpuppetry, which is something 7mike5000 has gotten into trouble for in the past, as I will show later. The only wiki-anything user named Saddhiyama I could find was this page (Saddhiyama), and it seems they contribute mainly to the Danish project. I have not contacted this user. I then responded with this incensed reply: [40] 7mike5000 then responded with some taunting and insults: [41] He also added that I hadn't included an edit summary on my first removal of the text, which I had -- I even preserved a copy of said text for discussion on the talk page. I did not respond. 7mike5000, not content with this latest tirade follows up with this: [42] which included more personal attacks. I did not respond. 7mike5000 then decides to continue ranting on my talk page, here: [43]. 7mike5000 has repeated demonstrated such behavior on other articles and towards other users. A history of just that which has been reported could be found on his talkpage, before he deleted it: [44] and replaced it, ironically, with this: [45]. That's what has transpired since this began. The details of the dispute are covered in uninterrupted form here: Talk:Smoking#Section_on_Depression_vs._Suicide and here: User_talk:TeamZissou#.22_consider_keeping_your_edit_summaries_a_bit_more_civil_instead_of_venting_your_anger.22 TeamZissou (talk) 00:13, 22 August 2010 (UTC) Update 1: I added a notification template to 7mike5000's talk page, per the WQA rules at the top of this page. TeamZissou (talk) 00:19, 22 August 2010 (UTC) Update 2: I added a notification of this WQA to the bottom of the discussion on the Talk:Smoking page, here: [46] TeamZissou (talk) 00:27, 22 August 2010 (UTC) Update 3: I just learned 7mike5000 nominated an article I started ( Sherman Trap) to be merged into Animal trapping (here: [47] and here: [48], though he didn't sign this. The article was one of my first back in 2006 and therefore wasn't done well, but it's been there for 4 years, and it is significant in that the Sherman trap is used and mentioned in the majority of small mammal studies and ecological surveys involving small mammals. My hasty links to sources added to that article in light of this are to demonstrate this trap's unique place in its own article just like Pitfall trap and Malaise trap. Given the timing and his comment on this article, 7mike5000's nomination for this article would seem to be motivated by our recent conflict. TeamZissou (talk) 01:44, 22 August 2010 (UTC) Update 4: I've just learned that User:7mike5000 has gone through and tagged or altered the following articles I've started, all of which are listed on my user page: Bulliform cell (changes here: [49]) Plastic Utopia (changes here: [50]) Geomys (changes here: [51]) George IV Bridge (changes here: [52]) Henry E. Dixey (changes here: [53]) Norderoog (changes here: [54]) While further references and citations are always good, all of those articles are legitimate and have been in valid, verifiable standing for a long time. Other editors have expanded articles like George IV Bridge, Norderoog is a place mentioned in North Frisian Islands and Brown_rat#Diet (it's the site of several important animal studies), Bulliform cell has been rated as High-importance by WikiProject Plants, etc. -- It is obvious the 7mike5000 is only doing this to harass me in light of his false claims that I deleted his contribution without an edit summary -- I gave him much more than a summary, and now he's merely retaliating. Can I please get an Administrator to look at this? TeamZissou (talk) 02:10, 22 August 2010 (UTC) Update 5: User 7mike5000 has gone through and done the same to these articles I started as well to harass me: Acylglyceride linkage, Bathyergus, Dear enemy recognition, Robert Linssen, Lupinus nootkatensis, all given "verification" tags -- he's likely doing this to set up moves to delete all these articles. Many of these have been reviewed by their respective WikiProjects, verification is easily done by doing a quick google search -- 7mike5000 is not tagging these articles in good faith, and it's clear he's not doing it to improve Wikipedia. TeamZissou (talk) 02:30, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I've brought the diffs from WQA here and dropp them into the above archive box for ease. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 08:58, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Although he is correct in his tagging of the articles (i.e. they do need references or whatever) that doesn't mean he is necessarily tagging them for the right reasons. I would say that mass removal of a section is a bit of a decisive application of WP:BRD and you might want to have tempered it a bit with discussion first, but the other user's comments are completely dickish. I draw attention to the initial response of "People like yourself crack me up, with your twisted logic and your rude mouth"; "Tell you what mouth, out of the millions of people who access Wikipedia the fact that you run into know it all, trouble makers like yourself is pretty much a given, it's like you people flock to Wikipedia, what is it not enough love from mommy?"; "Displaying bravado and wise comments are easy to do when you sit behind a computer screen. Nobody died and left you boss, and if you want to try and belittle somebody, try harder" and so forth. I am especially interested in why he signed himself "Saddhiyama" [55] I'll ask User:Saddhiyama. --S.G.^(GH) _ping! 09:08, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

In this thread on his/her talk page, I pointed out that trawling through another editor's history and tagging their stubs is combative - though in my case, most were justified. Having done it again to TeamZissou, let me just say explicitly 7mike5000, it's inappropriate.

In this thread I recommended 7mike5000 refrain from calling people names and instead "politely argue your case on its merits."

In this post on TeamZissou's talk page, 7mike5000 said, "I myself am going to control my temper. I can state my case in a rational manner without resorting to calling people J***-off"

7mike5000 has admitted here that "I have a tendency to lose my temper and respond with infantile vulgarity" and here that "I tend to overreact so I apologize."

So 7mike5000, you are aware there is an overreaction problem, and you want to modify that behaviour. Please do, because you have a lot to offer. Please thoroughly familiarise yourself with WP:AGF and don't rise to perceived bait. Polite argumentation wins the day. I also suspect you need a firmer grip on WP:NOR and WP:MEDRS. Following these as well as (given your comments about a tendency to overreact) WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL, should make your time spent here peaceful and productive. Anthony (talk) 09:56, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I made a good faith edit/addition to Smoking. It gets deleted without commentary by TeamZissou. I reverted and state just to use the edit summary. Deleting someones' edit without commentray is rude. He then deletes it again. And leaves this uninformed tirade;

think that there's some bias and misreporting going on here, in that smoking is far more common among people with mental heath issues ranging from depression to schizophrenia, but that the affects of tobacco smoking serves as a "band-aid" for the underlying issues. Also, this entire section was tobacco-centric, and we've gone rounds on this talkpage reminding contributers that there already exists a tobacco smoking article. Indeed, there's already a mental health section in the Health effects of tobacco article. Beginning a section with weasel words like "There is a proven correlation between cigarette smoking and depression," doesn't make for factual articles. The lay reader would interpret that in the same way a non-scientist would interpret a wording such as "Evolution is just a theory." The point I'm trying to make is that this is not the tobacco smoking article -- this article is on the practice, culture and history of smoking in general, and pamphleteering to persuade isn't the point of the Wikipedia project. 19:28, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Using comments like; there's some bias and misreporting going on here

and like this: and pamphleteering to persuade isn't the point of the Wikipedia project

is enough to gey anybody incensed. If that isn't condesceding, rude, impertinent and uncivil I don't know what is. The audacity to instigate an alteration, then receieve a like response to go complain and try to twist facts.

The fact is that he another user asked this individual to tone done his wise comments concerning others twice.

Complaing about this: I've just learned that User:7mike5000 has gone through and tagged or altered the following articles I've started, all of which are listed on my user page:

• Bulliform cell (changes here: [56])
• Plastic Utopia (changes here: [57])
• Geomys (changes here: [58])
• George IV Bridge (changes here: [59])
• Henry E. Dixey (changes here: [60])
• Norderoog (changes here: [61])

They were tagged with appropriate tags. To delete other people's edit and talk down to somebody, then preach what Wikipedia is or is not, and your own "contributions" fail to meet even the most basic tenets, such as a reference. I failed to notice where it states anywhere, that you can't place an APPROPRIATE tag on somebodies article if there has been some disagreement.

This comment:Thank you for the condescending answer. So I take it that means you have nothing to back up your claim with. --Saddhiyama (talk) 19:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

7mike5000 (talk) 20:36, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

The edit history doesn't reveal a user Saddhiyama making any changes -- I'm not sure why this is there, unless it was a botched attempt at sockpuppetry, which is something 7mike5000 has gotten into trouble for in the past, as I will show later. The only wiki-anything user named Saddhiyama I could find was this page (Saddhiyama), and it seems they contribute mainly to the Danish project. I have not contacted this user.

--Saddhiyama (talk) 19:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC) 

7mike5000 (talk) 20:36, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Its from TeamZissou contributions page, its kind of funny because now its not there, that's convenient, is it possible for someone to alter or delete user contributions from their history? Of course it is, if you know an administrator or are one. There was a problem with a pictures uploaded at Wikimedia, an adminstrator in Germany fixed the issue, and cleared up the upload summary. So that's what happened here. That's a little disurbing to go through that effort. Forgot to take care of this though:

19:12, 9 April 2009 (diff | hist) User talk:TeamZissou ‎ (→Question about my history: oh you silly goose) 19:09, 9 April 2009 (diff | hist) User talk:Saddhiyama ‎ (→Re: Question about my history) 19:06, 9 April 2009 (diff | hist) Talk:Enlightened absolutism ‎ (→Benevolent dictatorship: some people just like to cause problems.) and this: I would have preferred not to be dragged into that conflict, for my part any disagreement I might have had with TeamZissou is a closed chapter. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:32, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Intitiating rude behavior this is all from his contributions page, cur | prev) 20:07, 7 May 2010 TeamZissou (talk | contribs) (9,574 bytes) (added photo (again) -- it was removed by some zealot with a vague comment about it being (""out of context""). Hopefully that user is no longer active, and this useful image remains this time.) (undo and this one 19:46, 2 September 2009 (diff | hist) History of Icelandic ‎ (I came here looking for sources, and found not one.) 23:11, 19 July 2009 (diff | hist) List of punk films ‎ (→U: not even a hint of tangibly relating to anything punk, either in the film or in any element of culture inspired by it) 06:19, 17 July 2009 (diff | hist) Meadow jumping mouse ‎ (Removed poorly written, unsourced material. Ref to Smith was a little distorted -- Good idea for a section, but a very bad section without better language and accurately cited statements.) 18:44, 9 May 2010 (diff | hist) Scythians ‎ (Undid revision 361068696 by Gabhala (talk) The pro-Iran rewriting is annoying. Undid revision--look @ previous page edits.)

Someone who has a history of initiating altercations with rude comments, deleting the contributions of others and is obvioulsly on an infantile vendetta.

A simple comment in the edit summary on his part would have avoided the issue, to follow it up with rudeness and condescension just escalated it. To go out of his way to alter or ask somebody to alter his user contributiion log, is, and there is no euphemistic way of putting disturbing. 7mike5000 (talk) 19:10, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

And yet you were quite uncivil yourself. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 20:23, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I specifically said in the original revert AND the second revert that the complete edit summary was on the talk page of the smoking article, and that I not only included the entire section but also outlined what I found wrong with it's content and placement. How long are you (7mike5000) going to continue this? Pointing out another example of my bad behavior in the past isn't helpful. Just drop it, and know that I'll be surveying my watchlist everyday for when you nominate my articles for deletion. Saddhiyama is right in that whatever we were arguing about IS a closed chapter, but it seems prudent that I have to now watch closely for nitpicking and juvenile retribution -- no, that's not meant to be insulting, rather it's descriptive. There's no other reason for doing what you've been doing than bullying. I don't want to be back here in a month when you start nominating articles I've started for deletion or moves simply to feed your issues. Also, stop trying to bait me into a bitching fest -- dealing with internet tough guys is wearisome. It's working, but if that's your agenda, stop. If not, what gives? TeamZissou (talk) 02:13, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I type one finger at at a time so it's getting a bit annoying now. The succinct version:

• YOU initiated a confrontation with somebody else by arbitrarily deleting a well referenced appropriate contribution in an appropriate section.*
• In response to being asked to use the edit summary, you leave a condescending and insulting reply in the Smoking talk page.
• Considering that this is an administrator complaint board and I'm being called a "dick" "but the other user's comments are completely dickish". Anything I have said doesn't seem so egregious.
• You brought attention to yourself and to articles you "created". The fact is a majority of them are woefully inadequate, and that you are content to leave them like that, so I placed appropriate tags on them.
• This:I have to now watch closely for nitpicking and juvenile retribution -- no, that's not meant to be insulting, rather it's descriptive. There's no other reason for doing what you've been doing than bullying. I don't want to be back here in a month when you start nominating articles I've started for deletion or moves simply to feed your issues. Also, stop trying to bait me into a bitching fest -- dealing with internet tough guys is wearisome. It's working, but if that's your agenda, stop. If not, what gives? TeamZissou (talk) 02:13, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
• IS FROM WAY OUT IN LEFT FIELD, if you you are not capable or are too lazy to create an appropriate article, that's your personal problem not mine, I merely place the right tags on them.
• Placing this on the "article" Sherman Trap shows your maturity. Thats not the way you reference something:
  • Numerous scholarly articles[62]
  • Numerous academic texts concerning small mammals and ecological surveys[63]
• Placing this on the Talk page of Sherman Trap [64]; again shows your maturity.
• "stop trying to bait me into a bitching fest -- dealing with internet tough guys is wearisome"

not for nothing that is pretty wacky comment considering you seem hell-bent on creating an issue in the first place and then perpetuating it with this bogus complaint. It seems you thrive on a being part of a "bitching fest"

• Dealing with people like yourself is getting " wearisome" to me. You detract from Wikipedia by initiating anomosity, and when you can't deal with what you dish out, complaining about it.
• I don't appreciate being slandered and maligned on the internet, unlike yourself Mike is my real name, it doesn't take to much effort to see that I don't look like Mister Bean, because my picture is on the Internet. And trying to make me look like a jerk-off is getting "tiresome". My nature and my character are self evident by what I write and what I have contributed to.[65]. So enough already, I have things to take care off, and wasting time with an adolescent on a vendetta isn't part of it. I have no intention of doing or saying anything else in regards to this nonsense. If others feel this B.S. warrants otherwise, your prerogative, do what you got to do. I won't be responding for quite a while because I wont be on Wikipedia or the internet in general.7mike5000 (talk) 19:25, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Half of your justifications for your actions comes from completely unrelated material I was involved with a while ago. You're not being slandered or maligned, but you are doing quite a bit of that yourself. The original and only problem you've ever had with me that's anchored in something directly related to you was my revert of your edits to the smoking article. You accused me or removing your text without explanation, which was false. You went out of your way to insult me instead of discussing the problem or recognizing that there was a perfectly good spot for your content on the appropriate page. You then came to my talk page and continued insults as well as pointing out everything you could find disagreeable about my history on Wikipedia -- in no way relevent to your problem with my revert, which could simply be overcome by placing your contribution on another page. You've focused on my character over and over without discussing the actual problem, merely to emphasize a personal attack on me, rather than move or fix your contribution. You've invoked the same rhetoric and played the same baiting games this whole time, and a copy of your content still sits on the smoking talk page waiting to be amended and/or moved by discussion of its merits and proper article place. If you're afraid of people thinking poorly of you in real life, Mike, then don't act like you have here in real life and hope others won't act that way either. Because, if this were real life I'd be like the neighbor who told you that you couldn't park your car on the boulevard, and you'd be the neighbor who yells at me over the fence, throws my newspaper away, and then addresses the city council on the finer points of how I haven't shoveled or cut my grass by the rules every time. How could I not view this as "wearisome"? And, using your own words written just above, who is the one making you look like a jerk-off? PUT THE SECTION YOU WANTED ON THE GENERAL SMOKING ARTICLE -- THE LENGTHY, IN-DEPTH AND WELL-CITED ONE ON HOW TOBACCO SMOKING CAUSES SUICIDE AND TOBACCO SMOKING CAUSES DEPRESSION -- OVER ON Health effects of tobacco, IT'S NOT THAT HARD, AND STOP ACTING LIKE A WP:DICK ABOUT IT. TeamZissou (talk) 19:56, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Awesome, "IT'S NOT THAT HARD, AND STOP ACTING LIKE A WP:DICK ABOUT IT." I sincerely do appreciate the advice and since were pals now, I have a few helpful pointers, if you need help on writing articles, expanding them beyond a sentence or two, or the finer points of adding a reference I think you can find help here: WP:Mentor or here: Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User, I found this to be helpful as well Wikipedia:Your first article. I feel so much better now that we are giving each other useful advice, maybe we can exchange recipes some day, or go get our nails done together or even do each others hair. I've been to South Dakota, I was at Pine Ridge and Rosebud, maybe we can hang out together someday and sing Kumbaya, or any song you like, I think that would be groovy. Have an excellent day TeamZissou, your a real swell pal. 7mike5000 (talk) 22:19, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

The best thing that's coming out of this is that every single comment you make will make it all the easier to have an admin ban you the next time an editor does something you don't like and you feel compelled to spend the better part of a week being an internet tough guy. TeamZissou (talk) 02:50, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

User:NovaSkola

1. User reverted my edit as vandalism. I've added a name of the fortress in Armenian and in Azeri; I've mentioned that the fortress is situated in the disputed territory which is de-facto under the control of NKR for improving NPOV. Finally I've added three interwikies: in Azeri, Russian and Ukrainian. All these my edits were reverted by User:NovaSkola as a vandalism.
2. There were a discussion in the talk page of the article about the city of Martuni. Don't taking part in the discussion User:NovaSkola changed the name from Martuni to the Khojavend and after it he make a request to the administrators for protection of the name of the article. Administrator SlimVirgin protected the name of the article on the version of NovaSkola. Then there were no discussion from the users who represents Azerbaijan: User:Tuscumbia, User:NovaSkola and User:Brandmeister as they agreed that it is normal behavior of user NovaSkola. In my request that there are no consensus, administrator SlimVirgin wrote answer in the talk page (end of the page).
3. After that without any discussion User:NovaSkola has done the same with the article about Martakert (town). He moved the name of the article and after that make a request for protection of the title, but I've seen it and stopped him, mentioning about it in the RfPP. After some period of time he repeated the action. He moved the title and then make a request for protection of the title on his version. Administrator TFOWR accepted request.

• Please take concrete measures against the user, which is in conflict articles biased and unfair conducts his activities. Thanks in advance. --Ліонкінг (talk) 05:05, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

No idea about the content-dispute, but there seems to be some mis-use of Twinkle going on... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 06:09, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like someone needs a break from twinkle.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:21, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, definatly needs a break from Twinkle Látches (talk) 09:35, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Ліонкінг mentions the link to Ukranian Askeran Fortress. I just want to remind, that in the Ukranian version there is no mentioning of Azerbaijan even though the fortress is legally located on Azerbaijani territory. About city so called Martuni, it is actually perfectly fine with Wikipedia, due it should be renamed to de-jure name not de-facto. So I guess this user accusing me of false allegations and I want admins to check my and his records and make right decision. Also I want to remind, this user previously topic banned on Azerbaijani articles as he was falsifying Azerbaijani articles and removing references, while accusing all other users of mistreating him.--NovaSkola (talk) 16:46, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

There were not only Ukrainian interwiki, there were also Azeri and Russian interwikies, You've deleted all of them. But it is even not important what is in the other language article. In the ukrwiki uses de-facto names. Anyway You don't have a right to delete interwikies and mention it as vandalism.

"About city so called Martuni, it is actually perfectly fine with Wikipedia, due it should be renamed to de-jure name not de-facto." - it is only Your opinion. You can't decide for whole community. By the way there were a big hot discussion on the talk page of the article. You've just ignore opinion of participants and moved the title of article and make request for protection on Your version, however there were a hot discussion. I have never falsified anything. Just You and Your collegues Tuscumbia and Brandmeister started a campaign against me and from third request I and Your collegue Tuscumbia were topic banned.

Speaking about everything else what You've said it is just Your propoganda and it does no matter to the plot of this discussion. Now we're speaking about Your behavior and Your concrete actions, not about my actions. So please give direct answers to the request. Thanks. --Ліонкінг (talk) 17:31, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Your not admin to I force me to do something. Ліонкінг is surely, don't know his duties by showing agressive behavior against me. This user just showed his attitude against Azerbaijani users by accusing us without having constructive arguments. So I urge admins to take action.--NovaSkola (talk) 18:39, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

On a side note, considering User:NovaSkola's past actions of removing information he/she finds unpalatable[66](massive deletion of referenced information),[67][68](contends Armenian sources are not neutral, yet corresponding source is written by a Turk(Özkırımlı)!),[69](straight deletion after information was given on the talk page, which was NOT used by User:NovaSkola!), why has this editor's recent actions surprised anyone? Admins should take into consideration this editor's past reverts, deletions and non-use of talk page, before allowing User:NovaSkola continued use of Twinkle. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:40, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Ліонкінг

I've moved this thread up to unify the two complaints; feel free to revert if you think this was inappropriate. Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 18:53, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello, I have complaint against User:Ліонкінг, who constantly personally attacks me and other users without having constructive opinions. Situation follows: 1. User failed to notify me, about incident that he launched against me. While I notified him immediately. 2. User starts using aggressive behavior towards me by forcing me to do his actions, despite this user is not in admin role. An example of this could be - give direct answers to the request in here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User:NovaSkola 3. User also accuses other Azerbaijani users, which includes Tuscumbia and Brandmeister by trying to get back to him, while we just only complained so Lionking tries to blackmail me and others.

So I hope admins, do something against this user who is fed me up with his direct attacks.--NovaSkola (talk) 18:48, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't have a big contribution in enwiki, so everybody can review my contribution. The problem is that user NovaSkola try to get distracted from my request. He don't want to give direct answers on my request. Instead of it he says that I've aggressive behavior against him and smbd else. I want to listen his comment to the diffs which I've written. Am I disagree with his behavior? Yes, I'm. And I've written here why. He revert my edits and he write that I vandalise pages while I'm not do it. Then I want to hear why he without any discussion move the title of the articles which are about very disputed area and then he make a request for protection on his version. And he don't take a part in any discussion. --Ліонкінг (talk) 19:10, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Exactly, you don't have big contribution and now you are taking on big contribution users from Azerbaijan to ruin our reputation. Once again, I decide admins to make wise decision and make sure this user is not attacking me directly. User must know his own responsibilities and not accuse of me answering or forcing something. --NovaSkola (talk) 19:44, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Just reviewed the edits by User Ліонкінг and this one in particular [70] which seems to have started this thread. I must say that the edit can't be fully justified. If an Armenian name for a fortress or any other town, village or center on the territory of Azerbaijan is added, then it should be the same case with fortresses, towns and villages in Armenia which had had a considerable Azerbaijani population in the past. See Blue Mosque, Yerevan for instance, or Sisian or Alaverdi, or even Caucasian Albania historically located on the territory of Azerbaijan; see in this link [71] where an Armenian user removes the Azeri language. The really wrong thing seems to be adding Armenian names to the de-jure Azerbaijani cities which are clearly under occupation and are recognized as Azerbaijani lands when the Azerbaijani population of those towns have been deported by force. This seems quite unjust. See how one user User talk:Vrammycowboy was rightfully banned from editing due to disruptive editing (his account was created just for the sake of adding Armenian names and disruptive editing. And this is the proper response from the admin [72]. I just checked history of contributions of Ліонкінг against those of NovaSkola. Don't know about the other. All user Ліонкінг has done in English Wikipedia is disrupt when NovaSkola has created a whole line of articles. Anastasia Bukhantseva  23:02, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

For the umpteenth time, I am not Armenian, stop this nationalistic non-sense. Sardur (talk) 09:17, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

You accuse us of nationalism, but why does User:Ліонкінг not add Azeri names to his pictures in WikiCommons, the pictures that he took in Hadrut, Khojavend, Kelbajar, etc. I bet this is all done with the purpose to disclaim Azeri ownership of Azerbaijani lands by falsely claiming they are some Nagorno Karabakh Republic. If I am wrong, show one reliable source from international community or organization claiming the country is legitimate.--NovaSkola (talk) 13:18, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I see here only one think. NovaSkola don't have any answer to his actions about which I've claimed and now he just try to get destructed. About my small contribution. Yes, I've a small contribution in enwiki as English isn't my native language, but I've enough contribution in ruwiki (I'm autoeditor there) and in ukrwiki (I'm patroller there). Also I've uploaded some hundred images to the commons. But even it is not important. If I even have no contribution it don't make a right to NovaSkola to act in this way. About my disruptive behavior You can learn from my contribution list to avoid speculations. By the way, I'm an author of nearly thousand articles in different language chapters of wikipedia which I've created in a period of two years. About Armenian names in Azeri territory and Azeri people who have moved with forces. Nagorno Karabakh at least is disputed territory. The current territory of NKR is recognised by Azerbaijan according to the Bishkek protocol. There were no Azeris in Askeran. In NKR there are even no any mosque which is earlier of 18 century, but there are thousands churches of earlier period, begining from 1 century. I wouldn't answer here more before I wouldn't hear official position of NovaSkola on my three claims, as he just try to change attention from concrete his actions which I've mentioned to some mythical my disruptive edits, nationalism, aggression and so on. We can discuss on this tematic for ages. Thanks. --Ліонкінг (talk) 18:57, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

PhanuelB Challenges Allegations of WP:BLP Violations by Administrator MLauba

Administrator MLauba has made the following allegation Here against me.

"your persistent refusal to desist from violating the BLP policy after having been warned about it multiple times requires another time-out."

The allegation of WP:BLP violations is false. I request that neutral Wikipedia administrators look at this claim. I seek a retraction of the allegation.

Background: This dispute involves Murder of Meredith Kercher. A substantial majority of reliable sources say that two of the three people convicted of the crime (Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito) did not receive a fair trial. I have quoted 10 of these reliable sources Here and a group of editors who hold a slim voting majority at this point have steadfastly refused to allow any of this content into the article.

Central to the arguments made by the reliable sources I have named is a discussion of bad acts by two living persons: Rudy Guede and Giuliano Mignini. I have made significant statements critical of Rudy Guede and Giuliano Mignini. All these statements are sourced 100% and reflect facts presented by the multiple reliable sources I have named. As discussed Here, I claim that the lack of inclusion in the article of reliable sources who question the verdict constitutes violation of WP:BLP for Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito.

Please note that no one responded to this:

"Salvio: There is no WP:BLP violation against Mignini or Guede whatsoever. You are invited to show where you think there is one."

The allegations of WP:BLP violations against me by MLauba are false.

PhanuelB (talk) 16:11, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

• In reality, User:PhanuelB is a SPA whose raison d'etre on Wikipedia is to alter the Murder of Meredith Kercher article to push the POV that Amanda Knox is innocent. Wikipedia is not his only venue; just Google "Amanda Knox"+PhanuelB for details link. A quick view of Talk:Murder of Meredith Kercher and its archives should give you a feel for his editing practices; he repeatedly claims that "reliable sources" are being kept out of the article, in reality these are any commentator, blogger or anyone else who has a POV similar to his. Despite having been told multiple times by multiple editors that the article (and Wikipedia itself) is not the venue to push his conspiracy theories, he continues to do so and has been blocked a number of times for continually attacking the large number of editors on the article that are trying to keep NPOV. One "Knox is innocent" editor has already been indefinitely blocked for similar behaviour, and another is topic-banned.

  PhanuelB believes that the article violates BLP as regards to Knox, but is quite happy to violate BLP as regards other people, notably Guede and Mignini. He does not seem to understand that violations of WP:BLP and WP:SYNTH regarding these people are not acceptable, nor that his proposed additions to the article violate these and WP:UNDUE. The fact that the trial was controversial is already included, and sourced. I have been acting as a neutral admin on the article and have repeatedly explained, patiently, our policies to PhanuelB and the numerous new editors that turn up (there is obviously an off-wiki issue here). For this, I have been attacked myself on a number of occasions as biased; I don't care about this (obviously - having been an admin for 3 years I've had far worse) but it is time that the community drew a line in the sand on this issue. Black Kite (t) (c) 17:46, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

• By the way, PhanuelB wasn't blocked because of BLP-vios, but because their behaviour was considered disruptive in many different ways. That said, I think that to list all the insults thrown at a semi-public figure, such as Mignini, doesn't comply with our BLP requirements. It's not only a matter of sourcing, but it's a matter of undue weight. That said, I'd like for the community to start discussing a topic ban on PhanuelB from all edits related to the murder of Meredith Kercher broadly construed. I'm not starting this discussion because I'm deeply involved. However, it's high time this disruption ceased. Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 18:03, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Black Kite and Salvio give no example to backup the false allegation of WP:BLP violations by me against Mignini and Guede.

    The allegation that I am a SPA is false. In fact I had made Wikipedia edits over two years ago under another username. The identity of the other username and the justification for its use under Legitimate Uses was fully disclosed and discussed with Administrator Amalthea following similar attempts made within hours of my arrival at the MK page to get me banned based on other false allegations.

    Two editors with a specific POV have been previously banned. I do not believe the bans against these two editors were consistent with Wikipedia policy. Current editors and administrators are threatening to ban three others with POV's opposed to theirs. Disputes over NPOV cannot be resolved by banning only those editors with a specific POV.PhanuelB (talk) 18:37, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

    • As per usual, PhanuelB misses the point (and persists in categorising other editors as biased - you would've thought he'd have learnt the lesson by now, really...). Those two editors, as well as PhanuelB, were blocked / topic-banned not for their POV, but for canvassing and/or persistently attacking other editors; links are here and here. The warnings against the others are for exactly the same reasons. Whilst the crusaders for Knox's innocence continue to repeat such behaviour at the article (latest one - see the bottom of the diff), the end result will inevitably be the same. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:44, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
    • As far as I'm concerned, it's not about having a different POV, but of trying to slant the article so that it fits that same POV. This was your very first edit under this username. Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 18:46, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
• If persistent mis-use of parts of the World Wide Web to personally attack, intimidate, and harrass other disputants is the issue, note that should this ever go to arbitration it will be an arbitration case where people can cite reliable sources on the matter:

  Andrea Vogt (2009-05-28). "Amanda Knox case creates a police investigation at home". Seattle Post-Intelligencer.

  I don't speak for anyone else, but I suspect that I'm not the only one who doesn't want Wikipedia to be embroiled in this external dispute, or abused by any editor in the way that the web logs have been. Uncle G (talk) 19:25, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

  • Hence why I suspect that (at least) topic-banning the POV warriors would appear to be the only way forward. I seriously don't understand why, even if they are approaching the subject with a POV, such editors appear incapable of editing collegially. Unless they're all incarnations of the same few editors, of course. Black Kite (t) (c) 19:31, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
• Any reason why PhanuelB should not be indefinitely blocked as there appears no prospect of him ceasing to be disruptive? The block can be lifted if he agrees to a topic ban from anything to do with Meredith Kercher and Amanda Knox. 19:13, 22 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.150.112.150 (talk)
  • A substantial majority of reliable sources say that two of the three people convicted of the crime (Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito) did not receive a fair trial. Potential inclusion of all the sources in question has been discussed — quite past the point of endurance, I might add — at the article talk page. Should it be of interest, I present this (rather bewildering) diff: it offers not just a curious interpretation of Wikipedia NPOV guidelines, but also reveals considerable POV-pushing on the part of PhanuelB. A case has been made against MLauba as if he is the one who has contravened policies, when tougher action against PhanuelB appears long overdue itself. The current situation at the Kercher page is hardly conspiratorial (at least, if viewed in an objective and reasoned manner). Claims of some sort of "inside job" hell-bent on silencing opinions have been perpetuated to excess, and in an unjust fashion, from the minds of a number of editors (two of whom have, in one manner or another, had their access to the topic barred) who have crusaded for the far-from-infallible "truth" regarding the asserted innocence of Amanda Knox. I strongly urge PhanuelB to consider a drastic re-examination of his attitudes to editing at Wikipedia. Unless this is attempted, a minimum of a lengthy topic ban seems inevitable, and that will bump up the number of editors restricted from the topic to three. Please do not permit this to happen. SuperMarioMan 21:04, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with the admin action taken by MLauba and, given that a number of editors find PhanuelB to be generally disruptive, the action was quite measured. The recent block was reviewed by three other admins and upheld three times.

I agree with the comments of SuperMarioMan and others above. PhanuelB seems interested only in making dramatic proposals for wholesale changes to the article which stand no chance of being approved of by other editors. There is room on the talkpage (perhaps even a gap in the market) for an editor who is interested in representing PhanuelB's POV in a constructive and analytical manner and I would implore PhanuelB to consider whether (s)he might be interested in filling that role by concentrating on detail, making more realistic proposals and arguing narrower points.

I don't think this is the right forum for discussing whether allegations made by editors (multiple editors, including me) that PhanuelB's talkpage comments have breached BLP are fair or not. --FormerIP (talk) 23:45, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of any activities from many years ago, PhanuelB (talk · contribs) today acts as a disruptive Single Purpose Account, here to Right a Great Wrong and who treats Wikipedia like a battleground. Multiple invitations to moderate their tone and edit in a collegial manner have remained unheeded. Their attempts to paint one of three persons convicted as the sole killer in a murder case as well as diabolize the prosecutor reek of WP:SYNTH and constitute WP:BLP violations (extraordinary claims require extraordinary sourcing), and PhanuelB refuses to even acknowledge that his behaviour might be questionable.

The vast majority of their edits under their present incarnation have consisted in either tendentious editing or multiple violations of WP:NPA against their fellow editors, including ascribing of nefarious motivations, direct attacks, attempts at intimidation, bullying and threats. As a consequence, regardless of any claims of a productive past that cannot be substantiated, PhanuelB under this identity appears to be a net negative. As none of their edits relate to anything else but the Murder of Meredith Kercher case, a topic ban would be pointless. I believe at this stage, either a 6-12 months block or more simply a community ban are the simplest and least bureaucratic way to put this affair to rest. MLauba ^(Talk) 02:09, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

MLauba has made false allegations of WP:BLP violations and has yet to provide a link to any such violations.

The other allegations above are completely and categorically false. I have provided 10 reliable secondary sources ( a substantial majority of the reliable sources) who criticize the prosecutor and state that two of the three convicted are innocent. Wikipedia articles are supposed to be about what reliable secondary sources are saying.PhanuelB (talk) 03:29, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

... and despite repeated discussions on the talkpage about the value of these sources, you have signally failed to demonstrate why anyone should care about what they are saying about this murder. Donald Trump is perhaps a reliable source if commenting about finance or divorce. When commenting about a murder in Italy, not so much. Please do not discuss these sources further here. There is a forum for just that purpose.  pablo 08:38, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I was very surprised to see a case against MLauba raised here. A few months ago, the talk page of of the article in question was a very hostile and unpleasant place. The arrival and intervention of administrators Black Kite and MLauba has made a hugely beneficial improvement. MLauba has been meticulous in not editing the article, not entering into content debates and not expressing any personal views about the subject matter, but has been rigorous in enforcing policy, particularly with regard to civility. This has involved warnings, polite requests to rephrase unacceptable statements and, as a last resort, banning of offenders. The result is that normal courteous exchanges of views and normal editing practices have been possible, where previously they were met with vitriolic comments and edit warring. So I think MLauba has done a great job! PhanuelB had no part in the earlier unpleasantness but has arrived at the article and has engaged in disruptive behaviour...and has been dealt with quite firmly by MLauba. As others have said, the specific BLP issue is not really the point, but if PhanuelB would like an example, I think the diff provided by SuperMarioMan, above,[73] is an example. Surely this statement is a violation of BLP: "Rudy Guede had no criminal convictions at the time of the murder. However, in the weeks leading up to the crime he had participated in a series of criminal acts which Italian police knew about but for reasons that remain unclear did not act upon." There is normally a presumption that someone is innocent of crimes until proven guilty by a court of law. Admitting that they haven't been convicted, but then saying they participated in criminal activities must be borderline libellous. Bluewave (talk) 09:56, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

• Indeed. I'd point out that I haven't edited the article either, except to remove uncited controversial information and add sources where they were lacking. Black Kite (t) (c) 11:29, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

In pointing out the great work that MLauba has done, I didn't intend to belittle Black Kite's contribution to maintaining neutrality and civility. Both these admins have done a great job...it's just that the ANI case seemed to be aimed at MLauba. Sorry for any misunderstanding! Bluewave (talk) 12:29, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Supporting diffs

In response to PhanuelB above, all the allegations against the prosecutor bar one originate from various TV talk shows, opinion pieces completely unsuitable in regards to WP:BLP. By their own admission: ":I can't think of a European judicial figure who has been ridiculed and dragged through the mud on cable channels broadcast throughout the world in the way that Mignini has". The issues regarding one of the three accused have been documented by other editors above me.
As for the other behavioural issues, the breach of collegiality and the egregious violations of WP:NPA can be documented easily:

• The last time I had looked at this page it provided a reasonably balanced view of the case. In an outrageous violation of NPOV, it has been extensively edited (attacked) by those who see Ms. Knox as guilty. Who let this happen?, from your first post to Talk:Murder of Meredith Kercher
• It's a verifiable fact that some people say the Holocaust happened and some say it didn't (Ahmadinejad on LKL no less).(...) One of the reasons that there is no NPOV in this article is that we have an administrator (Black Kite) with an agenda.
• Now for some WP:IAR. Let's cut the crap. There aren't any neutral editors here and there aren't any neutral administrators. Why not just admit it?
• Your sole disagreement is that he is not saying what you want to hear. (...) This page in it's current form is 100% devoid of NPOV. Serious question, do you think the hijacking of this page will stand?
• Black Kite has a fundamental misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works.
• Wikipedia needs to take a hard look at what is happening here. The "consensus" of a dozen or so people is diabolically opposed to what all the reliable sources are saying. The reliable sources banned from this article talk of public lynchings, hate, and witch trial hysteria. If Wikipedia gets burned on this one they will have earned it.

This is of course only a limited sample picked at random out of PhanuelB's editing history. MLauba ^(Talk) 10:16, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

MLauba has made false allegations of WP:BLP violations by me and cites the quote above as an example against Giuliano Mignini. Giuliano Mignini has been sentenced to prison by an Italian Court for corruption. Here are some reliable secondary sources who justify my statements:

Anna Momigliano (Foreign Policy Magazine 10-Dec-09)

"Speculating wildly, prosecutor Giuliano Mignini accused Knox of harboring hatred against Meredith until the time came for taking revenge, and drunkenly attempting to drag Kercher into heavy sexual games."

Paul Ciolino (Private Investigator retained by CBS speaking on 48 Hours)

“I’ll probably get indicted in Italy for saying this. I don’t care. He[Mignini] is ruining the lives of two kids who have done nothing.”

Judge Michael Heavey (Seattle area Superior Court Judge 12-Aug-08)

“The prosecutor’s office [Mignini], police and prison employees have made illegal and false statements to the press. These false reports have wrongfully poisoned the well of public opinion against Amanda."

Doug Preston (commentator for CBS, CNN, and NBC)

“he [Mignini] interrogated me. He accused me of committing horrendous crimes including being an accessory to murder…. I’m a professional journalist; I have a very good memory; I know what happened in that interrogation.”

“this prosecutor[Mignini] thinks he knows what happened at that crime scene. The facts don’t matter to him.”

Judy Bachrach (Guest on CNN)

"I have always thought that Amanda was going to go to a Kangaroo court and unfortunately I’ve been proven correct."

"there isn't a scintilla of evidence.. the prosecutor[Mignini] is famously incompetent."

Tim Egan (NY Times correspondent)

"Preposterous, made-up sexual motives[by Mignini] were ascribed to her...What century is this? Didn’t Joan of Arc, the Inquisition and our own American Salem witch trials teach civilized nations a thing or two about contrived sexual hysteria with a devil twist?"

I quote from WP:AGF:

"This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of contrary evidence. Assuming good faith does not prohibit discussion and criticism, but instead editors should not attribute the actions being criticised to malice unless there is specific evidence of malice."

The evidence is there that the 10 reliable sources I have provided are being rejected because they hold a POV different than a group of dominant editors at this point.

One other note: the "bewildering diff" by Supermarioman above is best viewed on the current page where the extensive footnotes can be seen. For some reason earlier edits did not properly display the sources. This provided a good faith example of what I believe needs to be in the article.

On the internet Amanda Knox faces hate speach. It is not right to exclude the dozen or so reliable sources who challenge that hate speach from the Wikipedia page. PhanuelB (talk) 11:26, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Phanuel, I think you're missing the point a little. You were blocked because your behviour was considered disruptive, not because you were unable to convince other editors in a disucssion about content. An ANI thread is not the place to re-run a content discussion. --FormerIP (talk) 12:03, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

PhanuelB, for reasons that have been explained in extensive detail on countless occasions, the sources referred to fail to meet the criteria for inclusion. The proposed revamp of the criticism section, as drafted, is miles from fulfilling the WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT requirements (it would expand the article's length one third), which you nevertheless continue to throw about as a defensive measure with regard to our coverage of Knox and Sollecito. As the WP:AGF page quite rightly states, "This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of contrary evidence" — regretfully, that particular threshold has long since been broken. Your first edit made under the username "PhanuelB" demonstrates signs of a disruptive attitude: "The portrayal of Guede is negative and should be more so. The evidence against him is vast and overwhelming. The evidence against Amanda and Raffaele is weak at best. In recent weeks these sentiments have been echoed by a retired longtime FBI agent named Steve Moore. Use of the term 'the three suspects' to refer to Guede, Knox, and Sollecito is a violation of NPOV." In the case of the Kercher topic, "hate speech" has originated from just the one source. The submission of this ANI thread, I feel, is little more than a stunt intended to denigrate the names of other users despite the total absence of wrongdoing in their actions on Wikipedia. SuperMarioMan 13:06, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Where to go from here?

• I think enough is enough here. Quite apart from his disruptive behaviour on the talkpages, PhanuelB has proved that he clearly is incapable of following our BLP policies with his list of "reliable sources" that "must be included in the article" ... he's been told over and over again by multiple editors why we can't use stuff like this, especially if it's a single commentator making claims about living people not backed up by anything else.

• Heavey was later charged with misconduct by the Commission on Judicial Conduct for his behaviour link.
• Ciolino called Mignini a "raving out of control maniac" [74] and Mignini filed a libel suit against the West Seattle Herald for repeating these and other epithets [75]
• Preston has a grudge against Mignini from previous dealings with him on a separate case [76]
• Bachrach provides no evidence of her claim that Mignini is "famously incompetent". This is another typical quote from Bachrach "This was a very carefully choreographed trial and everyone knew from the beginning that the prosecutor had it in for Amanda Knox and the charges were trumped up. This is the way Italian justice is done. If you’re accused, you’re guilty.”" [77] Reliable source? I think not.
• Egan's stance can probably be assessed from this posting in the NYT.

• Can someone completely uninvolved in this article either take an administrative action here or tell PhanuelB to knock it off, now? Black Kite (t) (c) 11:59, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

• I second this. And I hope PhanuelB will not succeed in hijacking this discussion into a disjointed, never-ending debate regarding the reliability of those sources (because this is the wrong venue, as such a review belongs on WP:RSN) Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 13:58, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Blacklisted title?

Resolved

 – - Burpelson AFB (talk) 01:13, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I received the following email from a user today:

I am trying to change the title of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mdaust/RICHARD_ERDMAN to RICHARD ERDMAN (artist) and keep getting the message that the title is blacklisted. There is an actor with the same name. Can you help me to do this correctly, please?

Is this a prank? I've not heard of blacklisted titles. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:21, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

• It's the capital letters. Moving it to Richard Erdman (artist) will work. Doesn't look very notable (or at least sourced) at the moment, though ... Black Kite (t) (c) 18:26, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah, makes sense. Thanks for your help. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:30, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

There are blacklisted titles though such as Pon and Zi a popular web comic that due to not being deemed "notable" enough has been deleted, and because of repeated attempts to re-create it no new pages with that name can be formed. If you try to create a page whose title has been blacklisted you will receive this message. Just so ya know.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 00:08, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

FYI: That page is not blacklisted, it is protected to prevent it from being created again. Similar effect, but completely different mechanism. —DoRD (talk) 00:17, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Text on User:JanDeFietser

Resolved

 – Page content blanked. Matter resolved. This issue will not blow up again. Uncle G (talk) 19:30, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello,

First: sorry for my English.

On User:JanDeFietser there's a dutch text in which I'm accused to have done certain things. With this accusions this user is importing a conflict from the dutch wiki from 1 year ago as well as it could be seen as a personal attack: "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence." (citated from Wikipedia:NPA.) This attack can be found in the sentence: "Tevens wijs ik erop dat Basvb die blokkering OT bewerkstelligde middels een valse en onvolledige voorstelling van zaken en dat JZ85 verzuimde zich zelfs over het ueberhaupt bestaan van die emails te vergewissen." (Citation from User:JanDeFietser)

Please delete those false accusions.

Greetings, NL_Bas (talk) 18:35, 22 August 2010 (UTC) (fastest responce at Dutch usertalk)

A bad penny always turns up.

Please see the official warning to JZ85 on 25 July 2010

and please now issue our beloved compatriot Basvb the same warning for this sly provocation (also see WP:HOUND, WP:HOUNDING, WP:WIKIHOUND, WP:WIKIHOUNDING, WP:STALK)

(Basvb should not excuse himself for writing in English but for providing incomplete information instead). Frankly, my rather short explanation on my user page for my presence on the English wiki does not contain any false accusation at all - and, pardon my French, what Basvb does now and here is something like pissing into the wind. When I explain my presence on the English wiki on my personal user page, that is what it is, a statement that explains my presence on the English wiki, and not importing any "conflict" anywhere (just in case someone forgot: a conflict needs at least two parties). That is what Basvb is trying to do now himself, stirring up things. => Note that he just could have asked me anything about my user page statement and he did not do that...

If Basvb insists on discussing my presence on the English wiki or my statement about this presence: note that as far he is mentioned shortly in that explanation, it is not about what he did, but rather about what he mischievously failed to perform (: giving honest and complete information to admin JZ85, who then blocked me without even any form of defense on the Dutch wiki, against all principles of proper and diligent "conflict" resolution and solely based on Basvb's dishonestly provided incomplete information - note that Basvb tries to repeat that vicious game here again on the English wiki).

The case that Basvb here calls a "conflict" is still pending, and absolutely not something "from 1 year ago", for he knows himself very well that I am still waiting for many months for a reply from him to my questions about his very own behaviour: Basvb threatened me on the Dutch wikichat on November 6th, 2009 - and after that he concocted on the same day behind my back that current block on the Dutch wiki, against which I was not allowed to defend myself (again: there is something very very wrong on the Dutch wiki).

Bas, who do you try to fool? If you notice evidence is lacking, you should invite me to deliver it, and I politely offer to provide it, easy as that - but what are you after? Again, there is something very very wrong on the Dutch Wikipedia and YOU YOURSELF played a serious role in that, Bas (and are still playing, as I see here now). Strictly seen, you even committed a criminal act with your threats on November 6th (art. 284 Sr): do you want that exposed here? (yes, I kept a saved copy of that conversation on the Dutch wikichat)

Last month there was also that user "Grimbeer", whose solely reason to open an account here on the English wiki was to stir up things (see his edit history).

Now Basvb seems trying to play the same game again as he did in November 2009 on the Dutch wiki, by fomenting an admin while mischievously giving incomplete information. Why this intrigue here now? And why do you try to provoke me here on the English wiki? Be wise, step back.

There was already a warning to Dutch users on the English Wikipedia here NOT to discuss the Dutch affairs. Is Basvb trying to lure me into something here now? I advise that he takes my words on my user page for granted and discuss things elsewhere. As he probably also knows very well, everyone who wants to discuss this matter is welcome on my weblog where a completely free and open discussion is possible and where nobody gets censored or blocked http://jandefietser.web-log.nl/jandefietser/ : I think that is a much better place than here on the English wiki. I protest against this: DO NOT PLAY THOSE GAMES HERE

=> => I quote: "There will be no more trolling, pot stirring, tag teaming, sly provocation, playground-level taunting, or other general silliness and game playing of the sort that has occurred over the past few days, on here and on user talk pages. (...) let me make this crystal clear. Any further continuance of this beyond this point, anywhere in Wikipedia, will result in indefinite revocation of editing privileges here at the English Wikipedia. This includes any attempts to gloat or have the last word. This ends. Now. This doesn't belong here; we don't want this here; we're not going to have this here; and continued attempts to bring this here will result in summary ejection from the project forthwith. Uncle G (talk) 16:37, 25 July 2010 (UTC) "

Who is interested can read the previous discussion here.Bas, I can provide evidence for your serious misbehaviour and even criminal behavior that you (perhaps do not) want, but now get off my back here on the English wiki and play your sly games on the Dutch wiki, or defend your behaviour on my weblog where things can discussed freely Bas, or in court for that matter, but NOT HERE. I think all or most other users on the English wiki will agree with me--JanDeFietser (talk) 20:43, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I very much agree that your wp.nl-related problems should not be discussed here. I am blocking JanDeFietser (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) indefinitely for legal threats ("and even criminal behavior" ... "or in court for that matter"). No opinion whether the other user also needs a block. That should help settle the issue for now.  Sandstein  20:48, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

The user has unblanked the page, but I'm concerned that the content (in both the english and dutch) appears to simply be disparaging users on the dutch wikipedia, and at the very least, does not help to contribute to the project in any way and should be disallowed. Any thoughts from others? GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 20:55, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted the apparently problematic Dutch text again. But if the indef block sticks - and it should, really, independently from the legal threat: the user has been asked to stop continuing his .nl disputes here and judging from the rant above has not really gotten the message - the page can simply be replaced with an {{indefblocked}} tag.  Sandstein  20:59, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Dammit, I had a lengthy reply but by the time the edit conflicts had gone away, so had the need for my lengthy reply. Good block, Sandstein, though the wikilawyering has already begun. JanDeFietser has previously been advised how to handle their complaint (i.e. meta or OTRS) and chose to ignore that advice. The very ANI report they linked to specified how the community would handle a repeat of their past behaviour, so I'm flabbergasted that they chose to (a) keep up their userpage, (b) blame the editor who reported this incident, and (c) use the previous ANI report as some form of justification for their own misbehaviour. TFOWR 21:00, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, this is rather a shame. The text in question is clearly a case of bringing the nlwp dispute into en.wp and this text should probably have been removed in the previous tussle about the nl.wp dispute. Had it been removed at that time, then a user would not have had to come in now asking it to be removed (properly so in my opinion). Still, again JdF sees it fit to start with his legalese in response. He was warned multiple times for this in the past and it was this disruptive behavior of legalese and continuance of this discussion, that was the problem leading to his block. A report of a continuance cannot be considered to fall under the previous warnings for continuance in my opinion. A repetition of legal threats however, is a serious problem. I really wish this hadn't been necessary. I worked on an article with JdF even today. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 21:58, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

• Did by any chance any of u english readers read what was in that Dutch passage on this user's page? It was a statement in responso of the accusations of legal threats and actions, stating JdF would NOT go to that point.... I am native Dutch speaker, and am flubbergasted by such ignorance of this particulary case on the English wiki. This was not about making threats, but about stating there IS no threat and there will be no threat nor legal action. Besides it was the Users choice to put it there, so AGF and put it back. Maybe better to ask JdF to make that statement in English instead of in Dutch, but as u can see by the comments he made before, this is not about importing conflicts, or about being disruptive. Assume Good Faith people! Tjako (talk) 23:05, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I did, yes. It referenced the nl.wiki issues that JanDeFietser had been told (at the ANI report JanDeFietser links to above) not to raise on en.wiki. It was for that reason that some of the content was removed, prompting JanDeFietser to post here, which in turn resulted in JanDeFietser being blocked (due, in part, to the comments posted here at ANI, but also, I would imagine, because it's clear that JanDeFietser is continuing precisely the behaviour they were told not to continue). I disagree that this is not about importing conflicts or being disruptive: JanDeFietser has continued a conflict that arose on nl.wiki. JanDeFietser has continued after warnings and after having been blocked once before. TFOWR 23:13, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
  • The block is not for that statement, but for the legal threat that he made here at English Wikipedia, above. But I also don't see any amount of good faith that would allow me to draw any reasonable conclusion other than that Jan is trying to continue a dispute from a different Wikipedia here. "Assume good faith" does not mean "ignore the obvious." Whatever's going on at Dutch Wikipedia, it doesn't seem likely to make English Wikipedia better, and I don't think anyone here is likely to be able to help resolve it. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:15, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
  • (e/c 2) The statement on his userpage is a continuance of the nlwiki dispute on the enwiki. This statement should have removed in the past. NL_bas requested it be removed for that reason. Had JdF removed it or endorsed removing it, there would not have been a problem. Instead he replies with one of his 500 word legalese essays once again. A thing he has been warned multiple times in the past not to do such a thing. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 23:17, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
• I replied FisherQueen on my talk page. Furthermore: when one gets accused one has the right to defend against those accusations. That is what JanDeFietser did. There was debate on 'who started' , but then also there was a solution: the debate ended. But then all starts again when NL_Bas brings it up again. What else can JanDeFietser do than defend himself against those false accusations? Should he be blocked for defending himself against renewed slander and haunting?? I dont agree. He should be deblocked, and monitored. And then -when he contributes in a normal way here- there is no problem at all here on en-wp. JanDeFietser said:'get off my back here on the English wiki' in response of the renewed accusations in his direction and tried to preven importing any nl.wp problems here. So please unblock, because this block is quite erroneous and based on false arguments. Tjako (talk) 00:45, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Drop this. Drop this now. Enough's enough. It was foolish of JanDeFietser to pick this up. Just letting the user page edit stand would have closed the issue, with the provocative material (that pre-dated the prior discussion in any case) gone, the complainant satisified, and JanDeFietser free to continue editing in peace. Everyone would have been happy, quickly and quietly, no blocks, no fuss, no lengthy rants and bickering. But good sense did not prevail. It's equally foolish of you to pick this up. This stops. You stop. Now. Uncle G (talk) 01:32, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
    • I want stop this as soon as possible, but i think it is higly immoral to block people of good faith this way on the most ugly and non-arguments. It's a black page in en.wp history. And yes now i stop. Tjako (talk) 01:38, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
      • Look: the community made it very clear to JanDeFietser that this nl.wiki nonsense should not be dragged onto en.wiki, yet JanDeFietser maintained a userpage which did just that. When the userpage was deleted, JanDeFietser tried to wikilawyer here at ANI, even having the gall to refer back to the previous ANI report when JanDeFietser was explicitly warned not to drag nl.wiki nonsense here. Tjako, I accept that you may not previously have been aware of the community's warning to JanDeFietser and others. You are now. You should understand that the community has no patience for this nonsense. If you continue to refer to nl.wiki disputes, instead of taking it to meta and/or OTRS (as JanDeFietser was told to do way back before their previous block) then you are liable to be blocked as well. This nl.wiki dispute has no place on en.wiki, should not be discussed on en.wiki, should be taken to meta and/or OTRS, and editors who choose to ignore this and maintain converstaions, userpages, talkpages, whatever should expect to be sanctioned. I trust that that is clear and that you now understand how to escalate this issue should you choose to. TFOWR 07:57, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

For information: 2 edits Uncle G (talk) 07:21, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Bendfish

Resolved

Bendfish (talk · contribs) has been editing for some time now, and yet they have a long history of creating articles almost out of whole cloth, with no sources, adding long plot summaries without the single iota of a source, creating articles based on rumors, and, in some cases, flat-out vandalism. (See their edit to Nanny McPhee and the Big Bang). I told them a couple of days ago that I had considered filing a vandalism notice against them if they didn't stop, but they continue in the same vein. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 19:24, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Blocked. Multiple warnings, all ignored; the user can appeal if they are serious about stopping the vandalism, but at this point in time it appears they are not here to help the project. --Ckatz^chat_spy 17:32, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:BACKLOG is backlogged

I only wish I was being funny. We have images in Category:User-created public domain images that have been in backlog since 2002. Articles in Category:Articles needing additional references are dating back to 2006. Same with about 4 other categories. So, could a group of people (admins too) take a look WP:BACKLOG and see if we could knock some of this mess out, please? Thanks. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:58, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, that is pretty funny. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 06:48, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Damn. That page is depressing. I'll see what I can do, but... Damn. Throwaway85 (talk) 07:02, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Ugh. 26,421 unsourced BLPs. If an admin is feeling particularly bold and wants to delete the lot of them, I'll write a bot for it. Half-joking. Throwaway85 (talk) 07:11, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure you want to open that can of worms again? Personally, I'd like to see something akin to Wikipedia:Proposed deletion of biographies of living people instituted for ALL new articles. That, and some diligence to the backlog, should have things cleared up in, oh, five years or so. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 07:37, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

That works great for new BLPs, does nothing about the 26k existing. I'm actually more in favour of someone deleting all of them during quiet hours and seeing if anyone notices/cares enough to go through and restore them. Permanent solution. But no, I really don't want to open that can of worms, particularly here. Throwaway85 (talk) 07:51, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it was that kind of tactic that eventually led to the PRODBLP policy in the first place. Mass deletions, or at least mass tagging, started the whole ruckus. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 08:20, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

That's the beauty of my method. Take em out in one fell swoop. Rather than bickering, anyone who restored them would have to admit that they are worth having, and I don't see many admins making that admission. It'd also probably get admin desysoping pushed through as well. Hell of a way to go out. Anyway, on to the actual topic of this thread, what are some of the categories where my help would be most meaningful and appreciated, without sapping my will to live? Throwaway85 (talk) 08:39, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

And they'd have to provide sources since the burden would then be upon them. Brilliant, if a bit Machiavellian. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 09:58, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

You obviously didn't see the mess last time someone tried that. Mass-delete went to mass-reinstatement, which led to wailing and gnashing of teeth. Wouldn't be any better a second time around. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:18, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

It seems we have an alarming 311,000 articles with no sources, out of our 6,445,355 articles. One tenth of our articles have no sources. After I read Neutral Homer's post last night I added coordinates to eight articles; that took 30 minutes (there are 180,000 articles tagged as having no coordinates, so at this rate I will be done, uh, never). I am always puzzled when people argue for retaining poor articles when we don't have time to look after the stuff we've already got. Here is something positive people can do: The WP:GOCE has been hard at work on our backlog of copy edit requests and we have reduced it from over 8000 articles at Chrismastime to 6300 today. Another backlog elimination drive starts September 1. Feel free to sign up. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 16:18, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't know we had backlog elim. drives, my goof. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:15, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

The public domain images aren't actually from 2002. That was caused by a SmackBot date tagging error. I've been trying to help deal with that backlog by tagging them with the correct date. It doesn't really help clear the backlog, but I like to think that it's at least somewhat helpful in identifying which images really are the oldest and should be dealt with first. Reach Out to the Truth 23:12, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I proposed a setup for prods on any unsourced article a while back, but it never did get off the ground. Really too bad, it could certainly cut down the number of unsourced articles we've got. BLPPROD is a step in the right direction, but we really ought to require sources for every article, first edit onward. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:34, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

That was over three years ago. Time to try again? 69.181.249.92 (talk) 01:03, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Xnacional

Xnacional (talk · contribs) has received several blocks for edit-warring. His one-month block ended 29 July, but for most the intervening time he's edited under 205.211.213.218 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Under this IP and his registered account, he has resumed or initiated edit wars at WWIV and Template:Star Wars. This is exactly the kind of edit that led to several blocks. The user has not heeded multiple requests from multiple editors to use the talk page to discuss edits, and seems content to edit war, be blocked, rinse, repeat. The IP has apparently been blocked on other languages' Wikipedias. *shrug* Thought I'd give a heads up. Although the editor does apparently update some facts and figures about the War on Terror (although uncited, so I dunno...), to me he seems more trouble than he's worth. [FYI, previous ANI thread.] --EEMIV (talk) 05:13, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Sigh. Next block should be indefinite, in my opinion; based on his block log. His talk page is all warnings and blocks. Tommy! [message] 12:26, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Xnacional keeps edit warring.Sjö (talk) 06:22, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Poll

As per several discussions here, here, and here, I'd like to request that an administrator interpret this unusual debate and issue some sort of a verdict. In my own personal opinion, I believe that it would probably be most appropriate for the interpreter to have had no previous involvement with any related discussions or the poll itself. Regardless, the sooner that this is finalized, the sooner that everyone can focus on more productive discussions.   — C M B J   06:21, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

There's already a thread discussing this on WP:AN here, in response to your query, so there was no need to bring it here, since there's no particular "incident" involved. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:06, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

No, that thread was created with respect to a site-wide notice, which was not an incident. This, however, is an "incident", at least according to dictionary definition. And a very time-sensitive incident at that, because someone's going to have to individually contact more than two hundred users as it is.   — C M B J   11:39, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Slavery

Resolved: Blocked for a week. · Andonic ^Contact 12:12, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Would an admin please look at User talk:94.168.252.114. Edits which previously merited a ban are being repeated. 18Aug:[78] - and 23Aug[79] - ClemMcGann (talk) 08:17, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I just rolled back the anons edits, still needs a block. Weaponbb7 (talk) 11:55, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Musicboy22

Resolved

Musicboy22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - this user has already been blocked once for uploading copyrighted images, and received two warnings (aside from a gajillion boilerplate warnings). And yet he's at it again, this time uploading them with free licenses. Please place an extended block on this user to get the point across.Magog the Ogre (talk) 08:45, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Second time within the last seven days I've seen a report like this on ANI. As before, I have blocked the user in question for a month. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 18:04, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Peremptory archiving of particular threads on Talk page Talk:Matter

Resolved

 – OP was banned from the topic, so archiving the threads he started was probably a good thing.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:10, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

In this edit, Headbomb has archived a number of open threads on the Talk page Talk:Matter that he has selected on his own initiative as something he would like to bury pematurely. These threads include a number of unresolved issues regarding the article Matter, which in my opinion, deserve to remain on the Talk page and which point out some desirable changes that should be made on that page. Headbomb has justified this action in this edit and makes the assertion there that this selective and premature archiving of these threads is justified by calling them a "brouhaha", and arguing that if anyone wants to bring these issues up they should resuscitate these threads from the archive.

Although the opposite is claimed by Headbomb, I believe this cumbersome mechanism that buries the issues in an archive is in fact a form of censorship of a few issues that he personally would like to resolve by cutting them short.

In addition, this contribution to an open RfC uses a link to this archived material, which now is broken.

I would appreciate it if Headbomb would restore the page Talk:Matter by bringing this archive, of his making, back onto the Talk page.

Headbomb has been advised of this request in this diff. Brews ohare (talk) 09:11, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Why don't you just revert the edit? Throwaway85 (talk) 12:09, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

nvm, I see he claims you are banned from the discussion. Is this correct? Throwaway85 (talk) 12:11, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Seems you were. I suggest leaving this alone, and adhering to the ban. Throwaway85 (talk) 12:18, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

There is no intention on my part to violate the ban. The objections to this action stand regardless. A ban does not automatically imply that my activities should be buried. I want to see these threads in the open on the Talk page, as they were, where others can participate if they wish, and do not have to jump hoops to do so, and where the arguments presented are openly displayed for all to see. Brews ohare (talk) 15:13, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

This matter is not resolved. These high-handed tactics are an abuse. Brews ohare (talk) 15:14, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Anyone else who wishes to raise the same issues on the talk page is free to do so, including by unarchiving the threads they were participating in. I don't see that any further action needs to be taken. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:04, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Anon user posting links to Indonesian hadith site that loads a novel script that MAY be malware

Someone connected to the site http://lidwa.com is posting links to the site to several articles concerning hadith (Muslim texts). The site in an Indonesian language (Bahasa Indonesia?) and not appropriate to the English WP. Also it loads what seems to be a handwritten script (http://lidwa.com/app/ Online Hadith Viewer). The script may be benign or it may not. I don't think we should be taking chances with our users' computers. (I hope I'm safe; I use Firefox with NoScript.)

He/she/it has posted to six pages as 222-124-66.70. [80]

and to one page as 125.161.139.128 [81]

I haven't searched all of WP for links to lidwa.com; there may be more postings.

Zora (talk) 09:57, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Google doesn't show any extant links, but who knows when their webcrawlers will drop by. I'll do some more digging. Throwaway85 (talk) 11:25, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Derp. Only works for plaintext urls. My smarter method turned up 8. I'll break out the erasers. Throwaway85 (talk) 11:28, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Alright, I removed the other 8 links. I'll keep an eye on things and hopefully they don't reappear. I agree with you, that site is not appropriate for en.wiki. Also, that applet took a bloody long time to load. Throwaway85 (talk) 11:46, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Add 125.161.154.201 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) to the mix: [82] Throwaway85 (talk) 11:51, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

• lidwa.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

If there is malware, or likely malware and no use, that is enough reason to blacklist it on meta. Malware sites do go there without question until the server has cleared it out. I've asked COIBot for a fresh linkreport in the meanwhile (but that may take a bit .. bit of a lag on the bot). But I would say,  Defer to Global blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:50, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't seem like malware, just sloppy code. Unless the aim of this muslim, indonesian site for researching holy books is to infect other indonesian muslims who research holy books. If it proves to be a larger problem, I suggest we block it locally. Throwaway85 (talk) 11:54, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I see there is a linkreport, and a m:User:COIBot/XWiki/lidwa.com. It is cross-wiki. If someone could clarify use in other projects (mainly id and ms wikis) in the latter report at the bottom, we could consider blacklisting there, or otherwise local. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:57, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Is there any way to cross-reference categories to find overlap? Say, like this and that? Throwaway85 (talk) 22:50, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Contract Research Organization

Resolved

 – Changed some wording, but if there's a problem, be bold. Tommy! [message] 12:18, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I was surfing freelance job sites and stumbled across the following message. It appears like someone will be trying to use Wikipedia as an advertising platform. Please keep an eye on the linked article and make sure this doesn't go unnoticed.

"We have recently rolled out a new website, and now we would like to create a Wikipedia entry for our company as well.

I'm looking for somebody who can take the content from our current website and write a neutral unbiased article about it fit for Wikipedia. Based on keywords, links to the article should also be provided from other articles. The article naturally should also contain outgoing links (e.g. when the company is described as a CRO, it should link to the article on Contract Research Organization).

Wikipedia is becoming more and more stringent and picky about "advertising". You're not required to write an advertisement though; we just want to have our company included in the web's largest encyclopedia.

"YOU will be responsible to submit the final article to Wikipedia, as well as manage the incoming and outgoing links. Payment is contingent upon the Wikipedia staff NOT deleting the article one month after submission and acceptance of your content. " -- 87.211.75.45 (talk) 10:35, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I just went through the article and removed the advertisement/spam. I couldn't find any user names to report who may represent the company, so I guess, if anything, we can watch for bias/spammers. Also, don't capitalize words for emphasis, I hate that. Tommy! [message] 12:05, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Also, what's this "payment" you're talking about. Tommy! [message] 12:18, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

That's actually the text of the advert, if the quotation marks are any indication. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v PC/SP is a show-trial!)} 19:50, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

oh, he didn't but the begin quote which confused me. Tommy! [message] 20:16, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, he did. Look at his second paragraph. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v PC/SP is a show-trial!)} 20:17, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the editor didn't realize that starting a new paragraph would stop the italicizing he had begun in the first graf -- the ending marks in the last graf indicate that. I've reformatted it so that the itals carry through the quoted material. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:09, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/WWGB - attack page?

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

---

Can some admin please have a look at Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/WWGB, created by Reporter99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Seems like an attack page to me, but I might be missing something. Skäpperöd (talk) 11:00, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Yea, that needs to be deleted, now. How ridiculous. Tommy! [message] 11:02, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Why is it ridiculous? I am trying my best to report a clear abuse here, having never done it before. Why is your response that it is ridiculous? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reporter99 (talk • contribs) 11:05, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

LTA is generally for users who are here to vandalize Wikipedia one way or another and have been doing so for years. Skapperod is not even a vandal, yet alone a "LTA" problem. Familiarize yourself with WP:LTA before jumping to this stuff. Tommy! [message] 11:09, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

The page is not about me, but about a user named WWGB. I shall inform them of this discussion, especially since Reporter99 has opened a thread about them below. Skäpperöd (talk) 11:19, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Yup, sorry about the confusion. My argument remains the same. Tommy! [message] 11:20, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

...and note that an editor describing someone who has been convicted of a criminal offence is not a sign of bias, but of accurate reporting. I appreciate that you may feel that Schapelle Corby should not have been convicted; however, it is our job as editors to report accurately, not to insert our own views or otherwise "editorialise". As Tommy notes, there is no vandalism here and certainly no long-term abuse. TFOWR 11:12, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

How frustrating. I am not arguing that she was found guilty by an Indonesian court, even though the trial was a farce. I am not arguing about that. Please read my comments properly.

Someone there is trying to state the obvious: that she is an Australian woman convicted. WWGB is seeking to alter that to a rather ridiculous version that she was a drug smuggler found guilty. He backs this up by saying she is guilty.

A conviction does not mean she is guilty, it means that she was convicted. Fact.

So your words are correct: "it is our job as editors to report accurately". That is what I am seeking here, but you seem to be missing that point.

On WWGB, please take the trouble to review his long term edits on this page, before jumping to the conclusion that I am in error just because I have recently registered. Reporter99 (talk) 11:23, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

""Chamberlain was ultimately exonerated, Corby is guilty" is not a reason to create a long-term abuse page. Please read WP:AGF. Tommy! [message] 11:24, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

As stated below, why can't you see that "She is guilty" is not the same as "an Australian woman convicted of drug smuggling"? It clearly isn't. Tha former endorsed the trial whether that is right or not. The latter is more accurate, regardless of the legitimacy of the trial.

I don't believe that WWGB cannot see that. His edit history is more than clear with respect to what he thinks, which he has been allowed to reflect in his edits, hence my report. Reporter99 (talk) 11:41, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Ya, this is a matter of disagreement, not long term abuse, or even vandalism in the least. You need to civilly discuss issues with users with which you have a disagreement. Tommy! [message] 11:43, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

You ar enot reading my words at all. I have already explained WWGB's 'discussions' on this. Could some Administrators please look at this impartially? There is a problem here, as clearly illlustrated by that terminology: I have reported it and now this guy is attacking me for it. Reporter99 (talk) 11:49, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

User: WWGB

This editor has consistently and repeatedly edited in a hostile manner against a woman imprisoned in an Indonesian jail. See page: Schapelle Corby

This could hardly have been made more obvious than by his last comment: "Chamberlain was ultimately exonerated, Corby is guilty". That is clearly not an objective statement, but a statement of his position, namely, that Schapelle Corby is guilty.

The Schapelle Corby case is complex, with strong political undertones. Many research papers have been written supporting her innocence and detailing the many human rights abuses at her trial. For example: http://www.schapelle.net/propositions/hiddentruth.pdf and http://www.schapelle.net/report.html

WWGB's edits are wholly partisan, enforcing the viewpoint of guilt. His latest edit, as referenced above, constitutes his position from his own keyboard.

See his own terminology and edit history on thatpage. The words are clear and the pattern is clear.

He is now engaging in an edit war with an American editor.

This is my first report, so please forgive any errors of protocol. Surely he needs ot be bloecked from that page at the very least, or have his account terminated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reporter99 (talk • contribs) 11:03, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

(This is indicative of the edits in question).

Schapelle was found guilt by a court. As I mentioned above, it is absolutely not our role to try and present our own interpretation of that ("the guilt is questionable"). Stick to the facts: she was found guilty. When/if she's exonerated, then the article should say "she was exonerated". Until then it should say she is a convicted drum smuggler, because she's been found guilty of drug smuggling. TFOWR 11:30, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. Why can't you see that "She is guilty" is not the same as "an Australian woman convicted of drug smuggling"? It clearly isn't. Tha former endorsed the trial whether that is right or not. The latter is more accurate, regardless of the legitimacy of the trial.

This is surely clear.

The bad faith is against me, for daring to report this. Look at your words, and on my talk page. Why? Welcome to Wikipedia, eh?

This is a cast iron case, and an obvious one. Why is WWGB, an established editor, so keen to remove a more detailed accurate representation in favour of something which has connotations and is not strictly accurate? Have you looked at his edit history on that page?

Why am I under attack for pointing out something that is so clear? Reporter99 (talk) 11:37, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Because people have different opinions. That doesn't mean they shouldn't be on Wikipedia. ... Honestly. Tommy! [message] 11:40, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) She was found guilty by a court of drug smuggling. That's what we report. There is no bad faith here: I am patiently trying to explain to you why WWGB's edit was correct, and why accusing WWGB of "long-term abuse" was incorrect. And yes, I have looked at the history of the page. You are not "under attack": you are being told that this was not long-term abuse. TFOWR 11:43, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Yet again: "She is guilty" is not the same as "an Australian woman convicted of drug smuggling"? It clearly isn't. The former endorsed the trial whether that is right or not. The latter is more accurate, regardless of the legitimacy of the trial.

Please stop trying to explain because you are simply ignoring the points I am making. Please allow Admins or other editors to comment.

It is NOTHING to do with my opinion. I have stated the facts above regarding that terminology. This is about the accuracy of the article, which WWGB has subverted, and continues to. I pointed out one crystal clear example of this, which you simply do not seem to be able to grasp.

Can some Administrators and editors please take an impartial look at this? Clearly the example I sued is beyong doubt, but WWGB's history on this page is of serious concern. Reporter99 (talk) 11:49, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I am an admin: I have no prior involvement with the article or with either yourself or WWGB (talk), and I have taken an impartial look, and I am telling you that reporting that someone who was found guilty in court as being guilty is perfectly normal and reasonable. WWGB has previously reverted attempts to describe the article's subject as "allegedly guilty", so my view is that there is likely a long-term pattern of point-of-view pushing here, which WWGB has handled admirably. TFOWR 11:54, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, this is a waste of time. I said 3X to read WP:AGF and you attacked me on your talk page. Enough of this and also, Wikipedia is not a battleground, either. Tommy! [message] 11:56, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

No no no. Let me spell it out:

"She is guilty" = opinion

"She was convicted of drug smuggling"= fact.

How hard is that? It is clear.

Wikipedia is for factual information, yes? In that case the latter is clearly the correct phrase.

But it is just one example. Please don;t brush this under the carpet by finding reasons to discredit me or argue with the clear fact above. Reporter99 (talk) 11:57, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

And can Tommy! please stop shouting me down and allow others to debate? He has given a really hostile welcome to a newcomer. Reporter99 (talk) 12:01, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

ANI is for incidents for administrators. Every article has a Discussion link on the top left you should use for improving the page, not ANI. Tommy! [message] 12:07, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) WWGB's edit was "she is a convicted drug smuggler". WWGB stated that she was guilty in an edit summary, not in the article, though I would argue that "she is guilty" would be perfectly reasonable in the article itself. Your opinion is that she is not a convicted drug smuggler. That opinion is not supported by reliable, verifiable sources which state that she was convicted, in court, of a crime. I'm sorry that the article doesn't reflect your beliefs. Wikipedia is frequently like that. Incidentally, you seem to be the only person shouting here. Two separate editors have tried to discuss this with you, and you have chosen to ignore us. Drop the stick and stop beating the dead horse. TFOWR 12:08, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Reporter, if you feel you can't get any progress made on the talk page of the article, try the content notice board. I see your point about the language, but by attacking other editors you hurt your standing in the debate. --Torchwood Who? (talk) 12:10, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Corby guilty, jailed for 20 years with many similar reportings of guilt. 220.253.176.100 (talk) 12:15, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I see no attempt to discuss this on the talk page. I recommend Reporter tries it there (I've watches the page and I am sure others have so it shouldn't be hard to get a discussion going). Recommend closing this is lieu of talk page content dispute resolution. I don't see what can be served by arguing it here (the wrong place) --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 12:22, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I could quote 100 external pages proclaiming innocence, but that isn't the point. Please read carefully rather than trying to assume that I am expressin gopinion.

Again, the obvious:

"Convicted drug smuggler" implies a drug smuggler who was convicted... implies guilt.

"Convicted of drug smuggling" impartially states that she was convicted.

Clearly the latter is most accurate and impartial, as already stated on that page, and reverted by WWGB.

So back to the problem: why would he do this?

The answer? Go check his previous edits and discover his point of view, which he enforced on the page.

This is the issue here, which is not being considered. Instead, people are trying to ignore the meaning of words. Words are important if Wikipedia articles are to be objective. Reporter99 (talk) 12:48, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

You clearly didn't read my statement earlier, so I see no reason to assist you further.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 13:03, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)This board is not for content disputes. Please feel free to make such arguments on the article talk page so it can be discussed. So far I cannot see anything that needs specific admin intervention, admins are not here to make decisions on content issues just to discipline those who violate policy and to enforce community consensus. Please go to the article talk page and build a consensus. I will make you a deal; if you post a sensible comment stating your position on the content (and avoid discussing editors directly) I will come over there and discuss it with you :) --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 13:07, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

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

User:Doncram at List of Masonic buildings

Further information: [[:Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Inclusion criteria for Lists]]

User:Doncram is becoming increasingly disruptive at List of Masonic buildings. Since he started editing the page he has demonstrated increasing lack of good faith... especially towards me. He consistently demonstrates WP:OWNership of the article, and has a strong case of WP:IDIDNTHERETHAT. Multiple editors are telling him the same thing... The article continues to have serious OR and sourcing problems... but his response is to stonewall, ignore, change the subject, and blame the messenger. His repeated removal of issue tags (specifically a {{refimprove}} and {{Original research}} tag, without any effort to address the issues is the last straw for me... rather than continue to edit war (both of us have been guilty of that), I am seeking assistance. Blueboar (talk) 15:28, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

This is approximately #84 in a series of discussion sections opened by Blueboar, regarding the List of Masonic buildings article and related others, including at their Talk pages, at ANI, at various Wikiprojects, etc. I have participated reluctantly in many of the discussions, responding to the consistent demonstration of WP:OWNership and WP:IDIDNTHERETHAT in one or two other editors' comments. At the talk page and in the article, the current effort by Blueboar seems to be to question by tags whether there are any buildings in the world that have Masonic association, and whether any of them are listed in that list-article. I have explained why I was removing the tags in the Talk page discussion. I'll watch here too, but can't participate a lot today. Thanks. --doncram (talk) 15:51, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I left some comments on the talk page and made some article improvements. I think the article does need work - but seems mostly a content dispute that is better solved with a WP:RFC or on one of the content dispute noticeboards (maybe WP:RS/N) before coming to AN/I :) --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 15:54, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

This has now gone on for some significant time, and I would support the suggestion that Doncram is refusing to engage with any discussion about inclusion criteria.

I've now explicitly asked him three times in the last few days what obvious actually means in evidence terms. This is a behaviour issue, Doncram has been called on his personal comments a number of times, but there is no evidence of Good Faith given that he's ignoring any objections to his inclusions.

ALR (talk) 15:59, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I've shown plenty of Good Faith in efforts to engage with blueboar and other editors, inlcuiding trying to help them channel their interest into actually reading and using sources to add to wikipedia articles in mainspace. I can't keep responding indefinitely to the same complaints forever, however. Eventually i do question the other editors' interests in tagging and otherwise disrupting some sensible development going on. About the inclusion criteria, i pointed out early on that the general discussion was pretty useless until some more material was actually developed and the significance of various buildings became clear (as has been proceeding slowly by efforts of a couple editors including me). I believe that progress in their understanding has been made. For example I believe they are relenting in their wish to make the article a directory of current Masonic meetingplaces, knock on wood. And a big discussion about a useful reference has wound down. These topics are properly covered at the Talk page of the article. --doncram (talk) 16:22, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Have you given any though to why the same complaints keep getting raised over and over again? There are more ways to develop an article than just "adding" material. Defining the subject, removing material that is questionable, and requesting sources is article development. Blueboar (talk) 16:37, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

All I'm asking for is some form of clear statement of inclusion criteria. You keep saying that its obvious but you will not articulate what obvious means in real terms. Once we have some form of inclusion criteria then evidencing inclusion can be pretty straightforward.

What I do have an issue with is expecting that we can treat each entry as an independent entity and do enough Original Research to eventually conclude that entry can remain. That way we quite quickly end up with a list of items which have different inclusion criteria, so the value of the list itself is questionable.

If inclusion really is obvious then it should be pretty straightforward to articulate that. I've asked for that articulation a number of times now, and each time the question is just ignored and you continue trying to force entries in without any real clarity around why.

All I'm asking for is some clarity around why something should be included, what evidence do we expect to see.

ALR (talk) 17:30, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

What I am asking for is that you stop complaining about the number of times I and other editors have raised issues at the article, and start addressing the issues we have been raising. That you stop attacking the messenger when you don't like the message. That you stop assuming that every edit I make and every issue I raise on the talk page is focused on "killing" the article. That you stop removing tags that notify both readers and editors that there are problems with the page until you have shown a good faith effort to address the issue that cause the tag to be added there in the first place. Blueboar (talk) 17:55, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

If I may, what specific administrator action is required here? UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 18:51, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

The complaint is around the intentional and persistent removal of quality tags on the article, identifying the risk of Original Research and the lack of credible sourcing for the list rationale and the content. The further discussion is clearly demonstrates the need for those tags and some meaningful discussion around how to resolve the issues.

Whatever sanction appears reasonable given that behaviour would appear appropriate.

ALR (talk) 19:10, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the persistent removal of tags was simply the latest incident in a pattern of behavior. Whatever sanctions appear reasonable is fine with me. But I think a short block (say 24 hours) is called for to drive the point home. Blueboar (talk) 21:39, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

User:116.236.253.138 and User:116.6.19.192 are blocked User:Whu4

Some WP:DUCK socks, see the edit histories and this self admission[83]. Active Banana ( bananaphone 18:49, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

89.100.58.51

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

A user from this IP has recently been making significant changes to pages - often blanking large sections of text - and often without any rationale. This has resulted in a number of reverts and subsequent re-blanking by the user. They have been asked on their talk page by several people to participate in discussion about these edits but so far seem uninterested in this.

For example: recent changes to Au pair. In this case they seem to think anything without a reference should be deleted (even if tagged with Template:CN) Similar on Coddling.

Part of the issue is that their edits appear to be vandalism (in part because they are an IP, and in part because of the nature of the edit), even though it seems unlikely that is their actual intent; some edits do make sense but it is their conduct in the controversial cases which is basically becoming very annoying and time consuming to other editors.

I'm not sure what to do next but posting here seemed logical.

Thanks

Dhollm (talk) 19:51, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

It's always discouraging to see anti-IP bias rear it's ugly head. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 20:10, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

The IP's bring that bias upon themselves due to their frequent vandalistic behavior. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:21, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

That's like saying that Irish-Americans bring bias upon themselves due to their frequent drinking. Blanket discriminatory statements are almost always a bad idea. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 21:09, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

And don't neglect to inform the editor of this thread, as you are required to do. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 20:11, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Very funny. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:16, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Notified, though mid-page.

My bad, I inserted in context of a discussion but the bottom might have been more obvious. Dhollm (talk) 22:21, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

This edit to "Au pair" is absolutely not vandalism. Misguided, perhaps (well, quite a lot misguided, if I'm honest...) but definitely not vandalism. 89.100 does use edit summaries, but needs to use them more. They also need to communicate better: they know where their talkpage is, but "it was constructive" doesn't go very far in justifying an edit described as "unconstructive".

Still looking into this, but I don't regard this IP as a vandal, nor do I regard their editing as disruptive at this stage. A friendly word would probably go a long way here. 69.181, would you be up to the task? TFOWR 20:24, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

(I really should regiester as 69.181 - it seems to be a popular way to refer to me.) Dialogue seems to be happening now, but I will drop a note on their talk page about using edit summaries, however brief they may be. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 22:41, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

"They have been asked on their talk page by several people to participate in discussion about these edits but so far seem uninterested in this. " I was asked only to discuss on Talk:List of prizes known as the Nobel of a field. Any other time I can think of, I've have just been warned for vandalism. Re: my au pair edits : [[84]], Au pairs need not be necessarily female, nor foreign, and I did not see the need to give advertising to au pair agencies. 89.100.58.51 (talk) 20:32, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi, 89.100, thanks for responding. I think your edit to Au pair was a little excessive, in that - although much of what you removed was uncited - the edit removed a great deal of text without much by way of explanation. I'd suggest making more use of edit summaries, and be more descriptive in them. The edit I highlighted also removed an external link, which is fine, but you might want to consider either making multiple small edits or detailing each action in the edit summary. TFOWR 20:50, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thank you for responding. It should not be too hard to recognize that the same behaviour on other articles will cause the same irritation to other people. Hopefully this discussion will encourage you to enagage in contructive dialog more often, that would seem to be the best possible outcome for everyone. Dhollm (talk) 22:21, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

The external link was to a listing of au pair agencies, so I considered it an advertisement 89.100.58.51 (talk) 21:53, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I realise that, and that's fair enough - my point is that the edit summary didn't mention it. That's why I suggested either breaking down one big edit into several small edits, each with one short edit summary - or use a long edit summary covering everything ("Removed uncited claims; removed external link - advert; copy-edited second paragraph" - that kind of thing). TFOWR 21:57, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

My point was about community processes, not the content changes themselves. There has been a lack of participation in a process to resolve disagreements with other editors. When someone reverts a change (particularly multiple times) some kind of discussion needs to happen. (I am not excusing edit warring, but it should be a signal). Dhollm (talk) 22:21, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Jewish Internet Defense Force

I mentioned this Earlier today on AN, but now We got multiple socks coming out of the woodwork at Jewish Internet Defense Force. Could we get some blocks here? Weaponbb7 (talk) 20:43, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I see another admin has protected the article. Has that helped?--Wehwalt (talk) 20:55, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

No a suspected sock (thats already auto-confirmed) has popped up causing trouble. Weaponbb7 (talk) 20:58, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

It looks like an obvious sock puppet. Hinata talk 21:15, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

In any case, they appear to be edit-warring, so a block may be warranted on that grounds alone if it persists. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:18, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

here's one popped up. Can someone block it as a WP:DUCK sock or does it need an SPI? --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 21:23, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Its all as Peter Cohen piointed out the users are all User:Einsteindonut or a close assocateWeaponbb7 (talk) 21:25, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

The account currently edit-warring was already reported by Peter as a suspected sock on 11 March, but at the time no action was taken, as the account had been protected. I have submitted a further SPI, with a CU request. RolandR (talk) 21:32, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Whatever happened to AGF on Wikipedia? There is a current campaign on the page of anti-Israel/anti-JIDF activists with an agenda to falsely claim that the article reads like an advertisement. Every single point in the article (including the criticism section) is from reliable sources. Consensus about it "reading like an advertisement" has not been formed. --Miamiville (talk) 21:46, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure I understand how you can ask about AGF and then start talking about a "campaign" with an "agenda" to make false claims. I also find it unusual that you stated that you're new to wikipedia, and yet appear to be familiar with policy. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:48, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

A perusal of their edits indicates this is not a new editor. Just their edit summaries shows that. Who's been blocked or banned in this subject area recently who might want to re-enter the fray? Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:04, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

And also an article can be fully referenced and still read like an advert, it's about neutrality not verification. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 21:50, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

This thread, of course, relates to the discussion above about other attemtps to organise Zionist meatpuppetry. The JIDF differs from these other groups by having more people on its alert list than Eric1985's little effort and by being only interested in Wikipedia in as far as how it affects the portrayal of their organisation.

Giftiger wunsch has spotted a trademark Einsteindonut/"David Appletree" behaviour in Miamiville, that of turning up as a supposedly new user and yet already knowing Wikipedia policy. This new user has also magically found its way to this discussion on its first day on Wikipedia. As usual, it isn't clear how many of the accounts operating on behalf of the JIDF are "Appletree" himself and how many are his acolytes. What's probably going to happen is that some puppets will be blocked and the page will be fully protected. What I again say should be doen is that the sighted edits/reviewing experiment should be extended to problematic articles like this and then it can be placed on level 2 protection so that long term Wikipedians can edit the page, good faith newbies can have their contributions reviewed and accepted and the JIDF COI contributions can be kept away from affecting the page.--Peter cohen (talk) 22:20, 23 August 2010 (UTC)Ps. in case anyone thinks I am "outing" Einsteindonut by calling him and hsi clones "David Appletree", the latter is the pseudonym used by the man who runs the various JIDF sites and not his real name.--Peter cohen (talk) 22:20, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I've added some specific issues to resolve on the article's talk page, and suggest we take some time to fix them while the page is protected. There clearly is an astroturfing/whitewashing campaign at work here, and some admin attention is needed. I'm not sure what Arbcom is doing in regards to the jiujitsu/eric1985 issue above, but it's looking like we're going to need some overarching framework to deal with this kind of concerted off-wiki organization and POV-pushing effort in the IP area.

As an administrator previously uninvolved in this or related articles or discussions, I have indef blocked Miamiville as an obvious sock/meat puppet. If any additional ones surface, please let me know here or on my talk page and I will do the like. DGG ( talk ) 22:38, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Given that Miamiville was merely continuing the edits of User:Mreditguy when the latter reached 3RR, it's fairly obvious that both are either socks or meatpuppets, and so I have blocked Mreditguy as well. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:59, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks both. There is an SPI open for them where CU has been requested. I've made comment there about how IPs in three different countries have also been acting in this.--Peter cohen (talk) 23:23, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Delete and salt?

Is the JIDF of such importance that it needs an article? Might it not be better to simply delete and salt the article and its redirects so that genuine Wikipedia editors need not have to respond to David Appletree's antics?--Peter cohen (talk) 23:23, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

• No, this is a content issue, not a deletion one. It would pass AfD easily. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:26, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Well it certainly seems to pass WP:GNG with flying colours; I don't think a bit of vandalism is a reason to delete a perfectly valid page. Such a decision should be made at AfD, in any case. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 23:27, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
• For all the article's issues, it is notable. Could probably do with a re-write, though. I'm not particularly fond of the current layout, which bears more resemblance to a list of accomplishments than to a description of the group. Throwaway85 (talk) 00:09, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Community ban?

Since this seems to be a problem going back years, I propose a community ban for Einsteindonut (talk · contribs). A community ban will allow us to revert any sockpuppet edits without violating 3RR. And rather than deleting an article about a group that does demonstrate some notability, this lets us keep the content while (hopefully) eliminating the sockpuppet/meatpuppet issue. Burpelson AFB (talk) 00:21, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Provided we are satisfied it is him, I don't know the user well enough to know. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 07:01, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

FOX News IP Check

Resolved

 – Editor pointed to wikiscanner. - Burpelson AFB (talk) 00:47, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to do an IP check for any commentary by FOX News, DailyKos or any well known liberal or conservative think tanks that have not identified themselves if possible. Manticore55 (talk) 21:45, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Considering DailyKos is a group blog with dozens of posters, hundreds of diarists, and thousands of commenters (including me on occasion), trying to get IPs would be an exercise in futility. Also, Checkuser is not for random fishing expeditions. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:48, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Understood. And what about those from NewsCorp? Manticore55 (talk) 22:04, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm assuming by IP check, you're asking for some sort of investigative checkuser. That goes against our checkuser policy. AniMate 22:36, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Try Wikiscanner: http://katrina.cs.caltech.edu/erenrich_rnd345/scanner_final/ Fences&Windows 23:11, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Delicious carbuncle

Heat > light

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Once again User:Delicious carbuncle has resorted to sniping and rude behavior per his recent comment on User talk:Jimbo Wales where he states: "From past experience I know that you don't understand rudimentary logic". I've had enough with his rudeness and commenting at places for no reason other than to make trouble. This isnt the first comment he's made regarding my intelligence or communication skills, and it is not like I am the only or first person to ever complain about his attitude and/or comments about editors instead of content. A further look at his editing and his edit summaries (which he uses as a further means of sniping since people are less likely to find his rudeness there).Camelbinky (talk) 21:55, 23 August 2010 (UTC) While not particularly pleasant, I don't think this comment alone could justify a block; perhaps this should have been taken to WP:WQA instead, as it seems to be a WP:CIV problem if anything. Are you looking to have this user blocked? GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:57, 23 August 2010 (UTC) WQA is not better for anything. What's best is if editors just grow up, and accept that not everyone will agree with everything that they say or do, but that doesn't make it one of those infamous "personal attacks". Malleus Fatuorum 22:01, 23 August 2010 (UTC) I want to remove the insinuations of a connection with Wikileaks from the page though (It's probably a BLP violation), but am too tired - anyone else care to do it? --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 22:05, 23 August 2010 (UTC) I have archived it, probably a good idea. Off2riorob (talk) 22:14, 23 August 2010 (UTC) I would like to make it clear that I made no insinuations. I see nothing in the conversation that would require archiving it in such a manner. Perhaps this is a bit of an over-reaction? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:20, 23 August 2010 (UTC) I'm sorry you took my comment as an insult, Camelbinky. I invite editors to read over the conversation in context before making any judgement. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:06, 23 August 2010 (UTC) Perhaps an interaction ban? I know I have never intentionally entered any discussion in which he was a part of, nor have I attempted to initiate an interaction with him anywhere and yet he seems to have a fascination with entering discussions I am a part of in order to say something, and it usually seems to just be ANYTHING just to get a word, as his strange off-topic interjection at Jimbo's talk page was just a way to enter the discussion. I'm more insulted that I am working on my master's, I have a bachelors in Political Science, my IQ is in the top 1% of the nation, and his own posts are not logical (as the thread at Jimbo's shows), and yet he claims I have no grasp of rudimentary logic...! And here comes another personal attack from Malleus who has disagreed with me in the past and been rude, lovely. If this is going to be another one of those AN/I where it becomes "attack the complainer because he's complained about me" then forget it. I want Delicious to simply not have any contact with me, see a discussion I'm in and dont join. Easy to do. Camelbinky (talk) 22:11, 23 August 2010 (UTC) Please do not accuse others of personal attacks, remember to assume good faith. While I can see how carbuncle's statement might be interpreted as a personal attack (indeed, I would take exception to it as well), I fail to see how Malleus' comment could be interpreted as such, unless I am looking at a different comment. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:14, 23 August 2010 (UTC) If Camelbinky's IQ is in the top 1% then I have only two things to say; first of all commiserations, and secondly that I'm a Chinese whore on crack. Malleus Fatuorum 22:18, 23 August 2010 (UTC) Malleus, I suggest striking that. Frankly you're increasingly proving yourself to be little more than a troll. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:21, 23 August 2010 (UTC) You're entitled to your opinion. Mine is that soliciting the blocking/banning of other editors is a cancer that needs to be dealt with. BTW, calling me a troll is most definitely a personal attack. Malleus Fatuorum 22:27, 23 August 2010 (UTC) It's an observation, not a personal attack. I have yet to see you contribute anything constructive to a single ANI or WQA thread, despite the fact that I have seen you comment on several threads. If you don't have anything constructive to contribute to the matter at hand, direct your efforts to where they will be constructive. In any case, I'm not going to continue this line of discussion. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:30, 23 August 2010 (UTC) Can I close this, its just creating more drama than its going to solve. Off2riorob (talk) 22:25, 23 August 2010 (UTC) (edit conflict × 2) Agree, but I would suggest that an editor previously uninvolved in the thread close this instead. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:28, 23 August 2010 (UTC) Enough everyone. Camelbinky, our guy who checks claimed qualifications on talk pages called in sick again, so you'll have to cut that out. Everyone else please tone it down.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:26, 23 August 2010 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Closing admin needed

Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary#Proposal probably ought to be closed soon one way or the other by an uninvolved admin. --Cybercobra (talk) 22:20, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

 Closed NW (Talk) 22:36, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Malleus fatorum

Heat > light redux

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Um, can I get a 24 hour block on Malleus for what he said on the above closed thread?! Look at the edit history, he had an earlier insult against me which he then removed and Giftiger I believe didnt see. And then that comment right that Giftiger asked him to strike. Plus his previous history of insulting me and others?! Come on! If nothing is done to Malleus then AN/I is a joke and I think all the many articles I have created, expanded, and everything else should get dumped for good, especially since I'm so stupid and ignorant, they shouldnt be missed. I had multiple edit conflicts and I'm on a wifi that is having issues so I was not able to get in before it was closed. Please, seriously, Malleus gets to say that type of stuff and this is hidden away?!But I'm sure I'll just get attacked here for making another complaint and this wont be taken seriously and it will continue because everyone knows "make fun of Camelbinky and nothing will happen".Camelbinky (talk) 22:32, 23 August 2010 (UTC) I understand where you're coming from, but believe me you are wasting your time. Malleus is functionally untouchable. →ROUX ₪ 22:49, 23 August 2010 (UTC) That's odd, because I don't recall Malleus ever making anything quite so offensive as some of the comments you've made. Parrot of Doom 22:58, 23 August 2010 (UTC) One certainly hopes that comment brought someone some joy and pleasure, otherwise it is merely rude shit-stirring in an attempt to bait me. I shall choose to believe that you merely had a brainfart, and didn't intend to stir up shit that is utterly irrelevant to this thread. →ROUX ₪ 23:06, 23 August 2010 (UTC) I think its most certainly relevant to point out to people reading this thread that some of those commenting upon it, mainly you, like to tell people to "go fuck yourself with a chainsaw". Perhaps you could demonstrate to me where Malleus has ever said anything quite so offensive? Or are you just bitter? Parrot of Doom 23:12, 23 August 2010 (UTC) I believe I did see the first comment (and I didn't see any evidence that Malleus removed one of his comments), but disagree that it was a personal attack. The second comment was rather more of an attack, in my opinion, but please remember that blocks are preventative, not punitive. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:44, 23 August 2010 (UTC) So, if I promise to only insult Malleus once and that it wont ever happen again then I can insult him right now and not get blocked since the block would be after the insult and would be punitive? The block not being preventative since I have stated I wont be insulting him again.Camelbinky (talk) 22:47, 23 August 2010 (UTC) The fact that you are taking such an attitude suggests that you are missing the point. Camel, all I can suggest at the moment is take an hour off-wiki to calm down, and return to this when you have a clear head. Exploding and getting yourself blocked isn't going to help. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:49, 23 August 2010 (UTC) The sooner that admins stop parroting the lie that blocks are not punitive, the closer Wikipedia will get to becoming functional on the back end. →ROUX ₪ 22:49, 23 August 2010 (UTC) FWIW, it looks like Malleus' addition to his posting was removed by the infamous edit-conflict glitch [85] but it was not an attack in itself. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:51, 23 August 2010 (UTC) I will take that time off in one second after I post the diff here that shows Malleus' first insult and him removing it with the edit summary of "addendum" (which btw addendum ADDS things to a post, not removes them, but what do I know? Apparently not logic or grammar).Camelbinky (talk) 22:55, 23 August 2010 (UTC) The diff actually shows him adding the comment; it was removed by a glitch as Black Kite suggested. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:57, 23 August 2010 (UTC) Quite right, I didnt catch that. Of course that's because I'm an idiot as Malleus has stated many times. This isnt the first time. At what point does Malleus' actions sanction teaching him a lesson? I know the sarcasm of the editor who did the closing was wrong, but there was a good point. It's not like Malleus' contributions are of such a high quality that he deserves multiple passes to the point of driving me away. And yes, I would GLADLY put my best ARTICLE contributions against his best article contributions any day.Camelbinky (talk) 23:08, 23 August 2010 (UTC) You can match him FA for FA? Funny, I thought only about 15 of us or so got to use the executive garderobe.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:13, 23 August 2010 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Sugar-Baby-Love

I would like to report user Sugar-Baby-Love for continued violation of WP:OR and edit-warring and wikihounding. I also suspect he has a sockpuppet (user:Cybermud) but I will take these specific concerns to another notice board.

Sugar-Baby-Love has been adding original research to articles and disguising it as viewpoints advanced by reliable sources. He then starts edit warring with anyone who points out to him that material needs to be attributed to a reliable source. Here are a few examples.

• [86] This entire section is original research because nothing in the source [87] lends support to anything said in the section as I have pointed out here [88].
• [89] Here his original research is the claim In this context, which is the general opinion of modern feminists, masculism is inherently opposed to the equality cause and is labeled as a form of anti-feminism and as a source he provides this book [90] which doesn't even remotely support his original research and doesn't even mention the term masculism or masculinism.
• [91] Here his original research is the claim that the first definition [of masculism] is as the advocacy of men's rights and the adherence to, or promotion of, social social theories and moral philosophies concerning issues of gender with respect to the interests and legal protection of men. In this context, masculism is a particular aspect of the more general moral cause of gender equality under the law- in which advocates protest against alleged unfair treatment of men in issues such as divorce law.. His two sources ["Masculinism and feminism are relative terms, and when one is strong enough to equate the other both will become merged in a common doctrine of humanism." - Oxford English Dictionary][92] don't support any of his claims as I have pointed out to him here [93] and here [94].
• [95] Here he yet again provides a source but the source does in no way support his claim that The term masculism itself gained currency in the late 20th century, particuly in the 1990s as advocated by authors such as Warren Farrell Jack Kammer, in the context of changing gender roles in society.
• [96] Here he adds a bunch of original research not supported by the source [97]. He writes misogynistic false interpretations when the source says misogynistic interpretations, he adds sentences like Many other scholars have taken differing interpretations and in the end of a deadlocked personal dispute which are never even implied in the source. He misrepresents a source that is about the religious sanction of violence in Islam and its implication for domestic violence and writes a paragraph about misogynistic false interpretation adding original research not supported by the source.
• [98] Here he adds things like self-described biblical egalitarians and and Christian theology emphasised equality between the sexes which are unsupported by the source.
• [99][100] Here he he just adds extremely controversial claims without even sourcing them.

User Sugar-Baby-Love has been engaged in extreme edit-warring and removal of reliable sources. At this point it's impossible to add anything without Sugar-Baby-Love reverting it. Here a few some examples:

• [101] Here he reverted an edit although I explained that the source doesn't support his claims
• [102] Here he reverted an entire edit and reinstated his original research
• [103] After I have rewritten his edits and removed original research, he simply reverted the edit and called it "revert POV pushing" ironically
• [104] Here he simply deletes a viewpoint advanced by sociologist Allan Johnson during an interview on GenderTalk Radio
• [105] Here he reverted an edit and called it revert POV pushing (again, ironically) even after I explained my actions here [106]

This user has been following me around and joined discussions to attack me or discredit me. Just a few examples:

• Article about misandry: [107] Here he accuses me of ‘’making huge changes of material based on nothing but [my] own personal bigotries’’ because I added this reliable this view [108] attributed to this source [109]
• Article about masculism: [110] Here he accuses me of censoring information because I pointed out that he needs reliable sources for his original research
• Article about Warren Farrell: [111] Here he states that he agrees with a source and therefore I have no right to include it in the article.
• Article about Christina Hoff Sommers: [112] He states that the interview with Allan Johnson on GenderTalk Radio is not a reliable source and therefore the material has to go. “Zippo.”

The most important problem with Sugar-Baby-Love is that this user doesn’t react to explanation on talk pages as to why he can’t just add original research and then add a random source and hope that nobody will check them and see that it doesn’t support his claims. And then he simply reverts edits that he doesn’t like and follows me around to attack disrupt my work. He has been using Wikipedia to circulate his original research, edit-warring and wikihounding me and perhaps other editors and I believe that he should be banned from Wikipedia. Randygeorge (talk) 22:43, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Note that Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#User:_Sugar-Baby-Love also appears on-going. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 22:56, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

What we have above is an example of an editor who has made huge, dramatic changes in context while being reverted by multiple other editors. Then, her or she falsely accuses the other editors of doing exactly what him or her is doing.

When you click on every single link above, you see context that shows that George is being deliberately misleading. For example, he or she has highlighted these two edits without noting the fact that I did provide citations for that information later-- which you can see at Masculism right now.

In any rate, what we have here attempting to circumvent genuine content disputes already in discussion-- see here and here-- by banning involved users. This is a clear mistake.

I humbly ask George to retract his request for a user ban. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 22:58, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

This is also at the content noticeboard and the BLP noticeboard and is some kind of content dispute spread across multiple articles and related to a similar topic field . IMO both editors need to back off a bit and take their time and use discussion of the talkpages more and try to find additions acceptable to both of them and get some outside opinions. Off2riorob (talk) 23:01, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with content noticeboard and BLP noticeboard. Those are content disputes. This is strictly about an editor who has been circulating original research and disguising it as content advanced by reliable sources. An editor who keeps edit-warring and wikihounding people. Please check the incidents I described and tell me if Sugar-Baby-Love hasn't been using original research and edit-warring with people who told him that this he needs reliable sources. I tried to use talk pages but said user doesn't react when I tell him that what he adds is original research. Read this [113] and this [114] and notice that the user hasn't addressed these issues. I haven't even begun to address what I believe is sockpuppetry. But I think his habit to add entire sections of original research and refuse to work with people who point out that it is original research and then engage in edit-warring and wikihounding should be banned. Randygeorge (talk) 23:54, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

You can clearly see from that one link (that he or she linked twice for some reason) that George disagrees with what is stated by two reliable sources. When you look at that article's history, you find George promoting a particular view that he or she feels is correct coupled with the removal of a view that is opposed to him or her.

George has a habit of making drastic, fundamental changes in article information without editorial consensus, edit warring when he or she does not get his or her way (with many different users reverting him or her besides me), and then making wild attacks on those who criticize his or her actions.

If George is not willing to drop this patently frivolous complaint, then I hope that an administrator can do it for him or her. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 00:20, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

In the interests of transparency Randygeorge, could you please detail your wiki-editing experience prior to starting this account? Your edits do not appear to be those of someone who's only been here for three weeks, and your use of templates in your first few edits is a little more advanced than what we tend to see from new users. Throwaway85 (talk) 00:24, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I take serious issue with being called a sockpuppet and am, quite frankly tired of dealing with George as I've documented in the other discussions on him/her being an obnoxious drama queen (never used that term before but if it walks and quacks like a duck...) and refusing to play by the rules or respect other editors opinions. I should have been notified of this discussion (since I'm an alleged "sockpuppet") and was not -- yet another of the many problems with George's behavior. It is pretty clear that George is here to promote Wikipedia:The Truth and sees a conspiracy theory behind every attempt to censor it--Cybermud (talk) 02:52, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Perry High School (Gilbert, Arizona)

Resolved

 – Article semi-protected for 1 month GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 23:13, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

We may have an IP hopper here. This anonymous user claims to keep on exposing a security code to the high school.

• 173.0.2.95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 173.0.10.50 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

It appears the 173.0.*.* range of IP addresses might be used for this. Given Fastily's response, AIV doesn't seem to be enough. mechamind90 23:03, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

• EDIT: Most recent additions by 173.0.10.50 have since been deleted, but the user is not necessarily stopped. mechamind90 23:04, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Semi-protected the article for a month. Incidentally, I know little about network administration, but would giving away the SSID (only) of a network actually be a security issue? I know the SSID can be hidden, but ... Black Kite (t) (c) 23:08, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
    • They're usually publicly broadcast, so it's not exactly a security issue. If the SSID is hidden though, it's privileged information regardless, and shouldn't be released on wikipedia. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 23:18, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
      • Thanks, just wanted to judge how much of an issue it was. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:19, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikiposter0123 off the tracks

Just to save uninvolved editors time, the posting of this matter on the dailykos website which may have influenced the RFC can be found here [115] BritishWatcher (talk) 00:33, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

During an epic RFC (Addendum: that was reported on by DailyKOS), editor Wikiposter0123 (talk · contribs) has declared that "We are restarting the voting process anew down here, thus the double vote". I am unaware of any policy or precedent by which an editor has the authority to declare an RFC (most especially one this lopsided) invalid, especially when his justification is based on a lawyery definition of "meatpuppet". I suggest that his actions warrant (at the very least) some administrative attention. I'm not willing to strike or otherwise modify his declaration, but I certainly don't think it's valid or should remain. Thanks in advance. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:56, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment by User involved After like five or so people voting over the course of about a day we all of a sudden had a massive influx of around 50 nearly identical votes of inclusion from SPA's, people who had not posted in over 3 weeks, and people who had never posted on the topic. I decided to make a new section after the massive pile-on was attributed to the Daily KOs site which has been edited since its discovery to sound less like meatpuppetry. I simply assumed the voting would start over, and that any editors actually involved in would just re-cast their vote. Besides, I didn't voting really mattered. I'm not declaring the RFC invalid(despite Blaxthos suggestion that perhaps the Daily Kos article was an attempt to invalidate the RFC process) I am just resetting it and allowing users to bypass scrolling down the epic pile-on to get to the relevant arguments.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 01:13, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

It is hell on that page because of blatant attempts to rig that RFC, its not hard to see how someone could go "off the tracks" with that much crap on the track. The RFC should be closed and the debate restart. If that RFC results in the issue in question being included in the article then it is going to encourage clear cheating like that in the future. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:11, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

With a ratio of something like 70:5, and you're one of the 5, I'm not surprised you want to just ignore the RFC. Doesn't the policy actually require us to find consensus through discussion? As I understand it, there can only be "cheating" if we're counting votes. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:14, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

If we're not counting votes why does the ratio matter, and how can you delcare consensus. We've heard from a number of people who happen to read about the story from a source that doesn't always think kindly of Fox News. I'm not saying they should be thrown out, but to say there was absolutely no disruption is silly. We have no consensus, let others who aren't DKOSers respond before declaring such. Misread, See comment below Soxwon (talk) 00:20, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Blaxthos, IMO the material is relevant to the page and should be included. IMO an untainted RfC would also reach that conclusion (perhaps not at 70:5) ... but this RfC does look like a smelly pile of something. It might be good to start over. Where did all those editors come from? In fact its so ridiculous that its hard to even imagine that someone who wants the material included initiated that. More likely someone is trying to derail the entire process for fun or because they fear losing the RfC (probably the former).Griswaldo (talk) 00:21, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I highly doubt that anyone supporting exclusion would go to all the trouble of finding editors that would vote include, and then contact them all (possibly hundreds if only a small percentage responded).--William S. Saturn (talk) 00:31, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment: Blaxthos, don't take this the wrong way, but did you contact users about this RFC?--William S. Saturn (talk) 00:21, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely not -- I do not participate in mixing Wikipedia and anything else in my life.  :) To Griswoldo's point, I submit that the consensus among any cross-section of the respondents is that it should be included -- even if you ignore all the anonymous IP's and obvious SPA's, there is still a clear consensus amongst the established editors to include the material. The three or four opponents are trying every trick in the book -- it was unreferenced, then it's not relevant, then it's really about newscorp, then it is meatpuppetry, now it's about "restarting the vote". Time to call a spade a spade. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:29, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Meatpuppetry is clearly what is taking place there. The policy clearly states Meatpuppetry is the use of editors as proxies to sway consensus. While Wikipedia assumes good faith, especially for new users, the recruitment of new editors for this purpose is a violation of this policy. . All those new editors in the RFC are attempting to sway the debate and cause certain material to be included in the article. The RFC should not continue. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:24, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Someone needs to run a check-user on all the accounts that were otherwise dormant and all these IPs. I'd freeze the RfC until that is done. See what shakes out then continue it. A normal RfC would definitely come down on the side of inclusion IMO.Griswaldo (talk) 00:31, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

There's no need to run a checkuser on IPs; by the nature of the checkuser process, it wouldn't be able to reveal anything you can't already see. Checkuser is only able to reveal otherwise-hidden data about logged-in users. Nyttend (talk) 00:35, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification.Griswaldo (talk) 00:39, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Note to William S. Saturn and Griswaldo and other's interested, This is where all those editors came from. I think Blaxthos is pointing out that Meatpuppetry doesn't matter as long as we look at arguments made and who is making said arguments, rather than number of arguers (my case in point, I am for inclusion despite being not of the DKOS persuasion). Soxwon (talk) 00:33, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Soxwon is correct. My apologies for not including that in the initial report -- it's kindof assumed knowledge over in the asylum, and I lost track.  :) To Arzel's kneejerk attack, that's just another WP:AGF violation. There is no "coordinated effort" here, nor is it meatpuppetry... a third party website pointed out an RFC already in progress. No, it wasn't me. No, no one was "told" to go !vote. I have no doubt this is all smoke and mirrors in an attempt to discredit an RFC with which 3 or 4 editors are dissatisfied. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:37, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Any closing admin is just going to ignore all the spurious !votes anyway, so their presence there is fairly irrelevant. The only question would be what the consensus is when they are disregarded. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:42, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think Arzel's comment was retracted, it looks like it was accidentally removed in an edit conflict. As for the meatpuppetry, if a biased third party website brought up the RFC, it was encouragement to a particular group of people with their own POV, destroying the legitimacy of the RFC. Also, the votes from the DailyKos may have encouraged a pile-on from non-Kos editors unfamiliar with what was going on.--William S. Saturn (talk) 00:44, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The Daily Kos post specifically asked people to come here.

A REQUEST FOR COMMENTS forum has been called to resolve this matter in the talk section (bottom):http://en.wikipedia.org/... It's essentially two guys against Fox...so if you have an account on Wikipedia, please contribute and let your voice be heard! Wikipedia is always a top search result of just about any topic, so this does matter--Fox knows it.

The language has since changed. Arzel (talk) 00:56, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Note, this was orginally addressed here. Blaxthos, you know what you can do. Arzel (talk) 00:48, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment by User involved After like five or so people voting over the course of about a day we all of a sudden had a massive influx of around 50 nearly identical votes of inclusion from SPA's, people who had not posted in over 3 weeks, and people who had never posted on the topic. I decided to make a new section after the massive pile-on was attributed to the Daily KOs site which has been edited since its discovery to sound less like meatpuppetry. I simply assumed the voting would start over, and that any editors actually involved in would just re-cast their vote. Besides, I didn't voting really mattered. I'm not declaring the RFC invalid(despite Blaxthos suggestion that perhaps the Daily Kos article was an attempt to invalidate the RFC process) I am just resetting it and allowing users to bypass scrolling down the epic pile-on to get to the relevant arguments.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 01:13, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

There's a couple of issues there, though. Firstly, there are comments from regular editors mixed in with the "pile-on" votes; you clearly can't ignore those, and nor will a closing admin. Secondly, you've now !voted twice (I haven't checked if anyone else has). You need to strike the duplicate. I would let the RFC run and collapse the extraneous arguing about the re-set, the closing admin will take the pile-on into account. Black Kite (t) (c) 01:23, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment First, to get my biases out of the way, I believe mention of the donation and the resulting controversy should definitely be included. That said, I do share BritishWatcher's concerns that the DailyKOS article has fatally damaged the integrity of the RfC. I would be just as concerned if Fox News had admonished its readers to "lend a hand" on Tea Party to combat "radical leftists". The rapid influx of editors unfamiliar with our policies and practices pretty much tanked any chance at reasonable discussion, and made what discussion there was impossible to follow. Let's redo it, in a lower-key venue. Some interesting points were raised on both sides, but it's nearly impossible for someone to make sense of the discussion at this point and respond to well-reasoned, well-supported arguments with ones of their own. Wikiposter should not have made the decision to "restart the poll" unilaterally, and I am highly suspicious of his motives in doing so. That said, it does appear to be the right course of action. Throwaway85 (talk) 01:25, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

So, is it your contention that we should not consider the reasoned offerings of editors who just happened to learn of the RFC through a third party? Is it your belief that any "legitimate" editor should have to come and explain his position twice? I just don't see how that's a more reasonable position than for the closing admin to simply consider the discussion in its entirety. All your solution does is reward grossly inappropriate behavior (like unilaterally declaring "I am starting this RFC over" when things don't go your way) for disrupting the process and ignoring the policy. The vast majority of respondents offered a rational opinion, and did not just show up and !vote "include"; admins are not idiots, and are certainly skilled in reading the signal from the noise. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 01:54, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

(ec) For the same reason that I would be crying foul if Fox did it. It has nothing to do with "legitimate" versus "illegitimate" editors, it's the fact that an outside organization with a political axe to grind admonished its readers to come here and influence the RfC. Now, I don't think there was anything particularly nefarious about it, but I am worried about setting a precedent. What happens when the next I-P conflict boils over and a conservative Israeli news agency tells its readers to make sure their view is reflected? The project is far better off protecting itself against undue gaming by outside organizations, even if that involves more work and wasted effort, than letting itself be used as a political chessboard. Throwaway85 (talk) 02:02, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Rather than letting "an outside organization with a political axe to grind" disrupt our process, we should ignore them and move on. Their comments will be considered accordingly, as noted by other editors in this discussion. In other words, the process of starting over is the precedent we don't want to set; because if we have to start over every time someone disrupts the process, then we'll never get anything accomplished. Akerans (talk) 03:24, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The primary question then becomes "How do you determine who was part of the disruption?" There were only a few editors involved before the Daily Kos disruption. The new editors and IP's are pretty easy to ignore, but there were a substantial number of registered editors that clearly fall into the same realm. Editors that actually care about the project should still care about it even if the process is restarted, and would be far easier than having an admin go through all of the editors to determine which are which. The worst part about this, and I should have cached the entire DK post right away before it was changed, was that the DK poster fully realized that this approach may not work, but at the minimum they would suceed in wasting our time. They have certainly suceeded at that! As a secondary note, could we please close any action against Wikiposter0123. He was certainly following the spirt of the WP project regardless of whether anyone feels he went against any WP policies. Arzel (talk) 04:02, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not really worried about the process of weeding out the grain from the chaff, as that's the closing admin's job and it's no different from any RfC close, just more complicated. I'm worried about the precedent it sets, and the taint that will hang over it. If the admin decides to close in favor of the inclusionists, then the exclusionists cry foul and say it was all because of the Daily Kos. That in itself is fine; people on the losing end of arguments throw tantrums all the time round here. The problem is when other people look at it and think "hey, the daily kos ran a piece getting their readers to influence wikipedia and it worked! We should do that!". If, on the other hand, the closing admin finds in favour of the exclusionists, there will be a huge uproar (given the overwhelming consensus), and a new RfC will be started anyway. I think we're just better off doing it again now. Throwaway85 (talk) 04:32, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive editting at Defamation of religions and the United Nations

Could I get some eyes at Talk:Defamation_of_religions_and_the_United_Nations#Factual_accuracy_tag_dispute? There is a dispute over the factual accuracy tag on the lede section. User:Pyrrhon8 is justifying the tag with issues that have already been addressed, and his comments look like ownership if you ask me. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 02:03, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

As on the article section, looks like a content dispute. Dispute resolution is probably indicated, if a third opinion didn't work, there's always RFC or mediation. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:07, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Or, god forbid, someone could read a few paragraphs and take a stand. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 02:17, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

well, I would, but I've run into Pyrrhon before (with unpleasant results) and my entry onto the scene would not improve the situation. Pyrrhon has his own peculiar take on UN Human Rights issues, and he has a truly tendentious manner of approaching it, but he only has 600 edits or so, so... It would be nice if sysop with a calm, reasonable manner would stop in and have a discussion with him about collaborative editing. as it stands, though, the article doesn't look too bad, and the continued presence of the tags is not too painful. ask Pyrrhon if he's willing to abide by a wp:3O on the matter. --Ludwigs2 02:46, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

We already had a third opinion, by his request, and the third opinion sided with my version. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 02:52, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

and what happens when you remove the tag, with a 'per 3O' summary? --Ludwigs2 04:59, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Pyrrhon is still calling his version the "consensus" version, referring to the article's recent AFD result of "keep" I guess. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 06:27, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I would do that, but I've also had less than favorable interactions with Pyrrhon, actually with Ludwigs2, so I'll recuse from doing anything. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 05:13, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

req4DESYSOP

Resolved

 – Sven70 has been indef blocked by Wgfinley for "Personal attacks or harassment". - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:34, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

rsn:INTEFERENSbyINTIMIDATNw/RFC/U [116]-----Please note, I have [[Repetitive Strain Injury]] and find typing very hard. I use a form of shorthand, which may be difficult to understand. I can be contacted through MSN (sven70) or Skype (sven0921) if my meaning is unclear. (talk) 04:41, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Wrong venue. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 04:47, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Y,wiklawyer!-----Please note, I have [[Repetitive Strain Injury]] and find typing very hard. I use a form of shorthand, which may be difficult to understand. I can be contacted through MSN (sven70) or Skype (sven0921) if my meaning is unclear. (talk) 04:52, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any interference. What I see is a patent refusal to work well with others. Having a disability is not a free pass regarding WP:COMPETENCE or WP:CIVIL. --Jayron32 04:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Sven didn't notify me, but I found this anyway, so don't worry about substing {{aninotice}} on my talk page, i'm aware of the discussion. I stand by my warning. I warned him that if he continued to whine about the WMF et al discriminating against him, he would be blocked. He responded...by whining about discrimination! I'm not going to block myself, because I could be seen as involved, but I think someone else should. The Wordsmith^Communicate 05:00, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

1inotifyd[rvebyUser_talk:Seb_az86556|her[117]butnowikilaerin2urC-INBLINDclique —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sven70 (talk • contribs) 05:12, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Notification as in post a message on his talk page so he knows, but anyway, let's try to keep RfC issues at RfC. Netalarm^talk 05:18, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

hestalkongme[butno wklwyr~formalityzas2WHER

• uplDUNEVNOurownprocedur~stifl[certifyinANDendorsinOUTSIDCMNTSpuh!-----Please note, I have [[Repetitive Strain Injury]] and find typing very hard. I use a form of shorthand, which may be difficult to understand. I can be contacted through MSN (sven70) or Skype (sven0921) if my meaning is unclear. (talk) 06:07, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

(ec) you vandalized my sig -- twice. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 05:20, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

UVnoideabout[LIKLYonpurpos]WOT=vandalismNDAD=GRAVCONCERN,PROB-CREATR!

I stand by my

FINAL[SV]

warning. I warned him that if he continued to whine

ALREDYDEwordchois=RUD,DENIGRATIN+OFENSIV!>DESYSOP![SV24.8]

about the WMF et al discriminating against him, he would be blocked.

RFC=BLOKFEST,IC[SV]— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sven70 (talk • contribs)

I can't find anything offensive about that message. It was a final warning (which I believed you've received many times now) to discuss your issues with other users. Yes, you are of course allowed to discuss it with other editors, yes you are allowed to ask them for their views, however you are not allowed to harass or or attack other editors (calling them Nazis, etc.). I understand that it may be hard to keep your temper if people are rude to you, but no one has done that. So let's all engage in a reasonable discussion and resolve this issue. Netalarm^talk 05:27, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I can't find anything offensive about that message. It was a final warning (which I believed you've received many times now)

oye-NEDGLASES??testimony2deBIASDNSfr.OUTSET!![SV24.8]

yes you are allowed to ask them for their views, however you are not allowed to harass

ALURBL'EVIDENS'wherPPLINVOLVD,butMAKINTHINGSUPASUGO'MEDIATN'[SV]

or or attack other editors (calling them Nazis,

DEYWEREGUDW/DISABLDL2,AO-SV]etc.).

it may be hard to keep your temper if people are rude to you, but no one has done that

LUK@F+GREGLPOST,O,O,BUTnotOFENSIV,DENIGRATIN+DISPARAGIN-TAKESCALSOFUREYS+LEARNBOUTPC!!

• Does anyone else think Sven70's signature is insanely too long and probably violates WP:SIG rules? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:28, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

NOdadISC.GEN-SORTRudnsOUTOFUR"COMUNITY"THENDISABLDMITENOTNE2TRYnsufer!!DADMUCH!!---Please note, I have [[Repetitive Strain Injury]] and find typing very hard. I use a form of shorthand, which may be difficult to understand. I can be contacted through MSN (sven70) or Skype (sven0921) if my meaning is unclear. (talk) 06:07, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I've tried to get him to use a shorter variant that links to the information he wants to present, but he doesn't want to use it, as he thinks it may cause confusion. Netalarm^talk 05:30, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Wha? That mess where he gives his MSN and Skype information is confusing enough and probably opening himself up to all sorts of problems. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:33, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

NO1HASabusdDADVENUE[hardlyany1usdit eithe]+dad'mess'[nodenigratn-empathylesimaturppl]hasbenCAREFULYREDACTED2GETHEW/ACONCERNDADMIN[aminorityadmitedly]-a-buti'cantcolaborate[genstanSERTIVDISABLD=fre4al-shameonuppl!>LUK@DEHOLWMF/WP/WIKTmesHARDLYANY1wants2JOINANYMORE[HINT:1RESN=DEABUSIVFAKSDADPOPULATEDISPLACE,ocasionalexc.permitinBUTCALMEDEVANDAL[hunevavndlizes]dadSCAPEGOATIN'lsolvit---Please note, I have [[Repetitive Strain Injury]] and find typing very hard. I use a form of shorthand, which may be difficult to understand. I can be contacted through MSN (sven70) or Skype (sven0921) if my meaning is unclear. (talk) 06:07, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Can someone translate this mess? If you can type all that, you don't have any "Repetitive Strain Injury", you are just being disruptive. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:17, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I have made a rough translation: No one has abused that venue (hardly anyone used it either) and that mess [referring to his signature - WS] (no denigrating, empathy, less immature people) has been carefully redacted together with a concerned admin (a minority, admittedly). But, I can't collaborate [incomprehensible] is a free-for-all, shame on you people! Look at the whole WMF/Wikipedia/Wiktionary mess, hardly anyone wants to join anymore (hint: one reason is the abusive fucks that populate this place). [incomprehensible] but call ME the vandal (who never vandalizes)? That's scapegoating [incomprehensible]. The Wordsmith^Communicate 06:31, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I am not calling you a vandal. I am, however, saying that you are attacking other editors and that it needs to stop, immediately. The Wordsmith^Communicate 06:20, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

If he has 'repetitive strain disorder', why is he even here? 'Hi, I use a method of communication that is literally incomprehensible; please allow me to vomit a mass of text on your page so you can spend ten minutes trying to figure out what I'm saying.'

Frankly his disorder is his problem; if he can't type coherently, why would he even think that being on a website (where text is literally the only method of communication) would in any way be a good idea? That's almost trolling in its ignorance. HalfShadow 06:41, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Block

Among the various acts of incivility in this edit we have a particular area:

HINT:1RESN=DEABUSIVFAKSDADPOPULATEDISPLACE

Which I translate as "Hint: one reason is the abusive fucks that populate this place".

This is but the latest of a string of personal attacks against anyone who has criticized this user's behavior. These cases are well outlined in the user's current RfC and its talk page.

I believe the community has been more than tolerant of these various attacks on various members and the time has come for this to stop.

1. Wikipedia is not Wiktionary and his grievances shouldn't have been brought here to begin with. He's been told this many times but still persists[118], it's gone on months in my review. This is a constant disruption.
2. I have applied criteria one would in real life that is, is this behavior a manifestation of Sven's disability? Clearly it is not. His RSI does not cause him to make these personal attacks on people.
3. He has been warned multiple times about his behavior but it has not changed.

Accordingly I have blocked him indefinitely for constant disruption and multiple instances of personal attacks. This may be changed pending further developments on his RfC or a ban proposal I have noted below. --WGFinley (talk) 07:00, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Ban proposal on User:Sven70

I am proposing a siteban on User:Sven70, as it has become painfully clear to me of his blatant disruption here on en.wiki, which has actually been brought here from other wikis. I hate to say that he is using his disability as leverage to engage in disruption and harassment here because I believe all should have their fair treatment, but I am afraid that this is the case. WP:COMPETENCE applies here, and Sven70 is abusing that in his favor, as he has done on the other wikis. –MuZemike 06:33, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support: Especially due to this mess of shorthand writing which few can read anyway, but he writes in volumes. "Repetitive Strain Injury" my foot. I have Tendon Tunnel (think Carpal Tunnel, but for tendons in your hands) and I can still type in normal everyday English. Combine that with the apparent disruption and harrassment in other areas, yeah, this guy needs to be banned. Indef block already in place, by the way. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:37, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

• Strongest Possible Oppose. Don't you know that disagreeing with someone who has a disability is discriminatory? So is taking any sort of administrative action against them! The Wordsmith^Communicate 06:36, 24 August 2010 (UTC) Apparently the Internet is serious business. The Wordsmith^Communicate 06:58, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Dude, I am really hoping you are joking. I have a disability, it is called Aspergers and I have been taken to ANI more times than I can count and blocked a shitload, didn't say "hey, sorry, disability, can't block me". Doesn't work that way. We don't have the ADA here on Wikipedia. You screw up, disability or not, you are out. Plain and simple. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:40, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Bull. A handicapped person cannot abuse his driving privileges by triple-parking sideways from a handicapped spot into two non-handicapped spots and get away with it. This is what this basically is. –MuZemike 06:44, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
  • For those who didn't get it, this is an attempt at humour. Probably not a very good one, since it is nearly 3:00 here and I need sleep, but an attempt nonetheless. I actually support a ban, for the same reasons I warned Sven about. The Wordsmith^Communicate 06:50, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Well other than the fact that it was a bad joke, ban discussions are serious about totally removing someone from the project and they should not be treated lightly, so even the attempt was unhelpful + inappropriate. I suggest you actually strike the comment now (if you have not already done so). Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
      • No, not a good one. Some, like myself, take matters of disability serious, plus can't read between the lines on subtle humor...now that I can blame on my Aspergers, but I am learning on that one, so my apologizes for getting upset over a joke. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:57, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
• Cut the crap > Support No-one needs to be called a Nazi w/o retraction, no-one needs to be called names. It's over. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 06:42, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
• Enough is enough. He's been given many, many chances to change his behavior, and has wildly ignored them. Disability or not, everyone must abide by the same rules regarding civility and personal attacks. Sven, if you read this, I would like to let you know that I am NOT doing this because of your RSI. I am doing this because of your constant attacks, incivility, calling others Nazis, claims of stalking, and general disruptiveness. (X! · talk)  · @327  ·  06:51, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support. User:BarkingFish/Sven70Response Translation tells enough. He could use a more intelligible form of shorthand, too. --Rschen7754 06:59, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support Although I see it's been implemented now. I've had hand/elbow problems that made it hard/painful to type, that's no excuse, no matter how bad, for this sort of behavior. Dougweller (talk) 07:18, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:21, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support Incredibly disruptive behavior. I can't see this editor's return causing anything more than constant further problems, on several levels. Doc9871 (talk) 07:22, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
• Strong support, and sincere apologies that our block of this user on Wiktionary only caused him to take his abuses elsewhere. As an aside, I use a screenreader set to read each thing I hover the mouse over, in order to compensate for moderately severe dyslexia, and cannot read Sven's comments without an hour of effort, which gives me a headache and then makes it harder for me to continue to read things afterward. The screenreader simply garbles anything he writes. Oh yes and I also have numerous bone spurs in my hands that make it a relatively slow process to type if I want to retain hand function, and yet I use complete English sentences, too! --Neskaya ^kanetsv? 07:23, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

User:HareKrishnaPortal

This user has created or edited several unsourced and non-neutral POV/promotional pages and a portal relating to Hare Krishna.

• Portal:Hare Krishna
• Hare Krishna media gallery
• Krishna consciousness philosophy
• Vedic Cosmology

All of these have been nominated for deletion by myself or others, after explaining Wikipedia policies regarding RS, NPOV, Not a Soapbox, etc.

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vedic Cosmology
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Krishna consciousness philosophy
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Hare Krishna

The user responded by making strange religious statements [119] and other spiritual threats [120].

This user was blocked for a period of time for randomly adding mfd tags to atheism-related articles [121], but IPs showed up soon after and continued to edit Portal:Hare Krishna and harass myself [122] and other editors [123] among others. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 05:08, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Update. The user continued adding mfd templates to the atheism portal [124] and off-topic addition to an active mfd [125]. I reported the user to AIV. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 05:25, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

• I ended up blocking him indefinitely. The community can decide here if they want it to stay like that but he was clearly not listening to warnings or willing to talk and had already been blocked for similar issues a couple days ago. James (T C) 05:34, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Jrod2 being uncivil and posting messages on my talk page after he's been asked not to

I contested a PROD placed by User:Jrod2 who then (against policy) restored the contested prod [126]. Jrod2 then placed this uncivil post on my talk page - basically telling me to not contest his PROD. The top of my talk page states that I will reply to messages left on my talk page on the sender's page. At Jrod2 talk page I left this post thus starting a thread for Jrod2's further replies (if necessary) But instead he deletes my post on his page [127] and posts this uncivil post on my talk page. I reply here telling Jrod2 directly that he is not to post messages on my talk page. Ignoring my request to not post on my talk page, Jrod2 taunts me by posting this rude message on my talk page. I request that Jrod2 be sanctioned for his uncivil behaviour. Inniverse (talk) 05:08, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with the message he just posted on your talk page, Azviz. –MuZemike 06:24, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Editor talk pages exist to allow other editors to post notices, etc. Forbidding users from posting there, absent a clear history of harassment, is inappropriate. You can always delete messages after you've read them.   Will Beback  talk  06:49, 24 August 2010 (UTC)