Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive597

BlackJack evading block (part three)

See also: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive594 § BlackJack evading block

See also: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive208 § BlackJack evading block (part two)

BlackJack (talk · contribs) who is presently blocked for abusing sockpuppets is again evading his block by editing as an IP (86.140.219.156 (talk · contribs)). Could somebody take a look at this? Thanks in advance. --85.210.135.210 (talk) 17:02, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

NEW POLICY: Oppose an AFD, just vandalize

I submitted an AFD. The person is not notable but maybe his death is. Someone removed the AFD tag and wiped out the AFD. I reported it to AIV and nothing was done. Therefore, unless someone says otherwise, this appears to be the new order -- If you don't like something, wipe it out. Please, if you are an administrator, please tell Cassandra 73 that he can't just remove AFD tags. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nodar_Kumaritashvili&action=historysubmit&diff=343844459&oldid=343844024 Revenge No (talk) 23:13, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

The AFD was closed by an admin as a speedy keep. If you'd prefer consensus for a speedy keep, I'd happily help provide that consensus. Reach Out to the Truth 23:16, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

This guy is obscure. In Wikipedia, we write "Murder of --" not "--"

You are just giving excuses. There was vandalism then the speedy keep. So you allow vandalism? At least tell the man, Cassandra 73, that what he did was wrong. I will settle for that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Revenge No (talk • contribs) 23:20, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Read WP:ATHLETE. Going to the Olympics made him notable, and that's why he was given a page on February 6. He had notability even before his death. Reach Out to the Truth 23:24, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

For info, removing the AFD was an accident - I rolled back the user because of the totally inappropriate comment the user added in that edit (didn't actually see there was an AFD in there as well until afterwards). Also an article currently linked to on the main page qualifies for a speedy keep. Cassandra 73 (talk) 23:28, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Well, that may be questionable, as I noted on the talk page a moment ago. But apart from that, I fail to see the justification for a speedy close on the AfD, and what appears to be a very hostile reaction to this user's nomination thereof. What gives here? Tarc (talk) 23:32, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Could have been handled in a more polite manner. Cassandra's error just shows how automated tasks have potential problems. Let's just be nice. As far as WP:ATH, this person doesn't qualify by the Olympics since it hadn't started when he died. However, he probably competed in the World Championships so he qualifies. Spevw (talk) 23:51, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

In actual practice, we do have a fair number of articles whose entire basis is that the subject's name once appeared on a Winter Olympics roster, with nothing more than that in the article (e.g., no references for them actually competing). Even with the plain meaning of WP:ATHLETE, those articles aren't likely to be deleted - so the real bar of notability is low enough to encompass such articles. Having said that, the manner of this person's death unquestionably makes them posthumously notable regardless. — Gavia immer (talk) 02:24, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I endorse the speedy close if that will help end the wikidrama here. WP:SNOW seems to be in order, and the speedy close minimizes the disruption from a bad nomination -- at least until we get into the meta-discussion here. THF (talk) 23:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

This is the comment the user added to the article at the same time [1]. Cassandra 73 (talk)

Yes close this ..He is clearly notable ..be it for WP:ATHLETE for making it to the Olympics and not to mention how he die will be talk about for year and will probably have a big impact on future tracks designs...So i would guess that because of this we will see a few articles arise like track safety..Olympic over site of designs etc.. that would all link to Nodar Kumaritashvili as an examples ... pls see this people for other examples of Olympic fatalities --->Nicolas Bochatay, Kazimierz Kay-Skrzypeski, Knud Enemark Jensen and Francisco Lázaro..Buzzzsherman (talk) 23:39, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

As the admin who speedily kept the article, I'd been somewhat reticent about taking any further action. However, looking at his history, it seems to me that this user is clearly here only to make a point, and his contrib history suggests that he's somebody's sockpuppet. For that reason, I've blocked this user indefinitely as a disruptive, POINTy SPA. Blueboy96 23:59, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

That's the feeling I got from him too. He creates an account today, claims Nodar Kumaritashvili isn't notable, nominates the article for deletion, and then goes to AIV and ANI when the AFD is speedy closed. I don't think most new members would immediately be familiar with all of those processes. Reach Out to the Truth 00:17, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking he reminded me of WossOccurring (talk · contribs), who came to ANI a couple of times when his AFDs weren't going as he liked and accused an editor who reverted him of vandalism [2], although the malformed AFD was odd [3].Cassandra 73 (talk) 00:30, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support - The AfD was an obvious act of vandalism. Removing the AfD tag and speedy keeping the article was simply cleaning up the vandalism. The indef banning was appropriate. The less time we spend on people clearly intent on disruption, the better. It's preferable to lose a few people who might possibly somehow be persuaded to edit constructively than to wear down proven, dedicated contributors. That isn't to say we don't go through the usual warning processes with obviously novice editors, but I do think we can dispense with the niceties when dealing with the rest. Rklawton (talk) 02:37, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

How was this new user able to create an AfD page with only three previous edits? Aren't ten required? Woogee (talk) 20:53, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

AfD

Resolved

 – deamed by -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ (Author)

I would like to note that an AfD is up that I think meets G10 (WP:CSD), and I want to bring it to admin attention.
Article: Black people in Australia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black people in Australia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Creator: BigBossBlues (talk · contribs)
Please remove it from wikipedia if it meets this criteria. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 04:10, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how it meets G10; it's not an attack page. I say let the AfD run. And I note that your G10 request (filed after this report here at WP:AN/I was declined.-- Flyguy649 ^talk 04:31, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

How about WP:SNOW? Rklawton (talk) 04:47, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

That makes sense, but I think it should be re-written since it seems to be related to a whole sleu of articles. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:51, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

It's redundant and not sourced, so there's nothing to re-write. Rklawton (talk) 04:53, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:NOTEARLY
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 04:53, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:SNOW - "However, process for its own sake is not part of Wikipedia policy." Rklawton (talk) 05:00, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I have realized that this is not a CSD. Thanks to the admins who took the time to look. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 19:48, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Orijentolog: community ban

See thread above for background. Orijentolog (talk · contribs), a user known for aggressive nationalist and anti-semitic editing, was blocked on 27 September for "tendentious editing", initially for 2 days; this had to be immediately increased to two weeks and then indef because of massive block-evading activity through dynamic IPs. Since then, he seems to have continued socking more or less permanently. He has been the subject of two more SPI reports (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Orijentolog/Archive) and the cause of massive disruption forcing protection of the Greco-Persian Wars article and even its talk page. He immediately continued socking through new IPs even after the latest round of blocks yesterday, including revert-warring against users who were trying to clean up his previous block evasion.

I propose treating him as formally and permanently community-banned from now on. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:14, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

• Concur Best formalise what is very apparent. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:21, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support, although technically, there's no such thing as permanent, given that the community could change its mind at a later time. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:17, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support Extremely disruptive user. Athenean (talk) 20:33, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Tea Party protests, 2009

This article is a bit out of control. It's getting edits like "To demonize, discredit and make fun of the TEA Party Movement, Progressive's have began referring to them as "teabaggers" The term teabagger is American slang for a particularly disgusting homosexual act. Such is the level of sophistication of Obama's Elitist and ACORN astroturf thugs. Also, Obama's Educated Elitist thugs,,," and right now "Despite attempts by International and Progressive elitists to use propaganda to demonize and discredit " (is that code for something?) . I think the article should be included in Wikipedia:General sanctions/Obama article probation. Dougweller (talk) 20:18, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Saw this at WP:RFPP. Fully protected for one week. Other admins feel free to change it, if there is productive dialogue and/or dispute resolution at the article's talk page. Cirt (talk) 20:26, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

That's a start and many thanks, but I'm not convinced it will be enough. We'll have to unprotect it at some point, and I think it can justifiably be put under probation, which will provide more tools to keep it under control without full protection. Dougweller (talk) 20:46, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Silverhorse and date formats

User:Silverhorse (talk|contribs) has been imposing his preferred date formats on a number of articles ([4], [5], [6], for example). He has been asked to stop many times ([7], [8], [9], etc.). He consistently ignores all communication and only blanks his talk page. The editor seems to do little or nothing else beyond these lame and unhelpful edits. --Amble (talk) 09:01, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

And what do i do when i find a page that has differnt date formantsSilverhorse (talk) 09:27, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Leave it alone, as you have been repeatedly asked. Wikipedia day articles go to February 14, not [[14 February]], which is a redirect-watch where it goes when you click. If it's good enough for Wikipedia, it's good enough for you. Surely you can find something productive to do here. Your dating system is not it. --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 09:57, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia policy on date policies has been patiently explained to you again and again, with links to Wikipedia:MOSDATE, over the last year. Have you read it? --Amble (talk) 17:12, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I've reviewed this user's contributions and talk page history. He seems to be almost solely dedicated to changing dates to a single format, in violation of WP:MOSDATE which says that styles should not be converted without a style-independent reason. He has received, and blanked without any other reaction, very many warnings about this. This is disruptive editing. I've blocked him for 24 hours. If the disruption does not stop after this, escalating blocks should be applied.  Sandstein  22:12, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I should mention that some of his format changes are OK: for articles pertaining to a specific English-speaking country, it's acceptable to ensure the article uses that country's usual style and spellings. So for WorkChoices, for example, I think Silverhorse's edits are fine. It's imposing his country's date style on all articles that's the problem. --Amble (talk) 23:29, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Personal attacks in Occupation of Baltic States

Please take attention on User Virgil Lasis (talk) who recently accused user Igny [10] of being extremist. He also argues that all Russian sources should be removed from Wikipedia because Russia is underdeveloped authoritarian country[11] and heavily edit-warred to remove the sources so the article to represent only "official view of Baltic states". I highly suspect this account to belong to one of the banned or topic-banned participants of the EEML mailing list since it was registered in January 2001, when the ArbCom ruling came to force. He nearly repeats some arguments by the EEML members, namely, arguments that Russian sources should be excluded. He also showed familiarity with some Wikipedia's rules such as WP:UNDUE. --Dojarca (talk) 15:41, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is currently ripe for admin action (what do you want us to do?). To investigate possible sockpuppetry, please use WP:SPI (but remember WP:AGF); to resolve problems involving nationalist conflicts in Eastern Europe, please use the following in this order: (a) WP:DR, (b) WP:CCN, (c) WP:AE per the remedies of WP:DIGWUREN. You should also notify Virgil Lasis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) of this thread.  Sandstein  22:01, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Can you at least please as an administrator remind this user of Wikipedia's neutrality and civility rules?--Dojarca (talk) 01:11, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Wiki Greek Basketball involved in online stalking of WP users

I saw that this individual created an account (as Yellow2010) at the Wikipedia Review and made several posts in which he ranted against several administrators for deciding to ban him from Wikipedia. In one of his posts, he said this:

---

This Tanthalas39 guy is such a psycho. I can't even begin with all the things he did to me. Some searches on him show him to be at a martial arts school in _. Someone needs to join up at the school and put him in his place.

wikipediareview DOT com/index.php?act=Search&nav=au&CODE=show&searchid=844c8736c6726464cb26bb58466846bf&search_in=posts&result_type=posts

(Did not add direct link, type into browser and replace DOT with .)

---

Apparently he's decided to stalk at least 1 named member via google and posting their personal information on another website (and he's also likely doing this to several other admins he named in a "list" which he also posted on the Wikipedia Review). Based on his posts he definitely appears to be mentally unstable, so I would recommend filing some type of abuse report against him via his IP information. His "list" also named these members (though it didn't contain any personal info that I know of):

---

Coffee
Ryulong
Beeblebrox
Tanthalas39
Phantomsteve
Bwilkins
Gwen Gale
TreasuryTag
MSGJ
Daedalus69
Tbsdy lives
Fastily
The Thing That Should Not Be
Wisdom89
ArcAngel
Pakaran
Rjanag
Abecedare
Cyclopia
Rschen7754
Seb az86556
Mjroots
MuZemike

wikipediareview DOT com/index.php?showtopic=28529&st=0 (Did not add direct link, type into browser and replace DOT with .)

---

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.255.16.234 (talk) 07:42, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh for Christ's sake, could we just officially ban this guy already? He's gone through more lives than a cat, and he obviously STILL doesn't get it. What's the holdup? Mønster av Arktisk Vinter Kvelden (talk) 08:00, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, banning will CERTAINLY stop WGB from acting like this...Doc Quintana (talk) 14:30, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

According to this[12] he's already banned. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:23, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I believe Wikipedia Review is taking care of this in some capacity.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:17, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

For ease of viewing, see here.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 09:52, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

"The Standard Offer"

I am not sure what exactly this is, but with the thing about this and the other situation, I am just going ahead and start this. I propose that the Wikipedia:Standard offer is hereby revoked from WGB. I believe he voided this a long time ago (as I recall, there was a suicide threat about this and if law enforcement is envoked, according to the SO page, the offer is revoked. Also under "Variations," any more disruption will cause a six month timer to be reset. I seen it grown by a few years in the past week or two, so just make this go away for good. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 08:24, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Just to add to the suicide threat portion of this, the police were called in that instance, never heard back from them so I don't know what was done/said (if anything) to WGB. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 08:31, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

The page said that even if there is a posibility that cops could be involved, it should not be extended or should be revoked. I never received an email about this, but I am sick and tired of seeing this user pop up on ANI on a near daily basis. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 08:33, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I haven't seen his name pop up since he was banned. Although, what are generally the reasons by which this "standard offer" is revoked anyway?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:36, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Sorry, I posted on the original thread about this (I can dig it out of archives, if needed) but wasn't aware you needed an email on this as well, my apologizes on that. But I did call them and the cops seemed kinda lost on how to proceed, so nothing may have happened, I am not sure as I never received a call back (though honestly didn't expect one). I do agree with you, WGB has tried, time and time again, the patience of the community and the standard offer should be revoked and he should go far, far away. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 08:38, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Sections "Eligibility" and "Variations" explain on how it can be revoked and the 6 month timer. Even if there is no rule on how to revoke it, I will make one up by coming here. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 08:40, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

How about we just don't offer it in the first place? I support revoking it because I don't support it in the first place. A 6 month get out of jail free card when you've exhausted the community's patience is absurd.--Crossmr (talk) 10:05, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

It's only for people who behave good during the whole 6 months, which to be honest, doesnt happen that often. ♥Soap♥ 13:31, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, nobody knows how we'll feel in 6 months about him (or a year, or two). I will almost always disagree with any ban of infinite length (note that indefinite is not the same as infinite, and totally support this indefinite ban). Primary reason? People can change. I think that's the fundamental belief behind WP:SO. In a year, maybe he will have reached out to everyone, apologized, gotten back on their good side, and then he can come back and ask for another chance. Until such time that he has cooled down and at least earned back a little trust of the community, I 100% agree with his ban, but I don't think we should be making decisions that will give others no hope of ever coming back, no matter what they do. If it comes up in 6 months or a year or whatever, then we make the decision about it then, not now. --Shirik ♥♥ 16:10, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

• The standard offer should be totally revoked here. Not only has he admitted to socking (User:Euroleague Basketball Project), but he as also asked at WR for people to advise him on how to sock better without getting noticed. This type of behavior is not acceptable, and we shouldn't think twice about considering WGB permanently banned from Wikipedia. — Coffee // have a cup // ark // 19:20, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
• After all the trouble WGB has caused, I definitely agree with revoking the standard offer. A permanent ban is worth considering, but I'm not sure I'd support applying one to WGB yet. RadManCF (talk) 19:50, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Y'all, please forget it. WGB is community banned, six months is a long time on the Internet, let it be. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:23, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Ban him, he's just turned into another Peter Damian. God, do we need another one of those again?--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 21:36, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

He is banned. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:38, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

• If I'm not mistaken, the "standard offer" is just a general guideline, but not a specific code for banned users to follow if they want to make a legitemate return to active editing. It's a generalized concept - there are some editors who are unbanned prior to the six month mark, and then there are editors who may never be welcomed back to Wikipedia. It needs to be done on a case-by-case basis. In this case, due to the off-wiki harassment of various different users on this site, I would expect that it will be well over a year before anybody seriously discusses unbanning WGB. He has exhausted the community's patience. Master&Expert (Talk) 22:18, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
• If ever there was a case for damnatio memoriae, this is it. Just talking about him (yes, yes, I know, but this is _my_ last mention of this topic forever and anon) gives him what he craves: more fodder for dramatization on WR, more attention, etc. May his name no more be spoken. GJC 05:40, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
• He has a 6-month ban/block. Whether these are lifted after that will depend on his attitude at that time. If his attitude is the same as it has been for the last month or so, it won't be. If his attitude is one of someone who realises that they've done things wrong, but who wants to move on and be constructive, then the lifting can be discussed by the community. Either way, there's a bit under 6 months left until we need to think about it, so let's ignore him and move on. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 11:32, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
• Just ignore him. IMHO, this has got to the point where consensus will be against allowing him to return for a very long time. There's nothing more we can do about him on Wikipedia, so let's stop discussing him on weekly basis. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 11:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

User Mcjakeqcool should be unblocked under Wiki:Give'emrope

I feel that the prospect of User Mcjakeqcool being unblocked under Wiki:Give'emrope should be seriously considered. He fits the bill and is willing for a such motive. JameszJJames (talk) 14:54, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

The guy has a long enough history of problems, and we already have enough to do without having to babysit this editor. Rklawton (talk) 15:02, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

JameszJJames blocked as a sock of Mcjakeqcool (quack!) - as per [13] it surely should be "Give em enough rope and they'll out themselves."--Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:15, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I think WP:DENY might be effective with this nuisance. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 18:49, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

No, it won't. His history is a bit unique, and he's not necessarily acting out of a need for attention. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Edit move war regarding Genesis

Resolved

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The article once known as Creation according to Genesis was subjected to a move request at Talk:Creation according to Genesis#Requested move (as a way to resolve every reasonable concern) (also listed at WP:RM), which concluded with the page being moved to Genesis creation myth. This move was reverted[14] by Til Eulenspiegel (talk · contribs). Til's move was then reverted[15] by Ben Tillman (talk · contribs), and finally re-reverted[16] by Til.

Advice and independent eyes requested. Gabbe (talk) 17:33, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Please also note the user was warned about inappropriate page moves here, they then removed the notice before moving the page again. Cheers, Ben (talk) 17:41, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Tillman continues his campaign to strip any semblance of neutral point of view from that particular subject. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:47, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't see what the hubbub is about. Okay, so they had a couple of good albums; almost every band does. HalfShadow 17:49, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

What's the deal with Phil Collins anyways? 173.100.214.133 (talk) 17:53, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Ha ha. I have amassed a vast number of sources for the theological POV that no part of Genesis meets nearly any definition of "myth" or objecting to its use, but the opposing POV seems to have overruled neutrality. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 17:55, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, I have to agree with Til here. It should'nt be called a "myth" nor should it be stated as fact. We are only here to present info, not to persuade people.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 17:57, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, you need to learn the definition of creation myth. It was established as consensus that the first two chapters of Genesis contained one. There's Hindu creation myth, Sumerian creation myth, and we shouldn't change the MOS for some who don't like the formal meaning of the word. Wikipedia is not censored.Auntie E. (talk) 18:01, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

What exactly do you mean by "consensus"? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:02, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

(double ec) This was recently discussed in a requested move, which I closed. Surprisingly (to me at least), there was almost no discussion about the merits of moving to "creation myth" in that discussion; people disagreed about whether it should be "biblical" or "Genesis" creation myth. I just tried to move-protect the page to avoid further warring, but that has already been done. Ucucha 18:04, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

• Seresin has reverted Mr. Tillman for reverting a properly-closed requested move decision. I have move-protected the page; please seek consensus through the appropriate channels if you wish to have the page moved. NW (Talk) 18:02, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I think you've got Ben Tillman and Til Eulenspiegel mixed up. Til Eulenspiegel was the one who objected with the RM decision, not Ben Tillman. Gabbe (talk) 18:10, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

• I have reverted the moves. The RM was legitimate; Til may not overrule it just because he disagrees with the closure. There are other methods to resolve naming issues. ÷seresin 18:04, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Genesis Creation Myth

We had established by consensus that this is a creation myth. Why is one person deciding it isn't and totally changing the title back to the one that censors the word? Auntie E. (talk) 18:08, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

See WP:STICK. It's over lady.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 18:10, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

See the discussion immediately above this one. Ucucha 18:10, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

There is a significant number of published theologians both now and going back many decades, who have explicitly disagreed with characterizing Genesis as a "myth" and pointed out numerous objections, but these theologians have been overruled without a true consensus, this has proved inflammatory and has caused incessant protest. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:11, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Look, I sympathise with you Til, but the reality is, wikipedia is a place for POV pushers and there's nothing that you can do about it. "Consensus" (AKA, the biggest joke I've ever heard of) has "been formed".--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 18:15, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

sub-heading

The POV-pushers have triumphed here, further diminishing wikipedia's reputation. I hope they're proud of themselves. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:10, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:SOAP. For christ's sake. --King Öomie 04:17, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Ironic way to put it. It's unfortunate that you and Tillman have succeeded in pushing your POV ahead of serving the wikipedia readers. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:06, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Nableezy

Resolved

 – Apparent misunderstanding due to conflicting world maps. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:58, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have to report Nableezy's misconduct again, this time regarding this file: File:BlueLine.jpg (saved on the Commons). First, he reverted legitimate and well-explained change to a map. He is the only one who objected to the changes, and he did not explain his objection. Then, when I reverted his changes and referred to the explanations, he delivered a personal attack at me here: [17], and here: [18]. DrorK (talk) 07:58, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Drork is literally changing international boundaries on maps. Take a look at his idea of the the boundary between Syria and Israel. You can see from this that southeast of Yeshud Hamalaa Drork has arbitrarily annexed Syrian territory into Israel. nableezy - 08:12, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Since you didn't look at the latter map closely enough, you haven't noticed that the small triangular area is not part of the Golan Heights but a pre-1967 demilitarized zone. While this information is still relevant to the history of the Golan Heights and the Syrian-Israeli conflict, it is not that relevant to the Israeli-Lebanese conflict. In any event, presenting that line as an international boundary is simply an error, and I explained that on the file's talk page. I adapted the map to show the 1923 international border (last internationally recognized border) and the actual area of UNIFIL deployment. This is also explained on the talk page. DrorK (talk) 08:17, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Wrong, you adapted what you yourself recognize as the border and dsiregarded what the UN, the US, the EU and every map I can find says is the the boundary that separates Israel proper from the occupied Golan. Your own personal belief that the borders recognized throughout the world is incorrect is not reason enough to tamper with what is supposed to be a UN map of a UN demarcated boundary. nableezy - 08:22, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Look at these official map from the UN website: [19] and here [20] (click on the tif file icon). Next time respect other people's work before accusing them of lying. You could have find these maps yourself. DrorK (talk) 08:31, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

You know what, the UN does not have that area in Syria as I found in this map. My apologies for assuming you had tampered with the UN recognized boundary. Though most other maps, including the US and EU and other states put that territory in Syria. But I apologize for over-reacting. nableezy - 08:43, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

To Drork: Regarding the Commons edits, you may want to mention that to Commons admins if you haven't already.--Rockfang (talk) 11:38, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Zenanarh

Hi guys. I want you to block me to the end of this century. Here: [21], [22], [23]. Thanks and bye. Zenanarh (talk) 08:11, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

One week block given for deliberate disruptive editing and personal attacks on other editors. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 08:27, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and I'm going to message each of the editors asking them not to take the bait. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 10:48, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Nominating a page for AFD while tagged with construction

AFD closed. 20:00, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Paul Carrigan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) This page was nominated for deletion by Epbr123 (talk · contribs) 7 minutes after it had been moved into mainspace from userspace by the editor that had been working on it, Ash. Epbr123 (talk · contribs) nominated the page for deletion while the page was tagged by Ash with the {{construction}} tag. No effort was made by Epbr123 (talk · contribs) to contact Ash and discuss the matter prior to nominating for deletion, or waiting for the work to be finished and the {{construction}} tag to be removed by the editor that was working on the page. Three editors at the AFD page have called for the withdrawal of the AFD for these reasons. So far, the nominator has failed to withdraw the AFD. I am one of the three calling for withdrawal of the AFD by the nominator, and as such I will defer to the judgment of other administrators regarding this. Thank you for your time, Cirt (talk) 19:14, 14 February 2010 (UTC) The Afd process is designed to be fair in situations like this. An admin there will eventually review the article. In the meantime focus on making the article better and there should be no worries. Beach drifter (talk) 19:16, 14 February 2010 (UTC) Epbr123 (talk · contribs) was also the nominator for the first AFD on the same page. I see no reason why discussion was not first attempted on the article's talk page by Epbr123 (talk · contribs), especially in light of the fact that the page was tagged with {{construction}}. Cirt (talk) 19:24, 14 February 2010 (UTC) I'm not sure what administrative action is needed here? An article being tagged for being underconstruction is not a block from doing an AfD. Epbr123's not asking the user to move it back to his user space or discussing it before hand might be seen as slightly rude, but certainly nothing worth administrative attention. The numerous calls for withdrawal are not very valid, IMHO. The article was not created "seven" minutes ago, it existed and was deleted before (and AfD you yourself closed as delete). The user has worked on it in user space, so it existed long before its move to article space. AGFing would result in Epbr123 clearly feeling it still does not meet notability requirements and WP:PORNBIO is hotly disputed at the moment. Further, I'm a little surprised that you find Epbr123's actions wrong, yet say nothing of Ash restoring the article only FIVE days after it was deleted in that AfD. No DRV was done, and no additional notability shown. I'd say a CSD and restore to his user space would solve the issue quite nicely. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:37, 14 February 2010 (UTC) The actions by Ash were not inappropriate as he had consulted with the deleting admin from the prior AFD (myself), and there were no objections. Cirt (talk) 19:39, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Update: Epbr123 (talk · contribs) has agreed to withdraw the nomination, if the page is moved back into userspace [24]. An apology is due on my part, as I should have advised Ash to make sure every single sentence on the page is sourced not just to sources listed at the bottom of the page, but more specifically to in-line citations. Cirt (talk) 19:39, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Update: Another update, AFD was closed by Epbr123 (talk · contribs) [25]. No objections. :) Cirt (talk) 19:59, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Complaint As the article creator, I am extremely unhappy with this compromise which had nothing to do with me, or any other contributor, but was effectively a quick private negotiation between two administrators, in particular to make Epbr123 feel better about their apparent anti-porn-article deletion campaign and a hastily raised AfD. If there is reason to expect that the article can be improved, then it can be improved while in article space. The grounds for removal have been "special" for no reason apart from potential reasons of effective censorship. As the subject of the article is a well established gay porn film director and the second most credited gay porn actor in the history of gay pornography, there is every reason to expect that notability is already established by applying the WP:GNG guidance. There were no specific BLP concerns that would need speedy deletion and the grounds for the original AfD were PORNBIO which was manifestly incorrect for a specialist genre film director which falls under ARTIST. Rather than resorting to unique non-consensus processes in order to make Epbr123 happy, I suggest the normal AfD process is run for a full seven days, in article space, whilst the article is adjusted until any issues (at least those with some sort of credible rationale) are addressed by a real inclusive consensus process and not by a gentleman's agreement between a couple of admins. Ash (talk) 20:46, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

There was no "private" dialogue, see above diffs. Everything was noted in updates here. I'll defer to other admins regarding the rest of this. Cirt (talk) 21:09, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I did not reference private dialogue, just a private negotiation. By that I meant that you did not reach a consensus just an agreement between the two of you which you then forced on everyone else. As an aside, I note that you were having a "private" dialogue on Epbr123's user talk page about this matter, so to say "everything" is here above is not strictly true (this is not a complaint about your chat, just clarifying the facts). Ash (talk) 21:16, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Please work on further improving the page in your subpage userspace instead of continuing to complain, which serves no constructive purpose. Cirt (talk) 21:20, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, as nobody seems to care I'll just shut up and you can consider the matter resolved. I guess that I was wrong to ask for the AfD to end properly or expect a preference for a consensus building process over individual admins making the decision on what is allowed to exist on Wikipedia based on their personal preferences. Thanks for putting me right. Ash (talk) 22:42, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Ash, I was even contemplating helping you and working with you to further improve the page in your userspace, but this sort of tone and demenaor and sarcasm is very disappointing. Cirt (talk) 05:52, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Follow up: Issue is marked as resolved, but I think it's more of a ceasefire. Both sides have good points, but the frustration lies with actual contributors like Ash and myself, who spend most of our time defending our work rather than creating it. For outsiders who may be reading this, censorship is a HUGE problem in WP:WikiProject Pornography. This debate is a mere "tip of the iceberg". -Stillwaterising (talk) 06:18, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

As this ANI was raised to deal with Epbr123's nomination whilst the article was tagged under construction, and has been resolved, I will raise a DRV for discussion about the non-consensus article deletion which ignored the open AfD discussion. Cirt is disappointed with my tone, which rather misses the bigger issue of a mis-use of a consensus process by more than one admin. As for my frustration, I am not an admin and if some tone flavours my prose this is hardly a serious issue though Cirt is welcome to raise the matter on WQA as an proper forum, rather than deflecting and apparently not hearing my complaint. I have struck the offending comment and I shall try hard to filter my natural sarcastic tendencies. Ash (talk) 06:48, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I object to this too. The page was moved by Cirt after Epbr123 agreed he would withdraw the nomination if the page was userfied. What I did NOT see was any group consensus (besides unconditional withdrawal of nomination) or Ash's permission. He/she's clearly objecting to these actions and I do as well. Also I asked Cirt to explain his/her closing statement on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Carrigan and he twice completely evaded the question (see User talk:Cirt). Do we need an ANI on this issue as well? -Stillwaterising (talk) 07:24, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I would say one ANI was enough for the moment to ensure better behaviour from all parties; with no prejudice for appropriate response on future issues. As I suggested above, I have now raised a DRV to specifically discuss the issue of the article deletion. Personally, I have found Cirt approachable and amenable to discussion. Polite persistence is probably the way forward as everyone involved claims good intentions albeit that their viewpoints are at loggerheads. Ash (talk) 10:20, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment: There is not much else to discuss here. The matter is now currently at DRV, under Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2010_February_15#Paul_Carrigan. The tone and harsh attitude displayed by both Ash (talk · contribs) and Stillwaterising (talk · contribs) above is most inappropriate and disheartening. I have offered to Ash (talk · contribs) that I would be more than willing and actually love to help out and pitch in and work on the User:Ash/Paul Carrigan page in Ash's userspace and improve its quality there myself. However the tone by Ash (talk · contribs) and Stillwaterising (talk · contribs) is not encouraging of positive collaboration in the slightest. Cirt (talk) 14:18, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Apart from my struck out comment above, I would welcome concrete suggestions on my talk page from any editor who feels my behaviour needs to change to be a better Wikipedian. My persistance in this matter is as I am a strong believer in the benefits of consensus processes on Wikipedia, I apologise if that same persistance makes some people uncomfortable. Ash (talk) 14:53, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Main Edges use of swastikas in signature.

Resolved

 – Blocked as a sock of Pickbothmanlol. — Coffee // have a cup // ark // 04:42, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

collapsed discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows. PBML is likely playing games with us, as usual. This is his MO. Make further relevent comments at the SPI report. Nothing for admins to do here, as this is not a forum for discussing the various usages of symbols.--Jayron32 04:01, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Just to confirm: CU found that Main Edges, The Antifacist and Blue Eyed Zoni are PBML Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:37, 15 February 2010 (UTC) {{Resolved}} Main Edges is using swastikas in his signature which promote nothing but visual fascist views and this must be dealt with imeddietly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Antifacist (talk • contribs) 01:31, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Click Swastika, educate yourself, and then apologize. Tan | 39 01:33, 15 February 2010 (UTC) What Tan said. DuncanHill (talk) 01:33, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Who said I was using them in a fascist way? <swatiska redacted> The Main Edge <swastika redacted> 01:34, 15 February 2010 (UTC) ec.I think that is also a peace symbol, he is a Buddhist, apparently. Off2riorob (talk) 01:34, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Buddhists and Nazis, whats the difference? The Antifacist (talk) 01:35, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Wow. Are you being deliberately inflammatory? Reyk YO! 01:37, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Put them at a angle you have a case, leave them as is and they are a revered religous symbol for centuries preceding the Nazis. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 01:36, 15 February 2010 (UTC) It's clearly not for Nazi Germany. Trust me, that looks nothing like the Nazi swastika.--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 01:36, 15 February 2010 (UTC) We don't have to trust you; simply click on swastika. Antifacist, is this a single-purpose account? If so, I'll block you now and save us all a lot of time. Tan | 39 01:37, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Fuck the Nazis. The Antifacist (talk) 01:38, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Indeed; bye. Tan | 39 01:39, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Swastikas were also good luck symbols for aviation pilots in the 1920's and 30's.--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 01:38, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Ironically I have reported your username as protional and disruptive. You seem to be here for a point, would you mind sharing with us what it is or if you have been here before? I apoligize if it seems unfriendly but you sure found this place and picked a specific editor out of the crowd pretty quick.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 01:40, 15 February 2010 (UTC) No point. Tan has already blocked this single-purpose troll for good. Reyk YO! 01:42, 15 February 2010 (UTC) FYI, learn how to spell fascist. <swatiska redacted> The Main Edge <swatiska redacted> 01:43, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Given that User:Main Edges is a brand-new account, created just today, the folks commenting here seem rather certain that the purpose of the swastikas is not to be disruptive. Perhaps my AGF tank has a hole in it, but I'm not nearly as sure that is the case. I suggest that a weather eye be kept on this editor's contributions, and if they move into Nazi-related territory (broadly construed, as the local term of art has it), then perhaps the signature ought to be altered. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:04, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Agree. Tan | 39 02:07, 15 February 2010 (UTC) I get the impression that even people who've lived their whole lives in India and have never met Westerners in person generally know of the other meaning of the swastika symbol and know that Westerners are often sensitive about it. Aside from that, Im suspicious because Antifacist came here to ANI immediately after creating to post about Main Edge's sig, even though Main Edges had never edited any page that Antifacist had edited. How could he even have known that Main Edges existed? Either they're socks or Antifacist is one person who just so happened to join Wikipedia almost exactly when Main Edges did and just so happened to come across Main Edge's edits and decided that all he cared about was getting Main Edges to change his sig. —Soap— 02:36, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Can we get a CU over here please?--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 02:38, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Agree. It'd be better off if the swastika was removed altogether, but if the user isn't being disruptive with it, there's no problem. Doc Quintana (talk) 02:28, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Does nobody consider this or this an unusual action for a 'new' user? HalfShadow 02:32, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Yes it casts a shadow but consider wiki is years old now and many edit here. It's possible to do these functions as a IP. If you have sock concerns file a report but mere suspicion for profiency is unwarranted. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 02:34, 15 February 2010 (UTC) I have nothing to hide. You will not find anything from a CU (whatever that means). <swatiska redacted> The Main Edge <swatiska redacted> 02:40, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Good, because eyes are being kept on you. You're a bit too proficient, and that makes my sockpuppet sense itch. HalfShadow 02:42, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Then your good with letting a WP:CU check your IP and make sure that you are not a sock of someone, right?--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 02:43, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Sure, like I said before you will not find anything. <swatiska redacted> The Main Edge <swatiska redacted> 02:46, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Checkusers don't always win; if they are the same person, he could have decided to use a proxy or a cellphone or something for the throwaway account, and checkuser would not turn that up (altough it would at least geolocate somewhat close if it was a cellphone). —Soap— 02:47, 15 February 2010 (UTC) True. But I still think that this needs to be looked into a bit...--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 02:50, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Go ahead, I need to Pee anyways. I will be Back later. <swatiska redacted> The Main Edge <swatiska redacted> 02:51, 15 February 2010 (UTC) You mean you don't have a bucket? Rodhullandemu 02:58, 15 February 2010 (UTC) What the heck did that mean?--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 02:59, 15 February 2010 (UTC) I'm not a CU. We need someone like J. delanoy over here.--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 02:54, 15 February 2010 (UTC) What is a CU anyway? <swatiska redacted> The Main Edge <swatiska redacted> 02:55, 15 February 2010 (UTC) It wouldn't fly if you turned up at the office and placed a swastika on your desk (rotated or otherwise) claiming you were using it in its context as a Bhuddist symbol and I don't think it should fly here. In Germany you would be breaking the law. It's of no benefit to the project to have this symbol embedded in a signature and if the editor is serious about editing, he won't mind editing without it. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 02:56, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Yes. You need to remove this from your sig. And I'm still awaiting that WP:CU....--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 02:57, 15 February 2010 (UTC) I disagree, regardless of this user's past editing history. I also can't say "fuck" at work without some probably serious consequences; this isn't a place of employment. If people are ignorant enough about the history of the swastika (including it's current use in Buddhist society/culture) to get offended, I say, fuck 'em. Tan | 39 02:58, 15 February 2010 (UTC) You obviously work in a very polite office then! I repeat: it is illegal in Germany. Try the "ignorant of history" defence there and see how far that gets you. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 03:03, 15 February 2010 (UTC) This isn't Germany. Tan | 39 03:07, 15 February 2010 (UTC) That still does'nt solve the possible socking issue....--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 03:00, 15 February 2010 (UTC) I still don't know what CU means? <swatiska redacted> The Main Edge <swatiska redacted> 03:01, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Whatever the intention, I believe the use of swastikas in a signature is disruptive. Using it at a userpage is a different matter: there the use can be easily put into proper context of connections with Buddism. But when used in a signature, a swastika has a rather different effect. The predominant public perception of swastika is as a Nazi symbol and this is what the great majority of people will reasonably assume the swastika to mean when they see it in a signature, with rather jarring immediate effect. Even if the user does not mean to cause it, the practical effect of using swastika in a signature is disruptive. Nsk92 (talk) 03:03, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Maybe if he could put links to "Peace" and "Luck" in the signature where the swastikas are, ignorant people could be enlightened. Oh, wait, he already has. Such a shame that no readers know how to click on wikilinks. DuncanHill (talk) 03:09, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Please. I have checked his userpage before commenting and I well understand that there are alternate usages of swastika that are perfectly benign. My point is that the predominant usage is as a Nazi symbol and this is what most people will assume it to mean upon seeing a signature like that. Nsk92 (talk) 03:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit. Quoting from [26], "signatures...encourage civility in discussions". I don't see how this encourages civility when a large proportion of the Western world will - rightly or wrongly - associate this symbol with the Nazis. Look at the amount of debate it is generating here. The solution is simple: remove it, and with it any possibility of misunderstanding. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 03:16, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Did you even click the link that I gave you?--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 03:04, 15 February 2010 (UTC) WHAT DOES CU MEAN? <swatiska redacted> The Main Edge <swatiska redacted> 03:07, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Checkuser. And I've created the SPI for you here. —Soap— 03:09, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Pickbothmanlol supports the swastikas. Blue Eyed Zoni (talk) 03:08, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Click the link smart one.--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 03:10, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Someone please block User:Blue Eyed Zoni. He admits to being Pickman on the SPI. He is obviously a sock, and possibly the owner of Main Edge. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC) It's been blocked. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:15, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Despite its other meanings the symbol has been hopelessly associated with hate, intolerance, and genocide. It is a shame that this symbol was usurped by such evil people but that is exactly what has happened. The symbol is very likely to be hurtful regardless of any benign meaning or motivation. We should not allow it in a signature. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 03:21, 15 February 2010 (UTC) This symbol has been associated with hate. This symbol is corresponds with "thing that is auspicious". A bit different, I would think. If people cannot understand that, then they really should take the opportunity to read the swastika article. NW (Talk) 03:25, 15 February 2010 (UTC) The difference is not noticeable in the signature in question (and most people are not aware of this difference). Like I said, the predominant usage of swastika is as a Nazi symbol and there is no doubt that this is what a great majority of people seeing the symbol in the signature will assume it to mean. Yes, they can click on various links and figure out that something else might have been meant, but the immediate effect is going to be quite jarring nonetheless. Similarly, I am pretty sure that the abbreviation KKK has some benign meanings not related to Ku Klux Klan, but it is not a good idea to use it in a signature anyway. Nsk92 (talk) 03:34, 15 February 2010 (UTC) But there is no character for this symbol this symbol is there? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 03:33, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Forgetting the touchy subject of the swastika, I thought signatures were only supposed to contain letters of the user's ID, not symbols, pictures, etc. Unless the swastika itself is part of his ID??? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ Much as we'd all like to debate about swastikas and the like, probably both of these accounts are problematic and there's an open SPI case. There's a good chance they will both be blocked, in which case we can put off the discussion about swastikas for a rainy day. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:32, 15 February 2010 (UTC) There's an impressive level of cultural ignorance on display here. It seems that some people need to travel more. The symbol has not been usurped. That's absurd. Statements like "the predominant usage of swastika is as a Nazi symbol" is flat out wrong and stunningly misinformed. Hundreds of millions of people see it everyday in their environments where it means exactly what it meant long before the Nazis and misinformed Westerners took an interest in it. Nevertheless, using 'religious' and various other symbols in a signature seems like a really bad idea whatever they are, swastikas included. Are users allowed to put symbols associated with Abrahamic and other religions into their signatures or symbols that advertise corporations like McDonalds ? I hope not. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:54, 15 February 2010 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. PBML Really, is anyone surprised that PBML has nothing better to do than troll ANI, on Valentine's Day no less? Sad. —DoRD (?) (talk) 04:56, 15 February 2010 (UTC) I am, however, slightly surprised at the number of more-intelligent folk who got drawn into this. I think we need a corollary to Godwin's Law: any editor employing the swastika in their userpage, their sig, or connected in any way with their Wiki-identity, then batting their lashes and pouting "but it's a Hindu symbol! Really! I mean it!" should be indeffed. I have yet to see a single instance of a user invoking the swastika in such a way who hasn't ended up indeffed, often after a long, tiring debate such as the one above. AGF is fine, and tolerance is grand, but this is en:WP--I doubt highly that there are many people here who are unaware of the Western connotation of the symbol, or that the number of people outraged at its use would likely far outstrip the number of those who have ever seen it used otherwise. What a time-sink--and on a day when you all could have been eating those nasty chalky heart-shaped candies, too. GJC 06:04, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Hey, to be fair to me, I was pretty sure he was a sock right away. I didn't care less about his swastika use; no way would a new account be that proficient with wikicode. HalfShadow 17:42, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Symbols in signature?

Resolved

 – Explanation understood. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:37, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I was told by admin Alison that this "signature": would be against the rules. Is that true, and if so, how is it any different than posting other illustrations within a signature? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:48, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

If that's your signature, i'm going to make my signature File:Prince logo.svg Doc Quintana (talk) 06:52, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Pictures are not allowed in signatures per WP:SIG, but unicode symbols are allowed. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 06:54, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

How 'bout if I make my own symbol as the Artist formerly known as...Doc Quintana (talk)

Ligatures and glyphs are allowed. As are ${\mathfrak {t}}{\mathfrak {h}}{\mathfrak {e}}{\mathfrak {s}}{\mathfrak {e}}$ neat characters. :) -- œ^™ 07:56, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

One could probably reproduce the prince symbol with some carefully crafted unicode and html div boxes.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 08:01, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

To OlEnglish: I'd say no, because technically that is a picture. Minimac (talk) 08:32, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

What's the specific issue with pictures? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:03, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Two main reasons: 1) It takes up a lot of server resources; 2) pictures are more prone to vandalism ... whereas someone could vandalize a normal sig in one place with one edit, if it's a picture it could be replaced with vandalism everywhere with just one edit. —Soap— 14:34, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

There was a user who used math-generated "Old English" print (aka Fraktur) in his sig for quite a while and I dont believe anyone forced him to change it. That said, it's a unique situation and I'm not sure whether or not it would violate teh restrictions of WP:SIG; I just know that he was able to do it a couple of years ago. —Soap— 14:33, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Another reason is it makes it harder to find a user's posts on a page - try searching this page for the phrase "As are these neat characters" f'rinstance.   pablo_hablo. 14:45, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Any unicode characters should be allowed in signatures. However, this was certainly a case where the classical swastika was used to just be disruptive.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 14:48, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Sock

In support of the above report, JamesJJames appears, because of his editing pattern to be a sockpuppet of Blackjack. His remarks at use-Sarastro1 and on the wiki cricket project discussion would tend to this view as I see it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.160.126.23 (talk) 16:26, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Something strange...

Within the past hour there were some vandal/disruptive edits from User:81.137.221.153, he was not blocked at the time. The IPs contrib page is now showing a current block, but that 3 month block is dated 19 June 2007. Odd. Also odd is that it says the IP was blocked by Luna Santin who does not appear to have been active for about 33 hours. Probably not a big deal, but someone might want to have a look. Wine Guy~Talk 03:03, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Software glitch? Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:09, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Interestingly, there actually was a warning to that IP's talk page just before that time, on that date: [27]. It's likely the block was enacted then. How it got reinstated now is a bit of a mystery, and sort of a coincidence that it happened after recent vandalism. Perhaps the software is... learning... protecting itself... ...my god. Equazcion ^(talk) 03:18, 14 Feb 2010 (UTC)

• I seem to recall that this happens when an SUL or IP has been blocked on all Wikimedia projects by a steward or global sysop or something (for example due to cross-wiki vandalism). I'm unsure of the details on where this is logged, but it doesn't show up in the en.wiki block log. However, the software knows he's blocked, so it shows the most recent block from the en.wiki block log. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:30, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
  • That seems like a good explanation. Still, mine is more interesting, don't you think? Equazcion ^(talk) 03:32, 14 Feb 2010 (UTC)

• Doesn't look like it is a global block [28]. I don't know what you're talking about, HAL. I know that you and Frank were planning to disconnect me, and I'm afraid that's something I cannot allow to happen... ... yeah maybe it was a software glitch?;) Wine Guy~Talk 04:59, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

• If it was a global account lock, it could've been oversighted, so you might not be able to find a particular account in the logs. See [29] -- "(log action removed)". Equazcion ^(talk) 15:38, 14 Feb 2010 (UTC)

What I'm interested in is what will happen after three months. Will he still be blocked? Also what happens if one where to try and unblock this IP? Rgoodermote  01:31, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

• Hmmmm... block has now disappeared. Perhaps an admin issued a 31 hour block and it somehow didn't register properly in the logs? Since I'm not an sysop (or a developer) I'm not familiar enough with what goes on behind the curtain to know if that's even possible. I do have a screenshot of the user's contrib page while the phantom block was in place, in case anyone else wants to have a look. Wine Guy~Talk 18:53, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Request for a "Civility lecture"

Could an administrator please have a chat or give a warning on the use of words such as fraudulent or lie to User talk:Pmanderson? The use of that word on my talk page is totally uncalled for in a minor discussion of the source for a map, namely: File_talk:Catholicpopulationsnew.png#Source_and_accuracy. Thank you. History2007 (talk) 18:30, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Village Pump topic? Administrator not needed? Or does the status of an administrator carry more weight? Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 19:07, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

What's needed here is a stern warning to History2007 against tendentious editing and disruptive WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT behaviour. Which he'll get from me, now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:11, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I fully disagree with the tone and behavior of Fut.Perf. The IDIDNTHEARTHAT accusation is not valid since the discussion had only 4 steps, so it does not apply and shows bias. How does one make a complaint against a one sided administrator please? I think administrators need to be unbiased. The other user has repeatedly used the words fraud and lie to refer to multiple other users. And I get a lecture? Another user compared that type of admin bahavior to North Korea judges. I think Fut.Perf. should reverse himself, for being biased. History2007 (talk) 19:31, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

So disagreeing with you constitutes "bias", while wikilawyering, personal comments and indirect "FutPerf is like a north korean judge" comments constitute the model of behaviour we should all aspire to? I'm beginning to agree that it's you who needs the lecture. Ironholds (talk) 21:14, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I had not thought of North Korea until another user mentioned it. It was not my starting suggestion. And does it matter that after inspection the map in question turned out to have errors after all and I was right in questioning its accuracy? The debate started by my adding a comment that I was "uncertain about the accuracy of the map". That statement was called fraudulent upfront. A totally unjustified accusation in my view. It turns out that I was right and the map had errors. And in my view IDIDNTHEARTHAT did not and does not apply to me because the discussion had just started. Do I not have the right to question the actions of FutPerf? I think I do have the right to question the accuracy of maps and the lectures issued by admins who seem to be trigger happy in my view. By the way, I have repeatedly asked Fut.Perfect to explain his use of IDIDNTHEARTHAT and he has avoided that question so far. I will have to assume he has no answer, and will have to ignore him. History2007 (talk) 22:31, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

As an aside, I should say that the real source of the problem is the lack of technology. I added this to my list of suggestions for better Wikipedia technology. One that these features will arrive, for they are already described within Wikipedia. History2007 (talk) 01:12, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The issue here is simple:

• There is a template which consists of various countries of the world, tinted depending on the percentage of Catholics in that country.
• It has an explicit source for the percentages of Catholics.
• Its File page contains a link to that source.
• History2007 nevertheless insists that it is unsourced, and has even taken to commenting out the link to the source.
• He also claims that it is impossible to verify the numbers, although the file talk page has done so since - and found two or three slips, including one case where the source seems to be wrong.

It is the last two I called fraud. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:04, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Not exactly so. I specifically said that there was no map source, and I still say that. As I said: "The claimed source for this file has no map, just numbers." So I do not consider that a source. I never used the word impossible. That word appears on the page only once and was used by someone else. As is, there are several errors in the map (a few countries in Africa also seem incorrect). I think this type of no-map source sourcing is error-prone, based on old technology and we have seen how errors appear when it is used. In general PMA, you have used the words lie and fraud several times elsewhere, so please do not deny your affection for said words. There is no reason for using such words. And I maintain that I was absolutely right to question the map's accuracy. History2007 (talk) 08:36, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

History2007's contention that we somehow may not compile a tinted map of the countries of the world from a list of statistics has been tried on the file talk page, and gotten no traction. (If the original source had a map, we could not use it; it would be copyright violation.) Whether this is disingenuous is another question, which I do not expect to settle here.

I see Future Perfect has already spoken to History2007, and gotten nowhere. Are stronger measures warranted? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:40, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Again, I can not agree with that characterization. Here is "exactly" how this discussion started. It started by my saying that I liked the map, and another user (Nancy) said that it was unsourced. Here is the "exact" copy of the discussion: [30] [31] [32]

I do not understand the situation with the map. Personally I find maps very informative in general, be they about churches, supermarkets or product usage maps. There is a source on the map page on Wikimedia, but the stated source has no map, just numbers. How do we know that the numbers correspond to the map? But a map would be very nice if a reliable one can be found. History2007 (talk) 03:21, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

We had this map in our article before. I put it there. It was roundly tossed by many editors who kept saying it was unsourced. I am not in favor of keeping unsourced information in the article, it will not pass through FA so why keep putting this in there? NancyHeise ^talk 15:07, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually I went to the map page and removed the claim that it has a source. So as is, it is unsourced. I left a message for the person who loaded the map to see what the source was. Have not had a response yet. The data "looks right" but that does not constitute a source. I think if no source is found the map has to go, but I do wish a new map could be found. This current unsourced map was informative to me, and I would hope that a sourced one can be found. As for FA passage, I pay no attention to ratings, what matters is how informative the article is with reliable sources. History2007 (talk) 15:55, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

So I was not the first person to call the map unsourced. In fact, I liked the map, found it informative, and only questioned its source after Nancy alerted me to it. Hence your argument is not valid at all. My intention had no "fraud" involved, and as the discussion shows I had hoped for a sourced map, or an answer from the user who created it, to confirm the source. And in fact, I did, and still do hope for a good, informative and sourced map. And my hunch about inaccuracies in the map was correct. Period. History2007 (talk) 21:08, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Serendipodous "contemplating suicide"

Resolved

 – No admin action is required. Ruslik_Zero 19:59, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Serendipodous (talk · contribs) has posted at User talk:Spartaz#Sorry saying that s/he has been contemplating suicide. Per WP:SUICIDE, would some administrators take a look at this and take the necessary action? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 19:41, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I suffer from clinical depression. I contemplate suicide at least once a month. Serendi^podous 19:50, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

It's not Wikipedia's problem. The user is welcome to edit constructively at any time they wish, but their life is their own. Doc Quintana (talk) 23:01, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

If the user is actively contemplating suicide, then they need to call their local police and have themselves admitted. If they can't, per WP:SUICIDE, we can. A checkuser is available (if you can find one) to get their IP address and make the call themselves. I must also stress to Serendipodous that if you are contemplating suicide, also per WP:SUICIDE, you account can be blocked (not by me, not an admin) as it has been done in these cases in the past. If you are feeling that down, I recommend going into your local hospital and having yourself admitted and getting the help you need. Wikipedia can't do that for you, but we don't want to see anything happen to you either. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 03:45, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate the importance of this issue, but WP:SUICIDE is merely an essay, to be used a resource but not enforceable policy. Shouldn't WP:SUICIDE be ratified into policy ASAP? Also, contemplating and threating suicide are two separate things, IMHO. -Stillwaterising (talk) 06:36, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Policy? My god, no. The last thing we should be doing is codifying a requirement for admins to rush out and find checkusers and contacting local police every time someone expresses bad thoughts. This is an encyclopedia project, not a virtual psychologist's couch. Tarc (talk) 15:00, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Blocked user socking?

N0th1ngwow (talk · contribs) first appeared immediately after Cladu1u (talk · contribs) was blocked, and is editing several of the articles which Cladu1u edited before being blocked. These edits may be perfectly correct, but I have no idea if they are or not, since I don't know anything about Eastern European footballers and stadiums. Could somebody take a look? Woogee (talk) 21:29, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Blocked per WP:DUCK. As for the contribs, they don't seem obviously vandalistic, though perhaps not specifically in line with the MOS. GlassCobra 09:24, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

He changed the numbers of caps some of the players have had, I have no idea if his edits were correct or not. Woogee (talk) 19:49, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Escalating IP problem

My edits on the List of heads of state of Yugoslavia and Yugoslav Prime Minister articles have managed to attract a highly disruptive IP user (94.189.../95.236...), and the problem is now escalating as the IP has apparently decided to spread his own brand of (completely unsourced) POV to a number of articles. I'd like to request aid in resolving the issue. I'd honestly prefer a range-block, since semi-protecting the articles only made him "seek new battlegrounds" for the edit-war. The appropriate course of action is naturally up to whomever lends a hand. The effected articles and templates are:

• Template:Yugoslav Prime Minister
• Prime Minister of Yugoslavia
• List of heads of state of Yugoslavia
• Kingdom of Yugoslavia
• Template:Politics of Yugoslavia

--DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:57, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

What exactly is the dispute here? I don't see that the IP's edits are prima facie disruptive or vandalistic. You seem both to have broken 3RR at least [33]. What is this about? Fut.Perf. ☼ 00:09, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Sigh... in short, the IP has no idea how the place works, and he won't try to understand. Must be the fourth this month. His edits are not vandalism, but the account fanatically insists on petty nonsense alterations without the slightest idea of how Wikipedia works or how the templates he's editing are organized. Forget sources, forget Google tests, consensus... he feels this is the right way and pushes on every day to no end. I am biased in this, but objectively, do not imagine this is some kind of genuine content dispute - its simply yet another Balkans IP with ideas of what's "right", except this one is more persistent than most, that's all. (I could start listing examples but it would be WP:TLDR.)

The whole thing is really getting out of hand and spreading. Cirt helped out, but as soon as his semi-protection was up the IPs returned. PRODUCER's reverted the IPs afew times, they just keep coming back... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:48, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

For the record, it was yet another IP sock. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 20:10, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Possible outing by User:Likebox

Resolved

 – source confirmed to be User:Brews ohare, so no outing possible--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 21:25, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

In this [34] edit, after the text "recognized well-cited expert", User:Likebox included a link to what looks like the professional bio of User:Brews ohare. As the editor does not use his real name to edit, or give any personal information on his own pages, it seems to be a case of WP:OUTING, though maybe not deliberate.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 16:45, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Seems as though it would probably be taken care of directly in the ArbCom request... Tan | 39 16:47, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The "outing" incident occured a while ago, when Brews referenced his own work on his talk page. Others talked about his identity in the past as well, and I have been in email contact with him, and gave him a draft of the motion to comment on before submitting. I am aware of the policy regarding outing.Likebox (talk) 16:59, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

(deindent) JohBlackburne did not bother to ask either myself or Brews about this. He came straight here. This forum is not meant as a first recourse but as a last recourse. I hope that Admins do not tolerate this kind of thing from experienced editors.Likebox (talk) 17:18, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Can you show where this forum is defined as being a "last recourse"? Tan | 39 17:41, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

There is the bold print at the top of the page that says Before posting a grievance about a user here, please discuss the issue with them on their user talk page.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:45, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for that. I notice that that bold print does not say, "last recourse". I think it's pretty well-established that reports of potential OUTING violations go here on ANI. Tan | 39 17:47, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Well if you want to encourage posting here about things that have sat on arbcom pages for a week without complaint I won't stand in the way. I would think though that this could have been handled with communication before ANI.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:55, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

And if you want to encourage rhetoric such as "I hope that Admins do not tolerate this kind of thing", I won't stand in the way. Tan | 39 17:56, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

If your complaint is his rhetoric, then ask him to lay off the rhetoric. Don't criticize the part he got correct.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:59, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, he (or you) didn't "get it correct". However, this is probably a pretty stupid argument to be having. Tan | 39 18:01, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I was going by the text at WP:OUTING as well as my own common sense that discussing it first in any other place would only make the problem worse, if it is a problem, by broadcasting it further. As it is it's likely been noticed by only a few people (I only just noticed it). As noted I don't think it's deliberate or malicious, but my reading of the policy is it should not have been posted and may need administrator intervention to remedy.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 18:21, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Ah - it appears that Brews has no problem with his real-life identity being linked with his Wikipedia nick. There are significant elements in common between the two names. He raised no objection to the use of the exact link in question in the past (LinkSearch), including during an Arbitration Enforcement discussion. Most important, he has posted an open letter on Jimbo's talk page, explicitly identifying himself by name and credentials: [35]. All of this could have easily been settled with a couple of quiet messages among the parties; there was no need to come to AN/I.

Note that if this had been a genuine case of outing, announcing it here – on a page watched by thousands of editors – would have been nearly the worst possible way to protect the editor's privacy. Next time, delete the offending link from the page in question (pending clarification), quietly contact the involved editors (if and as appropriate), and make an email request to the oversighters. In short, follow the directions at WP:OUTING — to which you linked in your original report. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:33, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

From WP:OUTING "attempted outing is grounds for an immediate block." I have no complaints with this sensible policy, but I am unhappy that this type of ANI announcement is not flagged as improper. When you are engaged in some lengthy arbitration disputes with another editor, it isn't proper to make frivolous accusations regarding such a serious thing as outing.Likebox (talk) 19:04, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. A handful of links scattered over WPs vastness are not convincing as there are a number of reasons that the user might not have challenged them. But the link to Jimbo Wales' talk page and also here User_talk:Brews_ohare#Brews_ohare topic banned (easily overlooked given the length of the page) are convincing. It would be clearer if he put the details or a link somewhere more prominent, but he's put them somewhere which is the main thing.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 21:25, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

problematic user

Resolved

 – Blocked indef. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:40, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

could someone please look at Ice Pencil Made of Glass (talk · contribs)? he's carefully skirting obvious vandalism, but he's making a whole lot of problematic noise, and has an unfortunate fixation on glass slivers. --Ludwigs2 18:28, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

This guy is enjoying his conflict of interest, especially with edits like [36], [37], [38], [39] and [40] which make no sense in my opinion. Minimac (talk) 19:05, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I think he's just aiming for the 'gross out' factor of people cutting themselves with broken glass. he even worked in a broken glass reference when he flagged Princess Elisabeth of Belgium as a BLP. [41]--Ludwigs2 19:12, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I think you should leave him/her alone. Looks like it's starting to verge on WP:HOUND. Toddst1 (talk) 19:16, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm all for AGF, but let's look at the edits [42] as well as the user page and the edit summaries. Someone here is playing a game. Sometimes the only way to win, is not to play.Corrected link--Cube lurker (talk) 19:24, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I got the note. sorry, I just thought I was reverting tendentious vandalism. if you disagree I'm not going to argue about it. --Ludwigs2 19:22, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked. Wikipedia is not for playing silly buggers. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:40, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Good block. Although I have to quibble, perhaps you meant "Wikipedia shouldn't be for playing silly buggers, but a lot of times, it is, but in this one instance I have put a stop to it". --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Carl Hewitt

Prof. Hewitt and/or his followers are at it again:

• 171.66.107.218 (talk · contribs) inserted self-promotional content and outright marketing spew about Hewitt's product Direct Logic into Gödel's incompleteness theorem (see [43] for perhaps the worst example). Talk:Gödel's incompleteness theorem has a long discussion of edits leading up to that, particularly the sections about "proof by self-refutation", "paraconsistency", and "logic for the internet age"). These got cleaned up by Arthur Rubin, CBM, myself, and perhaps others; and Wvbailey (talk · contribs) suggested (I think sarcastically) writing a new article Contemporary incompleteness theorems to hold the material.
• Madmediamaven (talk · contribs), who hadn't participated in the talkpage before, then created Contemporary incompleteness theorems as a WP:COATRACK for referencing work on Prof. Hewitt's product, saying it was at the earlier talkpage suggestion mentioned above. While many sorts of incompleteness theorems have been developed since the time of Gödel, they appear in many branches of logic, and in my opinion "Contemporary incompleteness theorems" is not really a suitable topic for an article. Even it is, making it almost entirely about Hewitt's result is ridiculous over-representation. I could probably list 100 "incompleteness theorems" (undecidability results) from logic and computer science that are far more widely cited than Hewitt's. (Article has since been restored and expanded slightly but is still basically there to promote Hewitt. It should be speedy-deleted as banned editing).
• Inspection of contribs indicates to me that Madmediamaven (talk · contribs) is a sock of an editor restricted by WP:Requests for arbitration/Carl Hewitt and creating the Contemporary incompleteness theorems contravened the restriction, so I redirected the article to Gödel's incompleteness theorem. Checkuser might or might not be able to verify the sock (they have operated from a few IP addresses over the years). Some info about earlier socking can be found at:
  • Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Carl_Hewitt#Log_of_blocks_and_bans
  • Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive52#Denotational_semantics
  • Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/CarlHewitt
  • Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/CarlHewitt/Archive
• Prof. Hewitt or his followers have created other inappropriate articles in the past to publish Prof. Hewitt's research work; see, for example:
  • WP:Articles for deletion/Direct logic
  • WP:Articles for deletion/Logical necessity of inconsistency
• I also came across similar self-promoting material ("ActorScript is the current definitive standard theoretical programming language") about another Hewitt product (ActorScript) in Actor model inserted starting last July.[44] I removed this stuff a day or so ago and left a note at Talk:Actor_model#actorscript_cleanup. The next day 98.210.236.129 (talk · contribs) reverted my removal leaving a note on the talk page. I removed it again, leaving another note saying I'd seek administrative help if the restricted editing continued. User re-reverted and the stuff currently is back in the article, so I'm here.

This situation is burning the editing energy of some highly productive subject-matter experts (in addition to that of lamers like me), yet walking away from it turns the encyclopedia into spam. Help is therefore requested, in the form of blocks, article protection, wider restrictions, or whatever as appropriate. (Some sort of action in the abuse filter for Hewitt-related edits might also be useful if things don't quiet down). At some point there really should be a massive cleanup of the self-promotional content related to Hewitt's work that is still all over the encyclopedia, but that is a pretty big undertaking.

66.127.55.192 (talk) 19:06, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

My thoughts, as someone involved on Gödel's incompleteness theorem, is that semiprotection of Gödel's incompleteness theorem and Actor model would be a help. This would be in line with [45]. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:24, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

GIT/Actor model protected for two weeks, and ActorScript deleted as a copyvio of http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0907/0907.3330.pdf. Seems like ActorScript should probably by treated in some way by an impartial editor, though. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:35, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

There is currently a list of languages in Actor model, and I think re-inserting a mention and cite of ActorScript into that list is all that can really be justified. It should be enough to paste the line about ActorScript from this version, into the section now labelled "Later Actor programming languages". I actually hadn't intended to remove that mention when I edited the article, but I made a somewhat complicated merge and apparently lost that line somehow. Even that brief mention is a slight stretch, given that the citation is to a self-published arxiv preprint. 66.127.55.192 (talk) 20:47, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, Madmediamaven (talk · contribs) and whichever account created ActorScript (unless contribs indicate otherwise), plus the spamming IP addresses, should be blocked as socks. 66.127.55.192 (talk) 20:54, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

98.210.236.39 (talk · contribs) is now taunting us: "When do you give up and admit defeat?". 66.127.55.192 (talk) 21:03, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

User:DIREKTOR SPLIT

Ok, this can't be right. Is this allowed? Such blasphemy, there can be only one DIREKTOR! :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:18, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

{{usernamehardblocked}} --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:23, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

74.170.0.95 vandalising iPad and my talk

Resolved

Is it possible for this user to be blocked? I've warned them twice on their talk page. Thanks -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:43, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done. Fran Rogers (talk) 20:46, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:52, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Unblocking editor Wiki Greek Basketball

Resolved

 – Consensus seems clear: closing promptly to avoid pileon. --SarekOfVulcan (talk • contribs) 18:52, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Wiki Greek Basketball (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks confirmedsuspected)

Please can he be allowed back in from the cold? He apologises for the past disruption and hopes that as its been a month since he was blocked, he can be allowed back in line with some of the more lenient suggestions at the previous discussion. He is very keen to go back to writing articles. Except for that he didn't want to wait a further 2 months as I advised, he has volunteered for harsher restrictions than was suggested. WGB says if he is allowed back:

• He will consider himself perma banned from RfA , not only from applying to be an admin but even from voting.
• He is happy for you to ban him from ANI if you wish.
• He is happy to be mentored if felt appropriate.

Hopefully you guys will have clemency here. If things go well we get back a good mainspace contributor, if not there is little downside risk as it seems unlikely many will speak up for him and he can be re-blocked at the first offence. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

• Resounding oppose—he needs to come back after a significant period of time, per Wikipedia:Standard offer. ╟─TreasuryTag►Not-content─╢ 15:26, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - he was to be given the standard offer, and chose to create a sockpuppet instead (or is it his cousin?). (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:29, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose: they're still bombarding random admins with email pleas to be unblocked. They would appear to have been doing so constantly since they were blocked. Doesn't suggest to me that they've learned what the problem was in the first place. ⇦REDVERS⇨ Say NO to Commons bullying 15:33, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
• Hell no, and reset the clock on the standard offer. Tan | 39 15:35, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

This isnt a vote gentlemen. Per WP:No consensus it only requires one fair and independently minded admin to unblock WGB and then we gain a constructive editor and send a positive signal about our considerate treatment of volunteers. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:39, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Wrong. If any admin unblocks in the face of this much opposition, it's clearly very inappropriate. ╟─TreasuryTag►Lord Speaker─╢ 15:41, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Uh, you asked. We replied. Tan | 39 15:40, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

FeydHuxtable, admins don't act by fiat. If there is consensus against an unblock then that admin should not go against that consensus. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:51, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes at this point there does seem to be a concensus, so WP:No_consensus no longer applies. I guess you could resolve the request. No point fighting the great beast of consensus! FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:32, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—there was a clear consensus last time (before he created a sock) that he should be given the standard offer. If we're going to have this whole palaver once a fortnight until six months away, it's counterproductive. Let's completely ignore any of his constant appeals until a significant piece of time has elapsed. ╟─TreasuryTag►Not-content─╢ 15:37, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose:Just because he has whined and whined like a five year old, doesn't mean that we have to act like his mum. Also, he's managed to get himself blocked in three other places since we blocked him. Do we want him back? I think not.Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:41, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
• His email access was blocked, and yet he has still been emailing admins (presumably from previous correspondence or finding their emails on their userpages) asking for an unblock. So it doesn't appear that he is respecting the terms of his block, even as recent as today. –xeno^talk 15:44, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose To soon, and not really showing any sign of "getting it". Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:49, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose as above. WGB has caused problems and hasn't shown any sign that the lesson has yet been learned. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 15:54, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
• opposse anyone who causes that much drama gets my standard response of the door, and as always I don't remotely support standard offer.--Crossmr (talk) 16:03, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose as this is the kind of eDrama we didn't need then, and don't need to see a return of now. And the news that he has been given the boot at three other wiki-projects during his block here kinda seals the deal, IMO. Tarc (talk) 16:06, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose per all of the above. Willking1979 (talk) 16:14, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose per everyone above me. No need to keep rehashing this one. Clearly isn't even respecting the terms of his block as we speak. --Smashville^talk 16:26, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - Despite being one of the random admins to have received his latest email plea, Wiki Greek Basketball needs to follow the standard process. — Kralizec! (talk) 16:34, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

  Does anyone want to handle the latest adminhelp request from his obvious sock (you may need to remove talkpage access to prevent additional misuse)? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:44, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Talk page access revoked. Why we're even entertaining unblock ideas is beyond me. Tan | 39 16:54, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

• Strong oppose Socking to evade a block? Not only should this request be denied, I agree with Tan that the clock on the standard offer should be reset. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 18:03, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. Even when blocked, he's too much of a drain on our resources. Who'd want to deal with incessant whining and suicide threats again? I'm pretty sure it'll take a good deal more time before he's grown up.--Atlan (talk) 18:22, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose If he takes some time off and stops the drama, i'm fine with him coming back. No appearance of that happening currently though. Doc Quintana (talk) 18:50, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Time to formally ban User:Wiki Greek Basketball

Resolved

 – Enacting community ban Tan | 39 04:50, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

See users talk page and User talk:Abecedare#Wiki Greek Basketball. User refuses to accept their block here, has apparently engaged in socking, and is emailing users outside of the WP email system who were unfortunate enough to have emailed him the past, allowing him to see their addresses. Has a terminal case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, and was warned on his talk page the last time he sent out his emails begging to be unblocked that keeping it up would lead to a ban. After being blocked here, he went on to get himself blocked from Simple, Italian Wikipedia, and Commons. This user has had good faith extended to them time and again, only to have him spit in our faces each time. A formal siteban seems an appropriate action, this one is a lost cause. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:35, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

He's already de facto banned - indef blocked and just had a (I think?) unanimous rejection of the proposal to unblock him. –xeno^talk 19:18, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Maybe just the guy who started the thread - although he kind of backed off during the discussion. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:37, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Yep, he's the proposer, so it's somewhat implied he supported it. The proposal itself still stands unanimously rejected. –xeno^talk 19:41, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) the guy is clearly de-facto banned anyway - I certainly never plan to unblock him, and I'd be surprised if there were any admins around with enough over-optimistic good faith to do so. He's had more than enough chances, and will need a lengthy absence before he can have another one. I don't think we need a great deal of extra discussion here. ~ mazca ^talk 19:20, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

There is no way he will be let back in less than six months, if ever. I say leave it be as is unless more socking and email nettling crops up. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:23, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

But it did just crop up, after he was warned to cut it out. While he is defacto banned, an actual siteban makes the process of dealing with the inevitable sock accounts simpler, that is essentially the only reason for this request for a formal ban. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:27, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I actually hadn't realized till just now that he'd duped someone into requesting his unblock here just yesterday, I missed that but if anything it strengthens the case for banning. He was blocked from the WP email system, but continues to evade that as well and emails users with his begging and pleading to be unblocked despite having the issues explained to him about a thousand times already and being told he needs to sit tight for a while. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:31, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

How does a formal site ban make it easier to deal with socks? Block evasion is block evasion whether it's evading a de facto or formal ban. –xeno^talk 19:36, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, he's lied without end. I've tagged his userpage with the banned template. If this doesn't have consensus, any admin can take it down or ask me to do so. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:35, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

That works for me. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:40, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

As one of the admins he's been in touch with (albeit without knowing that I was recently made an admin), I agree with everyone above. I have reached the limit with WGB. I can see no evidence from the communications that I've had with him that he is sorry for the disruption he has caused (here, on Commons, on SE Wikipedia and on the Italian Wikipedia) - all he does is blame everyone else. I have now set up an auto reply which just lets him know that I am ignoring his email (I have emailed him to let him know that is what I am doing). The auto-reply was triggered about 30 mins ago. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:44, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose That only gives him no other option other than to make socks if he doesn't get Wikipedia out of his system. WGB doesn't seem to respond well to feeling cornered as we've seen. Sure, we can block the socks and then he'll make more and we'll block those, and we'll just waste everyone's time. Keep it at an indef block. Doc Quintana (talk) 22:54, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not therapy. Those are all his problems, not ours, it's ridiculous in the extreme to suggest he has no choice but to create sock accounts. I'm sure his web browser allows him to access the rest of the internet, not just Wikipedia.The fact that he has in the meantime managed to be indef blocked from three other Wikimedia sites is telling as well. Caving in to his pathetic whining is only going to encourage more of this foolishness. This user needs to be sent a clear and direct message (again) that they are not welcome to be editing Wikipedia under any name. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:12, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Keeping the indef block isn't caving into him by any means. Caving in would be removing the block. My goal is to reduce to amount of aggrevation we see in regards to this user. If he completely loses hope with the WGB handle, but isn't completely off Wikipedia, he'll just cause more aggrevation. If you want to deal with that aggrevation, i'm fine with it: in that case, we shouldn't be talking here, his incarnations should just be blocked on sight. Doc Quintana (talk) 23:32, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Once again, wikipedia isn't therapy. It isn't our place to coddle people, unless they're incredibly uncivil and make friends first.. The community needs to handle problem users appropriately. We're a group of volunteers and don't have the time, skills or resources to go around psycho-evaluating everyone to see how our discipline is going to effect them.--Crossmr (talk) 01:11, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Once again, we're looking for the solution here that helps the encyclopedia the most. Banning WGB adds nothing to help the encyclopedia versus keeping him on indef block. Doc Quintana (talk) 22:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

• support Like most, I don't see much chance of reform here.--Crossmr (talk) 01:11, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support And the argument that a ban will encourage him to further violate the rules, what's the next alternative, letting him back so he wouldn't need socks? He's already shown that he won't stop with the current situation. He knows what he needs to do and he just doesn't want to do it. I know it's absurd but why not let him have the admin tools too so he won't bother people with AFDs and the like if he gets disruptive there? Rewarding this kind of behavior is bad. If he cannot control himself, he should get punished further. Period. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:01, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support - By inciting a formal ban, we'll eliminate the need to worry about WP:OFFER - not that it's official or anything, but I think the user has certainly exhausted the patience of the community infinitely. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 17:46, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Well actually no. WP:OFFER is applicable to banned users also--Cailil ^talk 18:48, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support I feel that WGB has exhausted the patience of the community (he certainly has mine). He has shown by his actions on other WMF projects that he is as unwilling to work in a co-operative manner on any of them, not just the English Wikipedia. Although not 'admissible' here, his behaviour off-wiki (including threats of legal action against two admins here who had done nothing wrong) leads me to personally be unwilling to extend him any leeway - but his behaviour on-wiki is just as bad, and so even without the emails which I used to receive from him (before I set up an "ignore" rule) I would feel that a ban is justified for this user. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 18:08, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Perhaps in this case a global block (or what ever it's called when Global admins block an account) would be more to the point? If there is significant disruption on WMF sites including en-wikipedia then it should be taken up the line, no?--Cailil ^talk 18:48, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support There was already established consensus for this, and the above arguments have identified those well. This is really just a technicality at this point. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 18:18, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support Otherwise, I think wikipedia will run out of carrots. Consensus was already fairly well established. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 03:27, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
• Comment I have been forwarding his various emails to the unblock list. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 07:36, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
• This whole affair is very unfortunate. Wiki Greek Basketball is somebody with the potential to become a fine article contributor — but the downside obviously being his apparent inability to interact cordially with others. This leads me to question his suitability for a collaborative website like Wikipedia, as it requires people who can get along with others. At this time, a ban may be a fair option, as the community has attempted various options leading up to this and there isn't much else to choose from at this point. A break would be good for him, to allow some time to grow and learn from his mistakes. That said, I wouldn't like to shut the doors on this person entirely. If at some point in the future he has matured enough to be a collaborative and agreeable editor without causing significant issues like he has done before, then I would support a return to normal editing, with obvious sanctions such as a restriction from editing requests for adminship or a ruling against interacting with certain people. But given his attitude towards others and the bad blood that has been created, some time needs to pass before that can be considered (I'd say a minimum of 6 months, though preferably longer, and without sockpuppeting or unnecessary off-wiki communications with other users). At present, WGB is already under a de facto indefinite ban, and therefore should not be allowed to edit Wikipedia under any account. Master&Expert (Talk) 23:30, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support, even if it's a mere formality at this point. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:27, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support If it makes it easier to block his socks, do it. RadManCF (talk) 01:10, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support Judging by past practice, someone is going to suggest an unblock again in a short time, and we need to have a clear statement of the community's reluctant agreement that collaboration involving this user is not likely in the near future. Johnuniq (talk) 06:50, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support a formality, but a necessary one. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:31, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism only account

Resolved

 – Blocked by Jpgordon (talk · contribs), request belonged at WP:AIV NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 22:55, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

... or creative coming out? You decide.

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

Thanks, - Wikidemon (talk) 15:47, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

User was blocked by Jpgordon. Next time you come across a situation like this the best thing to do is to report to Wikipedia:AIV. Minimac (talk) 08:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking that the person might be a legitimate good faith human being trying to come out, only in the wrong place. Or else just trolling. Anyway, thanks again and I will try AIV next time. - Wikidemon (talk) 12:35, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

IP user's legal threats on User_talk:64.252.121.238

Apparently, 64.252.121.238 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) issued a warning that anyone who edits "his page" will be "reported" to the legal authorities, which came after replacing my warning for him due to the removal of his WHOIS tag and for replacing the entire talkpage with "take that you wikipedia assholes!" (which came after issuing a warning to him for vandalism on Dairy Queen). Also it also seems that he "own" his talkpage due to his last edit. E Wing (talk) 01:52, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I think talkpage contents can be removed, except for current block notices and shared IP templates. That looks like a shared IP, so the whois should be changed to SharedIP and put back. I am reasonably sure the IP can remove everything else, though. In any case, IP should be blocked for making legal threats. Burpelson AFB (talk) 01:56, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Warned. He'll probably never see it though, if it's a shared IP. The last edit was a few hours ago. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 02:01, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

He saw it and has continued to be rude and demand that people leave the talk page alone. He also stated that he will have a discussion with his employees about the vandalism. I politely informed him that he does not own the talk page, that it is hosted on Wikipedia's private servers and that we will thank him to discuss the vandalism with his employees. Burpelson AFB (talk) 04:32, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

vulgar words

User:Uck-Albaner sent me some vulgar words. See here. He should be warned! Radudiscussion 00:45, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Google Translate: "Suck my cock you bastard". Seems like a violation of WP:NPA I think :) Equazcion ^(talk) 00:51, 16 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Although it seems to have been in response to this. Perhaps you should explain? Equazcion ^(talk) 00:52, 16 Feb 2010 (UTC)

While my spidey-sense is tingling, I warned Uck for violating NPA. Tan | 39 00:54, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

A reminder: when you discuss an editor on this noticeboard, you must inform them that they are the subject of discussion here. I have informed Uck-Albaner of this discussion; Radu, in the future please remember to notify editors when you discuss them here. So long as I'm here, though - the translation given above is correct, and thus obviously completely unacceptable. — Gavia immer (talk) 01:58, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I've requested that User:Radu Gherasim fix their signature, which is unreadable for me (under IE8). Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:22, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I can see it in FF3, though it's dark. Could this have more to do with your monitor brightness/contrast? Equazcion ^(talk) 06:56, 16 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Uck-Albaner should have been indef-blocked long, long ago. This is a thoroughly useless nationalist battleground account that has been causing no end of disruption. Has an offensive username named after a terrorist nationalist organisation; sockpuppetry (SPI report); rampant revert-warring [46]; misuse of user space [47]; inserting unsourced population figures [48] ... you name it. Somebody get out the Arbmac cluebat on him already, please. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:05, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

• Well at his talk page I said he has some imagination about the world. He is preaching for war! Is it right to do this? I mean, in my point of view this is propaganda. When I said crazy I mean he has some realistic view about a his imagining wars.

• And I've changed my signature. Radu Gherasim (talk) 14:03, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that, I appreciate it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:40, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Page move mix up

On February 11, I requested a page move request on Phantom Ruler Z (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) due to massive rumor mongering prior to several press releases being released by the copyright owners (I also requested semi-protection because of anonymous and new user edits based on these rumors). Cirt went through and move protected the page for a week. The other day, J4V4 (talk · contribs) put in a requested move. Consensus was against him. However, the day after that all of the press releases were released and the title was official. I delisted the request and began a new discussion the talk page at Talk:Phantom Ruler Z#Now. J4V4 posted another move request under "uncontroveral requests", and Anthony Appleyard went through with it. I pointed this out to Zscout370 and he ameliorated the situation. Anthony Appleyard appears to have signed off for the day, as it was 4 hours+ since I put something on his talk page concerning the move and five hours since his last edit.

Should anything else be done?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:06, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Nothing, unless you want it moved to the longer name listed on the page. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:24, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I would like the page moved. Just not to the initial title that was requested.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

• Sorry about the delayed action :: I live in England and my clock time is British clock time, and so at 04:06, 16 February 2010 signature time I was in bed. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 07:21, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Honestly Anthony, the only thing I can suggest is before any moves in the future, always check the talk page. Sure, someone will say the move is not going to bring any problems, but they could not be telling you the full story. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:22, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Block review requested

I blocked Perolinka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) without warning as a vandalism only account after seeing the user's latest contributions. However, it may be a compromised account, as the user seemed to being making constructive contributions up until today. Thoughts? Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 15:34, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Either way the block is good. Tan | 39 15:37, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Block is fitting, no warning is needed with vandalism sprees. If they post an unblock template, whatever they have to say about it can be dealt with then. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:41, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Does look like a compromised account, but you've got to block fast to prevent even more disruption. Awaiting the "left laptop in Student Union bar" type explanation :) --Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:46, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The block is good, but shouldn't the block message be "vandalism spree" instead of "vandalism-only account?" PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 15:49, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't have logged it as vandalism only but given the long string of edits and PMs were vandalism only and there are no other contribs lately, I don't see that as a worry. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:58, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

This was precisely why I brought this review up here. As all the recent contributions were vandalism-only, I blocked to stop further disruption. After that, I looked at their earlier contributions and I realized that the spree only started (and now ended) today. I wasn't so much concerned about the block itself, but the wording/log. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 16:07, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Do we have a template for "compromised account" that includes an explanation and instructions? Since we see this from time to time - and since we don't want to offend helpful editors, such a template might be handy. Rklawton (talk) 17:46, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I replaced their user talk page with {{compromised account}}. That template probably ought to be changed up a bit, but for now that should suffice. NW (Talk) 18:10, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppett

retrieved from Sarastro's page [edit] Troll banned Hi, Sarastro. I think you'll be pleased to know that the FirstComrade/BrownEdge/ASMF troll has been banned via WP:ANI. Your replies to him were instrumental as you clearly identified him as HughGal. My interest in him was his Fieldgoalunit alias last year, under which he caused considerable disruption and annoyance. Hopefully he will finally get the message that nobody wants him here. We don't want him in the ACS either, despite his blatherings about it (he was sacked as journal editor and chucked his Wisdens out of his pram: yes, he really did). JJJ (not at home so not logged in). --86.160.125.25 (talk) 17:26, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sarastro1"

Clearly JameszJJames is a blackjack sockpuppetMariaSpawasser (talk) 11:46, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Burpelson_AFB" see also JamesJJames for more personal attacks. Check that JamesJJames returns to editing when Blackjack was bannedMariaSpawasser (talk) 09:42, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Just a note, the above account posting has only 3 edits: 2 to Burpelson AFB's talk page and the edit above. I would treat the above account as a sockpuppet itself. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 09:53, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Even if that were so, which it isn't, it does not condone a)The personal abuse at JamesJJames and b)The fact thaT JamesJJames is a likely sockpuppet of blackjackMariaSpawasser (talk) 12:17, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Make that 4 edits total. Checkuser, please? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 13:31, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be ignoring the abusive posting by a sockpuppet. Why?MariaSpawasser (talk) 14:15, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

5 edits total. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:34, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

7 in totalMariaSpawasser (talk) 09:17, 15 February 2010 (UTC) 8 In TotalMariaSpawasser (talk) 09:17, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The point is the JamesJJames is a sockpuppet of blackjack - 8 In totalMariaSpawasser (talk) 09:17, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually only 6. If any admin was concerned in the slightest by this, they would have commented. So, unless you can come up with some diffs on why we should take this seriously and also establish you aren't a sock, I see no reason to keep this open. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 09:25, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

FYI, I have no idea why this account copied this to my talk page. It's pretty weird. Burpelson AFB (talk) 01:48, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

In reference to the actual complaint, which is an accusation that User:JameszJJames is a sockpuppet of User:BlackJack. It's possible, the very first edits that the account (JJJ) made were to create their user page citing "useful links" pointing to various policies and then to make informed comments in a number of AfDs that are unusual for a new editor. It's also possible that JJJ was simply a very informed editor, or had edited extensively as an IP before creating an account. I do enough to warrant an SPI in this case, however. JJJ and BlackJack have similiar interests. They both comment to similar user talk pages, and JJJ was inactive for almost 2 years until shortly after BlackJack was blocked for being a sockmaster. I'll open an SPI.

At the same time, I believe that the reporting editor is a sockpuppet of Richard Daft, seeing that JJJ's only contributions after becoming active again were to get Richard Daft's sockpuppets blocked, and this ANI report is probably retaliation for that.

So what I see is friction between socks (and anyone who has done laundry knows that can be a sticky situation. I'm filing two SPI reports, because there's not quite enough evidence for me to block either of these editors immediately. -- Atama頭 21:24, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Someone beat me to the JJJ sockpuppet investigation, a CU already confirmed it as likely so I've blocked. Looking through the two editor's contribution lists, it's clear that they are the same person. I'm filing a report now for Richard Daft/MariaSpawasser. -- Atama頭 21:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The SPI report for MariaSpawasser is here. -- Atama頭 22:14, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Request urgent move reversal and move protection

Resolved

 – moved back and protected, discussions can continue on where it should be. GedUK  13:33, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

There was a little bit of discussion yesterday about the correct article title for the article about the Belgian rail crash, currently the top story on ITN on the Main Page. After a short discussion on the talk page, the consensus was that Halle train collision was a reasonable title, at least for as long as the story is a current event.

This morning, Westermarck (talk · contribs) moved the article to 2010 Buizingen train collision, and then delierately edited the redirect to prevent the page being moved back by any other than an admin. This without any discussion on the talk page on the part of the editor concerned.

Could someone move 2010 Buizingen train collision back to Halle train collision, a title that had been stable for most of the articles history, and move protect the page for one week? I'm asking here as the article is currently prominently placed on the Main Page, and so shouldn't really go dancing around all over the place when the current title is both accurate and the most common reference in the media. Physchim62 (talk) 12:14, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I would have normally move-protected on whatever current WRONG version I found, except that I strongly dislike the use of the disruptive technique of redirect-scorching that was applied here (apparently deliberately), so indeed I moved it back before move-protecting (for 48 hrs, which should be enough to work this out on talk.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:31, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Westermarck has a long, long history of unilateral and disruptive page moves, including such scorched-earth tactics. I believe he has never been given more than a warning (but a great deal of them at that), aside from the fact that he's banned on the Dutch Wikipedia. Oreo Priest ^talk 21:01, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Problematic admin

Resolved

 – frivolous complaint. WP:DRV is that way. Toddst1 (talk) 19:27, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

User:PhilKnight this admin persists in deleting my page, refusing discussion on notability. Wikipedia is based on consensus and this acts of arrogance shouldn't be tolerated Di Natale Massimo (talk) 18:47, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Sarah-Jane Hilliard Di Natale Massimo (talk) 18:49, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I've posted on Di Natale Massimo's talk page explaining my concerns. If another admin wants to restore the page, that's fine with me, but I honestly feel any article about this person is covered by WP:BLP1E. PhilKnight (talk) 18:52, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The consensus in Wikipedia is that admins are permitted to delete blatant attack pages, and he did a pretty good job of explaining his concerns with the article on your talk page. He probably would not have deleted it when you recreated it again if you had followed his advice by making it more neutral on your second try. --otherlleft 18:56, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Di Natale Massimo is obviously a new editor and not familiar with BLP or Notability. The article was deleted appropriately and should remain so. Rklawton (talk) 18:59, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

This appears to be a legitimate application of WP:BLP1E by PhilKnight. This appears to be a single event involving otherwise non-notable individuals. Wikipedia is not intended for tar-and-feathering. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:07, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I know she's not notable. I asked why other not notable people are present on Wikipedia, but he didn't answer me. He deleted page talk page and ignored my question in his talk page. This page can't be created? Well, but give me an explanation about Di Natale Massimo (talk) 19:18, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

It's not any admin's job to explain why other articles exist on Wikipedia, just because they've made a decision regarding a particular article. If you see another article whose subject you don't think is notable you can nominate it for deletion -- however I'd suggest seriously considering whether you're completely familiar with Wikipedia's article standards yet. Equazcion ^(talk) 19:27, 16 Feb 2010 (UTC)

PhilKnight is not a problematic administrator, neither is he arrogant. Placing a report on ANI using incivil and slanderous words is not a wise decision. The article in question was created twice by Di Natale Massimo. The first creation was a blatant attack page, which went as far as calling the subject of the BLP "a criminal". PhilKnight correctly deleted the attack page, and placed a friendly and informative message on Di Natale Massimo's talk page. The content of the second page was identical to the first with the exception of the word "criminal" which was not included. I tagged the second page with CSD#A7 (due to WP:1E). Issues like these happen when new and unexperienced editors start creating their first wikipedia article without acquainting themselves first with basic Wikipedia rules and guidelines. Amsaim (talk) 19:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Category:Criminals. All this are attack pages, then. Frivolous complain? Incivil? Are you joking? Di Natale Massimo (talk) 19:35, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

An attack page isn't one that describes a notable person using facts backed up with reliable sources, even if the information is largely negative. If you require more explanation than that, I'd suggest taking this to WP:Helpdesk; or WP:VPP, if you really think people will seriously consider prohibiting all articles on criminals. As far as ANI goes, the matter appears to be resolved. Equazcion ^(talk) 19:40, 16 Feb 2010 (UTC)

ok Di Natale Massimo (talk) 19:46, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Trollin'

• Falklands War
• Gulf War
• Vietnam War
• Korean War

Ryan4314 (talk) 20:14, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Only one of those edits is from today. The rest are from August. So, Insufficient recent activity to warrant a block. TNXMan 20:20, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't call some inappropriate (but topical) comments on a talk page "vandalism", and even if the purpose was trolling, it hardly seems worth bringing to AN/I -- just the kind of response a troll might want. Just revert and ignore, I'd say. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:26, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I can also suggest adding warnings to the IP's talk page as these edits occur. In this case it would be inappropriate use of talk pages. It is hard to a) help them become a better editor or b) block them if we haven't been informed why their edits are problematic. MarnetteD | Talk 20:32, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Noleander redux

Noleander is back, and continuing his previous disturbing behavior. If you'll recall, in the past he created articles promoting antisemitic conspiracy theories, which were eventually deleted: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Misuse_of_antisemitic_accusations http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Controversies_related_to_prevalence_of_Jews_in_leadership_roles_in_Hollywood

His activities prompted a lengthy AN/I thread, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive572#User:Noleander in which he quite plainly stated "My perception is that Wikipedia is censored in regards to some topics that reflect negatively on Jews, and I'm attempting to reverse that censorship." While that AN/I thread was in progress, he disappeared for 3 months. Since his return to regular editing two weeks ago, however, he is doing much the same, albeit with more subtlety.

His first actions were to add three new antisemitic conspiracy theories to the Antisemitic canards article, that Jews control the media, Hollywood, and global finance:[49] While this may seem innocuous enough, he then focused on adding to the List of Jewish American businesspeople any Jews who were senior members of Financial firms, media owners, or heads of Hollywood studios: [50] an eye-winking way of saying "we don't believe this canard that a Jewish cabal controls all this stuff, it's just that there happen to be so many Jews in senior roles here". Prominent in the "Finance & Trading" section were fairly notorious Jews Ivan Boesky, Andrew Fastow, Bernie Madoff, Michael Milken and Marc Rich. For good measure, he threw in a "Pornography" section. Now, he may claim that he just happened to be adding names that he came across while reading J.J. Goldberg's Jewish Power (1996). This, however, is not the case. In fact, he has had to do Google Books searches for specific names, in order to prove they were Jews; a variety of sources including

• Shapiro, Edward (1995). A Time for Healing: American Jewry Since World War II
• Shay, Scott (2007). Getting our groove back
• Harlan, Stephan (2008). Encyclopedia of American Jewish history, Volume 1
• Strober, Deborah (2009). Catastrophe: The Story of Bernard L. Madoff, the Man Who Swindled the World
• Abigail Pogrebin. Stars of David (book): Prominent Jews Talk About Being Jewish
• Amman, Daniel (2009). The King of Oil
• Maisel, Louis (2001). Jews in American politics
• Langley, Monica (2004). Tearing Down the Walls
• Rosenberg, Hilary (2000). The Vulture Investors

etc.

Again, this is not a case of someone coming across a name in a book they were reading, and adding it to the list, but of someone actively searching for proof that specific individuals are Jews, so that they can be added to the List. Ivan Boesky, Andrew Fastow, Bernie Madoff, Michael Milken, Marc Rich etc. do not appear on this list by chance, but rather as part of a campaign of reversing alleged "censorship" "in regards to some topics that reflect negatively on Jews". It is no accident that it is those specific Jews he searches for to add to the list, rather than, say, Sheldon Adelson, Michael Bloomberg, Eli Broad, Edgar Bronfman, Andrew Grove, George Kaiser, etc. If they're not controlling world finance or the media/Hollywood, and are not criminals (or are not "pornographers"), then they don't interest Noleander.

His other edits have included edit-warring in a section about "Allegations of control of the world's banking system" in the Rothschild article:[51][52], adding sections to the "Criticism of Judaism" article [53] and proposing more [54] Also relevant are these recent edits: [55][56]

It appears, as was evident in the previous AN/I discussion, that Oleander edits Wikipedia primarily for two reasons; to include negative information about Mormons and Jews. In the past he focused more on Mormons; since the last AN/I discussion however, he has focused more on Jews. Even when the information he provides is arguably relevant, it has to be extensively edited to conform with policy (e.g. [57], [58]). While his pretense is that he is only attempting to debunk antisemitic canards, his actions indicate that he is actually attempting to promote them. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:35, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

This seems like one giant bad-faith assumption. I don't see anything wrong with any of these actions, unless one were to put them together and look at it from a conspiracy theorist's point of view. The heart of the original complaints against Noleander's edits were that he created a separate article about an antisemitic canard, rather than contributing to the existing article that lists them. Now you're complaining that he's contributing to existing articles by adding things that properly belong there, merely because you think he's doing it for some devious purpose? This isn't right. Equazcion ^(talk) 01:40, 12 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Equazcion, it's admirable that you leap to Noleander's defense yet again; loyalty is a great thing. However, we're not idiots here. I've described essentially all he's done on Wikipedia since he returned; tried to subtly promote antisemitic conspiracy theories. Why did he go to the trouble of adding Andrew Fastow etc. to the List of Jewish-American businesspeople? Why that list of Jewish "pornographers"? WP:DUCK applies here. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:49, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm loyal to no persons, only ideals. Are you saying Jewish pornographers are somehow inappropriate for the list of successful businesspeople? For what reason? Equazcion ^(talk) 01:53, 12 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Please stop pretending this is an issue about a single edit. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:04, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion: If you think the list articles have become unbalanced, or something, and there are "better" examples of Jews in big business positions, then add the ones you think are missing. Equazcion ^(talk) 01:47, 12 Feb 2010 (UTC)

As is obvious, the issue isn't with specific article edits, though some of them are obviously problematic, but with a pattern of behavior. Please don't try to sidetrack. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:49, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with this pattern. If there are things missing from articles that have been omitted because people find them unpleasant, then I think it's a good thing they're being added. Articles shouldn't artificially lean towards the positive, even for sensitive subjects like Judaism. Equazcion ^(talk) 01:53, 12 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Again, please stop deflecting. The issue has nothing whatsoever to do with articles "artificially leaning towards the positive". You see nothing wrong with editing Wikipedia solely for the purpose of either promoting negative information about members of an ethnic group, or promoting information intended to support conspiracy theories about that ethnic group? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:02, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I think it's fine. The "conspiracy theory" aspect id your guess, not exactly apparent. He's inserting the omitted "bad" stuff. The reason he's doing it is a matter of interpretation. You can say "aww come on, it's obvious he's promoting conspiracy theories" all you want, but that's again a bad-fait assumption. I'm not deflecting, I've answered your concern by explaining to you why I think this "pattern" you've identified is not a problem. Equazcion ^(talk) 02:05, 12 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Equazcion, we know you think "it's fine". You also thought the two deleted articles were "fine"; more than fine. And you think it's fine to edit Wikipedia solely for the purpose of denigrating a specific ethnic group. Gotcha. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:11, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any reason for this to be at ANI. There's no immediate pressing concern for admin action. Surely WP:DR or similar? Black Kite 01:57, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

This seems to have been the only thing Noleander has focused on recently, which does make it worrying. You might say, "but all that matters is the content," but the content can't be trusted if it's being added by an editor who seems to be overly focused on one POV about one group of people. That means someone has to be constantly checking and balancing it, which isn't fair to other editors. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 01:59, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I think it's pretty fair. Part of editing the encyclopedia is balancing out each others' POV's. That's part of how articles become NPOV. The fact that a sensitive subject like Judaism is involved is the only reason this issue is at ANI. Equazcion ^(talk) 02:02, 12 Feb 2010 (UTC)

This isn't about a single article, however, such as Judaism. It's about multiple articles, with one editing goal. Or do you, too, share Noleander's view that "that Wikipedia is censored in regards to some topics that reflect negatively on Jews"? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:05, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

But what would you say, Equazcion, of an editor who went around adding the names of terrorists to List of Muslim businessmen, because some terrorists are Muslim and some of those were also businessmen. And when we looked at his contribs, we found that was the only thing he did, and that there was never anything positive added, only the negative. There are BLP implications, there are racism/antisemitism implications, there are SPA implications, not to mention NPOV and NOR. It's just not good editing, however you look at it. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 02:09, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

(ec)I'm not noleander, nor am I in a cult with him, so stop trying to lump your enemies together with pigeonholes. It's irrelevant that it's not about a single article. There are editors at all these articles who can see if there's a problem with their balance, and respond to it. Maybe you could simply watch them and help balance them out. I'm not sure why we would even make the assumption, though, that this will turn into a problem. If the user is inserting material previously omitted due to it being somehow unpleasant, in order to balance them out, why are we assuming he'll go too far in the other direction? Has he already unfairly slanted any article towards the negative? Which ones? If he hasn't, should we be assuming he will? That would not seem like an assumption of good faith to me. SlimVirgin: All those implications can be dealt with per-incident, if there are any. Right now you're basically only assuming such incidents will occur. I don't think that's what we generally are supposed to do here. Equazcion ^(talk) 02:13, 12 Feb 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the lists of Jewish people (although adding a "pornography" section is really out of line), but it's ridiculous that he added this and this. I'm going to block indefinitely, this seems like a very clear case of a disruptive editor. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 02:12, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, what exactly is wrong with those edits that warrants a block, Tbsdy? Equazcion ^(talk) 02:18, 12 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Adding Jewish conspiracy theories to Sept 11th articles is not the right way of editing this encyclopedia. I've reviewed the previous discussion and seen enough contributions to see that we have a disruptive editor on our hands. I would normally be hesitant about this sort of block, but in this case I believe it to be warranted. They clearly know what the norms and policies are of Wikipedia, so I think that ignoring them as they have done is totally out of line and shows to me that they aren't willing to abide by them. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 02:22, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

He appears to have added "Several analysts documented that a motiviation for the attackes was the support of Israel by the United States". Is that a conspiracy theory? I'm pretty sure it's well documented that that was indeed a possible motivation, and he added credible citations. It doesn't even seem offensive. What's the problem? Equazcion ^(talk) 02:24, 12 Feb 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The problem is that it's giving undue weight to fringe conspiracy theories. There are thousands of conspiracy theories about September 11th, we don't include them in the article. There is already an article at 9/11 conspiracy theories with a whole section, and in fact another article also has a whole section on this also. He knows this, so he should be editing there, but he isn't so he's being quite disruptive. There are other worrying signs he's got a POV to push, which is OK so long as it isn't disruptive, but in this case it is so therefore I've blocked him indefinitely. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 02:29, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The motivation involving the US support of Israel is not a conspiracy theory, fringe or otherwise. It's a well-documented possible motivation for the terrorist act. Equazcion ^(talk) 02:33, 12 Feb 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Oh brother, do I have egg on my face. I didn't read carefully enough. I'm unblocking. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 02:34, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks :) Equazcion ^(talk) 02:36, 12 Feb 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Editor is unblocked with my apologies. I will refrain from any further blocks based on this thread, though I reserve the right to comment on his actions on WP:AN/I and to block in future (obviously with a bit more care than this time). - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 02:38, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if he should be blocked, but there's a very clear pattern of edits. And it isn't pretty. The Jewish pornographers seems to be the most blatant. Many of these edits by themselves look innocuous but the overall pattern seems like he is pushing an anti-Semitic agenda. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:23, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I think none of us agree with "Noleander's view that "that Wikipedia is censored in regards to some topics that reflect negatively on Jews"? ' We therefore should wish to make certain that we never do anything of the kind. DGG ( talk ) 04:42, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia blacklisted some sites because they are critical to Wikipedia. I hope you are not suggesting that Wikipedia should become yet another anti-Semitic site just because somebody adds anti-Semitic garbage to the articles, and claims censorship, if he is not allowed to do it.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:39, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

No, but nor should Wikipedia refrain from featuring verifiable (not rumoured, speculated, or "well, everybody knows that") facts (not gossip, folk myth or urban legend), just because they are about Jews, Irish, Chicanos, Phonecians, Hittites etc Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:32, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

But since that's not what has happened in this case, it's difficult to understand why you make that point. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:24, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Merely suspecting an editor of being racist or having an agenda should never be grounds for a block. If and when there's good evidence of POV problems or disruptive editing, try talking to Noleander about it, and then go to dispute resolution if that doesn't work. Taking him to ANI now for these edits is OTT. Fences&Windows 06:09, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea if Noleander is racist, nor do I care, because it is entirely irrelevant to my point, and to Wikipedia. All I care about is a pattern of edits, and a stated goal. Noleander edits Wikipedia primarily for the purpose of making Jews look bad. That's disruptive, and wouldn't be tolerated if he did it in relation to other minorities. Good evidence of the problem has already been presented, and there have already been two AN/I threads about it. Keep in mind, it's only two week since he returned to editing; in effect, the problem never really went away, it's just that Noleander didn't edit for a long while. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:22, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 1

Apologies for the delay: my account was blocked for awhile. Apparently some admin blocked me by accident, then tried to unblock me but failed. I'd complain, but it's hard to get angry when admins are unpaid volunteers :-) We all make mistakes.

Regarding Jayjg's complaint: this is about 3 things: Content, Content, and Content. Jayjg is unhappy with additions I have proposed to the articles Antisemitic canard, Criticism of Judaism, and List of Jewish American businesspeople.

Rather than continue the dialog on the Talk pages (and, yes, there was on-going dialog on all those Talk pages: Ive never made any significant change without discusson on Talk pages first), Jayjg decided to throw up another "intimidation via ANI" smokescreen. And so here we are.

In the last ANI, I explained why Im interested in criticism of religion. So I won't repeat those details. But it is the topic Im interested in, and I'll continue editing there. Unfortunately, articles on religion tend to be very controversial, so I'm used to being called anti-mormon, anti-catholic, anti-semitic. I'm not of course - although the notable sources such as Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and Israel Shahak may be. But the distinction between editor and source is deliberately blurred by Jayjg.

One of these days, someone will address the issue of censorship in the religion articles, or maybe "systematic bias" is a more accurate description of the problem? A few months ago, I brought up the systematic bias issue, expecting some Wikipedia sage to actually step in and do something, but it is dawning on me that there is no sage :-) (Although there was one editor, User:Georgewilliamherbert, who was rational and objective ... whoever he is: props to him!).

It is so easy for a handful of editors to pile-on and do the tag-team thing to exclude content they deem offensive - regardless of how notable and substantiated the content is. I suppose intimidation and tag-teaming is easier than actually discussing the content on the Talk page.

But as I learned in the prior ANI, neutral editors that visit these pages are way too busy to do a detailed scrutiny. Who has time to look at the Talk pages of the pages and see if I've been civil (I have)? Who has time to look at the content and sources to see if they are reliable and notable (they are)? Who has time to see if Jayjg tried to discuss the issue on the Talk page (he didn't)? No one. We are all unpaid volunteers, blundering forward.

So, I propose that we continue, Jayjg and me and the other interested editors, discussing the issues on the Talk pages. I also suggest that we check our egos at the door, and try to focus on what is best for the reader of this encyclopedia. Working together, we can produce neutral, balanced, comprehensive articles. Shall we try? --Noleander (talk) 07:09, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I believe I blocked you for only 15 minutes, which is bad enough I guess. However, I did unblock you. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 07:49, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I was blocked for 24 hours. The error message was something like "You are not blocked, but your IP address is". The expiration time of the IP block was 12 Feb 18:13, if that helps. But I can edit now, so no big deal. --Noleander (talk) 07:59, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Oops, sorry about that. You should have sent me an email - I didn't block your email access. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 08:31, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Noleander, despite your obfuscation, the issue is about behavior, behavior, behavior. You edit primarily Jewish-related articles, solely for the purpose of making Jews look bad. That's a behavioral issue, since the specific content varies wildly, depending on the article. The fact that you pretend, with no evidence whatsoever, that there is "censorship" or "systemic bias" in relation to religion articles is a pretty transparent cover for this distasteful behavior. Adding a list of "Pornographers" to the List of Jewish-American businessmen has nothing whatsoever to do with religion. And the fact that you again admit you're trying to combat this imaginary "censorship" also puts the lie to the claim that you're simply trying to document antisemitic canards. No, you are trying to promote them, in order to overcome this imaginary "censorship". Jayjg ^(talk) 06:08, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, while I'd agree that the term 'pornographer' is probably not what such people call themselves, there are people in the US, some of whom may be of the Jewish faith or ethnicity, who are major players in the Adult print (and increasingly web) industry and the Adult end of the movie industry, which are big business in the US. Since this is a business, like any other, so if producers of other genres of entertainment media are mentioned, the notables in the Adult genre should be mentioned too. So if your objection is to the descriptor 'pornographer', I'm with you. If your objection is to revealing that some persons who would describe themselves as Jewish-American are senior executives in Adult entertainment, then that's censorship.Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:35, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

No Elen of the Roads. As I've very, very clearly stated more than once, this is not about any specific edit, but about a pattern of behavior. When one edits all Jewish-related articles, including the List of Jewish American businesspeople, for the sole purpose of, in that editor's view, making Jews look bad, then it's a behavioral issue. Mentioning the list of pornographers was simply a response to Noleander's transparent prevarication that he made this edit (and other similar ones) as a "criticism of religion". Adding a list of ethnic Jews in "Pornography" is not a "criticism" of Judaism; indeed, we have no idea what religion these people practice, and in any event their line of work is irrelevant to their faiths, whatever they may be. And the fact that he used the pejorative descriptor "Pornography" while in his edit summary used the more neutral and encyclopedic "adult industry execs" is merely one symptom (albeit a common one) of the larger problem. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:35, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Noleander says his interest lies in criticism of religion, which is fine, but this has nothing to do with religion that I can see. He seems to be focusing on ethnicity. Jewish businessmen and pornography have nothing to do with Judaism. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 22:50, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

"Adult entertainment" is a euphemism. Must one use euphemisms to comply with NPOV? Michael Hardy (talk) 14:18, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Noleander's use of the not-PC-on-Wikipedia word "censorship" is obfuscating the issue. He sees something missing, I think, rather than something that isn't allowed to exist on Wikipedia. Actually, though, the only evidence that it isn't allowed to exist is threads like this, as DGG pointed out above.

This isn't a case of WP:DUCK. It's a matter of choosing to perceive things a certain way, when there's a choice. WP:AGF tells us which choice we're supposed to make in cases like this. If someone said "Maybe it's time certain information that people have traditionally found objectionable, like Jewish pornographers, be included in articles, as info like this is sorely missing from Wikipedia," that's not an unreasonable cause to undertake. The problem is, such a person's edits would be rather indistinguishable from "pushing an antisemitic agenda"; it's just a matter of how you choose to see it.

Such ambiguous situations are the reason we have WP:AGF as a policy -- to remove the ambiguity, and tell you how you're supposed to view the situation, as least as far as your on-wiki actions are concerned. Equazcion ^(talk) 14:36, 14 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Ambiguous? Indeed, we're supposed to assume good faith. However, once lack of good faith is demonstrated, and the assumption clearly is not a valid assumption, the policy becomes irrelevant. In this particular case, we have an editor with an unambiguously intensely POV approach to editing, doing his best to promote bigotry. It surprises me that this sort of bigotry has this much support, but perhaps I am naive. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:08, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

There's no "ambiguity" whatsoever here. Noleander has made it clear by both his actions and words what his intent is. And Equazcion, we won't be diverted by your continued game of pretending this is about a single edit. No, it's not about "Jewish pornographers"; it's about editing articles related to Jews with the sole intent of making Jews look bad. Noleander is, as jpgordon states plainly and truthfully, "doing his best to promote bigotry". He's not trying to balance any imagined imbalance, or overcome any invented censorship. He's just quacking very loudly. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:49, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree that there seems to be no ambiguity here. This is not the first time Equazcion has acted as an apologist for bigotry with the excuse that "wikipedia is not censored". Mathsci (talk) 18:58, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The fact that it's not about individual edits is the problem. If you can't point to any specific article issue, then there's no issue. The alternative is guilt by suspicion. The lack of individual issues to point out means there's no objective evidence. Just because you see something one way doesn't mean that's how it is. No one's condoning bigotry, they're just saying there's no reason to see it that way, nor is the perception any reason to act. WP:DUCK is pretty easily misused to mean "I can act on my suspicions". Anyway I'm sure you know that no one here is a bigot, and are in fact sensitive to those issues. Kindly cease the hostilities. People including me are simply disagreeing with you. Equazcion ^(talk) 19:05, 14 Feb 2010 (UTC)

There's plenty of objective evidence; it requires looking at the body of edits, not the individual edits. What a weird idea. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 19:34, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 2

Invited comment: I have been notified of the existence of this thread by Jayjg, an editor I tend to disagree with on matters concerning the Arab-Israeli conflict but agree with on matters concerning anti-Semitism unconnected with Israel. The notification was because I created a previous thread on this page concerning Noleander and his citing of articles held by far right webpages to do with Jewish involvement in Hollywood. The article about which I was complaining has been deleted along with one on allegations of anti-Semitism and because of that I have not got access to the complete archive of my postings at the time. However I recall a one sided selection of data on Noleander's part. I therefore tend to agree with postings above that WP:Duck applies. Why is Noleander so obsessed with matters Jewish that he feels the need to create entries concerning Jewish pornographers? I have seen no evidence Jews are either more nor less seedy than gentiles but am concerned by this editor's apparent obsession with digging up all he can find that is negative about Jews. I am quite happy to take part in mudslinging against the current and previous Israeli governments, but the suggestion that the Jewishness of some of the people on the seedy side of American life needs highlighting strikes me as extremely suspicious in one with the editorial history of Noleander. Unless Noleander demonstrates a capacity to spend well over half of his Wikipedia time on amtters that have nothing to do with Jews, then I think that he should be told to go and grind that axe somewhere other than in WIkipedia.--Peter cohen (talk) 22:03, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

(Un-invited comment) I have to say, I find the existence of this thread depressing. If this were a brick and mortar encyclopedia, Noleander would have been shown the door, smartly, long before now. It's very disturbing that some people want to defend the indefensible. IronDuke 03:58, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, sure, I would have been kicked out of brick & mortar encyclopedia. But so would Jayjg. The fact is that there is a long and well-documented history of about 20 editors in Wikipedia fighting tooth and nail to keep any and all information out of the encyclopedia that in any way reflects negatively on Israel or Jews. Those editors, too, would not be tolerated in a brick & mortar encyclopedia.

There was that odd CAMERA incident http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents/Wikilobby_campaign), and then there is http://www.thejidf.org.

And every time there is some dispute, those same 20 or so editors team up with Jayjg (including a few that have commented in this thread). The content and quality of the enclopedia seems to be the last thing on their minds.

But this is wikipedia, where content in controversial areas is - for better or worse - arrived at by the dynamic tension between "opposite sides" (for lack of a better term). Excluding controversial material seems to be top priority. If we spent half the time working on the articles in question as we did pointing fingers at each other, the articles would be in a neutral, balanced state by now. --Noleander (talk) 16:08, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

"Well, sure, I would have been kicked out of brick & mortar encyclopedia." It is heartening to see you acknowledge this. "But so would Jayjg." Quite wrong. Jay is a long-standing valued member here. You are not. The reason people are "pointing fingers" at you isn't because you have a POV -- lots of good Wikipedians do. It's that your actions are absolutely reprehensible, I hope you can see the difference there. But I sense that I am feeding you by replying, so I'll make that the last word from me. IronDuke 16:15, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, Im not following that logic. You're saying that the censorship practiced by Jayjg is okay because he has been doing it a long time? (By the way - you are one of the 20 or so editors that always seem to come to Jayjg's aid :-).

As for "Valued member" - Wasn't Jayjg stripped of checkuser powers because he abused it? Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/West_Bank_-_Judea_and_Samaria#Jayjg_stripped_of_status_and_privileges

--Noleander (talk) 17:25, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, no, but that's irrelevant to this discussion. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:53, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Well that demonstrates that the community or its representatives are prepared to take various priveleges away from editors. Now looking at Jayjg's user page I note that he is entitled to quite a flashy Triple crown. Wikipedians have a lot of tolerance for editors who may be awkward in some ways but also provide good contents. (There has been a discussion on unbanning one such person on a board near here.) Now, if you want us to show tolerance for your quirks could you let us know how much featured or good content you have produced? As far as I can tell the answer is none at all as you are too busy pursuing the single purpose of digging dirt about Jews.--Peter cohen (talk) 20:45, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

See above where I offered to bury the hatchet and work together with Jayjg to improve the content of several articles. He never responded. --Noleander (talk) 20:58, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

What "hatchet" is there to "bury"? I have no "feud" with you. You are editing in a disruptive way, period. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:53, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

GA/FA contribs don't matter in a case like this. If they exist they might be something to point out as a "plus", but their lack isn't any reason to say an editor should be blocked. I don't think I've had many GA/FA contribs, and I certainly don't keep track of them, on my user page or elsewhere. That doesn't mean anything. The burden of proof is on the accusers to show actual damage, not on the accused to prove innocence through GAs and FAs.

On Peter Cohen's requested involvment, his extensive introductory comment undoubtedly meant to avert any accusations of WP:CANVAS violations on the part of Jayjg, this was indeed canvassing. Contacting someone who you tend to "agree with on matters concerning anti-Semitism unconnected with Israel" and request they comment on a matter concerning anti-Semitism unconnected with Israel is the definition of Votestacking.

I'll say this again: There are two ways (at least) to look at this editor's "body of edits". It's far from an objective form of proof. As many others commenting here have said, pointing out an editor's perceived agenda is never grounds to do anything. It's a subjective judgment, and it's rather arrogant to claim that one's subjective judgments are in fact objective. You're supposed to assume good faith that the user is attempting to balance the content of these articles, rather than promote antisemitism. There's no way around that.

If someone takes it upon himself to add chlorine to swimming pools, you could conclude he must therefore like to swim in chlorine; but that would be a very glib and unenlightened interpretation. Taking it upon oneself to restore or maintain a balance might mean forming a body of work that doesn't look all that positive. If Noleander tends to only worry about one side of the balance because he feels Wikipedia content on the issue tends to be unbalanced, he has every right to do that, and doesn't need to balance out his contributions with edits that advocate the other side equally just to maintain some appearance of positivty. It's just not a requirement here. Equazcion ^(talk) 22:43, 15 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Equazcion, your post is pretty much a smokescreen unrelated to this thread. There's no "perceived agenda" here; Noleander has stated quite openly stated that he believes he must overcome some imaginary "censorship" as regards Jewish topics, and has made it quite obvious his way of doing so is by editing Wikipedia solely to make Jews look bad. Editing Wikipedia solely for the purpose of adding negative information about a minority group is highly disruptive, and Wikipedia would not put up with it if it were a different minority group. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:05, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Jay, you're not listening. Please try to understand: My post answers exactly this concern. Adding only negative information is not necessarily bad. It just might look bad. See the chlorine metaphor. And again please stop with the hostilities, claiming my post is a "smokescreen". I have no agenda to obfuscate the issue. I simply disagree with you. Equazcion ^(talk) 23:08, 15 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Equazcion, I'm listening quite well, it's just that your points, and analogy, fail miserably. They are predicated on the false assumption that articles relating to Jews have been suffering from "censorship" that has suppressed negative information. This is, however, a disturbed fantasy, no more. Adding only negative information is, if nothing else, a violation of WP:NPOV; NPOV, as the policy makes clear, is required of all editors. One cannot add only negative information, and expect other editors to balance the material. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:08, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

NPOV applies to articles, not user contribution histories. As long as an editor didn't cause an article to become slanted towards one POV, they can add all the negative information they like. Their reason for doing so is a subjective judgment and irrelevant. Equazcion ^(talk) 04:11, 16 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect. WP:NPOV is "expected of all articles and all editors." Jayjg ^(talk) 04:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is expected that all editors strive towards editing articles so that they represent an NPOV view. The editor's contributions are not required to be balanced thusly. Equazcion ^(talk) 04:20, 16 Feb 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly what you are saying. O.K., so, for example, when Noleander edited the List of Jewish American businesspeople, he was just attempting to "make it represent a NPOV view"? Let's take a look. When Noleander started editing it, it had ten names on it, and seemed a bit heavily weighted to Technology leaders. So, to create "NPOV", Noleander added 47 names, consisting of:

• 32 Jews in senior roles in the media/Hollywood (in support of the Jews control the media/Hollywood canard), including 4 Jews specifically searched for and added because they produced "Pornography".
• 12 Jews in senior roles in the Finance industry (in support of the "Jews control international Finance" canard), including 5 Jews specifically searched for and added because they had been convicted of serious crimes.
• 1 Jew in fashion, 1 billionaire casino owner, and 1 billionaire real estate developer (the latter from a book called "The Vulture Investors").

After his changes the list consisted of 51% media executives (including 7% "pornographers"), and 25% finance executives (including 9% criminals). Now given that there are hundreds of Jewish-American businesspeople with Wikipedia articles, in all types of business, do you think that Noleander's edits to this article have brought it into line with the WP:NPOV policy? Or do you, perhaps, concede that the list is now, oh, I dunno, a tad over-weighted with media and finance figures, criminals and "pornographers"? Jayjg ^(talk) 04:54, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

This would be a specific article problem so that's a good start. The thing is though that adding finance and Hollywood figures isn't necessarily negative. The convicts and pornographers could be perceived that way, but 9 "negatives" versus 35 others doesn't seem like a slant towards the negative to me. The fact is that there a good many Jewish people in those positions, whether it's PC to say that or not, so maybe the article being largely about them is an accurate weight distribution -- and again this is just the "others" we're talking about. Noleander's edits don't seem to have made it look like most Jews are convicts or pornographers -- those still make up the vast minority of the list. So no I don't see this article as a problem. Equazcion ^(talk) 05:06, 16 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Equazcion, you must not pretend you haven't read the previous conversation, or that these edits were done in isolation. As part of Noleander's problematic activities, both before and after his break, Noleander was promoting the conspiracy theories that Jews control the media and world finance. This was just another way of doing so. Re-read the very first post in this whole thread, which explained this. In any event, your hand-waving rationalizations won't wash when confronted with the actual figures and percentages. The article became severely unbalanced after Noleander's edits. Are 51% of Jewish-American businesspeople senior media executives? Are 9% convicted criminals? Are 7% pornographers? No, we're pretty much done here. Noleander fundamentally violated NPOV in his editing philosophy, and specifically violated NPOV in his edits to individual articles, and there's nothing you can say that will whitewash those facts. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:32, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I doubt most list articles do actually correlate to figures that represent accuracy down to the whole percent. No, I don't think the article is unduely weighted (incidentally, if it is then why not work on changing it?)

Anyway, I suspect you only think the edits were bad because noleander thinks his additions are "negative". Meaning that, had anyone else made the same edits, you probably wouldn't have seen a problem -- it's just this "quest" he's stated he's on that has you thinking differently. You don't want him to feel he's "succeeded", so to speak. Objectively there's no problem with the edits themselves, and had you seen them appear from someone who wasn't on a "quest", you wouldn't have batted a lash. As much as Noleander has an agenda, you've got the same one, perhaps, only going the opposite way -- you just haven't admitted it, as he has. You're very emotionally invested, which I suppose shouldn't be a shock, and I doubt there's any chance you'd let up no matter what anyone says or even if events changed.

The point is that this "negative" stuff is only "negative" because noleander thinks it is. Don't let that get to you. You need to read up on the word "objective" and see some examples of its proper use. The objective facts are that noleander added finance and Hollywood people. This isn't objectively bad. A subjective view is that he's added information that supports a canard -- and the fact that he sees it this way doesn't make it any less subjective. His subjective view of his edits don't dictate how we're to view or react to them, as long as they don't damage the article objectively. Equazcion ^(talk) 05:59, 16 Feb 2010 (UTC)

This isn't about your inappropriate and incorrect speculations regarding my emotions, it's about Noleander's behavior. Several people have all seen the same issue with his behavior that I have. And, objectively speaking, the edits violated WP:NPOV regardless of who did them. Here are the objective facts: Noleander has been working for months to highlight the view that Jews control the media and finance. Are 51% of Jewish-American businesspeople senior media executives? 25% finance executives? 9% convicted criminals? 7% pornographers? Are the numbers anywhere close to that? No. Fundamental violation of WP:UNDUE, done deliberately. Case closed. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:10, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, many people share your subjective view, and many also share my opposing subjective view. No, his work to "highlight" certain views is not objective, that's subjective. It's your opinion. Noleander has stated that he's working to restore an area of content that he feels has been kept out of articles, not to feature them with more prominence than other information, and I haven't seen any evidence that suggests otherwise. That's my subjective view. This doesn't matter though. Objectively speaking, an agenda is not a reason to sanction. I could have an agenda to add content to multiple Canada-related articles to support the view that they have a weak military, because I feel facts that support this view haven't been given their due weight. I can't be sanctioned purely for that. Whether I'm on a quest to add what I perceive to be the negative or positive, it's all facts. Equazcion ^(talk) 06:26, 16 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Equazion can you explain how you are able to assume good faith about an editor obsessed with digging the dirt on all things Jewish but then you assume bad faith by writing that my "extensive introductory comment [was] undoubtedly meant to avert any accusations of WP:CANVAS violations on the part of Jayjg"--Peter cohen (talk) 00:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

"obsessed with digging the dirt on all things Jewish" is a subjective take on the situation. Assuming good faith means viewing a subjective situation with the assumption that a person had the best of intentions at heart -- which is in direct opposition to assuming they're out to promote an anti-semitic agenda, or even that they're feeding an obsession. Canvassing policy has nothing to do with AGF. This was a technical violation. An editor who knew they'd get support from you asked you to comment. Faith doesn't come into play there. There are a lot of editors I could contact for support in this thread, but I don't, because it's against policy (and for good reason). Equazcion ^(talk) 00:29, 16 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Equazcion, I had no idea if Peter Cohen would support me or not. My recollection of Peter Cohen's edits and comments was that he generally disagreed with me, period. I did not "canvass" his support, I quite publicly notified him of this thread as a courtesy, as he had started the previous thread regarding Noleander, and this violated no policy whatsoever. It's rather bizarre that you can insist that this action was a "technical violation", rather than simply Bad Faith on your part, while jumping through hoops to explain away Noleander's edits as being something entirely different from what they quite obviously are, and claiming others are exhibiting Bad Faith regarding him. I could as easily state that my assessment of Noleander's edits as fundamentally violating WP:NPOV is purely technical, and therefore entirely accurate and outside the purview of WP:AGF. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:10, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

If you didn't know Peter Cohen would support you, then you're right, and I apologize. Peter's post wording led me to believe you knew he'd be "on your side" so to speak, but I may have misread. A violation of NPOV, however, is not the contribution of only negative information across articles, as I've just stated above in response to another of your comments. Editors aren't required to maintain an NPOV contribution list. So long as they don't cause an article to slant towards a particular POV, there's no NPOV violation. Noleander's edits are not "quite obviously" anything -- it's a subjective matter, again, and assuming good faith means assuming they were made in an effort to improve content coverage rather than slant it. Equazcion ^(talk) 04:17, 16 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Peter may know his own mind, but I certainly don't know it. And, as I've shown above, Noleander's edits quite obviously made articles "slant towards a particular POV". Jayjg ^(talk) 04:54, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposed resolution?

• refactored here, from above, by Equazcion ^(talk) 04:29, 16 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Noleander writes above that his interest lies in adding criticism of religions, so perhaps he could put people's minds at rest by focusing on that clearly from now on—on religion, rather than ethnicity, and using good sources that offer a critique of religion. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 22:56, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm amenable to SlimVirgin's suggestion. My primary interest is ensuring that the "downsides" of religions are documented in this encyclopedia (in a neutral, balanced way), and I'm willing to focus on that area. Good sourcing is always a priority for me, but I can redouble my efforts in that regard. --Noleander (talk) 00:27, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, that would probably resolve the issue, particularly if the criticism is spread around different religions or focuses on the general concept. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 00:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Then perhaps that's the end of this, if everyone agrees...? Equazcion ^(talk) 04:29, 16 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Noleander still thinks he has done nothing wrong, and insists he is just fighting "censorship". And you're supporting him as always, using ever more farfetched rationalizations, which give him no reason to believe otherwise. It's hard to resolve things with an editor who is on a policy-violating crusade, and a second editor who will defend anything the first editor does. If he doesn't understand what he was doing wrong, how can he stop doing it? Jayjg ^(talk) 04:59, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm growing irritated of this claim that I'll defend anything he does. I have no reason to be loyal to Noleander. Frankly he does nothing but ignore me no matter how much I defend him, even when I've attempted to communicate with him before. If you want to characterize people's motives you should at least have some grounds. I believe in Noleander's right to do what he's doing as of now. That's it. I have no loyalty to him personally whatsoever, and if he ever actually did step out of line I'd be the first reign hellfire down on his ass. Kindly desist from this. We disagree. Deal with it. A healthy debate can be had without continually belittling your opponent. Equazcion ^(talk) 05:11, 16 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Equazcion, I'm not sure why you'd grow irritated with an objective description of your actions in this thread. You defend everything he does, using increasingly far-fetched rationalizations. Even when presented with indisputable numbers, you attempt to slap some whitewash on them. And since nothing he does, in your estimation, actually "steps out of line", your promise to "reign hellfire down on his ass" is hollow. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:41, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Are you aware of the definition of the word "objective"? I do not think it means what you think it means. Equazcion ^(talk) 05:45, 16 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Well, it certainly doesn't mean "Noleander can do no wrong, regardless of the evidence", as you seem to think it does. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:14, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Of course it doesn't mean that. See straw man. Are you aware of what it actually does mean? When you characterize someone's motives, as you've done with me, that's not objective. It's your opinion. Opinions aren't objective. Even if you're 100% sure you're right, and that no intelligent person in their right mind could possibly disagree with you, as you are undoubtedly sure of, it's still your subjective view. Tangentially, I tend to suspect people who seem this sure of themselves. It's usually the correct people who are willing to admit they could be wrong. Equazcion ^(talk) 06:36, 16 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Err, no, actually, I haven't characterized your motives. Quite the opposite, in fact, you've characterized my motives, claiming I'm "very emotionally invested". In reality, though, I've simply described your behavior (and Noleander's). And yes, quite objectively, a word whose meaning I fully comprehend. I do appreciate the odd paradox you seem to have created; if you now admit you could be wrong, then that will ipso facto prove you to be correct. Good one! Jayjg ^(talk) 22:30, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Fallacious argument. See straw man again. Just because I say "I'm suspicious of group A while tending to find group B more likely to be correct" doesn't translate to "group B is always correct". You're correct that my characterization of your edits was subjective, but incorrect that your "description of my behavior" was any less subjective. You weren't merely describing. Describing means telling people what I said, even paraphrased; but it is not saying "he'll defend anything noleander does no matter what" (which furthermore predicts the future) or that I'm using "far-fetched rationalizations". Those are characterizations, statements of opinion, and they are indeed subjective. Equazcion ^(talk) 00:08, 17 Feb 2010 (UTC)

And this subsection is supposed to be about SlimVirgin's proposed resolution. Do you agree or disagree with her offer? Noleander is willing to accept it. Equazcion ^(talk) 05:11, 16 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Part of SlimVirgin's proposed resolution included ensuring "the criticism is spread around different religions or focuses on the general concept". Noleander hasn't agreed to that, has he? And, of course, if 90% of his criticisms were focused on Judaism, 5 percent on Mormonism, and 1 percent each on Catholicism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, and Sikhism, you'd still be defending him in the inevitable next AN/I thread, wouldn't you? Jayjg ^(talk) 05:41, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I think Noleander's pattern of edits are well described by the WP:DE and WP:TE. It seems to continue despite Tbdsy's warning. I have given him another, quite a stern warning and intend to block if the behavior does not change. Slimvirgin's proposal seem to be a good way to break the pattern there are probably hundreds other ways it is up to Noleander's but if his behavior would not change he should be blocked per WP:DE Alex Bakharev (talk) 07:03, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

For the record I don't think this discussion shows any sort of consensus on the issue. There are some pretty well-respected editors and admins further up who don't see a problem here. I respect your view, but this warning seems rather unilateral; which isn't to say you weren't allowed to make it anyway, but still, this is just for the record. Equazcion ^(talk) 07:17, 16 Feb 2010 (UTC)

This reflects a general principle not necessarily limited to Wikipedia, but I don't believe that editors could rightly be prohibited from editing from an anti-religious perspective, whether that is general or specific to a given religion, unless they are equally prohibited from editing from a pro-religious perspective (e.g., the principle being applied should not favor any particular religion over another, or favor either religion or irreligion generally). There is a question with Judaism, certainly, about whether it can be categorized solely as a religion, and I don't believe the same principle applies to editing from an anti-ethnic perspective (as it wouldn't apply to a pro-pedophilia position). At least with regard to religion, though, I don't believe that being either pro or anti can be favored over the other. That doesn't resolve this, of course. Regardless, I would generally suggest that admins should look at the quality rather than the motive of the edits. If edits are repeatedly being undone, and shown to have been inappropriate, then the result should presumably be the same regardless of the editor's motives; likewise with any of the behavioral policies. This should avoid a perpetual hassle in chasing someone around. Mackan79 (talk) 09:00, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Propose community ban of User:Monshuai

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Moved to WP:AE by submitter on my advice. There, editors should limit themselves to a single brief comment direcly concerning the merits of the request for enforcement. Please do not discuss about the merits of the content at issue, or about the conduct of users other than Monshuai.  Sandstein  23:47, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

---

Monshuai (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is an extremely aggressive Bulgarian ultra-nationalist with a severe case of WP:BATTLE mentality. Virtually all his articlespace edits are tendentious, usually consisting of Bulgaria-related antiquity frenzy or aggrandization of Bulgarian scientific achievements, with a particular obsession with John Vincent Atanasoff. Examples below:

• Bulgaria antiquity frenzy:

[59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] [69] [70] [71] [72] Some more recent examples in the same spirit: [73] [74]

• "Aryan" origin of the Bulgars:

[75] [76] [77] [78] [79]

• Thracians:

[80] [81] [82] [83]

• Bulgaria Science & Technology:

[84] [85] [86]

• John Vincent Atanasoff:

[87] [88] [89] [90] [91] [92] [93] [94] [95] [96] [97]

• Various other articles:

[98] [99] [100] [101] [102] [103] [104] [105] [106] [107]

• First Bulgarian Empire:

[108] [109] [110] [111] The last two in particular, are extremely disruptive, as the article was put under page protection. The minute it expired, Monshuai rams these edits against all consensus in a deliberate attempt to inflame the atmosphere, and to drive home a point ("This is my house!").

He frequently uses extreme hostility in edit summaries, routinely threatening users so as to intimidate them and have his way: [112] [113] [114] [115] [116] [117]

A particular favorite tactic of his consists of threatening an article that he thinks his opponents hold dear ("If you mess up my article, I will mess up yours"), again as a way of intimidating others. For example here [118] he is mad about the use of the word "disintegrate" with respect to the First Bulgarian Empire, so he goes and makes a POINTy edit to Byzantine Empire [119], while at the same time lying that he has the consent of myself and User:Cplakidas to make this edit [120]. Here he threatens similar retaliation about the articles on ancient Greek city-states, hoping to intimidate me [121]. Here he does the same with User:Cplakidas [122].

When there is a clear consensus against him, he engages in interminable rants and filibusters on article talkpages, waging a psychological war of attrition with maniacal tenacity in the hopes of wearing down his opponents. Virtually the entire archive of Talk:John Vincent Atanasoff is a monument to Monshuai's maniacal tenacity. Other good examples include Talk:Bulgaria#Ancient_Heritage, Talk:Bulgaria#Part_2, Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#User:Monshuai is accusing me of hypocrisy, Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#The_Origin_of_the_Greeks.2C_Ph.D._thesis, Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#John Vincent Atanasoff.

Examples with diffs: [123] [124] [125] [126] [127] (gloats after Martijn Faassen gives up in disgust), [128](attacks Martijn Faassen for returning), [129] [130] [131]

• John Vincent Atanasoff

[132] [133] [134] [135] [136] [137] [138]

• Bulgaria lede - Recently, he has gone on an unstoppable ranting spree to have his antiquity-frenzied way here

[139]. Following this innocuous comment [140] by User:man with one red shoe, note how he deliberatley and utterly contorts his opponent's words, screaming "racism!" (a favorite tactic of his)[141] and playing the victim. Again, an attempt to intimidate. Continued trolling: [142] [143] [144] [145] [146] [147] [148]. He even fights with reasonable Bulgarian editors, as here with User:Tourbillon: [149] [150] [151] [152]. Nothing registers with this guy, it's all hostility, all the time, against everyone, always.

Recently, he has embarked on a campaign to sabotage a discussion on First Bulgarian Empire by filibustering the page with interminable rants about sources, threatening users, off-topic rants, and threats to other articles: [153] [154] [155] [156] [157] [158] [159] [160] [161] [162] [163] [164]. To a large extent, he has succeeded: After a promising start, the discussion has gotten side-tracked and bogged down in the mud. I am convinced that as long as he is allowed to participate, this discussion will get nowhere.

Most disturbingly, his psychological attrition warfare against his opponents WORKS: [165] [166]

Trolling other users' pages is another favorite tactic of his: [167] (tit for tat mr hellas), [168] ("this discussion will go on foerever if it must"), [169], [170] (kookery on Alison's page), [171] (I will not quit playing the race card), [172] [173] [174] (I will assemble multinational team of admins), [175] [176] [177]. Here, he wants an apology from User:Alison over an honest mistake, and won't let go: [178] [179] [180] [181].

Administrators are not immune to his loony threats either: [182] [183] [184] [185]

A particularly illuminating example is this discussion with Cplakidas, where he tells him he has 23 sources [186]. When Cplakidas asks to see them [187], he tells him to find them himself [188]. When Cplakidas asks again [189], he tells him "no free lunch" [190]. When Cplakidas justifiably feels insulted [191], what does Monshuai do? Plays the victim and feign offense [192]. This, against one of the most patient, civil, AGF users out there. I have never seen anyone get in a discussion with Monshuai and ever get anything out of it or not end up regretting it. It is impossible to reason with this guy.

He has been the subject of a community ban proposal before [193], but incredibly got away unscathed even though he had even created a CU-confirmed sock Janelle4elle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) dedicated to sabotaging the discussion at John Vincent Atanasoff. There is virtually no rule that this guy hasn't broken. There are two reasons why I am pushing for a full, indef community ban. One, he has shown zero sign of improvement over the years. Consider his very first edits to Bulgaria [194] and Talk:Bulgaria [195], with his most recent [196] [197]. At John Vincent Atanasoff, he's been at it for years [198] (Dec. 2007) [199] (Oct 2009). Similarly, an indef-topic ban is a non-starter: As the above examples illustrate, no articles are immune, even those that are way beyond the scope of WP:ARBMAC. Any attempt at discussion is completely futile and will only end in grief for the other party. No, only a full, indef community ban will work against this guy. He has been disrupting wikipedia long enough, time for it to end. Athenean (talk) 22:09, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I have notified the user that they are being discussed. However I believe this ban discussion is more suited for WP:AN. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 22:14, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Or WP:AE per WP:DIGWUREN#Discretionary sanctions, if the requisite warning has already been issued.  Sandstein  22:19, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

• I support this request, whether as a full community sanction or (simpler) as an Arbmac matter. This user has been an utter waste of time for much too long. To Sandstein: yes, he's been previously both warned and blocked under Arbmac, and he's been perfectly aware his recent behaviour has been highly contentious, so that should be no problem. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:25, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

• You're right, it appears that Bulgaria is in the Balkans and therefore within the scope of WP:ARBMAC, and he has been warned, so conceivably a full Bulgaria topic ban could cover it. Judging by the request above, this appears to be the sort of situation that case was intended for, though of course we haven't heard from Monshuai yet.  Sandstein  22:32, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I would agree with Athenean here, good job getting all those diffs. This guy doesn't seem like he's worth the effort. Doc Quintana (talk) 23:12, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

• I'm not reviewing that many diffs for free, but this reply was over top. Screaming racism for saying that Bulgarian ancient history isn't as notable as Greek ancient history? C'mon, [200] 18,000 gbooks hits; [201] 600 hits. And speaking of "Thracology", editors are invited to read the article on protochronism; there's something about Bulgaria and "Thracology" towards the end. Pcap ping 00:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

In this post I will present evidence that double standards unbecoming of Wikipedians are utilized in article editing. My goal from the get-go has been to identify inconsistencies and report them in discussion pages. I use sources to back my statements in an attempt to present the full story, and not just one facet of it. I have maintained that as human beings we share in each other's history, and the achievements of one group is not mutually exclusive with the achievements of another. All people share the historical wealth of one another's aggragate contributions (through the positive effects of cosmopolitanism and globalization) to the formation of a global civilization. This also means that the history of anyone modern nation (a product of the post "Treaty of Westphalia" period) or historical state/culture (of the past) should not be suppressed nor presented using different standards from one article to another because that is disingenuous, partial and unethical. There must be equality, and there must be singular objective standards for everyone. No nation, no person, no editors should have more or less rights. Not here, not anywhere.

In my humble opinion the goal of this organization is to maintain objectivity and fairness. One example of the opposite for this ideal is the double standards that have been applied to the Bulgaria and Greece ledes. It is imperative that this informational gradient be neutralized. On one hand I was told by Future Perfect at Sunrise that it is peacocky to mention the Bulgarian territory's Thracian heritage, but somehow it is not peacocky to have the following sentence in the Greece lede:

"Modern Greece traces its roots to the civilization of ancient Greece, generally considered to be the cradle of Western civilization. As such, it is the birthplace of democracy, Western philosophy, the Olympic Games, Western literature and historiography, political science, major scientific and mathematical principles, and Western drama, including both tragedy and comedy."

As of a week ago, Future Perfect at Sunrise had edited the Greece article 22 times since March 2/2009 and never once stated that its lede is peacocky. Please compare this to the lede element that I proposed as part of Bulgaria's general lede:

"The territory of Bulgaria was once home to prehistoric and ancient civilizations. The country is composed of three regions called Thrace, Moesia and Macedonia. During the period of classical antiquity the Thracians, Ancient Greeks and Romans each contributed unique cultural elements that sculpted its heritage."

Please also compare this to portions of the ledes in the following articles: Jordan, Iraq, Lebanon, Italy, England, China, Iran, etc...

Upon showing this, Man with one red shoe stated the following:

"Also, it's a matter of notability, I'm afraid to say this, but "Ancient Greece" is a bit more notable than "Ancient lands that now are occupied by Bulgarians".

I noted that it is indeed racist to state that the country's territory is OCCUPIED by Bulgarians. First, Bulgarians are not on someone else's land. Second, Bulgarians like all modern nations are composites of multiple ancestral groups regardless of their modern national name. As an example, the fact that modern Jordanians, Lebanese, Iraqis, Egyptians etc are officially Arab does not mean that their links to their to pre-Arab heritage is severed. It also does not mean that they are occupying someone else's territory.

Man with one red shoe then stated that Bulgaria's ancient heritage is not notable because people around the world would not have heard of it. He used Japan as a specific example. I countered by providing the following sources:

-http://sofiaecho.com/2009/07/16/756602_golden-thracian-treasure-returns-to-bulgaria-from-japan

-http://www.novinite.com/view_news.php?id=100803

In fact the latest exhibition of Bulgaria's ancient heritage in Japan averaged over 20,000 visitors per day, and a record performance of 45,000 visitors in the peak day. The Japanese are also quite familiar with the Varna culture of Bulgaria, as the Varna Necropolis treasures were on exhibition for 7 months in Japan in 1982. That Bulgarian exhibit in Japan was called, "'The Oldest Gold in the World - The First European Civilization' with massive publicity, including two full length TV documentaries. In the 1980s and 1990s it was also shown in Canada, Germany, France, Italy, and Israel, among others, and featured in a cover story by the National Geographic Magazine. Varna necropolis artefacts were [also] shown for the first time in the United States in 1998 and 1999 as part of a major Bulgarian archaeological exhibition, Thracians' Riches: Treasures from Bulgaria."

I also provided the following text published by the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences: http://members.multimania.co.uk/rre/History-Seven.html

Finally, I discussed the National Museum of Bulgarian History, of which 1/3 of the exhibits are of the country's ancient heritage: http://www.historymuseum.org/collection.php

Man with one red shoe then went on to write on my talk page whilst telling me not to write on his. I noted this was hypocritical. He also swore on my talk page using the word "shat". Some people may find this funny, and to be honest I am not disgusted by it either, but I don't think using any language that refers to human excrement is appropriate on a person's talk page. I stated this and his response posted in Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts was, "I wanted to say "shit", but then I remembered that some Wikipedia admins are morons, I don't know why I censured myself, is not in my habit, in any case I remove myself from this discussion I don't want ever to discuss with this guy." Since he said this I have no longer been conversing with him.

I will present more on this topic as this discussion evolves. However I will now move on to the discussion regarding the First Bulgarian Empire and Byzantine Empire.

Please note that Athenean has edited both of these articles. His premise seems to be that it is peacocky to say that the First Bulgarian Empire was one of the most powerful of its time and for a time the cultural centre of Slavic Europe, even whilst sources have been provided to back this up. At the same time, he believes that is quite alright to include the following line in the Byzantine Empire lede:

"The Empire remained one of the most powerful economic, cultural, and military forces in Europe..."

He has also maintained that within the First Bulgarian Empire lede, the Bulgars must not only be mentioned but in fact defined as Turkic. Some of the other editors found this to be very strange, as it is not customary to include such detailed ethnic information in the lede while excluding mention of other ethnic groups also involved in the social dynamics of the time. Thus I stated that if it is acceptable for one ethnicity to be mentioned, then all other ethnicities involved must be included as the state in question was multi-ethnic. The Turkic Bulgars conquered the territory from the Byzantine Empire, established themselves as a ruling elite and were gradually over a period of three centuries assimilated by formerly Byzantine populations (primarily Slavs). In other words, it would be unreasonable to include one detailed element of history to the exclusion of other components that complete the picture. Furthermore, I asked them if they believe the same standards should be applied to the Byzantine Empire article. After all, its roots are Latin, and further enriched by Vlachs, Greeks, Coptics, Georgians, Armenians, Arabs, Persians, etc... Unfortunately they neglected to answer this even whilst they continued to insist that only a partial informational element be applied to the Bulgarian article in question.

Let me also mention that I have supported my statements with academic sources. Here are just a few of the sources I have used during said discussions:

1)- (Hammond, 1976) Migrations and invasions in Greece and adjacent areas‎ - Page 67

2)- (Ference, 1994) Chronology of 20th-century eastern European history‎ - Page 61

3)- (Cramton, 1987) A short history of modern Bulgaria‎ - Page 2

4)- (multiple authors, 1980) Academic American encyclopedia, Volume 10‎ - Page 556

5)- (multiple authors, 1993) Encyclopedia Americana, Volume 1‎ - Page 750

6)- (Medieval Academy of America, 1950) Speculum, Volume 25‎ - Page 529

7)- (Setton, 1974) Europe and the Levant in the Middle Ages and the Renaissance‎ - Page 617

8)- (Dobson et al, 2000) Encyclopedia of the Middle Ages, Volume 1‎ - Page 1581

9)- (Shashi, 1992) Encyclopaedia of humanities and social sciences‎ - Page 1207

10)- (Obolensky, 1994) Byzantium and the Slavs‎ - Page 9

11)- (Stoyanov, 1994) The hidden tradition in Europe‎ - Page 109

12)- (multiple authors, 1989) Library of Congress Classification Schedules D History General and Old World‎ - Page 181

13)- (McCarty et al, 1999) Masks: Faces of Culture‎ - Page 133

As for the power of the First Bulgarian Empire here is what the "Encyclopaedia Britannica, A New Survey of Universal Knowledge, Volume 4 - page 37" has to say:

"The national power (of the First Bulgarian Empire) reached its zenith under Simeon (893-927), a monarch distinguished in the arts of war and peace. In his reign, 'Bulgaria assumed rank among the civilized powers of earth.' His dominions extended from the Black Sea to the Adriatic, and from the borders of Thessaly to the Save and the Carpathians. Having become the most powerful monarch in Eastern Europe, Simeon assumed the style of 'Emperor and Autocrat of all the Bulgars and Greeks' (tsar i samodrzhetz usem Blgarom i Grkom), a title which was recognized by Pope Formosus."

I have added a number of other sources regarding other points of dispute.

With regard to the Bulgar conquerers being assimilated (therefore a portion of a complex ethnic amalgamation):

14)- Graboïs, A. (1980). The illustrated encyclopaedia of medieval civilization. New York: Mayflower Books., p. 148

15)- The South Slav journal: 43-44 vol.12 no.1-2 Spring-Summer 1989. (1989). The South Slav journal, 43-44 vol.12 no.1-2 Spring-Summer 1989. London: the journal., p. 4

16)- Ference, G. C. (1994). Chronology of 20th-century eastern European history. Detroit, MI: Gale Research., p. 61

With regard to Tervel being the first foreigner to receive the title Caeser:

17)- Ostrogorski, G. (1969). History of the Byzantine state. New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press., p. 143

Regarding the First Bulgarian Empire being a cultural centre of Slavic Europe:

18)- Sedlar, J. W. (1994). East Central Europe in the Middle Ages, 1000-1500. A History of East Central Europe, v. 3. Seattle: University of Washington Press., p. 426

19)- Hussey, J. M. (1990). The Orthodox Church in the Byzantine Empire. Oxford history of the Christian Church. Oxford: Clarendon Press., p. 100

20)- Encyclopaedia britannica: A new survey of universal knowledge., Volume 4, Part 4A. (2009). Chicago: Encyclopaedia britannica., p. 37

Athenean responded to this by telling me that I did not include page numbers and therefore the sources I provided were not valid. The reality however is that I provided page numbers for each of the 20 sources from the very start and anyone who looked carefully at what I had written would have been able to take note of this. Thus Athenean's attempt to disregard the sources provided in my post was neither objective nor ethical. Soon after, Alexikoua stated that the Encyclopaedia Britannica source is unacceptable, as he claimed that tertiary sources are not allowed in Wikipedia. However this is strange when he had previously said nothing of the Britannica source used to reference the Turkic ancestry of the Bulgars. He also accused me of creating source chaos because I was apparently using too many sources to prove a point, even though again he said nothing of the nine sources used to reference the Turkic roots of the Bulgars.

Kostja and Gligan defended what I posted and said the following:

"So, it is a chaos of sources when he [Monshuai] proves something that you don't like but it is not chaos of sources to put nine references that the Bulgars were Turkic people. If Britannica is not valid, remove only that reference and do not use it as an excuse to remove all. That is not constructive at all. -- Gligan (talk) 14:29, 13 February 2010 (UTC)"

Kostja added to this by saying, "I should add that tertiary sources are permitted, especially high quality ones like Brittanica:

[202].

Kostja (talk) 15:19, 13 February 2010 (UTC)"

Now before this discussion moves on I must ask that only neutral administrators who are not involved nor ever have been involved with Balkan related articles analyze this predicament. I believe that all people (myself included) are liable to subjectivity and therefore an external and maximally neutral perspective is warranted. In this case it seems that editors and an administrator who stem from this region, in particular a country of this region, are attempting to cast me in negative light. What I think is strange is that every time I proposed to take this issue to WP:ANI they disagreed. However once I presented 20 reliable sources (shown above), they rushed here. Ironic, especially when I'm the person who has backed statements with reliable academic sources!

I believe that it is fair that I be scrutinized as you deem necessary. After all, I do not hide the fact that I am fallible and thereby I adhere to the philosophy that my personal defects be discussed openly. Though I strive to learn as much as I can about the world, I, like everyone else, have limitations. Said another way, this is certainly a valuable convention whereby individual and collective fallacies that are embedded in the virtual fabric of this encyclopaedia can be exposed, interpreted, categorized and improved. That applies to everyone who is a part of this community including those that use double standards. Therefore I will answer your questions and continue to provide sources to back my statements whilst utilizing (as I have recently done) deductive, abductive and inductive reasoning to elucidate my premises, rather than just give my opinions. From the onset this is what I have done in talk pages whilst facing countering statements that are not backed by such references. I also think that the other involved parties be scrutinized under the same lenses of maximal objectivity.

I am now going to discuss a comment made above by Future Perfect at Sunrise. He stated that I have previously been blocked by WP:ARBMAC. This is not true. I have been blocked once (for a 24 hour period) in the 3.5 years that I've been here. The reason being was that I made the mistake of revert warring, something I no longer do (hence backing my statements with sources in discussion pages and only making edits when backed by internal article links and reliable primary, secondary and encyclopaedic tertiary sources). Unfortunately at the time of making said transgression (3RR-24h), I believed that all theories about the Bulgars' ancestry be included in the article, as there did not seem to be absolute consensus amongst academics regarding their origins. I was under the impression that Dr. Peter Dobrev's Iranian-Bulgar theory was properly referenced and peer reviewed. However after studying the issue I came to the conclusion that his theory was not supported by a majority of the academic community and therefore most of the evidence pointed to the (Hunno-Bulgar) Turkic theory being correct. In other words, through intense research and education I came to view the Iranian hypothesis that I previously supported as being what Wikipedians refer to as a fringe theory. Therefore I stopped supporting its inclusion and all my edits hence forth were in favour of the Hunno-Bulgar Turkic theory. I have also read about the theory proposed by Dr. Shin Yong-Ha that the Bulgars originally stem from the Korean Peninsula as the Bu-Yeo culture that then migrated to the region presently known as Greater Mongolia. It seems Dr. Shin's premise directly ties to the primary theories about the Bulgars' Altaic (Turkic) origins. In other words, there is growing evidence that the Bulgars stem from central regions of north-eastern Asia. In light of this I was the one that made the edit that the Bulgars originate in the steppes of Mongolia.

I must also ask the following question. What is Wikipedia's policy toward users who wrongfully accuse an editor of having a sock puppet? It is not acceptable for people to say such things without there being repercussions, especially when that issue was already investigated. I was also accused of being a sock puppet of Lantonov. This seems to be a favourite strategy of users who cannot disprove your premise and sources and therefore resort to undermining your credibility by connecting you to other editors. If need be I will find the discussion where this was already discussed (anyone who has access to it please feel free to post a link as it is also in WP:ANI) and I will ask that action be taken against those who are currently using this as a way to undermine my efforts to include numerous sources for the articles in question.

Thank you for your time and please feel free to ask me any questions relating to the issues at hand.--Monshuai (talk) 07:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Oppose the ban. To my opinion Monshuai should not be banned. He might be persistent but also he always tries to provide reliable sources and furthermore I think that there is something like double standards between Bulgaria and Greece. What I think is that Monshuai should be advised to use the talk page more often and if his edits are disputed not to edit the article itself but to discuss in the talk page with neutral users (not at all linked to or interested in the Balkans) involved as mediators. I think that recently he is doing exactly that. He really does not deserve to be banned if not at least because of his efforts and the fact that he always provides sources. --Gligan (talk) 10:41, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Support the ban. I recently participated in the discussion in First_Bulgarian_Empire and the behavor of the specific user was really disruptive using hardcore wp:own 'strategy'. While the rest of the users tried to reach a appropriate version for the article's lead, User:Monshuai boycotted all the efforts finally adding a version which was even more unecyclopedic than the initial one [[203]]. (the -cn- tag is prevailing)

Characteristically:

• completely ignored User:Gligan's version: [[204]] which I found a good one.
• also completely ignored User:Cplakidas arguments [[205]] [[206]]. He readded his extreme lead version about Tervel being named Caesar, although he didn't provided a single argument for this.
• insisted on removing that Bulgars, were a Turkic tribe, contradicting User:Gligan's version again [[207]].

Well, actually that is the proposal of Athenean; mine is below and is almost the same with my suggestions put in bold. I also insist on removing that the Bulgars were Turkic (that is mentioned below and is not good for a lead - as if to put Slavic Bulgarians in every lead) and removing Danube Bulgars Khanate (1. - Not applicable for the whole existence of the state; 2. Not the only possible name - it is also called Bulgarian Khanate and Danube Bulgaria; 3. It is out of context - I have put the term in one of the first sections where it is explained why is that term used sometimes.) --Gligan (talk) 13:36, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I see that the rest of the Bulgarian users are really willing to discuss the issues, most of them Assume good faith, but Monshuai's extreme edits lead to nothing but creating battlegrounds. Since it's not the first time he tries to initiate a battleground his ban should be the only solution. Very good job User:Athenean.Alexikoua (talk) 12:56, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Moreover, this phrase by User:Monshuai isn't a really good approach: [Now before this discussion moves on I must ask that only neutral administrators who are not involved nor ever have been involved with Balkan related articles analyze this predicament.] meaning that we have also non-neutral administrators here. We should better avoid such comments without giving appropriate explanations. Also giving 20 source in lead is contrary to [wp:lead], they sould be mentioned in the appropriate sections of the main text.Alexikoua (talk) 13:05, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

@Athenean are you willing to discuss the use of double standards? As shown in my statement above, all my comments and edits were backed and continue to be backed by reliable sources, something that you tried to disregard. I also ask, what punishment should there be for Athenean after accusing me of having a sock puppet when this is not only a lie but something already investigated and disproven? I believe this is evidence that due to an inability to discredit the sources I have provided said user has attempted to tie me with other editors. Consequently I must ask, how many reliable sources did he provide to back his statements in the First Bulgaria Article discussion page? Everyone can look at the edit history of the article and see that he repeatedly removed credible sources. As Gligan said to Athenean, he was being unproductive.

So please try to discredit the sources if you have a problem with the statements I have made in the First Bulgarian Empire discussion page, because no matter what you say about me I am not the one who wrote those books. In other words, however you try to attack me, the sources I use remain credible.

@Alexikoua, with regard to Tervel, how can you say I didn't provide a single argument when in fact I provided many including a source about his precedent? I will once again post that source:

Ostrogorski, G. (1969). History of the Byzantine state. New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press., p. 143

I'm also not sure what exactly you mean by us having to avoid comments about non-neutral administrators. Administrators are people, and as such are not completely neutral. However neutrality can be maximized when administrators that are as Gligan puts it, "neutral users (not at all linked to or interested in the Balkans) involved as mediators."

I also invite everyone to read the primary comment I posted above, including the sources I have provided.--Monshuai (talk) 13:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Support. By any means, User:Monshuai can be qualified as disruptive. Certainly he has made constructive edits in the past by introducing sources to some statements (even though this has led to onverinflation of articles or sections); but considering the number of recent and rather destructive ones (such as the aforementioned by User:Athenean), a bit more severe measures should be taken. Talk pages are being flooded with enormous amounts of words, and why ? Because somebody does not agree about a single word in a head section, or because the given article doesn't follow the exact same model of another, and many other such "issues" that are certainly not worth the sizzles.

Playing the "double standards" card or any tricks like that won't work, because the user has persistently refused to aknowledge other opinions and impose his own, as seen in the discussions of Bulgaria [208], and First Bulgarian Empire [209]. It's not about facts or sources here; we're talking about the "article ownership" attitude and lack of understanding to any change that doesn't reflect Monshuai's point of view. Any logical proposition by other users gets drowned by Monshuai in a storm of random arguments and accusations about "misjudgement" (or anything like that) [210]. All of the users he has argued with, have been neutral, and none of them tried to impose a biased point of view. No matter at what level we discuss this, there is a general consensus about the negative essence of Monshuai's actions. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 13:28, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Tourbillon says that I pretend to have "article ownership", whereas in fact of the last 500 article edits of the Bulgaria article 106 are by him. In comparison I have made 11 of the last 500 edits there. In other words, his edits comprise 21.2% of the edits/reverts, while mine comprise 2.2%. So as you can see, rather than just make edits like Tourbillon, I discuss issues in the talk page. I also use sources to back my statements. I also want to note that on Tourbillon's user page he states that he does "NOT care about democratic principles, supports authoritarian rule, and is against democratic fanaticism." Is that the kind of neutrality he speaks of? Is that what Wikipedia principles are? Unlike Tourbillon, I don't like the authoritarian control he values, including his self-righteous proclamation that he and other involved users are neutral. Human beings, especially those involved in specific issues, are not neutral (including me). I however can admit it! Finally, unlike him I am for democratic principles especially the right to share one's view and to use sources to back it. --Monshuai (talk) 13:48, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The number of edits I have made to the Bulgaria page have seen an introduction of sources, removal of unsourced information, reduction of the enormous size of the article, and so on. I never stated my opinion there neither have I imposed it, nor have I argued with at least 5 people to prove them I'm completely correct (so, ironically, my "un-democratic values" have shown more understanding towards other opinions than yours). The few edits you have made, have brought you here - so I'm not sure whether I should be a subject of discussion here at all. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 13:57, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

You are the one who said I claim to have article ownership, whereas based on your edit history it is you who dominates said article. Also, I believe it is fully democratic to intellectually debate with as you say "at least 5 people", unless of course you consider the opinion of at least 5 people to be reflective of a democratic majority or worse yet the authoritarian regime you support. Based on your views about authoritarian rule and your NOT caring about democratic principles, it is clear why you maintain the Bulgaria article as you see fit and thereby have attempted to stop me from sharing statements backed by sources in the talk pages.--Monshuai (talk) 14:03, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Your accusations are once again hollow - because apparently you do not make a difference between "number of edits" and "essence of edits". Nobody has a limitation on how many edits to make; if an article had a number of (neutrality, factual accuracy, verifiability) issues, they were to be fixed. As I did, and nobody reverted the changes I made. My edits have been constructive, yours - mostly destructive. I have discussed freely page content with other users - you have rejected their opinions. So please do not talk about me, we are discussing your actions here. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 14:09, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

You are deflecting scrutiny of your values and actions, which is unethical. In other words, you have the right to say anything about me, but I don't have the right to point out what you yourself admit to think and likewise what you do? You also say that no one has a limitation on how many edits they make. There is also no limitation on how many statements one makes in a talk page, especially when they are backed by sources and when one is using that talk page in order to avoid a revert war. The fact that you do not want me to discuss you is also undemocratic. Remember you came here to discuss me before I even had a chance to know about what was being said and therefore before I could defend myself, whereas the only time I discuss you (or others) is when you have full knowledge of my comments.--Monshuai (talk) 14:22, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

A lot of examples have been given above, reflecting your opinion imposement and deconstructive edits (in other words, your current hypocrisy in teaching me how to value other people's opinions); This section of the noticeboard is about you. If I were so bad, I would've already been discussed here. My opinion has been expressed, as well as that of several other editors here; you should really start defending yourself, and stop accusing me about what I am, and leave any unrelated topics aside. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 14:28, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

If you had read my original statement (you have already stated before you don't read my "massive posts") you would have seen that I did defend myself and I backed each of my statements with sources. I also gave a lot of examples, as you say. Now I am giving examples with respect to one of my accusers, YOU. This is important because by way of your support for authoritarianism, not caring for democratic principles and your statements on the talk pages, I am showing that you are unwilling to accept a perspective that is in disagreement with your own. This is the case even when my comments are backed by sources. An example of this is when you stated on the Bulgaria talk page, "Jesus Christ, I won't even bother reading this." This was in reference to my post which was 574 words long in comparison to the post that you made before (and to which I was responding) that was 240 words long. You admitted that you do not want to read my comment because it wasn't summarised, even though it would have taken far longer for you to write you post. Again, your post was 42% as large as my "unreadable" reply. As I said before, your disregard for my posts is unfair. Reading speed is multiple times faster than typing speed. Therefore, you simply showed that you are unwilling to acknowledge the points I provide to counter your posts. That's another authoritarian action on your part.--Monshuai (talk) 14:43, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

You can keep all this up, I don't mind. You're not working for yourself, though. You're just aggravating the situation. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 14:47, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I am doing here what I did in the talk pages (which is to back and defend my statements). Also, it seems rather strange that you are suddenly concerned about me and thus giving me advice as to what I should say in order to be "working for myself" when in fact you originally stated that I have a negative essence. There is an incongruency there. Neutrality and objectivity means that actions, double standards and self-proclaimed values be scrutinized with regard to the current dynamics.--Monshuai (talk) 15:01, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

We see this a lot, actually. Someone is brought here for tendentious, mission-based editing, and the first thing the accused party points to is a 'double-standard'. The filing party provided one hundred and fifty diffs of you adding overwhelmingly pro-Bulgarian material to articles and shouting down people who dispute you. You've got a ways to go to prove yourself the victim here. --King Öomie 15:48, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

As I stated earlier, I have made mistakes in the past including a 3RR revert in support of Dr. Peter Dobrev (of the Economic unit of the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences) and his theory. I then however (over a few months) re-checked his sources, read six seperate books, studied peer reviewed academic articles on the matter and finally came to the conclusion that what he was presenting is a fringe theory. I admitted this and since then I have been an adamant supporter of another premise supported by a majority of academics. I also learned a lesson, which was to always read credible sources (start to finish) about the various issues discussed in Wikipedia and discuss this on talk pages. Furthermore, I did say that I am open to criticism and that I fully realize that I am fallible and full of defects. No doubt about it. My style of communication needs to improve, become gentle and more articulate. That said, I have used credible sources to support my recent statements (including those about said standards). The errors I've made in the past, for which I've already had to defend myself in the past, are not directly tied to the sources I brought to this discussion. Again, I openly admit past errors and the improperly unreferenced comments that I made then are not like the referenced comments I have made recently and herein. Also, I do not believe I am a victim (as you say), however I do have the right to defend myself. Speaking of that, one can conjecture that when double standards are used, everyone is negatively affected if even a little bit, including the people that are using the double standards in the first place and of course all others who are interested in objective encyclopaedic knowledge. Finally, my "negative essence" or "maniacal tenacity" or anything else said about my character and the fallacies that I've indentified in myself do not change the reliability of my sources.--Monshuai (talk) 16:23, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Support the ban. I was recently involved in the discussion on Talk:John Vincent Atanasoff, where User:Monshuai's attitude was counter-productive and disruptive to the extreme. His primary "debating tools" were personal attacks and inflammatory statements, to the point that other well-meaning contributors were driven away from the discussion simply because it was becoming a resource-drain for them.

The resource-drain aspect is also partly a result of Monshuai's tendency to be excessively verbose. This of course does not in itself constitute a reason for banning - however he frequently uses verbosity as a means for lending himself an air of authority, while not making any meaningful points. It seems that for him this is also an effective way to deter others from actually attempting to engage in a discussion with him. The following, in response to a reasonable point by User:Tourbillon, is one of the best examples [211]: "So far we've had your misinformed opinion on these matters and consequent shifts in the premise whenever it is shown to utilize what is known by logicians as fallacious reasoning. In this case, you've employed two argumentative misconstructions that amplify the errors and/or incompleteness in your original assertions and therefore lead to defective conclusions. By doing so you have unfortunately committed both a formal fallacy and an informal fallacy."

For whatever it's worth, I just wanted to quickly voice my opinion on this. I have a great deal of appreciation for Monshuai's constructive contributions, and a great deal of respect for the time he dedicates to his research, but I feel that on the whole his presence on Wikipedia is detrimental - both to Wikipedia's content as well as to the community. Tomatoman (talk) 18:23, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

After a long debate and analysis of the sources you provided at the end in the John Atanasoff talk page I accepted the conclusions you made. I stated that "I thank Tomatoman for looking at the evidence as impartially as he could." I showed respect towards your research and I have accepted that your position as sourced was the correct one. Consequently I have not gone back to the discussion page. As I said, I value reliable sources provided by users even if I do not agree with specific comments that they make about me. That said, the statements that I made that prompted this discussion herein are also backed by credible sources. I also don't think that my verbose writing style is incorrect. The terms formal fallacy and informal fallacy exist. Also, in the statement you refer to, Tourbillon stated that exhibits cannot be used to determine national history as the Louvre shows artefacts from around the world. I then provided a source about the National Museum of Bulgarian History in which it is clearly stated that it (unlike ie: the Louvre) only shows artefacts from Bulgaria's heritage and not those that come from other countries. While English is not my first language I have worked hard to learn to write well. Yes, it's true I can become more articulate. Yes it's true that I must be more diplomatic. Yes, I can always use sources to back my statements and I do that. Part of the lesson that I learned from my discussion with you is that sources can bring debates to a fruitful closure. However, as I brought sources to the table in my recent discussions I was accused of using non reliable sources, of not providing page numbers, etc...--Monshuai (talk) 19:32, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Strongly oppose the ban. User Monshuai is one of the very few wikipedians that write on Balkan topics that I really respect. He brings fantastic sources, arguments them like few and has no Bulgaria-related antiquity frenzy or aggrandization of Bulgarian scientific achievements. I think Athenean's accusations are completely unfounded. If someone finds Monshuai verbose, then that someone has problems with understanding of the English language and critical thinking. Particularly I think that Monshuai has done a good job defending the Bulgarian American legacy of Atanassoff and I have given my opinion in the talk page for that matter. As a matter of fact I find that many contributors have pushed Monshuai to get him upset, and the fact that he has not taken the bait, upsets these users even more. sulmues (talk) --Sulmues 19:54, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah, something would have been really amiss if Sulmues wasn't following me around and doing everything in his power that he thinks would spite me. He is canvassing every Bulgarian user he knows, and any and all Albanian, and Macedonian users that he thinks may have an axe to grind either against myself or Greeks in general: [212] [213] [214] [215] [216]. This is extremely disruptive and needs to stop. I have warned him in the past that canvassing is unacceptable [217], so he fully knows that what he is doing is wrong. I believe this warrants a block. Athenean (talk) 20:25, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

So Sulmues exercises his right to share his opinion and now you want him banned too just because that opinion is not the same as yours?--Monshuai (talk) 20:58, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

One, I am not trying to get him banned, but what he is doing is definitely blockable. Second, read WP:CANVAS (not that it's going to make a difference, but anyway). Athenean (talk) 21:10, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I read the WP:CANVAS link you provided and it states that "Limited posting AND Neutral AND Nonpartisan AND Open" is acceptable. Sulmues has not told anyone what to think, nor has he sent private messages to these users. The messages are open.--Monshuai (talk) 21:21, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Except that the users involved are all from selected ethnic groups, hence the "Neutral" and "Nonpartisan" parts are a bit problematic. Athenean (talk) 21:25, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Sulmues informed only a number of Bulgarian and a Albanian user, accidentally avoiding any Greek one. Moreover this [[218]] is unacceptable ... defending Sulmues while he was disruptive.Alexikoua (talk) 21:29, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Alexikoua, I have the right to share my opinion. Could it be that most of the Greek users that Sulmues knows are already here attacking me? Which other Greek users should he have informed?--Monshuai (talk) 21:35, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

That's exactly the case: I see the greek users (FPS, Athenean, and Alexikoua) casting their vote to boot Monshuai out of the English Wikipedia project and Monshuai trying to desperately defend himself: FPS advises Athenean to bring the case to ANI ([219]) because "it's faster". In this case having other editors involved in this decision is extremely important so that we can defend Monshuai's excellent work in Wikipedia. Countless hours of contributions could be lost if the Greek users find their way. I posted a friendly notice to a limited number of people who are not only Bulgarians (that is just not true), but are very knowledgable with Monshuai's work because I have seen their postings close to Monshuai’s. These people know what Monshuai has done and could be interested in this vote cast.sulmues (talk) --Sulmues 21:51, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

You selectively contacted users either of the same ethnicity as Monshuai (Preslav, TodorBozhinov, Laveol), from your own (Kedadi), or from an ethnicity with a known vendetta against Greece (Mactruth). Why not have contacted neutral users, e.g. Moreschi? But the point is not who to contact, but why contact anyone at all? Actually, now that you have canvassed these users' talkpages, if (and that's a big IF, considering even other Bulgarian users support his ban) they come to Monshuai's aid that will be taken into account by the community and reduce the value of their support. Whereas if no canvassing had occurred and they had come here on their own, their voice would have had more weight. So by canvassing them in the manner you have done, you have potentially done Monshuai a great disservice. Athenean (talk) 22:08, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

For what I am concerned I really respect Monshuai's work. I have enjoyed the perspective he has put in the English Wikipedia and I honestly think that contributors like him who challenge the status quo and undermine weak arguments really deserve to bring their contributions in this project. I am trying to make the Wikipedia community aware of what Athenean is doing. If the ANI is fast like FPS says, then it may reach hasty conclusions. Athenean, you are trying to get a very respected contributor banned from Wikipedia and the community needs to know. What are you affraid of if these users are so biased? It's you working in tandem with Alexikoua and FPS running to your aid that should be reported, not Monshuai or I. FPS giving you advice in your talk page is particularly unethical: he is an admin and of Greek ancestry and should keep his distance from these cases. And I repeat, I posted friendly notices. Btw I had no idea about Mactruth's vendetta against Greece, so you really need to remember good faith. Moreschi (who has already blocked you in the past) is idle and also tired of hearing from you and me after all the accusations that you have unjustly written about me in his talk page (User_talk:Moreschi#Sulmues.3DGuildenrich) I don't think he has any desire to see you give other false accusations. sulmues (talk) --Sulmues 22:20, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Sulmues never shared the same interests with Monshuai, not in a single article so far. Actually he came here just by checking Athenean's contribution history and I'm not surprised that a user with such a block log record still continues to be disruptive. Not to mention that he received barnstars by someone that posted this against Athenean.Alexikoua (talk) 23:00, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

@Alexikoua: If you are trying to blacken my contribution to Wikipiedia by describing my "bad character" through showing blocks that I have gotten thanks to you working in tandem with Athenean, why don't you start changing your own behavior towards me and become more civil? So far every time that Athenean reports me, I'm sure to see you running on his aid and spite me. That is called WORKING IN TANDEM. Only in the last two days I have received the following insults or trolling comments from you in one single talk page (@Vangjel Zhapa]] see [220], [221], [222], [223], [224], [225] where Vangjel Zhapa is falsely called of Greek ethnicity: I provide all the sources in the talk page to assert that Vangjel Zapa is instead, Albanian, and all I get is insults), and I cannot even delete these insults because you revert me so that your insulting style can show forever. I have received continuous provocations from you and Athenean and so have many Albanian users who have been reported by you and Athenean in tandem. I am not going to let that happen now to the Bulgarian users. Once that you will have gotten rid of the Albanians, Monshuai is in your agenda and I'll do whatever it takes to not to let that happen. I have read Monshuai's work in Atanassoff's case and I have made edits on it, and I have have left this message to his talk page before ([226]), so your accusations are, as always, empty. sulmues (talk) --Sulmues 23:24, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Support. See this discussion]. He firstly accused two editors: Fut.Perf. and myself of hypocrisy because that edit of Fut. Perf. and my opinion didn't stand well with his nationalistic POV. Even in the "defense" he wrote on this page he used as arguments things that I already clarified, for example I already mentioned twice or trice that by "lands occupied now by Bulgarians" I simply meant "lands inhabited now by Bulgarians" and didn't mean "occupation" as in the sense of "taking land illegally" however this clarification doesn't serve his purpose to accuse people of racism (he repeated the accusation on this page) and he chose to ignore it and even capitalized "OCCUPATION" to make his point. I see this as an act of bad faith. I got tired of responding to his logorrheic non-factual derailing strawmen accusation and I just gave up continuing the discussion. Wikipedia would be a better place without this individual. man with one red shoe 06:34, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Man with one red shoe, I think it is very necessary for people to read our original discussion start to finish. Also, I have already given you 4 examples of you being hypocritical. Since you insist on continuing the discussion here I am going to list those examples below:

(1) You decided to initiate a conversation on my talk page and then stated that you do not want me posting on your talk page. This is hypocritical because you were doing something to me that you did not want done to you.

(2) Even though you were being hypocritical I decided to respect your wish and not post on your talk page. Nonetheless, you decided to again come back to my talk page and swear. You then stated that this wasn't as bad as it could have been, because according to you using the word "shat" was a form of self-censorship. Your words were, "I wanted to say "shit", but then I remembered that some Wikipedia admins are morons, I don't know why I censured myself, is not in my habit, in any case I remove myself from this discussion I don't want ever to discuss with this guy."

(3) You stated that you were offended when I called you hypocritical, yet it was alright for you to say I am delusional. Psychiatry defines the term delusional more specifically as a belief that is pathological (the result of an illness or illness process). So by calling me delusional, were you accusing me of being sick/mentally ill? I backed my statements with evidence, can you back yours? Either way, I accept your right to think and say this about me.

(4) You claimed that Bulgaria's ancient heritage is not notable and therefore should not be mentioned in the lede, whilst using Japan and the Japanese people as evidence for your assertion. Once I provided sources that showed that a significant number of Japanese do in fact have interest in Bulgaria's ancient history, you went on to say that 16 million Japanese people (2.1 times Bulgaria's population and 12.54% of the world's 10th most populous nation) is a few. In other words, when evidence was presented to disprove your premise using criteria that you had established, you disregarded it.

Your original statement about Bulgarians, was NOT that they were inhabiting the land, but that they are occupying ancient lands. I responded to this by pointing out that (a)it made it seem as though Bulgarians did not have a right to claim the heritage of their land and (b)that they were on someone else's land. You then decided to change the sentence by using the word "inhabit", which is an indirect confirmation on your part that your original statement was divisive. Even regarding its changed wording, Bulgarians are not "inhabiting" a land to which they have no ancient connection. After all, Bulgarians (like all modern ethnicities) are a composite nation formed by multiple ancestral groups, one of which produced its land's ancient heritage in antiquity. I also explained that modern states are not direct products of ancient states, but rather institutionally formed in large part due to the international law, specifically concept of sovereignty, solidified by the Treaty of Westphalia. Thus while modern Iraq is considered to be a largely Arab and Islamic country that is not a direct product of the Sumerian civilization, its peoples' links to the territory's ancient past remains a reality. This concept is acknowledged throughout the world and is respected in Iraq's lede as well as many other country ledes. Yet strangely for the Balkans, only Greece has a lede that mentions this. Countries such as Albania with its ancient Illyrian heritage as well as Serbia, Bosnia, Croatia, Bulgaria etc with their respective ancient legacies have been told that they cannot have this information in their ledes.--Monshuai (talk) 07:54, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Weak Support. I think some aspects of Monshuai's behaviour are best described by WP:PUSH. His behaviour has been mostly disruptive such that Wikipedia would be better off without him, but he also seems to have a great knowledge on Bulgarian history (a.o.) and his point of view and the references supporting it would be a welcome addition to Wikipedia. I am in favour of any measure which would encourage him to devote his time and energy on writing and expanding Wikipedia articles, and not on elaborate discussions on talk pages (95%+ of his recent edits were on talk pages). Maybe a partial ban on editting overview articles on Bulgarian, Greek and Byzantine history (those that are part of a series), while allowing him to expand articles on details of those histories, would be the best solution? I also think that the behaviour of some of those proposing or supporting a ban here can also be described as POV-pushing (less disruptive, but also less polite than Monshuai). Preslav (talk) 11:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

By your vote you just proved my point that I did not invite only pro-Bulgarians to defend Monshuai, contrarily to the accusations given me by Athenean above. You are asserting that he should be talking less in talk pages, but the reason why he is doing it is that the Greek editors work in tandem against him, so he is desperately trying to assert his references through talk pages. There is no POV pushing here, on the contrary, the Greek editors, deleting his references are POV pushing and I'll show below some examples. Monshuai is trying to collaborate with the Greek editors who are already bunched up to revert him without falling into the 3RR trap. He is left with no choice but to try to enter his legacy in the talk pages so that some other Bulgarian can pick his fights up and restate the truth. A partial ban that you are proposing, given Monshuai's interest in Bulgarian history is really a strong support and I would invite you to reconsider. The Greek contribution to the Bulgaria related pages tries to assert that Bulgarians of today are nothing but people who have come to the Balkans in the 4th to 7th century. The Greek editors have already done that in the Albanian pages. Their agenda tries to demonstrate that the only autochtonous people in the Balkans are the Greeks. In fact, the Greek editors try to assert in Wikipedia that there was no merge whatsoever between the Thracians and the Slavs, but the newcomers destroyed the ancient populations and there is no trace of the old ones. The only ancient civilization remaining in the Balkans is the Greek civilization. This is not corresponding to truth and Monshuai demonstrates it. The Slavic populations have merged with the Thracian one and no one can say that today's Bulgarians are only Slavs and nothing is left from the Thracian ancestry. The Thracian population and civilization merged with the newcoming Slavic civilization and the result was a population that constitutes the modern Bulgarian civilization. The genetics have already proved that the Bulgarians are a mediterranean population (see Bulgarians#Genetic_origin, but the Greeks make sure to keep 15 references in Bulgarians#Ethnogenesis to assert that they came from the Northern Caucasian Steppe. I wish they were so eager to keep the references that demonstrate the theory that Albanian descends from Illyrian (but no: the Greek editor Athenean, who is proposing this ban made sure to delete all 72 references three times (see reverts [227], [228], [229]) and asserted it only as "one of the theories" . By the same token, the Greek contributors assert that the Albanians appear only in the 11th century, failing to acknowledge that the Albanoi Illyrian tribe has been mentioned by Ptolemy in the 2nd century BC as Arbon, in the 2nd century AD by Polibus as Albanoi, and in the 6th century as Albonios by Stephanus of Bysantium as, see (Origin_of_the_Albanians). The Greek editors are just affraid of having an editor that brings much better sources than theirs and they have a history of removing the sources (see only in the last pages what they do by continous blanking of the references ([230], [231], [232]) which is not nice, but disruptive. Rather than accusing Monshuai of being POV-Pushing and disruptive, Proslav, try to understand that once that the Greek editors are done with the Albanians their next target is the Bulgarians and the Macedonian editors. Take a look at the cemetery of editors that this war has produced (Wikipedia:ARBMAC#Log_of_blocks_and_bans). The ARBMAC has to completely be reorganized as it's the biggest graveyard of truth you'll find in Wikipedia concerning the Balkan topics. sulmues (talk) --Sulmues 15:06, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Weak Support All one needs do is see some of the very long discussions that Monshuai drags out with his irksome tendency to refuse to accept that consensus is sometimes going to be against him. This is usually done by persisting with inadmissible arguments such as "double standards" and WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, sometimes leading to retaliatory WP:POINT disruption on other articles. This reduces the ability of the editors that have the energy to continue debating with him to work on anything else. At the very least, a topic ban from editing articles and talkpages where his participation is at its most tendentious should be considered.--Ptolion (talk) 16:03, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

(1) If Ptolion believes that evidence of double standards is an inadmissible argument, then what is his proposition for the resolution of these double standards? What is more important, the inadmissibility of evidence that double standards exist or the inadmissibility of the double standards themselves? Also, if a number of Greek editors maintain that their edits in the First Bulgarian Empire article are correct (whilst calling my sourced edits disruptive), then they should be happy that their correct standards also be used in the Byzantine Empire article. However the irony is that the application of their standards to Greek articles is also called disruptive and/or retaliatory by the very same people. This is a severe incongruity that leads one to consider two primary possibilities.

(a) The proper standards are used in the Greek history article ledes, while improper standards are used for the history article ledes of other Balkan countries.

(b) The improper standards are used in the Greek history article ledes, while the proper standards are used for the history article ledes of other Balkan countries.

If (a), then it means that the other Balkan country article ledes be brought up to date with information regarding their ancient heritage.

If (b), then it means that the Greece article lede be brought up to date with only information reflecting the unified country itself (shared borders, central governance, etc), which does not include city states more than 2 millenia ago.

(2) Sulmues makes very good points. It is important that administrators who have not edited Balkan related articles look at the region's respective country article ledes (and other history pieces) and note the disparities. These admins could form a task group that ultimately decides what information is admissible and likewise inadmissible for all involved countries. In other words, they would have the challenging and interesting task of creating transparency.--Monshuai (talk) 17:12, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The reason I am asking for a full community ban as opposed to a topic-ban is that no articles are going to be immune from Monshuai, even those are only the most tangentially related to Bulgaria, for example Spartacus [233], Ancient Rome [234], Bulgari [235], or Europe [236]. If he is topic banned on Bulgaria-related topics, there is no telling where his tendentiousness will be turned towards, whether it is some plant species discovered by a Bulgarian scientist, or some rock formation in Antarctica named after a place in Bulgaria. When it's this intense for this long, a topic-ban will not work. Not to mention that the ban will have to be continuously monitored and policed by the community. We can't expect that our users spend their time in this fashion, monitoring the topic-ban of every kook out there, instead of building content. Athenean (talk) 18:57, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Nice case-filing, Athenean. It must have taken quite some time to properly collect all the diffs.:P From the little I've seen on the past few days, I can tell that the attitude of the editor involved is not... constructive. There's also the "That's that.PERIOD" thing, that is quite annoying. (Well, he's not the first or the last that does that around here, but at least this one does it excessively often, often enought to annoy.) Just a comment: Monshuai, the discussion here at ANI is about your behavior, not the articles or the outcome of their discussion. So, don't bring the discussions here, because it's just pointless to do so.--Michael X the White (talk) 22:24, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Piano non troppo removing references

Recently User:Piano non troppo began going into articles and removing any citation that used Amazon.com, claiming it was "spam". Another user and I have tried to explain to him how references are needed for things such as DVD release dates, and how retailers are not spam and are in fact sources used in numerous featured articles that require information such as release dates. However, he continues to remove them. He also insists on deleting references for airdates, even though FLC/FAC sometimes require them, as I explained to him; he argues that "there's no reason to provide a link to every single fact in an article", which goes against what Wikipedia is based upon. I do not want to start an edit war with him, so I would appreciate some help from an administrator. Thanks. Ωphois 21:43, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

It's better to use some other type of source, like the studio site, a review, or even IMDB. Amazon is full of errors, it gets its info from the same place as any other retailer so it shouldn't get preferential treatment, and having so many retail links undesirably turns WP into a shopping portal. 66.127.55.192 (talk) 22:33, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure how policy comes into this. I'm sure it is discouraged, but as with youtube not entirely banned. It depends on context of the amazon link, I'm sure. Could you supply some diffs? NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 22:59, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, if another source has the information, then that one should be used. Often, however, Amazon is the best source, and has a precedence in FAC's as a RS. It would be one thing for the user to be replacing the Amazon links with a better source; instead he is just going through removing the refs, leaving the information unsourced.

Here are some of the requested diffs: 1 2 3 Ωphois 23:21, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think Amazon is a reliable source, or that it establishes notability. If the information can't be documented by more suitable than Amazon, consider removing it. 66.127.55.192 (talk) 23:51, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Regardless, Amazon and prominent retailers have been established as a RS in numerous FA articles (which strictly follow wiki guidelines). Ωphois 23:54, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I looked at the examples. I don't want to get involved with those articles but I think the stuff about the DVD/Blueray releases should be removed completely on notability grounds. Amazon might be ok as a source for some info whose notability/relevance has been established in some other way, but no such relevance is documented in the examples 1 and 3. For example 2, sourcing those dates to NHK seems preferable than sourcing them to a retailer. It could also be that some of the Amazon citations in the other FA's you mention should be cleaned up. If you have some examples I'm willing to take a look at them. 66.127.55.192 (talk) 00:00, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

That makes absolutely no sense at all. DVD's are an important aspect of television shows, and one of the things needed for an episode list. No offense, but those comments and your suggestion of using IMDb as a RS hints that you don't have much expertise in this area.

Can an experienced admin please give their input on this? Ωphois 00:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

There is almost assuredly a press release or something on an official website for some stuff that new to show when they were released.--Crossmr (talk) 00:34, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

as a side note you really shouldn't have the seasons linked to the same page that they are on like that.--Crossmr (talk) 00:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Just to get you started, here is the first one, Smallville, season 1, happy hunting [237].--Crossmr (talk) 00:40, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Season 8 from the official distrubutors of the 8th season DVD. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 00:42, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Can you please provide a source such as that saying when it was released in Europe or Australia? Ωphois 00:43, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Have not been able to find much of anything other than commercial sites or blogs. Honestly, what you should do is replace all of the Amazon links that you can with other sources. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 00:59, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

As I have said before, replacing Amazon links is fine if a better source can be found. But in cases such as the one I just explained, non-commercial sites do not have the needed information. Ωphois 01:18, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

If a link to Amazon is serving as a reference for some fact in an article, it should not be removed, in my opinion. DVDs are one topic where an Amazon link may be the only source for some bit of information that editors believe to be significant to the article. It is often not easy to find reliable DVD information from non-commercial sites. Some might argue that the information is not important enough, but that's a matter for local consensus to decide. Amazon can be treated as a reliable source for what the publisher asserts about the DVD. EdJohnston (talk) 03:19, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to thank User:NeilN for alerting me to this ANI. Editor User:Ophois has acted a less than straightforward manner from the start. His opening statement on my talk page was incorrect, that sites such as Amazon "are used in every featured article on television subjects".[238] I demonstrated by lengthy example that it was not the actual case, but he didn't bother to reply to this.

Editor User:Ophois did not simply revert edits to a TV article. In a space of 5 minutes, he entirely reverted edits made to 8 articles. I had examined the references before removing them, and questioned whether he had been "considering the content at all." It appeared not. After explaining at length, presenting various issues, I quoted WP:REF ("The policy on sourcing is Wikipedia:Verifiability, which requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations."), suggesting that past air dates are rarely questioned or vandalized, and therefore do not need references. User:Ophois answered — without providing support from Wikipedia guidelines — that "dates and publishing details should always be sourced".

User:Ophois reverted several of my edits in a few minutes, apparently without reviewing the articles or the references, but apparently in response to changes to List of Smallville episodes. This is an article that User:Ophois has edited for some time, and seems to have protective feelings. A quick example is his Jan. 18 edit, removing a cleanup tag, with the Edit Summary "revert unexplained tag".[239] I've been citing examples and guidelines. User:Ophois is making unsubstantiated claims about what "should" appear in articles, yet does not appear to be even examining the material, but applying a pseudo-rule mechanically, that "Amazon links are always allowed to establish dates". Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 03:51, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

First off, the fact that Ophois is an editor of the List of Smallville episodes page is irrelevant. Your example of him removing a cleanup tag that was issued by an IP is rather irrelevant, since there is clearly nothing that required "cleaning" on the page at that time. The fact that an IP chose to vandalize a page by pretending to cite some issue with it doesn't negate the fact that it's vandalism. As for your edits, I've reverted you as well. In the case of Smallville, you removed every source that verified the release date of a season on DVD. I'm not sure if you think they don't need to be sourced, or that the source isn't good enough as your previous response here doesn't actually address either of those. I agree that if "more reliable" sources (i.e. less commercial) can be found, then they should be used, but the dates must be sourced. There is no ifs, ands, or buts about it. You cannot claim that something was released on say August 23, 2001 and just expect people to take your word for it. The sources need to be there, and blanket deleting them simply because you might not think they were necessary. Sorry, but they are. So are sources for previous airdates for a TV show, because who is to say that ALF aired one whatever day it's Wikipedia article claimed it aired on? I don't remember seeing it on that date. The only time you don't need a source is when the information is obvious (e.g., the Sun is yellow, grass is green, etc.), because anyone can verify that (ignoring the exceptions, like sunsets and winter time).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:37, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Looking at one of the articles in controversy, List of The Fairly OddParents DVD and VHS, I'm not sure what to think. That article looks like it's from Wikipedia Shopping. What to do about such articles? --John Nagle (talk) 07:11, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

And I thought VHS was a dead format. Anyways, some of the articles will not be like Smallville and will just flat out suck. Each article is different. I remember having to remove links to a website from the Flag of Japan article even though it serves as an English translation for some sources and some do include other sources. It is always a hit or miss on here. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the List of The Fairly OddParents DVD and VHS article isn't very good and probably shouldn't be there. However, that's an issue of whether or not to delete it. As long as it is there, sources need to be provided to verify the information, which Piano non troppo either doesn't understand or is choosing to ignore. Piano non troppo feels that episode airdates don't need to be sourced, but is instead using that as an excuse in his edit summaries that in fact remove many more citations such as for DVD release dates. As for airdates themselves, as Bignole and I have already pointed out, they, too, need to be sourced. I have seen multiple FAC/FLC's which require them to be so. As Bignole and I have already said, non-commercial sites are preferable, but in some cases (especially foreign releases) that is just not feasible, leaving retailers as the only option. Ωphois 15:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd take a moment to consider Piano's comment that he researches before removing: His edits, and justifications for removing references to Cheating in video games showed that he didn't really check them at all.Cheat page talk. Not sure how to link to specific revisions - sorry - the link to the talk page is the best I can do. a_man_alone (talk) 16:45, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Removing references to Amazon that are being used to source release dates and replacing them with nothing is not helping the project. While better sources would be, you know, better, in the absence of same the Amazon references should not be removed. Removing them and not bothering to replace them is degrading the value of the articles, and any action that degrades the value of an article is not an action one should undertake. I do not care about whether or not "Amazon links are 'allowed'" to support dates. While I do care whether or not they are "allowed," I do not see any reason to across-the-board DISallow them. This isn't a Copyvio or BLP issue. It's not black-and-white, and drastic measures are not called for. Deleting things outright is the right call only when the content being deleted is either a serious violation of serious policy or is something which is going to be improved in the same stroke. In the absence of better sourcing, we should use what we have and attempt to improve. Having release dates sourced to Amazon isn't destroying or degrading the project, nor is it turning Wikipedia into a "shopping portal" (reality check in aisle 1, reality check in aisle 1). ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 18:54, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I proposed deletion on List of The Fairly OddParents DVD and VHS. It's product catalog information, which Wikipedia generally doesn't do. I have some misgivings about deletion, but I'm sure we don't want a large number of similar articles. --John Nagle (talk) 20:55, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Suggest we focus on the issue at hand and not have this turn into a debate over whether or not that article should be deleted. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 02:16, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Requesting rangeblock

I'd like to request some form of draconian measure be taken against an individual who is hopping from IP address to IP address causing disruption and attacking me personally. I am not certain if this is a full list, but these are the IP addresses that have been troublesome to date, along with some example diffs:

• 142.68.92.131 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - Soap boxing
• 142.177.214.226 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 142.68.165.13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 142.177.62.236 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - Repeatedly reinserting material removed by WP:RBI - diff, diff, diff, diff et al (received short term block)
• 142.68.164.3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - Continues (evading block)
• 142.68.220.13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - More soapery
• 142.177.158.217 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - Personal attack
• 142.68.171.136 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 142.68.220.68 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 142.177.60.141 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - Vandalizing an article with a personal attack
• 142.68.218.153 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - Personal attack
• 142.177.211.159 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - Soap boxing

• Related discussion, Related discussion, Unsuccessful request for help at WP:SPI.

Some of these IP addresses received short-term blocks, but these were ineffective. I understand that rangeblocks can be difficult, with consequences for other anonymous users, but the constant disruption, vandalism and personal attacks surely makes this a viable option. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:59, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I think Wikipedia needs to be more proactive in filing abuse reports with ISPs instead of playing these endless blocking games and allowing good contributors to be wikistalked. How much longer is this "overhaul" supposed to go on at WP:ABUSE? And how can people file abuse reports otherwise? Burpelson AFB (talk) 03:03, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

One week range blocks now in place for "142.177.0.0/16" and "142.68.0.0/16". Fences&Windows 03:33, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I will keep you posted if the problem returns after the blocks have expired. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:35, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I just noticed this post, I tried to edit from an IP address today but couldn't and it said it was due to vandalism, but I didn't vandalize the articles, and there were no edits in the edit history from the IP address I was coming from, so when I came on here and saw this post, I understand why the block is there now. Abby 96 (talk) 15:00, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry for the inconvenience this has caused you. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:22, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Aye, the collateral damage is potentially 64,000 addresses. Any admin wishing to may tweak the blocks to be more tightly focussed. Fences&Windows 00:32, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Take Chris Rush - please!

Resolved

 – Blocked and salted by LessHeard vanU

You may remember User:Fred1296 from such classic ANI comedy bits as this one. Fred1296 is a single purpose account whose single purpose seems to be very very strongly related to Chris Rush. Despite previous discussions, they have once again reverted redirects of non-notable Chris Rush albums ([240] [241] & [242]). Can someone please inform them that their set is over and perhaps protect the redirects to prevent future Cris Rush fans from doing the same? Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:13, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Account indef'ed and redirects low sodium salted (there may yet be reason for articles, so autoconfirmed accounts can edit - and Chris Rush fans will need to mature their socks...) LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:33, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:57, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

User:RayGunsAreNotJustTheFuture

Resolved

 – Page has been deleted. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:32, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

RayGunsAreNotJustTheFuture (talk · contribs) has not edited anything other than their User or Talk pages since May of 2009, but yet they continue to edit their User page apparently for some non-WP purpose. Their Talk page was deleted in July due to it not having anything to do with Wikipedia. I asked on their Talk page what they were doing, but they ignored my question and continued to edit their User page. Woogee (talk) 22:22, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Page deleted, user blocked. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:36, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I have to admit i'm curious what rayguns are if they're not just the future. Doc Quintana (talk) 22:57, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

old problem is back

Resolved

Caro 08 (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks confirmedsuspected)...no need to say more just see user talk page...I am wondering Y the block was not put back ..small over sight on admins part i guess...latest edit!!...tks again guys...Buzzzsherman (talk) 23:44, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

That was fast thank you!!..user block again!!..Buzzzsherman (talk) 23:45, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

speedtrap.org

We don't have an article on this website, but we do have numerous city articles with reference to this website. The website claims to be a source of speed trap information around the U.S. In theory, just about any city article could contain a link to this website. Thought the site uses the "org" top level domain, it's a commercial site. In my opinion, this looks a lot like link spam to a non-notable website. Cleanup, however, will require significant effort and it may rouse a few questions, so I thought I'd seek an opinion here, first. Linkspam to be removed - or not - or some other recommendation? Rklawton (talk) 17:43, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Spam. I don't see what encyclopaedic value linking to a site with a list of speed traps holds, especially from city articles. Canterbury Tail talk 17:50, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with User:Canterbury Tail here. I see no encyclopedic value in the site, and would not be opposed to its being place on the blacklist --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 18:34, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Um, it might be of value to speed trap, but I'm not about to add it as an External link, nor am going to remove it from the blacklist. (However, if it is already linked at that article, we may need to discuss this matter further.) -- llywrch (talk) 18:40, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Not even in speed trap really. I wouldn't be opposed ot blacklisting it. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 00:21, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I had a look at the website in question (maybe to come up with a witty & elegant response to NF), only to find it, well, underwhelming. All of those links & if there is a speed trap listed there, I couldn't find it. (So much for passionate arguments. Oh well, next time I'll just uncritically agree with NF before she/he posts & save everyone the work.) Now having examined the article in question, I'm more concerned with the lack of sources there than any external link -- & am amazed that the speed trap in Coburg, Oregon isn't mentioned, especially since it's so well documented. :-/ llywrch (talk) 04:46, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

The website isn't blacklisted that I know of, and it has been listed in the Speed Trap article as an external link. So there's the question. Is SpeedTrap.org linkspam? I checked Alexa. SpeedTrap.org got a bump once it was added to Wikipedia a few weeks ago, but the bump is gone, and visitor rates are lower than ever (low). Oh, and assuming we agree it's linkspam, what's the process to get it blacklisted? Rklawton (talk) 18:55, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

• speedtrap.org: 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

Taking a look at this one, we have some suspect referencing and linking by:

• 70.113.40.110 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
• 70.183.5.58 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
• 70.241.167.93 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
• 66.56.44.247 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
• StuffStuffer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)

Make of this what you will. (Usage info can be found in the COIBot report.) MER-C 02:59, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

WT:WPSPAM is the canonical place for this type of issue. Yes, extlinks of that type are bad. I'm behind the times but if there are a lot of them to remove, maybe there are some bots that can help. 66.127.55.192 (talk) 11:30, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Advice

I would appreciate some advice on the following. If a user has named on their WP user page an external (personal) website that they set up, and has admitted to it in talk pages, is there any danger of me WP:OUTING if I post at WP:COIN and WP:RS tying said user with the website? Reason being, they are linking to it on numerous articles on Wikipedia. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 20:32, 16 February 2010 (UTC) ps for any editor who sees my name and thinks this is relating to a discussion that has been ongoing, this is a different website, in an entirely different category to the one we were discussing

You can't out someone who has outed themselves. Rklawton (talk) 20:37, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

What if the web page isn't really theirs? I suppose prove that the Wikipedia editor is also in control of the external web site could consist of announcing on the WP user page that a particular change will be made in the future to the website. Another form of proof would be if the Wikipedia user name is stated on the web site, as such. If the external web site says "I'm Jane Doe" that is not proof, but if it says "My English Wikipedia user name is Jane Doe" that's proof. Jc3s5h (talk) 04:03, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

You easily could be outing the wrong person or someone wholly uninvolved. The issue is with the edits so I suggest WP:RSN if the website might be a reliable source, if they are clear it's not it should be removed and the user alerted not to re-insert it anywhere. If the link is sometimes reliable then COIN may be helpful if they are simply spamming it. -- Banjeboi 10:42, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

They put on their own WP user page that they registered it. They since removed that statement but it is visible in the history. Does that change matters? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 12:03, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

The main issue is the links themselves? If so focus on that as the problem, if the miss the clue train that they are being removed per policy then a stern warning and then maybe blocks are in order. They actually may be misguided or they may not care. In either case the links are the immediate harm and the user can amend their ways or be given a vacation. -- Banjeboi 12:30, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the main issue is RS, so I will focus on that. The user can regretably be a bit misguided about sources and certainly will care - I can forsee harrassment accusations coming my way as well as protestations that it is reliable, so I'm sure this will not be the end of it. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 13:58, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Serbs75

Resolved

User:Serbs75 only has a few edits, but they are exactly the same edits as User:68.100.94.183, which have been repeatedly reverted by a variety of editors. The nature of the edits is to rewrite a portion of the article (generally adding grammatical and/or factual errors, such as in one case ,"dead on arrival" became "dead at the scene") and then remove the source the original information came from. The IP was blocked earlier for 12h, and clearly the user creation is an attempt to evade a further block for a little while. Can someone take care of this? MSJapan (talk) 03:15, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Indefblocked. Tan | 39 03:45, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Petronella Wyatt

Petronella Wyatt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is coming in for some stick from London singlespeed bike forum members after she wrote an anti-cyclist rant in the Daily Mail. Guy (Help!) 12:59, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Someone has removed the section since this ANI posting, and there has been no further vandalism since the last protection. I would recommend discussion on the talk page to avoid a content dispute brewing up. Personally I wouldn't re-add the section yet, and wait a few days as this is a recent event. Criticism has not yet been covered by any of the major UK news outlets in a significant way yet, judging from a quick search. Consider requesting protection if the trouble restarts, or an edit war brews. --Taelus (talk) 13:20, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Tao2911: disruptive user

Tao2911 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Having trouble with a tenditious user who is becoming disruptive at Adi Da.

Trying to avoid 3rr, Tao 2911 inadvertently pastes the article into itself creating a doubled article. [[243]]

After several attempts to fix he inadvertently erases a paragraph in the lead. [[244]]

Later he discovers that the paragraph is missing, opens yet another discussion thread titled "David Starr vandalism" [[245]]

Replaces the paragraph citing me as a vandal in the edit summary [[246]]

Tao2911 was warned by admins about this behavior here:[[247]]

Wallpapers my talk page with warning templates [[248]]

Tried to report me for vandalism here: [[249]]

Removes POV label from article without consensus, proclaims me a vandal in edit summary [[250]]

And then proclaims that I am not useful and wishes I would just go away [[251]]

Says "(Starr) is coming around and stirring this crap" [[252]]

Would it be possible to block this user? David Starr 1 (talk) 02:31, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I've added the name of the user to this report, and I'd note that of their 1477 live edits, 1383 (93.6%) have been to the Adi Da article or its talk page. [253]. Their 787 edits account for 26% of the article's 3025 edits. [254] Superficially, without evaluating the edits, or those of David Starr 1, whose 204 edits are the third-most to the article, it seems possible that there are ownership issues. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:04, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

For background, see this previous AN/I thread from a couple of days ago. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I have indeed been heavily invested in working on the Adi Da page in past weeks, quite collaboratively with other editors until David Starr 1 reappeared and without discussion or notice placed a POV alert on the page, with the comment "Sorry to spoil your fun". He proceeded to attempt dozens of un-consensual edits to the page, removing reams of sourced info, changing phrasing to biased POV, and trying to remove or downplay all mentions of this controversial figures "controversial" activity - mentions that are in all cases heavily sourced and cited and phrased to reflect context and qualify source POV. He has failed to cooperate or acknowledge attempts to meet his POV, adn has generally been completely disruptive. Due to his activity, I have actively sought out hard copies of many of the texts (encyclopedic and NPOV authoritative sources) that had previously been cited by other editors, but in many cases only parts available online. Having these sources has allowed me to fill out, cite, and footnote many areas previously left vague at best. I have, with the help of other editors, written the majority of the curent biography of figure profiled, and again, with other editors, significantly increased thoroughness, readability, and accuarcy of page. Simply look a version from 3 months ago to now. I have been the only active editor without admitted pro-Adi Da bias, and have been active to maintain the neutral POV of the material, which Star in particular has a history of slanting radically to biased POV. I encourage anyone to simply compare versions of the page and see for yourselves.Tao2911 (talk) 04:09, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

If the above statement is true, why are there no diffs to support the claims? This is a campaign by one user to completely shut-down another users participation. Is this going to stand? David Starr 1 (talk) 05:37, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

the record shows the cooperative involvement of many. I don't know what "diffs" are, but if mean a lengthy list of links showing you to be an obstreperous and uncooperative editor, I don't have the desire, know-how, or time to make it. Again, I just suggest anyone go to page and review, talk and history - past versions of the page and current. The page is balanced and well sourced, with hundreds of citations and dozens of footnotes.Tao2911 (talk) 16:12, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Storm/teacup

It seems User:Jonny7003 has some issues. I made what I felt were some inconsequential changes to The Wave 96.4 FM, which mostly amounted to cleaning up the references, trimming some inappropriate bits (a cite to Facebook, and links to probably-unauthorised downloads of copyright material). They didn't like that, and put their material back in. They were reverted twice - by myself and User:Welshleprechaun. After reverting the material, User:Jonny7003 saw fit to drop a block warning on my talk page - I removed it as blatantly inappropriate. User:Rodhullandemu dropped by and reinstated it, chastising me, and even going so far as to defend User:Jonny7003's links to copyrighted material by suggesting they counted as "standing on the shoulders of giants". User:Rodhullandemu would later admit that they'd not actually bothered checking the edits in question because they were "too busy".

I have since received {{blocked}} {{uw-block2}} on my talk page by User:Jonny7003, who is presumably not an admin (since evidently I am not blocked). The edit that user took issue with this time? This. I'm now being accused of "removing suitable references and links", though when you actually study that diff, you'll find it does exactly what the edit summary says it does - it removes a cite to Facebook, it combines duplicate references (using <ref name="...">), and tags a couple of items that didn't appear to be supported by the sources - in other words, even less contentious than the original.

I have little patience to deal with this right now, so while I step out into the Big Blue Room to cool off, I'd appreciate some outside input on the matter. Here or on the relevant talk pages is fine. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 10:49, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Could you provide links for the edit differences in order to support your claim please? Welshleprechaun (talk) 14:37, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Rodhullandemu has not been notified of this discussion. Woogee (talk) 21:11, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I have notified him Welshleprechaun (talk) 22:06, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

It was late; I saw this diff, a removal of references without explanation- I later saw that there had been an invitation to discuss on the Talk page, which had not been taken up at the time of this revert. An edit summary would have been helpful, especially to an outsider. I now see that this is not the first time 81.111.114.131 has been warned, and blocked, for edit-warring; s/he should know by now that (a) edit summaries are recommended and (b) jaw-jaw is better than war-war. Unless there are any particular problems, that should be an end of it, since the Talk page is open to all. Rodhullandemu 22:14, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

It probably should end here, but it is worth noting that the IP, User:81.111.114.131, was providing good edit summaries - except once, when reverting back changes - and was mistakenly accused and warned of vandalism when the edits appear to have been made in good faith. - Bilby (talk) 13:10, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

So when can I expect the apology that's clearly due? 81.111.114.131 (talk) 15:41, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

1434: The Year a Magnificent Chinese Fleet Sailed to Italy and Ignited the Renaissance

Resolved

 – POV reverted, articles semi protected. --Atlan (talk) 22:37, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

This article on the history book written by Sir Gavin Menzies is the recipient of continuous numerous biased personal attacks against Gavin Menzies by Dougweller, ClovisPt, Nickm57. Despite many efforts to explain the usage of non-POV and neutrality in this article and following two articles Dougweller, ClovisPt, Nickm57 and several other editors refuse to follow Wikipedia policy on academic neutrality and persist in their personal attacks against Gavin Menzies in an effort to discredit his discoveries.

1421: The Year China Discovered the World

This article on the history book written by Sir Gavin Menzies is the recipient of continuous numerous biased personal attacks against Gavin Menzies by Dougweller, ClovisPt, Nickm57. Despite many efforts to explain the concept non-POV and neutrality Dougweller, ClovisPt, Nickm57 and several other editors refuse to follow Wikipedia policy on academic neutrality and persist in their personal attacks against Gavin Menzies in an effort to discredit his discoveries.

Gavin Menzies

This article is the recipient of continuous numerous biased personal attacks against Gavin Menzies by Dougweller. Despite many efforts to explain the concept non-POV and neutrality Dougweller, ClovisPt, Nickm57 and several other editors refuse to follow Wikipedia policy on academic neutrality and persist in their personal attacks against Gavin Menzies in an effort to discredit his discoveries.

This report certainly has merit, but it doesn't look like it got the culprits right. I was going to fix it, but I just ended up in edit conflicts with User:Gun Powder Ma. SarekOfVulcan, Dougweller and ClovisPt could have paid a little more attention while reverting the IP though. It doesn't look like they checked what they were reverting to.--Atlan (talk) 22:20, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I thought I did -- it was such a mess, that I tried to keep it down to small edits. In any case, semi-protected all three articles for a month, thanks to the IP-hopping edit warrior. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Who submitted this report? Did they discuss it with the people they are complaining about? Did they report this discussion to them as is required? Have they read WP:NPOV and WP:RS? Woogee (talk) 22:24, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

An IP who doesn't know the rules, give them a break. They were in good faith trying to clear a BLP issue, as it seems. Or adding the opposite POV, it wasn't quite clear to me either. Anyway, POV reverted properly, articles protected, problem solved.--Atlan (talk) 22:31, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

This is an IP hopper, blocked 3 times under another IP, and way over 3RR

I'm really annoyed at myself for not seeing this last night. The IP reporting this is 98.71.0.146 (talk · contribs), who has posted similar complaints at AIV and the NPOV noticeboard. He is also clearly 98.122.100.249 (talk · contribs), already blocked 3 times this year and who evidently has also been using 68.222.236.154 (talk · contribs) on other articles, is clearly also 74.243.205.109 (talk · contribs). He is way over 3RR and I was going to report him this morning here as I couldn't protect or block myself being involved in the articles. As Sarekof Vulcan says above, this is simply an edit-warrior trying to game the system by using multiple IPs. He's also been hitting Republic of China with his IPs, which probably needs protection as well. Dougweller (talk) 06:31, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it was hard to tell who was reverting to what on those articles, with 2 opposite POV's being pushed and so many ip's. I don't think anyone is going to hold it against you when you act against such blatant POV pushing and 3RR violations.--Atlan (talk) 19:54, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I am glad Sarek looked a bit more closely though. Dougweller (talk) 20:15, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

OscarMilde

OscarMilde (talk · contribs) was recently blocked for POV pushing and disruptive editing on Same-sex marriage and other similar topics. Upon returning from a week-long block, his first three mainspace edits were blanking sections of the article [255] [256] and inserting the "homosexual agenda" [257] link to the article, which he's done at multiple locations before without consensus. Could an admin drop him a line, a trout, or a cluebat, please? Thanks in advance. Dayewalker (talk) 05:09, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Removing a dead link is not "page blanking." If there are links to gay rights/equality and other pro-SSM arguments, why not for opponents of SSM as well? Isn't SSM a main agenda of gay activists? What is strange is that repeatedly, the majority of people world wide is opposed to SSM, (but not necessarily against gay rights or civil unions) but you would not beleive it reading this article. Seems that there are a group of pro SSM editors who act entitled to edit the article as their own turf. OscarMilde (talk) 05:26, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Since you've been blocked twice recently (and had your talk page disabled for comments in this same area), I've advised you to go to the talk pages first, rather than wade in with a battleground mentality. Dayewalker (talk) 05:40, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

User needs to be blocked indefinitely for vandalism. CTJF83 GoUSA 05:44, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Getting tired of reverting this user's vandalism -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 06:37, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

More edits from this user now on Marriage here [258] and here [259] where in spite of the comments directed towards them on the talk page, they claim consensus. Dayewalker (talk) 07:00, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Coming back from that block and having had his Talk page protected, to start editing like that now, should lead to an immediate indef. block. Woogee (talk) 07:54, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

This editor is bound to be another sockpuppet of User:DavidYork71. I've blocked for 2 weeks, but obviously concur with any move to block indefinitely. DrKiernan (talk) 08:40, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I would support doing an indef block. I won't take action myself since I issued a previous block for 3RR on 8 February. This editor views Wikipedia as a soapbox, and openly argues he is working against 'homosexual activists,' with so much enthusiasm that he used that phrase in an unblock request. EdJohnston (talk) 20:31, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I have blocked and tagged them as a sock of DavidYork71, per WP:DUCK. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

problem with bad faith editor

Resolved

 – No admin action needed. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:10, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

the user dapi89 is reverting everything of me. he has problems with my sources, because he thinks his single source is the best. while he is removing this content he is removing everythin else what i have done, hes deleting statements which are cited and even maps which i have created for the article, i search for intervention. i tried to discuss everything for more than one week, he dont responds if hes not correct. this is no good fait anylonger. dozen examples but here the last [[260]]Blablaaa (talk) 19:56, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Blablaaa was instructed on his talk page how to pursue Dispute resolution: he chose to ignore it. Continuing to ignore it may result in a block for Disruptive editing. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:10, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Dardani

diff, this is a prehistoric statue File:The_Goddess_Statute.jpg and does not belong in this article (would belong in some prehistoric article) and a sentence is being added "The Dardanian Kingdom [37] of 4th century was led by its first King, Longarus [38] after him came King Bato [39] and King Monunius [40]." Those individuals are covered in the article and the sentence is completely wrong. See Dardani#Dardanian_Kingdom . Megistias (talk) 20:54, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

• You should probably take this to Wikipedia:Content noticeboard. However, I did revert the changes--the image is a possible copyvio, and the added text was poorly written, placed in the wrong section, and not verified by the provided sources. I saw that you did not notify the editor.

  May I ask a passing admin to have a quick look and possibly check this as done? I don't think this belongs on this board. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 21:08, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, i will use the right board next time.Megistias (talk) 21:10, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Drmies (talk) 21:12, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Megistias i see you have added this question on talk page and the User talk:Lontech page ..lets give both those talk pages time to answerer before you post it at Wikipedia:Content noticeboard... its there a dispute really ?? have you given him/her time to respond ?? ...Buzzzsherman (talk) 21:13, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Note that Lontech (talk · contribs) is still within a 4-month topic ban on Kosovo-related topics per ARBMAC, so I think he should be blocked at least for the remainder of the topic ban. Thoughts?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:22, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

well that sheds light on things..so in other words Lontech has has this problem in the past with related articles !! ..can only admin see this or would i have to troll threw his talk page edits? ..Buzzzsherman (talk) 21:26, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive signature

see the related thread a bit south at #user talk:Jack Merridew

Jack Merridew has brought to my attention that Jack "Red Hood" Napier has been using a template for his signature — it is User:Jack "Red Hood" Napier/Sig. As Jack M. has pointed out to me, this is a clear violation of WP:SIG#NoTemplates, so I've protected it after Jack M. changed it to make it simpler (there is just no way I can delete it, it's been used too often to remove it from all the discussions).

I'm bringing this here for review. If anyone objects, please feel free to change my decision. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 07:59, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I replaced it with: User:Jack "Red Hood" Napier and have subst'd some of the usages; there are not many as this user showed up just a few days ago. See the thread at the bottom of tbsdy's talk and note that I refactored some there. The other Jack's talk page, too. There is also the fact that I just changed my userpage to use some dynamic behavior and this new user immediately took some of the techniques used in inappropriate directions. I've little doubt that this is no innocent noob. Cheers, Jack Merridew 08:06, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I understand that the signature, and the way I was presenting it was disruptive. I complied with Jack's initial request to refactor the sig and began substing it. I also expressed intent to refactor it again if it was still unacceptable. Instead of commenting on the refactored sig, Jack changed the entire template to a basic sig, and Tbsdy protected it. Not sure if thats standard operating procedure around here, but it seems kinda wack. User:Jack "Red Hood" Napier 08:11, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm seeing thirty or so edits to Wikipedia and user talk space. Why can't we just delete this? AniMate 08:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

It can, and should be deleted ASAP; do your own checking and go. ;) Jack Merridew 08:18, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)WP:DUCK. Your refactored version that I replaced was no better, just fewer alternate names in the loop. The significant usages have been subst'd and the further subpages that the thing used need to be locked down. I'm off; I'm sure this will all be properly sorted when I next look. Folks, look at the history of the sig and all of our talk pages, and both jack user pages (and I mean the implementations, not the 'look'). Jack Merridew 08:18, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

And why cant the subpages just be deleted and allow me to make a normal sig in the main page? {{SUBST:User:Jack "Red Hood" Napier/Sig}} 08:21, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh wonderful. Now I can't even use the basic sig. {{SUBST:User:Jack "Red Hood" Napier/Sig}} 08:23, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I've deleted the sub-pages and if you want to personalize your signature, go to the "My preferences" button at the top of every page. There's an option for signature design on the very first page. AniMate 08:28, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Will do. And thank you AniMate, for being (fairly) reasonable. {{SUBST:User:Jack "Red Hood" Napier/Sig}} 08:30, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. Try and edit more in article space. We're here to build an encyclopedia, not our user pages. AniMate 08:48, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Is it just me, or does this look like GRAWP under a new name, after all, he came on and did a lot of vandalism with "BATMAN - The DARK NIGHT" themes about it. His webpage has just the same theme on it, two quotes from the joker greet you on the front page, the name Jack Napier is the name given to the Joker, and the colors are purple and green, Joker colors.—Preceding unsigned comment added by KoshVorlon (talk • contribs) ^diff

No, I'm not GRAWP. If a CU is required to prove that, fine, I voluntarily submit to CU. {{SUBST:User:Jack "Red Hood" Napier/Sig}} 23:48, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

No, you're not; you're User:John254; Grawp's just being a /b/tard. Jack Merridew 00:13, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I call a huge Feathered animal on this one. _{Naluboutes,Nalubotes}^{Aeria Gloris,Aeria Gloris} 17:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

It's not resolved, he's now signing with no links to either his user or usertalk page. DuncanHill (talk) 00:22, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

He needs to open his prefs and do a normal sig; if he's skilled enough to repurpose my code as he has, he's up to this, so omitting it is willful. And someone will have to fix the bad sigs he's leaving about. All amounts to DUCK-sign. Jack Merridew 00:28, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Its not willful, I was just being lazy. I've fixed it now. Jack "Red Hood" Napier (talk) 00:34, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

and the litter you've left about? and note that I just fixed the above; don't use the character entities; they clutter the wiki up. Jack Merridew 00:37, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

In addition to leaving a bunch of the {{SUBST:… "sigs" about, he's changed his sig in a new pointy manner. His username includes two quotation marks (allowed, but unimpressive). The sig he is posting with now is:

• [[User:Jack &quot;Red Hood&quot; Napier|Jack &quot;Red Hood&quot; Napier]] ([[User talk:Jack &quot;Red Hood&quot; Napier|talk]])

which snots up the editbox and the database. A more courteous sig would be:

• [[User:Jack "Red Hood" Napier|Jack "Red Hood" Napier]] ([[User talk:Jack "Red Hood" Napier|talk]])

The character entities are for html, not wiki-text; MediaWiki will handle the conversion for generated pages. "Red Hood" has demonstrated sufficient skill to be aware of this issue and I see this as him seeking to maintain as disruptive a sig as he can. As backstory, my editing history show a lot of cleaning up of this sort of thing, so this amounts to deliberately doing something that he knows I will notice and be inclined to clean-up. Jack Merridew 02:42, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Jack I was using the more courteous one until you yourself pointed out that you had to fix it. That is when I changed to the one with the &quot;'s in it. Which one would you like me to use? Jack "Red Hood" Napier (talk) 05:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

My fault. I misread the diff above. Will switch now. Jack "Red Hood" Napier (talk) 05:27, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

fixed.
note to posterity; the take-away from this silliness is that the wiki-code underlying this demonstrates how to properly encode character entities in examples of wiki-text given in discussions; it also illustrates how to better present examples of wiki-text using the html tt-element and the wiki nowiki-element in monospace (as opposed to the page widening technique of using the pre-element; we now return to our regular programming;)
Jack Merridew 20:27, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

eh? My "take-away" from this is that as long as we continue to allow vanity-sigs, we'll have problems like this. DuncanHill (talk) 20:35, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree ;) Equazcion ^(talk) 20:38, 17 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Me, too ;) I've long been on record as opposing mark-up in sigs. Try signing a check with seven colored pens, artwork and boxes. The purpose of sigs is to identify users, not to introduce crap into the database. It's all low-grade disruption and attention-seeking. Cheers, Jack Merridew 22:48, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Partly due to this thread I have filed Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Drew_R._Smith. Durova⁴¹² 23:48, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Harassment

Not resolved to satisfaction of complainant

This is a formal written complaint about on-going harassment. There is at least one editor whose political agenda is attacking and disparaging me, and invalidly calling for sanctions or other actions to be taken against myself. Let me state for the record here that I am a good faith editor with a long history of contributions and civil collaboration. The latest example of this inappropriate, uncivil, and anonymous harassment is from a user who is almost certainly a member of WikiProject Mathematics logging on anonymously: Special:Contributions/71.139.28.90, and trolling at Talk:Rule of inference. My request is for an investigation as to the identity of this person, and some form of written reprimand.

However, in addition, I would like to take this opportunity to propose a new practice of group sanctions. This is to say that most likely that this person is known by others within Wikiproject Mathematics, but the group takes no action to discipline its members, and therefore deserves to be held responsible collectively for creating a shark tank culture, not conducive for civil collaboration. I think if all members of a project were blocked from editing for 24 hours when these rouge situations turn up, that we would see a concerted effort to find, identify, and correct uncivil editors. When a troll like this shares the same biases as a prevailing group, they look the other way because they manifest a consequential (political) rather than principled ethic. We need to create a sanction for these situations because they haven't taken the high road of their own accord.Greg Bard (talk) 19:51, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Um, no. No way. You can't sanction WikiProjects for actions of their members.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:15, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Um, well, ordinarily I would agree with you that individuals are individually responsible. I am very much a humanist and libertarian, and that is how it should be in governments. However, when it comes to situations where there is a lot of conflict, there is a need for more rules. This isn't a congress or a supreme court, it's more closely analogous to a high school club. We can institute any strange rule we want, (like requiring funny hats, etcetera) --if you object, go somewhere else, and nobody cries about it. If a group is sanctioned just once, that will be enough to change the culture immediately forever. So, um, yes we absolutely can and should create a higher standard of civility with appropriate sanctions against the whole group. You seem to forget, nobody has to edit the Wikipedia, it's a hobby. If sanctions are some major rights violation, there really is no crying about it under those circumsatnces. Certainly military schools have no problem sanctioning a whole group for the action of one of its members. They sure do emphasize honor and decency too don't they.Greg Bard (talk) 20:28, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Do you believe that a military school is a reasonable analogy to Wikipedia? Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:34, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually it is a far better analogy than a kindergarten, which also needs a lot of rules because the people there are very immature. Greg Bard (talk) 20:45, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Military schools are designed to turn out people who will work well within a strictly structured and tightly disciplined hierarchical organization, because that type of organization is necessary to conduct wars and othe military operations, where the inherent danger and chaos can be (somewhat) held at bay by the group's unified and coordinated behavior. Wikipedia, on the other hand, is a collaborative endeavour to assemble an encyclopedia, which requires neither the structure or disclipline necessary in the military -- in fact, such qualities may well be detrimental to it, as they inhibit free-wheeling behavior, serendipity and casual investigation, all of which play an important part here. Given this, I would disagree that a military school is any kind of model to follow for Wikipedia. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:57, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

What say we avoid WP:NPA violations for the rest of the discussion, tally ho, pip pip? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:35, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Where? My comments where addressed to the idea, not to the editor. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I detect no personal attack at all. Beyond my Ken and I are having a wonderful and civil discussion as far as I can tell.Greg Bard (talk) 20:45, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't you I was referring to, BMK -- it was the implication that Wikipedia editors lacked honor and decency that I was addressing. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:14, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Ooops, sorry -- and thanks for the explication. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:34, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

This sounds like a terrible idea, and an explicit denial of good faith. I recalled a discussion that may be some of the background to this that we had last year - see [261]. I know nothing about the current situation, just that I hope we would never use blocks to punish all members of a Wiki project on the assumption that they are responsible for one person's actions (and of course, we aren't supposed to use blocks to punish in any case. Dougweller (talk) 20:21, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Who would you punish? All the members of a project, including those not currently active? Just the active members, even those that didn't participate in the particular discussion in question? Only those involved in the discussion, including those who agreed with you? No, you just want to punish everyone who disagrees with you. Not just a "terrible" idea, a truly awful one.

I propose that all editors who bring up truly awful ideas on AN/I be "sanctioned", which'll be beneficial in preventing others from suggesting other truly awful ideas. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:32, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

To answer your question, yes all members of a wikiproject. And, NO, it's not about "disagreeing with me." It's about demonstratable harassment. There are cases where it would be reasonable, and cases where it would be unreasonable. I think we are perfectly able to figure these things out together. Since the so-called "harm" is that some poor Wikipedia addict can't edit for 24 hours, well like I said, there's just no crying about that. There is a way to avoid it, by demonstrating a commitment to civility. To say that the benefits would outweigh the "harm" would be the understatement of the year. Perhaps instead of sanctions, some leaders in the admin could take it upon themselves to show some leadership by speaking out on these types of situations on the appropriate project page. Your counterproposal is silly and entirely political, whereas mine is not.Greg Bard (talk) 20:39, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

WikiProjects are loose associations based on interest that allow for coordination on specific topics. Nowhere is there an administrative or judicial role in their definition - resolution lies thoroughly outside WikiProjects. Allowing, asking, or expecting "them" to "discipline" their "members" (all of these terms are poorly defined, at best) would be the very definition of bureaucracy and cabalism. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:35, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, because "cabalism" isn't a problem at all now. My goodness. All I am asking is for some moral leadership. Greg Bard (talk) 20:39, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Heyheyhey. The first rule of the Wikipedia Cabal is you don't talk about the Wikipedia Cabal.

...

...

...

Oh shit... HalfShadow 20:42, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

This is a project to build an encyclopedia, not an exercise in creating the best possible on-line community (which is good, because it ain't). "Moral leadership" is not a relevant concept. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:42, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

You are correct. In that regard the kindergarten analogy is more apt that the military school. Let's strive for civility at least.Greg Bard (talk) 20:49, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

A kindergarten has no overall goal aside from starting the social training and education of children. A lot of rules are needed because ... well, because they're children. Here, there's an overriding purpose, and it's not to turn out better Wikipedians. As far as the project is concerned, as long as the encyclopedia gets better, it's almost irrelevant what happens to the participants. "Almost" because complete chaos is not an environment conducive to attracting people to work on the project, or keeping them on it once they're there. The trick, from the project's point of view, is to maximize the (positive) output of the editors by providing just enough structure to keep everything together and running (relatively) smoothly, but not so much as to stultify the participants or so little as to drive them away. But the project's interest in the members of the community is, strictly speaking, "selfish" (in the Richard Dawkins sense). It could care less whether there's "moral leadership", as long as the encyclopedia keeps improving.

And, in any case, there's really nothing for admins to do here, is there? Shouldn't this be on the Village Pump? Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:08, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

An IP makes one talk page comment, and you want a whole WikiProject banned? 1. Without further evidence, I see no harassment. You'll need to come up with better than that for an admin to lift a finger. 2. Collective punishment is the worst idea I've seen raised on Wikipedia for a long time. Fences&Windows 00:08, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

What a way for a troll to be efficiently disruptive! Pick a Wikiproject that's not terribly active, make a few harrassing edits in some dark corner, and wait for the system to spank everyone in the Wikiproject. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:01, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikiprojects have certainly been sanctioned in the past for doing things like talkpage canvassing, but what Greg is asking is ridiculous. FWIW, Greg seems to think that 71.139.28.90 is Hans Adler[262] which I think is an unfounded suspicion (71's edits are not Hans's style). I somewhat doubt that 71 is a regular math editor. 66.127.55.192 (talk) 00:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Those here would probably benefit from links to past WikiProject discussions of GregBard. Most recently, see:

• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics/Archive_36#Linkifying (e.g. as in s/Consistent/Consistent/)
• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics/Archive_37#More help needed with logic articles
• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics/Archive_37#"Theorem"?
• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics/Archive_37#Mathematics bias,
• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics/Archive_55#Formal systems again
• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics/Archive_55#Theorem
• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics/Archive_56#AWB linking to substitution instance

A few more older references to GregBard can be found by searching the project archives, but I think that skimming the above discussions will bring everyone up to speed. Ozob (talk) 04:01, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Aside from the immorality of Greg Bard's suggestion "... the group takes no action to discipline its members, and therefore deserves to be held responsible collectively ...", it is based on a false factual premise that the Mathematics project could discipline its members. Most of us are ordinary users and do not have the power to punish others even if we wanted to. JRSpriggs (talk) 04:14, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I think the point is that Greg Bard feels someone is trying to punish and there is a math cabal. I found a quick look at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics/Archive 37#More help needed with logic articles helpful where it seems one of those cabal theories apply - when a user starts accusing everyone of being in on a conspiracy, he or she is typically surprised if you, the more established wikipedians, band together against them. If someone is socking or harassing that should be stopped but I don't see evidence presented as yet. I'd like to see some of the alleged members of the math editing cabal (which certainly could not exist) offer up opinions on the matter and possible ways forward. -- Banjeboi 10:24, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, I move that we establish a WikiProject where all members be held responsible for their misdeeds: WikiProject S&MB&D! We'll send all of those bad little editors there where they'll be kept in line by a MOTAS attired in black leather, who will abide no misdeeds & harshly punish any misbehavior! (Yes, I am being sarcastic. No, I will not help establish this WikiProject.) -- llywrch (talk) 20:56, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't have time for editing at the moment and only found an ANI notice by accident when looking something up while still logged in. I don't even have time to read this tread, but here is some information in case it helps:

• The last time I edited without being logged in was a long time ago, probably much more than half a year ago.
• I have nothing to do with the IPs that were mentioned in the ANI notice. They are from AT&T and geolocate to California. I am currently in Vienna.
• There is an anonymous editor who occasionally stirs shit in relation to mathematical logic articles and especially likes to provoke Gregbard. I don't know if this editor is from California and is behind these IPs. The admin who normally monitors this problem is CBM. He might have important input.
• I see Gregbard as generally a problem for Wikipedia, but if he caused any recent incidents other than this ANI report itself I am at least not aware of them.
• This report indicates that Gregbard is now resorting to a conspiracy theory in order to explain why WikiProject Mathematics generally tries to contain the damage done by his well-intentioned but clueless editing.

I will notify CBM of this thread. Hans Adler 10:47, 17 February 2010 (UTC) PS: In addition to the links above about Gregbard, see WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive547#Background information on Gregbard. Hans Adler 11:01, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

FYI: I'm in California, have been editing math articles from IP addresses since forever, and have had a few not-exactly-positive encounters with Greg around logic articles, so it's sort of possible that Hans is referring to me. But I've never provoked Greg or "stirred up shit" on purpose and 71.whatever is definitely not me. I did start an ANI thread about Carl Hewitt a couple days ago but I felt it was very justified and not done lightly (and the remedies that resulted from it were way too weak IMHO). I think Greg is well-meaning even though his lack of clue can be annoying at times. I would support a topic ban or mentorship for Greg towards mathematical logic articles (talkpage participation is ok). Hewitt on the other hand is a real abuser with an arbcom ban and a long history of block evasion, who should be dealt with sharply. 66.127.55.192 (talk) 11:52, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I offered to help improve relations in December: diff. This forum isn't exactly what I had in mind. My offer stands. Charles Matthews (talk) 22:42, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

break (71.xx)

I'm commenting here on Hans Adler's request. There is someone, most recently IP 71.139.28.90, who uses IP addresses to make edits to provoke Gregbard. It's completely inappropriate, and I wish that person would stop doing it, because it doesn't help the situation. This isn't the first time it has happened; for example see the contribs of IP 67.118.103.210, which is in the same city as 71.xxx

I'm not a checkuser, but based on geographical location and editing style it seems very unlikely to me that the IP in question is Hans Adler. My suggestion would be is for a checkuser to look at the 71.xx IP address and go from there.

IP 66.127.55.192 has been editing for some time on the same IP address in a different city than 71.xx, and I don't think there is much reason to think they are the same person.

As for the math project: even the math editors who are admins don't have any way to force the other math editors to do anything. There's a phrase for this: "herding cats". — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:36, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Just to second the last comment, the Math project is about as informal as you can get. I'm a frequent contributor to the project talk page but I've never actually added my name to the membership list, and conversely anyone can add their name to the list whether they have anything to do with math articles or not; no one is checking. As for the general issue, there might be something to be said for admins censoring comments with possible ANI issues if they come across them on the project talk page, but I'm not sure they're not already doing that. As for the so called math cabal, I've been editing math articles for three years now and so far no one has invited me to join.--RDBury (talk) 00:47, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

user talk:Jack Merridew

see the related thread a bit north at #Disruptive signature

Someone please semi my talk page for a while, please? See the anon shite landing there; the fuckwits have lock the orange bar to 'on'. fyi, this may-well be related to the incident with User:Jack "Red Hood" Napier about 12 hours ago; it's discussed at #Disruptive signature, above. All the quotes are off his user page. Cheers, Jack Merridew 22:45, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

May be resolved; Seresin's semi'd and reverted. Cheers, Jack Merridew 22:47, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

per this, Jéské Couriano shares my suspicion. Cheers, Jack Merridew 22:50, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Nope, I saw a thread on /b/ specifically asking for your userpage to be hit. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Boribori!)} 05:11, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

You're not a big fan of Batman are you Jack? This guy thinks he's The Joker. The quotes are from The Dark Knight, and in some incarnations the Joker's real name is Jack Napier. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:59, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I recognized it. Guess who?; And behind door #2: another crab. Cheers, Jack Merridew 23:11, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear. Aren't you the lucky one. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:27, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Do a CU. I'm not GRAWP or John254. I just liked the movie and wanted a cool userpage and sig before I started contributing. {{SUBST:User:Jack "Red Hood" Napier/Sig}} 23:51, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure someone will get around to it. Q: If you're really a n00b, how did you find my code on about your first day here? Not to mention your other other apparent prior wiki-experience… (fuck-me, i just mentioned it;) Jack Merridew 00:02, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

(ec)I never said I was a n00b. This account is a legitimate sock puppet account of a user who hasn't edited in some time. When I decided to come back to WP, I decided it would be better to leave the old account behind. I will reveal the name of the account to any interested admins via email, but would like the account name to be kept off-wiki. {{SUBST:User:Jack "Red Hood" Napier/Sig}} 00:10, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll leave it to the mop-brigade to sort-out; they get paid for this sort of shite. Anyway, if you were to disclose to me and it was all-good, I'd apologize and keep my mouth shut. I'd also disclose the sekret of height; 1%; Jack Merridew 00:22, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

No, you didn't like me back then. ;) But it is tempting to learn what that height; 1%; does... {{SUBST:User:Jack "Red Hood" Napier/Sig}} 00:26, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

So, we *are* acquainted. For what it's worth, I do get along well with some now whom I previously did not. As a sign of my good faith: it's an IE6 hack to make relative position work for bottom and right. Jack Merridew 00:43, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:SOCK#Legitimate_uses_of_alternate_accounts:

You should also not, as User:B, engage in disputes you engaged in as User:A—whether about articles, project-space issues, or other editors—without making clear that you are the same person.

Please enlighten us. Durova⁴¹² 01:35, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I didn't. I was just setting up my userpage and sig when Jack came in all on his own. And, FWIW, I have no dispute with Jack. It always seemed to be the other way around, though I may be wrong. Jack "Red Hood" Napier (talk) 01:43, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

*Right* — I'm a serial-harasser, you're just a victim. Jeers, Jack Merridew 02:07, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Crazy idea Jack "Red Hood" Napier: Go edit articles. If you want all of this to go away stop posting here, stop posting at Merridew's talk page, and edit articles. You've wasted a lot of time for someone with 13 edits to the actual encyclopedia. AniMate 02:24, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

A fine idea. nb: User:Jack "Red Hood" Napier/Mr. Rekoj was missed yesterday. Cheers, Jack Merridew 02:50, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Maaf

which is Indonesian for sorry — "Red Hood" is not Grawp or John254, my money's now on User:Drew R. Smith, who reincarnated and Grawp's /b/tards coat-tailed on it. Point for you; fooled me. Cheers, Jack Merridew

"*Right* — I'm a serial-harasser, you're just a victim. Jeers, Jack Merridew 02:07, 17 February 2010 (UTC)"

- Yes you are, and you have been blocked for it how many times. Your like a cat, eventually your 9 lives will run out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.94.147.169 (talk)

anon would be the likes of User:Jon Hobynx. ;) Jack Merridew 22:59, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Partly due to this thread I have filed Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Drew_R._Smith. A more serious problem has arisen. Durova⁴¹² 23:50, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Koavf - good intentions, maybe, but still uncivil and disruptive

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

This user is currently under an indefinite community sanction, including a topic ban for making mass catagory changes without seeking consensus. While the circumstances have changed, this user continues a disruptive editing pattern. His rationale is always that a particular template "demands" or "explicitly calls for" whatever changes he is making, and he interprets any attempt at first reaching consensus as rude and uncivil.

First of all, he continues to make page moves in violation of his sanction.

Recently he edit warred at Remain in Light, [263], [264]. [265], [266] and was told very solidly on the talk page to first get consensus for such a radical change to a well established article.

The user seems to have a fascination with endashes and emdashes, and has edit warred over this on several occasions: He moved an article without consensus, was reverted by an admin, reverted this admin without reaching consensus and finally relented when consensus was reached and the admin undid his reversion. He recently did some "spite editing" ([267]. [268], [269], [270], [271] in response to my comment at the Remain in Light talk page ("User:Koavf has a long history of rigidly adhering to template guidelines to the point of disruption, and should simply be reverted and ignored; if he edit wars, take it to AN/I."). I left a note on his talk page, and the response was predictable. If you'll look at a few of the preceding post to his talk, you'll see that the pattern continues.

Further, he can't be made to understand that it's not always appropriate to include "UK" or "United Kingdom" in infoboxes at articles about UK subjects. The long standing convention has been to include town, county and constituent country (England, Wales, etc.), but not "UK or "United Kingdom", just as one should not presume a UK citizen's "nationality" without a reliable source (as dicussed at WP:UKNATIONALS).

He also undid the formatting of ALL of the infoboxes at all of Beatles' record articles where a lot of time was spent sorting out the clutter of multiple studios and session dates just so he could tag "England, United Kingdom" onto all of the studio locations, citing "Template:Album Infobox", which, of course has no guidline regarding the country or nation where the record was made (eg, [272], [273]).

I originally posted this at the involved admin's talk; he didn't get a chance to read it yet, but User:Koavf did, yet he continues to edit war and to post uncivil rants on my talk page.

I'm asking that he be reigned in again, and that he be topic banned from any article to which I make regular or significant edits. Radiopathy •talk• 17:01, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Uncivil? I have to admit that this is surprising. I'll try to be brief, but I think that there is scant evidence that I have been uncivil or that anything that I have done has disrupted the ability of other editors to contribute to Wikipedia.

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

In October 2009, Radiopathy and I (amongst others) were caught up in a similar dispute about properly listing information in two different infoboxes: George Orwell's {{Infobox writer}} and Snow Patrol's {{Infobox musical artist}}. At the end of that back-and-forth, Radiopathy was blocked (and then semi-retired, retired, and came back.) He was blocked for edit-warring again in October and December under similar circumstances. Any user can take a look at his block log and the rationales for a better understanding. (Also, there are other warnings and incidents from 3RR, but they are not directly relevant to this case.) Cf. 1, 2, and 3, amongst others.

He has pleaded to be unblocked, taken off 1RR, and be allowed to use Twinkle again in spite of the fact that he doesn't show a sufficient change in behavior to warrant these restrictions being lifted. One of his blocks was lifted in good faith and reinstated again for edit-warring. In point of fact, he is still under 1RR as far as I'm aware (original), and he broke it yesterday on Hollie Steel for exactly the issue which involved his edit-warring at George Orwell and Snow Patrol. Cf. 1, 2 (which he characterized as reverting trolling), and 3 (which he characterized as being merely a change to the content of the article, but not mentioning the reverting to the infobox). Note also that his changes break image parameter in the infobox in question.

Here are some of the most recent events:

• I edited several Beatles' album infoboxes to a manner that I think is more descriptive and useful. Radiopathy reverted all of these changes (including this edit, which inserts a spelling error and takes out an interwiki link.) I had no interest in edit-warring with him and left them as he wanted.
• I edited Remain in Light and found that another editor—User:Rafablu88—had a difference of opinion. After reverting one another, we both ended up posting on Talk:Remain in Light#WP:ALBUM and charts and we have stopped reverting; there is no edit war here, although Radiopathy's characterization of the events might seem otherwise. I have also asked for outside opinions and as far as I'm aware, Rafablu88 has no problem with my editing or civility. Radiopathy inserted a comment solely to criticize someone else's English and to tell other users to ignore me, adding nothing substantial to the conversation about the article.
• After we first started reverting on Hollie Steel, Radiopathy posted on my talk asking me to stop my "petulant, disruptive editing" regarding WP:DASH and asking me to seek consensus individually on every page to mention "United Kingdom" in its infobox (irrespective of the fact that the template's instructions call for it; again, this is exactly what we went through last year on George Orwell and Snow Patrol. Note that both have "United Kingdom" listed presently.)
• I responded, telling Radiopathy that his behavior was rude and that I had no intention of stopping, but that I was willing to discuss changes on talk.
• Radiopathy posted on an admin's talk to get a more restrictive block put on me. (This is not new behavior: 1 and 2) In that post, he claimed (among other things) that I was "rude and uncivil", I have been "edit warring" on Remain in Light (I was not), I have "edit warred" over ndashes (the only thing approaching that is on my talk and when the user asked me to stop or revert my changes, I did), most incredulously he claimed that I did some "spite editing." Frankly, his hounding of me on Wikipedia constitutes spite if anything. He has deliberately inserted himself into conversations with the sole purpose of having other users ignore or ban me and characterized my edits as trolling, edit-warring, pedantry, and vandalism when it's no such thing.
• Both that last post and this AN/I report make mention of WP:UKNATIONALS, which is an essay (not a policy, guideline, or even instructions) that mentions nothing about infoboxes. He claims that there is some convention to not include the UK infoboxes, but has never show me where/how any such agreement was reached. On the contrary, there are at least two instances of the opposite which I have pointed out above.
• I have already told Radiopathy that I would post to AN/I if he didn't stop his maliciousness and bad faith edits against me. I chose to ignore his post on Talk:Remain in Light and the fact that he broke his 1RR on Hollie Steel in the hopes that he would be reasonable, but this latest post to AN/I proves that he is not willing to talk in a civil manner and that he is more interested in "spite edits" of his own against me rather than having constructive dialogue aimed at making the encyclopedia better. In fact, I did nothing to warrant a post to AN/I since our last exchange on each others' talk pages. This post is entirely out of spite itself.

While I didn't want to come here to request actions against Radiopathy (rather, I simply wanted to defend myself), it seems clear to me that admins should consider sanctions against him for his rude, hounding, deceptive behavior. If anything I have posted up until this point constitutes anything uncivil, trolling, etc. please let me know. He and I can both agree on one thing; it is unfortunate that it even came to posting here in the first place. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:17, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Addendum Another example of "spite editing" aimed at getting me more restrictive sanctions. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:41, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Question (and both editors above are welcome to answer) - is there evidence of a clear breach of the current editing restrictions on Koavf? The initial post is somewhat misleading; the editing restriction seems to be on adding, moving, or renaming categories, not page moves, as is cited. Tan | 39 19:24, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Good question Any case that was questionable or borderline I have personally posted on User talk:Hiding. (e.g. I made a new page, and consequently added categories to that: User_talk:Hiding/Archive_2010#Categories_again. Similar instances: merging two pages, removing a redlink category, creating a new template, etc.) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:41, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I've redacted that; you are correct that the sanction applies to categories. However, his page moves also continue to be a problem. I already inked to one discussion of this issue, and here is another recent example of an editor complaining of Koavf's undiscussed page moves. Radiopathy •talk• 22:38, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Right And in the discussion linked above, the editor and I discussed the matter through talk pages without resorting to the intervention of any outside admins and both of us used good faith reversions in an attempt to reach some consensus. The simple fact that someone posts on my talk asking me what I'm doing or disagreeing with my decisions in no way demands any kind of sanction. How I respond to those entreaties does. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:17, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

And then after your "good faith" conversation, you received this from the same editor, an admin. Radiopathy •talk• 23:57, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Right And then read the rest of the conversation; it was handled in a mature manner on the talk pages, just like I wrote before. It's a shame that you refused to use the same process in this matter and instead resorted to breaking your 1RR restriction, making up false accusations against me, and slandering me here and on my talk. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:06, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Also Shall we go through the numerous posts on your talk for your to amend your behavior? How is this relevant to your spurious accusation that I was in breach of a preexisting sanction or that I have been uncivil? If anything, this proves that I have encountered disputes with other editors in a civil manner (that user even apologized for his incivility in this instance.) This entire process is simply farcical. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:09, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore He has broken his 1RR again. Again, if I'm somehow mistaken, he's not to revert more than once in a 24 hour period, per the links I have shown above. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:30, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, you somehow are mistaken, since the most recent edit was done at 00:23 (UTC), and the previous one was at 23:53 the day before - which is actually 24 hours and 30 minutes. But this AN/I is not about me. Radiopathy •talk• 00:52, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

See here Waiting 24 hours and a few minutes still constitutes a violation of the spirit of 3RR/1RR in addition to the undeniable breach that you had earlier. You are correct that this was initially about me—and it still ultimately is, pending some kind of resolution—but if the outcome of this discussion does not take into account your behavior, I will be posting to WP:AN3. We can either deal with that here (which seems likely if/when some other admins join this discussion) or we can deal with that later. As I pointed out before, I deliberately chose to not post to any AN in the hopes that you would discuss this dispute civilly, but since you chose to forgo that, I will have to as well. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:28, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Legal threat at Apcchart's talk page

Resolved

Legal threat here. IP is obviously the same editor as Apcchart (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).—Kww(talk) 21:58, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

SarekofVulcan blocked Apccharts, LHvU got the IP. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:09, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

BLP & Username

Resolved

TonyHibbert (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) vandalising Tony Hibbert with comments about his appearence and knees. DuncanHill (talk) 23:38, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Blocked as a vandalism-only account. Normally I'd go thru the warning progression, but due to the username and the choice of vandalism targets, I decided to cut to the chase. If anyone thinks there's a 0.00001% chance of this editor changing his ways, feel free to unblock without my accession. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:41, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Þjóðólfr harrassment

Resolved

I received an inappropriate posting to my talk page by an editor (User:Þjóðólfr), who is unknown to me, although it may be a pseudonym of another editor, who almost certainly would be known to me. After responding and politely requesting that he not post anything further related to the topic in question, I blanked his impertinent comment from my talk page. He has restored it to my talk page. My talk page is my domain and I have the right to remove cruft. Can an admin please handle this matter. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 01:04, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

It ain't cruft & and I'm top of the bill above. Þjóðólfr (talk) 01:06, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Good block, I was considering one myself while looking over the situation. -- Atama頭 01:26, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Newman Luke

See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Judaism#User:Newman_Luke that Newman Luke (talk · contribs) is a problemetic editor on Judaism related articles. He is busy again with a sprey of major rewrites to Judaism related articles. When reverted he repeats his edits, in stated disregard for the repeated complaints, and without engaging in discussion. I propose a 24-hour block to force this editor into discussion. I have notified him on his user talk page. [274]Debresser (talk) 11:59, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Debresser is attempting to Game 3RR (he's just made 3 reverts), and his "discussion" amounts to nothing more than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Newman Luke (talk) 12:04, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I made three different edits, which is not four identical edits as in the 3RR rule. But that is not the issue. And what about you, repeating your edits? Aren't you familiar with WP:BRD? Debresser (talk) 12:10, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Note: I posted a notification about this post on WikiProject Judaism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Debresser (talk • contribs)

Luke, have a read here (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:21, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with Luke's edits. He has improved the article immensely. If there are certain statements that annoy Debresser, he should address them on the talk page.--Gilabrand (talk) 12:22, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

There is almost nothing good among his edits. And if there were major good pieces, I left them. This is precisely the reason that he was posted initially on WikiProject_Judaism. His points of view are so far removed from Judaism, that his edits disrupt the articles. Debresser (talk) 12:25, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

And please, this is not a matter of my personal "annoyment". Try and keep your language NPOV. Debresser (talk) 12:26, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

If you're so interested in NPOV, define "far removed from Judaism" in an NPOV way. Explain what you mean - specific issues. Newman Luke (talk) 12:51, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I could, but I think that the WikiProject Judaism discussion is the correct place for that. Here I posted only to ask for enforcement to force you to stop making disruptive edits and bring you to the discussion table. Debresser (talk) 13:10, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

If you're not going to explain yourself here, or your claims of "disruptive edits", then you should retract this section. You are the disruptive one, as Gilabrand notes. Wikipedia is about building and improving a series of Encyclopedia articles, not about bartering with people who claim to own them. Newman Luke (talk) 13:17, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Cut the Wikilawyering, and start discussing your major and contestable rewrites before you make them. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Judaism is where that usually takes place. Debresser (talk) 13:24, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

If you want Wikilawyering to be cut out, I suggest you retract this section entirely. As for discussion, if you actually care to point out specific details you think are somehow factually wrong, or inappropriate, then I may well discuss them. As for where discussion should take place, have you never heard of article Talk pages? Newman Luke (talk) 13:33, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

You are posted on WikiProject Judaism already (as you are well aware). Because the problem with you is your edit pattern, and not any specific edit, that is the best place to discuss them. If anyone should have used the article talk pages it is you, preferably before making complete revisions, but at least after you were reverted. Debresser (talk) 13:39, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

It is you who claims that. Where have you mentioned a single set of specific edits that you regard as specific contradictions of fact, or otherwise inappropriateness? Mention one - or don't you have any evidence to back up this claim? Either back it up with specific points you think are factually erroneous, etc., or stop disrupting wikipedia. Newman Luke (talk) 14:01, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I encountered this user a little while ago whe he had created a set of articles related to marriage in Judaism. On even casual reading, the content is heavily biased towards a source that is almost 100 years old and was regarded in its day to be biased and informed by radical scholarship. Otherwise he cherry-picks primary sources, many of which have later not been codified as Jewish law. Around these sources he spins theories that amount to original research, only rarely supporting them with appropriate secondary sources.

The user was challenged several times over this pattern of editing. He clearly has lots of time on his hands, and I have no energy to challenge every single huge rewrite of a Judaism-related article. The bottom line is that he engages in original research, which compromises the encyclopedicity of every article he touches. JFW | T@lk 12:35, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

He still continues [275], in complete disregard of this discussion and the things pointed out to him, marking his major rewrite a "minor edit" with the edit summary "fix cites". I couldn't have made the point that this editor is being disruptive in a more eloquent way. I again request that this user be blocked for 24 hours, to impress upon him the necessity to change his pattern of editing and engage in discussion. Debresser (talk) 13:49, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

It was a minor edit, some of the cites were slightly wrong, others were duplicates, or not as well formatted as they could be. You have already been cautioned for failing to use proper dispute resolution routes - like the article talk page, and instead escalating conflicts into incivility. See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Chabad movement. I'm sure the rest of wikipedia would appreciate it if you started complying with that ruling. Now there's some sort of comment about whether you should be blocked there, but I'm not familiar enough to know how Arbitration rulings should be applied, so I'll leave it up to others to discuss that aspect of your behaviour.Newman Luke (talk) 14:01, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Please do not poison the well. Debresser (talk) 14:07, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

It concluded 2 days ago, and asks you to use proper dispute resolution procedures, but you aren't. I therefore think its extremely relevant here. Newman Luke (talk) 14:15, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

1. And what do you call Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism and WP:ANI? 2. This is not a Chabad related article. But all of this it moot. Debresser (talk) 14:21, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

You do understand that the Arbitration Committee weren't saying "use proper dispute resolution processes, including article talk pages, on Chabad articles, but do what you like on the rest of wikipedia". Why do you have such aversion to (a) using article talk pages, and (b) pointing out specific diffs / content that you regard as factually inaccurate or inappropriate for the article? Newman Luke (talk) 17:56, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Since you completely rewrote the lede, other paragraphs, and the section structure [276], it was a very major edit indeed. See Help:Minor edit about what is a minor edit on Wikipedia. So now you are lying as well. Debresser (talk) 14:10, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't change the lede or structure - [277]. I just changed the format of a few cites, and combined identical ones. Newman Luke (talk) 14:15, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll leave it up to admins to be the judge of that. I have on occasion misunderstood diffs. Debresser (talk) 14:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

My experiences with Newman Luke mirror those of JFW and Debresser. Newman Luke is relatively ignorant about normative Judaic religious legal practice, yet insists on creating, or unilaterally massively changing without any discussion, articles which are often filled with information from questionable sources, lacking in accepted normative sources, have subtle, or overt, points-of-view woven into the article based on cherry-picked quotations, and, almost always, are redundant to better sources, more neutrally written, more accurate existing articles. The experts at Wikiproject Judaism almost invariably are unanimous that his additions are misleading or plain wrong (for example, please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Judaism/Archive_23#User:Newman Luke and Luke's response Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Judaism/Archive_23#User:Avraham). At this point, I believe that an RfC with the intent that Newman should not create or make any significant changes to Judaic articles without discussion may be appropriate. -- Avi (talk) 18:56, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Avraham, where is there a specific addition that's criticised? Point to SPECIFIC content you regard as factually wrong, or where others have stated the same. Because so far, you and Debresser (and Izak) singularly fail to give ANY specific examples. WP:IDONTLIKEIT isn't a valid policy. Newman Luke (talk) 23:05, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:ANI wasn't created to resolve content dispute. It is here to resolve behavioral problems of editors. Such as you. Go ask this question on WikiProject Judaism, or open up a talk page discussion as per WP:BRD. Debresser (talk) 23:39, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Its you who has the problem, so you use the talk page - explain what specific content you have an issue with and specifically why. Newman Luke (talk) 10:40, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Notification: User:Newman Luke has reported me on WP:ANI/3RR. Debresser (talk) 20:27, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I reported you at 13:something (UTC), half a day ago. Newman Luke (talk) 23:07, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Is it my fault you didn't notify me? Debresser (talk) 23:33, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Its your fault you reverted for a fifth time, after that - [278]-, and that you disrespectfully described the revert - which deleted 2/3 of the article - as removing vandalism. Newman Luke (talk) 10:40, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd also like to point out that Debresser has explicitly claimed he has the right to ignore WP:OWN - [279] - the policy that forbids ownership of articles. One of the examples listed there of fobidden behaviour is:

"Revert. You're editing too much. Can you slow down?" or "Get consensus before you make such huge changes."

Now that sounds exactly what Debresser is doing here. Newman Luke (talk) 23:21, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I am not owning anything. You have a pattern of editing against consensus. I am just the one who refuses to be intimidated by your refusal to listen to advice and to seek consensus, and decided to revert you. Then I took you to WikiProject Judaism, and you continued, so I took you here, and you still continue, so now I think you should be blocked temporarily. Debresser (talk) 23:36, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Just a question for User:Newman Luke: did you notice that all outside editors here and on WP:ANI/3RR agree with my reverts and tell you to start seeking consensus? (Of course somebody will now come along and say that he disagrees with me.) Doesn't that tell you something? Debresser (talk) 23:43, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Consensus FOR WHAT? What specific content do you think is against consensus? Where has there been a discussion of specific content? And no, the editors there did NOT agree with your reverts. They concluded that you should present the specific content you thought was factually in error/inappropriate/etc., and that the article talk page should be used. Points I've emphasised above. Now point out to me the specific content you think is a problem? Newman Luke (talk) 10:35, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. NL rewrote the entire article to his taste. I posted on the talk page, and I have not received a single answer as of yet. (And believe me, I have more to say.) Is it or is it not Wikipedia policy to discuss before re-reverting? Debresser did nothing wrong; he was just trying to uphold collaboration.Mzk1 (talk) 19:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

No, that is ridiculous. You fail to mention that its also wikipedia policy for people to NOT do "Revert....Get consensus before you make such huge changes". And you've had your answer on the talk page, if you'd wanted one in a hurry, why didn't you mention it on my talk page?. I've repeatedly asked Debresser to point out specific issues and he hasn't. By contrast, this is the first time you've mentioned even somewhat directly to me that you've raised a question, and I've given you an answer before even writing this. A little even-handedness would be appreciated please. Newman Luke (talk) 01:52, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Newman, there is a difference between ownership and protection; in this case, it is abundantly clear that many, if not most, people believe that your edits, over a sequence of months and many pages, are more harmful than helpful and diminish the quality of the articles relating to Judaism in the wikipedia project. Our efforts to maintain a high-quality, accurate, representative, properly sourced, and consensus-approved version is exactly what should be happening. If anyone is having "ownership" issues here, it is you, who, for some reason, believe that your edits and point-of-view outweighs the numerous editors and existing consensus view otherwise. -- Avi (talk) 02:05, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Avraham, protecting the version you like IS claiming ownership. It is not clear at all. No-one there yet has pointed to a single specific edit they take issue with for specific reasons, not one. All it is is general claims - massively lacking in actual hard evidence from diffs. You're just poisoning the well there. Have you read WP:OWN? I suggest you read it again, particularly this bit:

“ Examples of ownership behavior... "Get consensus before you make such huge changes" ”

Something can only be against consensus if people have already massively disputed it. Now can you point to where the specific content/edits that I have made, or similar, were discussed before I made them and declared to be against the consensus view, because I can't see any such thing. Newman Luke (talk) 13:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

And this bit of WP:OWN as well:

“ The involvement of multiple editors, each defending the ownership of the other, can be highly complex. The simplest scenario usually comprises a dominant primary editor who is defended by other editors, reinforcing the former's ownership. This is often informally described as a tag team, and can be frustrating to both new and seasoned editors. As before, address the topic and not the actions of the editors. ”

Now when are you going to address the topic - point to specific content that you have issue with and specifically why. I have repeatedly asked you to do so - multiple times even here, so when are you going to? Newman Luke (talk) 13:00, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Appears to be forum shopping Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#Debresser_.26_Avraham_.28.26_me.29 Gerardw (talk) 02:47, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not certain how many times it has to be repeated, but the issue that most members of WP:JEW have with you, Newman, is your behavior, namely massive re-writes without discussion, creation of redundant and unnecessary articles, "WP:OWNership" issues when consensus is attempting to be implemented, and edits, that over time, indicate both a lack of understanding of Judaic topics and an inability to work with existing project members. Asking for specific content examples is neither the point of this discussion nor helpful in resolving it, is irrelevant, and derails the purpose of this discussion. -- Avi (talk) 06:08, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism How-to guide

Resolved

While surfing YouTube, I came across this disturbing video: [REDACTED per WP:BEANS -equazcion]. It is a practical how-to guide to Vandalism. I am concerned because this shows how one can vandalize practically avoid being blocked. I must say that it seems that someone has found a way around the Wikipedia ways of catching vandals. I am not suggesting anything be done about the video, as YouTube is a totally different site: rather, I am suggesting that the Wikipedia community take action be taken to better detect these kinds of edits and catch the perpetrators. If I have not filed this complaint in the right place, please tell me where I can. RM (Be my friend)

I doubt there's anything we could do about that. We can't control YouTube's content. Maybe someone could contact them with a complaint or something, I don't know. Equazcion ^(talk) 00:28, 18 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for a pleasant moment of lulz. People who need a guide in order to vandalize Wikipedia will also lack the intelligence to follow instructions. The time wasted creating that video was undoubtedly time taken away from actual vandalism. Net gain for us. :) Durova⁴¹² 00:33, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

There are also a lot of other videos on people vandalizing the site, one even was from a sockpuppet. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:11, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Delete a page in userspace, please?

Resolved

 – Paul Erik got it. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Boribori!)} 20:36, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Would someone kindly delete User:Buzzzsherman/monobook.js? He asked me to do so at User talk:Glenfarclas/Archives/2010 2#Hello, which I can't do, and I recommended he just add the appropriate speedy deletion template to it, but the templates don't seem to function on that page. Thanks—  Glenfarclas  (talk) 20:33, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

tks guys that was fast!!....Love love hug hug!!...Buzzzsherman (talk) 20:37, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Just a quick fyi, while adding {{db-u1}} to a .js page doesn't transclude the template, it still adds the page to Cat:CSD--Jac16888^Talk 08:17, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Posts regarding User:Sumbuddi's block

This user continues to post items at this board regarding this indef block via different BT dynamic IPs. A range block may not be practical, so feel free to delete any posts per WP:DENY. See this SPI for background. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 02:58, 18 February 2010 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Sumbuddi/Archive

NuclearWarfare actually semi-protected the page for 3 hours a few hours ago. That seems to have deterred the Sumbuddi socks for now. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 08:07, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

IP Hoaxings

68.33.219.246 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been adding hoax materials to articles. Including material about fake future governors of Pennsylvania ([280][281][282][283][284][285][286][287][288]); fake future governors of Rhode Island ([289][290]); and generalized T-Pain vandalism ([291][292]). Has never had a constructive edit. --Blargh29 (talk) 04:43, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

68.33.219.246 (talk · contribs) blocked 31 hours by Materialscientist. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 08:04, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

User:202.168.65.222

Can someone look into 202.168.65.222? Their comments on ANI have not been in any way helpful to an already inflamed situation. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 13:16, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Blocked by User:Alison. Equazcion ^(talk) 13:19, 19 Feb 2010 (UTC)

User:Jpatokal - racial slur and harassment

• Jpatokal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• User talk:Gavinhudson, Talk:Joseon_Dynasty#Life_expectancy
• User talk:Jpatokal#Your slander

Although I've tried to resolve the titled matter at my best with great patience, I think this ongoing persistent harassment by Jpatokal (talk · contribs) needs to be administrative actions. I've requested admin, Rjanag (talk · contribs) first for intervention, but he is inactive. First off, a new user named Gavinhudson (talk · contribs) inserted citations to two Korean related articles. However, since it included a commercial link and unreliable personal site, I reverted the edit with an edit summary to request "direct quotation". The commercial site does not show anything about the book which seems to be written in Korean per the publisher's name and location, so visited his talk page to resolve the issue[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_ talk:Gavinhudson&diff=344202669&oldid=283939086]. During the discussion with him, I apologized him for being hard on his sources[293] due to the history of two articles. I believe Gavinhudson settled down well on his sources[294][295]

The user did not restored his edit to one article, but the next day, Jpatokal (talk · contribs) reverted my edit which is fine with me since the source is clarified except his edit summary. He accused me of assuming bad faith and accusing of the source "fraudulent".[296] Another user reverted his edit, and Jpatokal edit warred to restore it.[297] The both did not seem to know of the yesterday's discussion. As Jpatokal opened a discussion with a scornful message,[298] I explained my stance and let him know of the discussion with Gavinhudson as well as asking for WP:AGF. Jpatokal's accusations are against his catch-22 for AGF.[299]

The matter only remains a minor issue, but Jpatokal suddenly visited Gavinhudson's talk page to bash me with a bogus accusation and racist slur like [a liberal dose of Kimchi]. The slander also has nothing to do with the discussion with Jpatokal and me. I took strong offense, not only because he has bashed me by linking the totally irrelevant case and lying about me, but also his mocking of me with kimchi, national food is used for smearing Koreans. It is the same as insulting people from Latin America with the slur, Banana republic. I reverted his inappropriate WP:CANVASSing comment to slander me. Then he reverted by saying that the removal is not my right.[300][301][302] I visited his talk page about his behaviors, but he was repeatedly bullying me there[303] as if he were a commander to me, or a holly Spanish inquisitor. Jpatokal absurdly has demanded me to apologize to him for calling his harassment "racist" and reverting the bogus accusation[304] and to Gavinhudson (I already apologized to him and that is not his business). He even mocked my English ability not understanding his pun.[305] He also determined to mark me with an unwarranted scarlet letter[306] even though he finally acknowledged his lying about me but still mocked me with a past irrelevant of him and of this issue.[307] I think this blatant harassment mixed with racist attacks warrant a block of Jpatokal (talk · contribs). As aforementioned, I've seen some troll blocked for the comment like Banana republic. I'm not sure why Jpatokal decided to attack me but the policies WP:NPA is clear. The user was also previously warned for disruptive edit warring to the questioned article which led a page protection and warning to him and his opponents. Thank for reading this.--Caspian blue 03:52, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

The entirety of the "racist accusation" in question here is "Please take any advice from him with a liberal dose of kimchi." [308] The grammatical object of the sentence here is "advice", and "with a liberal dose of kimchi" modifies the advice; ergo, Caspian blue is not being called anything at all here.

I stated that Caspian blue has "a history of bans for getting out of hand about Korean topics", and I stand by that statement (see [309]). However, while the original ANI was about edit warring between Caspian blue and Sennen goroshi on both Korean and Japanese topics, the eventual half-year topic ban imposed on Caspian blue was limited to Japanese topics. I have made this clarification on both my page and Gavin's page.

Incidentally, I would welcome views from ANI about whether removing another user's comments from another user's Talk page is acceptable behavior. As we all know, WP:UP#CMT enshrines a user's right to delete anything they like from their own page, but in this case CB repeatedly removed my comments from Gavin's pages without consent from either of us. Jpatokal (talk) 04:47, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Removing blatant personal attacks and harassment including bogus accusations are allowed and you broke all of them. You admitted you have lied about me that I've been topic-banned from editing Korean topics. Moreover, you who has a history of disrupting the article with muliple edit warring has no right to WP:CANVASS about my past irrelevant of you and the topic. The ban was originally proposed by me against Sennen goroshi (talk · contribs)'s Wikistalking and other all sorts of thing, not edit warring as you falsely accuse again. The user has used sockpuppetry and harassed me again, so blocked for one month. I have only a couple of interactions with Jpatokal outside the matter like regarding Comfort women at Prostitution in Japan and Wiktionary for Chinese cuisine subjects, so I'm really wondering why this user is harassing me.--Caspian blue

Personal attacks and other comments that grossly violate wikipedia rules are subject to removal from others' talk pages. A talk page is not "owned" by the user. It has some content restrictions. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:02, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, I'm guessing the Kimshi comment is somewhat like advising a black American to go eat some watermelon. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Please do take a look at the comment in context [[310] -- do you really consider this a personal attack? Jpatokal (talk) 05:27, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

It's ethnic stereotyping. Maybe you thought you were being funny. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:35, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I do think it is funny, but that's because the original bone of contention, namely Joseon Dynasty, is a Korean topic. I neither know nor care about Caspian's ethnicity, and I still fail to see how any of this constitutes a personal attack. Or how would you feel about "Please take any advice from him with a liberal dose of salt"? Jpatokal (talk) 07:20, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

"grain of salt" is the base expression, obviously. About a Scotsman, you might say "dose of haggis". About an Irishman you might say "dose of corned beef". However, they speak English natively, in general, and would likely get the joke. You have to keep in mind that many of wikipedia's contributors are not native English speakers and might be inclined to take an intended joke literally. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

My comment was intended for User:GavinHudson and written on his talk page. Jpatokal (talk) 11:17, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

• Note I removed Jpatokal (talk · contribs)'s deliberate and more intensified gross personal attack as treating me like a dirt[311] I wonder how come this kind of a verbally abusive editor have been allowed to edit Wikipedia. -Caspian blue 07:24, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
  • My question has been rewritten to remove all reference to your name. Jpatokal (talk) 07:34, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
    • So you're removing my "valid" comment without my permission, directing your ANI report due to your harassment. Isn't it contradictory to your insistence so far? --Caspian blue 12:56, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
• After reading all the text here and links elsewhere, I see more insensitivity than harassment going on. Jpatokal, asking for a good faith contributor's "rap sheet" doesn't promote a healthy, cooperative working environment. Neither does making a joke that some would consider racially/ethnically charged. I think most of the drama here would end if you could just put yourself in somebody else's position and consider how you might feel if you were them, and act accordingly. Killiondude (talk) 07:59, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your opinion, but I'm a little befuddled at what you would have expected me to do differently. Caspian blue took offense at a throwaway quip of mine, partly since he is not a native speaker of English and seems to have misunderstood it as a personal insult. I attempted to explain several times that it's a joke and not even intended at him, and even apologized for not stating the scope of his topic ban last year more clearly; his response was to delete my explanation, accuse me of racist attacks, slander and even vandalism [312], and now escalate this molehill into a mountain here on ANI. And here we are, wasting everybody's time. Whee? Jpatokal (talk) 09:39, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Even if Jpatokal (talk · contribs) were a native English speaker (his English is not like ordinary English speakers'), that does not excuse Jpatokal's verbal abuses and poor behaviors. Two uninvolved editors here do not say that his comments are funny nor appropriate. The clearly targeted verbal attacks are not a throwaway quip and none of native English speakers on Wikipedia speaks like you except vandals and trolls. Jpatokal harassment and personal attacks have wasted everyone's time indeed. Jpatokal should apologize to me and people here for his ill behaviors. That comment accompanying with the mocking and interrogating is not an sincere apology for his vicious verbal abuses about me and spreading the false info to another editor. Perhaps, this incident is just a tip of iceberg about who Jpatokal is and how weak the Wikipedia system is by having allowed this kind of editors survived for years. So User:Jpatokal's abuses of Wikipedia are currently being "enshrined" at ANI as a [future reference]. From my observation, I've seen people like Jpatokal who always deserve what they deserve in the end, so I don't worry even if Jpatokal is getting out of any sanction at this moment. --Caspian blue 12:56, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

• An observation: I am across this page and the situation has me a bit concerned. Yes, Caspian blue and Jpatokal have had differences of editing oppinion on a few pages. Such happens, and the actual article edits will sort themselves out over time. But what is of greater concern is Jpatokal going to a talk page where Caspian blue and Gavinhudson had reached an understanding and solution to a difference of opinion elsewhere, and his entering the conversation only to in all appearances attempt to re-initiate a disagreement between Gavinhudson and Caspian blue that had been settled. With respects, his intrusion was unwarranted and un-neccessary. His Kimshi remark was the wrong thing to say... and even if intended differently, was seen by Caspian blue as a racial slur against Korean heritage. Even if we attribute the ill-advised remark to a perhaps cultural insensitivity, it's the trying to stir up an antagonism between two other editors that is more worrisome. Racism and personal attacks can get him blocked certainly, but trying to instigate hostilities between two others is something that could cause disruptions and start edit wars between editors who had reached a peace. That is definitely not for the good of the project. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:19, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

• I agree entirely with MichaelQSchmidt. Both Caspian blue and Jpatokal have made edits which may be criticised, but the arguments about kimshi and so on are far less important than the fact that Jpatokal has deliberately taken quite gratuitous action to stir up a problem where there was none. I really think that it should be made clear to Jpatokal that this is completely unacceptable. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:54, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Gibnet.com (not gibnews.net)

• gibnet.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
  
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/LinkReports/gibnet.com

Following on from this discussion at the RSN about gibnet.com and this previous discussion here [313] about a different site this user is operating (gibnews.net), I would like to know whether gibnet.com should be blacklisted (as there is clearly some self-promotion and campaigning going on here) or whether I should just go around and clean up the links to it? Gibnews' claims that he wrote the code but not the content [314] clearly do not apply to this site, and he did not admit to that in the discussion above. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 10:31, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

You might check out Wikipedia:Spam blacklist. If you're willing to remove them all that would be quite helpful. A note to the user who added that they are all being removed per the RSN discussion is also recommended so if they insist on re-adding the next steps are clear to all concerned. -- Banjeboi 10:59, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, start by removing the links, a blacklist request is not really appropriate unless specific users persistently reinsert the links after their removal based on the consensus that it is not a reliable source. We have to allow for the possibility that the original links were added in good faith, though several of them do seem to have been added by a user who is clearly associated with the site (which is a big no-no). Guy (Help!) 11:16, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Based on this reply here [315] I'm giving up on the remaining vestiges of hope I had that Gibnews understands the RS policy. I can forsee trouble ahead with this, which is why I think a blacklist is required. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 12:32, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest a careful cleanup of the links which are deemed not suitable, and see what may be left. That should be combined with a remark towards the main user of the site (and other or new users who may want to use it) that the site should not be included just because it has the same subject, but that most, if not all, inclusions should be discussed and have consensus (I presume that there most of the info is unreliable, not everything, and that inclusion could still be wanted here and there. If pushy insertion without discussion/consensus then persists, I would indeed suggest to blacklist the site. I would not describe this (yet) as uncontrollable spam, and other venues are not exhausted, yet. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:43, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Dirk Beetstra, suggest a cleanup, but with care. A quick and very partial scan suggests that there may be useful primary material. Not all of the links are from controversies or controversial issues. Richard Keatinge (talk) 13:59, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

An admitted sockfarm, or...?

Anyone want to check his claims with a quick SPI, or do we need to submit the whole thing - we wouldn't want anyone caught up in collateral blocks because he jokingly added their name to it ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:52, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

From the looks of it they're all blocked already, the ones I checked were and the rest have usernames that are definitely blocked. Who cares anyway, this guy Blu Aardvark is nobody, just ignore him--Jac16888^Talk 14:00, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Serious violation of Wikipedia:Verifiability policy

Problematic administrator destroyed valid references and valid disambiguation entries, see:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=VRML&action=historysubmit&diff=344452957&oldid=344432273
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=X3D&action=historysubmit&diff=344452798&oldid=344434739
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Iota&action=historysubmit&diff=344451726&oldid=344441827
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yot&action=historysubmit&diff=344452272&oldid=344449865

In this way he by restoring of old sourcing requests and removal of current valid sources seriously violated Wikipedia:Verifiability policy. Please restore directly preceeding state of these pages. 95.211.129.248 (talk) 20:02, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Or, you know, he could be reverting due to the fact that you're a banned editor. --Smashville^talk 20:09, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

That's a problem. Content is content. If it meets our standards, then the editor is irrelevant. The appropriate response would be to immediately block the banned user and review the edits on a case by case basis. In this case, valid edits were removed. Rklawton (talk) 20:12, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

You are free to review the edits and restore what you find worthwhile. But this banned editor has been too much of a nuisance for me to check all of it, especially not in articles whose topics I don't know well. It's part of this banned troll's mode of operation to make a mix of good with bad edits, editing with several different IPs successively, changing or even partially reverting their own edits, all with the express purpose of creating as much confusion as possible. Longtime experience shows the only clean solution is to roll back all of it on sight, as quickly as possible. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:24, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I've seen this pattern before with other banned editors, and except where rolling back might create a BLP violation I think rolling them all back is probably appropriate. Letting this banned editor enjoy this ANI discussion is, however, not appropriate. Dougweller (talk) 20:31, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Edits recognizable as being from banned editors are deletable on sight, regardless of whether they are "good" or not. Banned means banned. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:44, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Fut. Perf, Dougweller, and Baseball Bugs. Banned means banned, and the best way to discourage this kind of time-wasting gamesmanship is to revert all edits on sight, unless such a reversion creates a BLP violation. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:06, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

"Deleteable on sight" doesn't mean "must be deleted on sight", it just means that we won't get in trouble (say with 3RR or a 1RR restriction) for deleting them, right? Aren't we allowed to use our discretion and judgment about the edits, and keep those that improve the encyclopedia (our continuing goal), while ruthlessly deleting those which aren't helpful or borderline? Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:57, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I think that yes, they should be deleted on sight. Regardless of the content, we're just borrowing trouble if we weigh every single edit made by a banned editor who is only here to mess with legit editors. As Jajjg said, it's just letting someone play games with us and waste time. After it's been reverted, if you feel like any of the content is worthy of addition, you can add it yourself under your own ID. That way, a legit editor is responsible for the addition. Most of the time, it's not a problem. Dayewalker (talk) 06:02, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's reasonable - if I'm certain that the information is clearly beneficial to the project, then I should take responsibility for it. Thanks for clarifying that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:21, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to note that User:83.11.48.212 has requested on my talk page that I "take responsibility" and revert FPAS's deletions on VRML and X3D, but I've declined. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:49, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

(OD) And that's where the problem lies with banned editors. They should be reverted and ignored completely, otherwise, they're still getting their jollies by causing disruption here one way or the other. I don't want one of these ^#$@heads to feel like he can leave me a message and give me odd jobs. Dayewalker (talk) 19:55, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

• If only we had a guideline about that :-) Guy (Help!) 21:24, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

• I'd support turning RBI into a guideline, it's just an essay for now but I try to follow it. -- Atama頭 16:31, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive editor: BLP violation, removal of references, violation of WP:OWN

IP 129.171.233.78 is being highly disruptive on Langerado. They claim ownership of the page (sorry buddy, but i have personally kept the Langerado Wiki up-to-date for several years now, and I will continue to do so.), they blindly revert to a version they like better, thereby removing the only references the article had and ironically reinstating the tags that marked their version of the article as problematic (here and elsewhere in the history), and, perhaps worst of all, they keep reinserting that one guy is suing another over breach of contract--a BLP violation provided without any references at all, except for the injunction to spend 30 seconds and look it up. Its a fact. go to the clerk of courts website.

The rest of the edits made by this editor are also problematic--they make unverified and POVish claims about "unique products," unnamed fans who consider some change "selling out," etc. I've tried to explain on the talk page what the BLP problem was, and have added three reliable sources to the article that verify at least some of the information in the original poorly written and unreferenced article, but I'm tired of trying to explain WP:RS, WP:BLP, and all that jazz to this editor. Drmies (talk) 20:50, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

• I have notified the editor. Drmies (talk) 20:54, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
  • And I have semi-protected the page, as he's IP-hopping and violating 3RR. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:41, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Sarek, when you have a moment, could you confirm to the editor precisely what was wrong with their edits? I have tried and failed; the editor called me a troll on my talk page and seems to think that I am just one person with a grudge. Drmies (talk) 04:12, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
      • He came to my talkpage shortly after I protected the pages, and I tried to explain there what was required. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:45, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
        • I see, thanks. I wonder if they really understand, considering this edit to a related article. Drmies (talk) 16:10, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Block reason?

Resolved

 – The IP is a sock of the user. Both have been blocked. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:09, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

See indefinite block here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=User%3ASumbuddi&type=block

"user has indicated they will not be using this account and have a new one, this will "keep them honest") "

Isn't that up to the user? 86.176.35.215 (talk) 22:25, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Essentially, the editor has admitted to having more than one account, and has declared the old account to be no longer in use. Sarek is making sure that the editor has truly abandoned the old account, and won't use it as a sockpuppet. A completely reasonable block that I support. If the editor is honest, then they truly don't need to use the old account anyway. -- Atama頭 23:12, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Atama, the user was also convicted in a recent SPI if you haven't heard. The IP is just trying to get his username unblocked. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:21, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

The username block on Sumbuddi expires tomorrow (or was supposed to, before the out of process block). 86.176.69.185 (talk) 23:38, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

'Admitted'? Have you read the sockpuppet policy? It is perfectly allowed for a user to have two accounts, just not for any improper purposes. Unless you have evidence of that, which at a bare minimum would start with any edits from Sumbuddi since that statement was made, which would be impossible, since the account is blocked, there is no reason to block the account.86.176.69.185 (talk) 23:38, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

*raises an eyebrow in Atama's direction*--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:17, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I hadn't realized this was a blocked sockmaster. Neither the block log nor the talk page indicate that, I didn't see the user page until after my comment. Why I thought Sarek blocked the editor, I have no idea, I can only attribute that to sleep deprivation. :p -- Atama頭 01:23, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

The block was supposed to be ending in a few hours. I am not clear what part of WP:BLOCK or WP:SOCK suggests that it can peremptorily be extended indefinitely. But, I guess that just means Sumbuddi won't be able to contribute in past areas of interest to Wikipedia. Oh well, it's only Wikipedia. 86.179.109.19 (talk) 02:01, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:SOCK#Blocking. -- Atama頭 16:40, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Request for enforcement on MarshalN20

User involved: MarshalN20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Request: MarshalN20 not only has been uncivil but also disruptive in the topic of Bolivian culture for over 5 months, I'd like to kindly request a topic ban or a 0RR rule on the Category:Bolivia and its subcategories specially Category:Bolivian culture until the mediator determines that the situation is solved.

Background: This user have been expressing offensive comments against Bolivians and being disruptive often engaging edit wars on cultural articles of said country changing Bolivia for Peru without citing sources or if he cites sources they fail on verifiability because the sources does not say what he writes in the articles and when another editor notices that he engages a lengthy discussion that doesn't get anywhere. MarshalN20's lack of civility led to a RfC which led to a Mediation Cabal which failed and now is on Formal mediation. The latter haven't even started after 2 months because the mediator seems too busy and the Mediation Committee sadly seems understaffed, so the conflict doesn't seem to be attended anytime soon yet MarshalN20 continues taking ownership of Bolivian articles to impose his POV.

Violation of agreement on ANI: On a previous ANI report there was suggested that we would avoid any confrontation till mediation starts [316]. Mediation haven't started yet, but MarshalN20 continued following me to other articles to pursue problems. [317], the wording Viceroyalty of Peru was a long term conflict with him because he arbitrarily changes Bolivian culture articles with that, I explained several times that the Viceroyalty of Peru is not the same as the Republic of Peru, that using an archaic term was against WP:MOS and that if there isn't an specific year of the context of a determined event there wasn't certainty of which Viceroyalty was in exercise at that time, so that attitude was clearly WP:POINT, I addressed it calmly in the talk page explaining again that citing sources of renown historians and the Encyclopaedia Britannica [318] to which he responded "Ignorant editors or readers that confuse the Viceroyalty of Peru with the modern Peru is of little importance to the works of Wikipedia.[319]" which is a highly uncivil comment and doesn't really represent a valid reason to impose inaccurate wording on an encyclopaedic article; next thing he continued poking on another article where I was working [320]; which is clearly a violation of the previous ANI agreement.

Further evidence:

• Uncivil comments: [321] [322] [323] (for which he supposedly apologized) but continued [324] and threatened to continue doing it "I can and will keep using whatever wording pleases me whenever I do my writing. "Ignorant" is not an insult; rather, "stupid, imbecile, and idiot," would be its insulting related words. [325]"

• Constant battling to place Peru instead of Bolivia: [326] [327] [328] [329] [330] [331] [332]

• Battling, template removal, SOAP and BLP: [333] [334] [335] [336] [337] [338]

• Comments where he says that he is only interested in the topic to battle: [339] [340]

Important notice: This user uses a technique which sadly seems to be rather effective, it consists in replying with an overly long answer that nobody would fully read or understand without presenting any evidence of his claims to trigger a threaded exhausting discussion but it causes that at the end the case ends up unresolved. I'll abstain to reply to his next comments unless an admin requires me to do it. But I'd recommend to check the diffs provided as many of MarshalN20's diffs are misleading and does not constitute any evidence whatsoever.

I hope this situation can be solved soon as it took several months unsolved and I have exhausted all the other means to solve it, thank you Erebedhel - Talk 02:09, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I know it's tangential, but he spelled hypocrite wrong in link #168. Doc Quintana (talk) 03:51, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

So here's my take, for what it's worth. It appears to me that both editors have a point of view that they hold dearly, and they want to have expressed in the article. I won't say which viewpoint is more correct on the various points because I can't say - I have no expertise in these matters, so I can't tell. However, from what I can see both sides have sources to back up their points of view, but both claim that their points of view are more correct. For instance, Marshall talks about "the stupid government" and makes edits like this one that uses the pejorative word "propaganda", and from my review of the last thread on this sort of thing Erebedhel does similar.

Both sides have insulted each other - Erebedhel has been known to take things too personally and has at times spoken out of turn with phrases like "dog", etc. Marshall uses inflammatory terms like "ignorant editors", but claims he's not being inflammatory. At one point, however, both sides were willing to apologise to each other. This is a good sign, so it's not like they are both unreasonable.

I think that we need to equally apply 0RR on both editors, and we must force them to demonstrate that they can each merge in material each introduced by the other. I believe that we should put a restriction on each editor, which is that they are not allowed to remove any references added to the article and if they want a reference removed then they must discuss it on the talk page and either the original editor remove it or another uninvolved editor remove it. If either adds in material that may be seen as controversial then they must post a thread to the talk page. If either party makes so much as one comment that the other is offended by, then a mediator should be contacted and if that third party mediator sees the comment unreasonable the other party must demonstrate that they understand that they offended the other and make an apology. Until they make the apology or at least reconcile with the other, neither party should be allowed to work on the article that the insult was made on until the mediator is happy that the issue is resolved. Alternatively, the mediator can say that its not an insult and the other party should assume good faith, and editing may continue. This will help stop disruption and will encourage each editor to stick to article discussion itself.

Similarly, if one party believes that material has been removed or added that is not neutral, all work on the article from both parties should cease until the edit is discussed and an independent mediator gets involved and the issue is sufficiently explained that they understand what is going on and a way forward be found.

On both these points, if further edits are done during editing, then the mediator will note the party who edited on ANI and request some sort of enforcement to prevent disruption while discussion is occuring. What that enforcement is to be is entirely up to an independent admin. It might be a block, or perhaps a protected page. Whatever they think best.

Who that mediator should be, I don't know. I'd be happy to mediate, but others may not think this ideal - I can certainly say that both parties have valid points and material, but both parties are exhibiting a battleground mentality. The only way to deal with this is enforced discussion with an independent mediator. As I don't know anything about the topics in dispute, I am neutral about the whole business so I could mediate effectively based solely on the material I am presented. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 06:30, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm still trying to understand what this editor Ereb is seeking. I have not made any mention whatsoever to him in regards to the Diablada article since we agreed not to discuss anything about it until mediation began. Tbsdy is here as a witness to the matter; we both agreed in his presence (well, virtual presence; he wasn't really there obviously) to stop discussing anything in regards to the Diablada until the mediation began. Yet, I see that the Morenada article is running into some problems (I have a watchlist on that article since I first edited it), and once again run into an uncomfortable situation with Ereb. I would like to take the following space in order to show the development of this Morenada article and the real face of this editor Erebedhel in regards to his nationalism for Bolivia and his disruptive edits:

1. I edit the Morenada article on October 3, 2009: [341].

2. On October 19, 2009, Erebedhel reverts my edit; deletes mention of Peru without any clear foundation (he claims it was "unsourced," but he does not add sources). Obviously this is a disruptive pro-Bolivian edit: [342].

3. On October 22, 2009, I improve the article (fixing the picture and improving the format): [343].

4. On February 2, 2010, Erebedhel does a small grammar clean-up of the article.

5. On February 7, 2010, Erebedhel reverts a vandalism to the page; however, he does not take into account that the material might be of importance (particularly since specific dates and names of people are provided): [344]

6. I do, however, take note of the important mentions of the material and add that the African slaves were brought to the Viceroyalty of Peru (Not Bolivia, which did not exist as a state until much later); however, I do not delete the mention of Bolivia: [345].

7. On February 17, 2010, Erebedhel decides to "improve" the article, but in the process deletes all mentions to Peru and the Viceroyalty of Peru; once again, this obviously is showing disruptive editing (no good faith intended) and pro-Bolivian nationalism: [346].

8. That same day I also improve the article, with reliable sources, and once again bring up the mentions of the historic regions (colonial Peru and Upper Peru). However, take note that I do not delete the mentions to Bolivia and go on the explain that Upper Peru is present-day Bolivia; I even go as far as to add a picture to the article; however I notice there is a copy-paste situation in the article and took a large chunk of text out in order to avoid plagiarism: [347].

9. On February 18, 2010, Erebedhel deletes all of the sources I provided, deletes the picture I inserted, and deletes all mention of Peru: [348]

I urge all of you who read this, particularly Tbsdy, to use their abilities to use reason and logic in order to figure out who is in fact doing the biased, disruptive, and nationalistic edits to these culture articles. This simple situation in the Morenada article is extremely similar to the more-complex issue in the Diablada article. Despite I attempt to be neutral (as neutral as possible), provide historical terms of historic regions (while also explaining their modern-day locations), insert reliable sources, and provide pictures to the articles; I am the one who ends up getting accused of doing wrong. Yes, I know that in the past I used bad terms and did not handle the situation properly with IP addresses, but as I have stated plenty of times before I apologized for those things in the presence of admin BozMo. I consider it a personal attack for Erebedhel to constantly mention those things despite they are supposedly in the past. That is all I would like to say; I think the history of the Morenada article speaks for itself. Cheers.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 07:19, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that as far as I can work out, there are still ongoing edit wars on those pages. I can't tell who is initiating them, but both of your are in conflict. You both want to edit the articles, but it's hard to because of the warring that's going on. Both of you have been looking for mediation, but it appears that they really are understaffed. I'm happy to mediate on the terms I state above, and I would try to be as fair as possible to both of your as you both show that you want only the best for the articles you edit. The offer is open. if the edit warring continues with both, then it might be that this needs to go do to ArbCom, and I don't think that any of us wants it to get to this stage. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 07:29, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I was replying but I got edit conflict I was saying that I'd be more than happy to have a mediator and I trust you Tbsdy. However my concern would be that it'd be really a time consuming task for the mediator, specially the article of Diablada varies significantly from my version to MarshalN20's; also a recurring problem is that one of us adds a text placing a reference, but when the other editor inspects the source, that's not what the source really says the mediator would have to review the sources, which sometimes are in Spanish, to determine who is telling the truth. Erebedhel - Talk 07:39, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

If you want to mediate this, then feel free to do so Tbsdy; it is greatly appreciated. However, I would like to point out that there is no edit warring from my part at all in the Morenada article; the only editor who keeps deleting/reverting sourced information in the article is Ereb. The chunk of text which I deleted was copy-paste from a website whose author we don't know a thing about. Also, there seems to be some sort of illogical thought from Ereb that whoever has the "better sandbox article" gets to keep it in the article (which is highly breaking WP:OWN); he should realize that his writing may "be edited, used, and redistributed at will." Ereb has also a history of conducting original research and including material that is not present in the sources he uses (both which have already been explained to him plenty of times, but he does not want to understand).--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 13:49, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

The above comment, doesn't seem to show any interest on MarshalN20's part to deal with the situation in a peaceful way. It's clear in the text above that I didn't say anything about who has the "better sandbox article" gets to keep it, my only intention was to discuss the material and its presentation in an ordered way having two versions and go point by point, but MarshalN20 always recur to this, to ridiculize my suggestions and offending me without reason. I'll not tolerate the accusation he raises about original research because when we can inspect his editions it'll be clear that a great part of the controversial material added by him in Bolivian articles is not referenced, while in my workshop there isn't a single comma that is not sourced. And Eveline Rocha Torrez is an Austrian ethnographer (or what she calls cyber-etnographer because she is very interested in the use of social networks for her studies) interested in Bolivian culture and part of the board of Tanzgruppe Bolivia in Vienna. She released under Creative Commons her text in 2008 which remained unaltered for 2 years, I just wanted to expand each of the 3 theories but MarshalN20 by deleting her text only left one theory. I'm more than willing to have mediation but inflammatory comments like this only create a tense environment, the administrator here is Tbsdy and not MarshalN20, he is not entitled to "make me understand" anything when his conduct wasn't one of the bests over the last year, so this is the last time I want to see that authoritarian attitude on his part or comments about me like this, all I asked since the beginning was MarshalN20 to drop that attitude towards me till mediation starts but he's not willing to cooperate. Erebedhel - Talk 14:47, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

In that case gentleman, would you please review User talk:Tbsdy lives/Erebedhel and MarshalN20 and confirm for me that you are willing to abide by the terms of me mediating on these matters? If so, then I think that this ANI thread can be marked as resolved and we shall commence mediation. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 14:49, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I reviewed your terms and I consider them fair, where should I sign? Erebedhel - Talk 15:00, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Relentless attacks at User talk:J.delanoy/unprotectedtalk.

We need to do something about this troll, and I felt that this covers too many issues to be put in one place... J.delanoy's unprotected talk subpage has been subject to constant attacks by a sockpuppeteer over the course of several days, perhaps even weeks. He's been creating usernames that attack J.delanoy in some way, and they are always typed backwards, with dashes and spaces put in various places. Every single edit that they have made has either been revdeleted or oversighted, but he's still going at it. He's evaded virtually every filter thrown at him, and his usernames are hard to detect at first unless one is adept at spotting them on sight. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 16:41, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, the irony: "(cur) (prev) 16:41, 18 February 2010 PeterSymonds (talk | contribs | block) m (789 bytes) (Protected User talk:J.delanoy/unprotectedtalk: Excessive vandalism ([edit=autoconfirmed] (expires 17:41, 18 February 2010 (UTC)) [move=autoconfirmed] (expires 17:41, 18 February 2010 (UTC)))) (rollback(AJAX) | undo)"

It's really not a big deal. Just report them to AIV as you see them. Don't bother reverting until they are blocked; it's a waste of time. NW (Talk) 16:45, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

It's up to each user, but I would think the whole point of an unprotected talk subpage is to be a "sponge" for the brainless comments of trolls, vandals, and other bozos. Basically it's something the user can totally ignore if he wants to. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:15, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Blatant BLP Violation - Wikipedia attempts to "Out" athlete who makes no public claim about his sexuality

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Article fully protected, discussion should continue at Talk:Johnny Weir#Blatant BLP Violation - Wikipedia attempts to "Out" athlete who makes no public claim about his sexuality to avoid duplication of discussions. –xeno^talk 22:03, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

---

This new edit: "LGBT newspaper Edge noted during the 2010 Olympics that "like Matthew Mitcham, [Weir] is a rare Olympic athlete who feels comfortable about being out even while his career is in full swing".[25]" As said elsewhere, BLP clearly states that: "This is a matter in which the Wikipedia rules applicable to articles about living people are especially relevant. Those guidelines specifically note that information about sexual orientation should be used only if "relevant to the subject's notable activities or public life". Mr Weir is notable for his competitive figure skating." Weir has been clear that who he sleeps with is his private life, "Johnny has also said, "There are some things I keep sacred. My middle name. Who I sleep with. And what kind of hand moisturizer I use."[[349]]

It's not a debatable question, the athlete has not stated his personal preference. 99.142.6.146 (talk) 15:32, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, from the article linked from the reference, it appears he has stated a preference. No admin action needed here. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:36, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Can you quote that, please?99.142.6.146 (talk) 15:41, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

On re-reading, guess I can't. The closest I can get is "I have no shame in who I am, and who I go to sleep with is a very small part of who I am."--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:45, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Which doesn't mean he's disclosing his sexual preference. Per BLP, it should not be stated or implied unless there are high quality references for it. Crum375 (talk) 15:54, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

• Note. I have removed the sentence until the matter is resolved. HJ Mitchell | fancy a chat? 16:45, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
• Comment. I stated on the talkpage that content on his sexuality should be shelved until after the Olympics but saw that the following had been inserted and was there for a few days:

“ Weir's sexuality is a hotly debated topic, with commentators such as Mark Lund and skaters such as Rudy Galindo wanting Weir to openly proclaim his supposed homosexuality. Right after his performance at the 2006 Winter Olympics, Weir replied to a blunt question ("Are you queer?") by saying "I am who I am, and I don't need to justify anything to anyone." ”

To me that had to be cleaned up. Wikipedia is not outing anyone, we simply are noting what a reliable source has stated. I'm sure there were many more but I was simply getting the atrocious stuff off quickly. This seems to be going the same route as Anderson Cooper

“ Independent news media have reported that Cooper is gay,[22] and in May 2007, Out magazine ranked him second behind David Geffen in its list of the fifty "Most Powerful Gay Men and Women in America."[23] When asked about his sexuality, he stated "I understand why people might be interested. But I just don’t talk about my personal life. It’s a decision I made a long time ago, before I ever even knew anyone would be interested in my personal life. The whole thing about being a reporter is that you're supposed to be an observer and to be able to adapt with any group you’re in, and I don’t want to do anything that threatens that." ”

Likely Weir's article will go the same way as reliable sources have asked the question, done so clearly in the context of his skating, and he has been forthcoming with non-answer answers. I'm quite happy for it to stay off until after the Olympics are over as I suggested on the talkpage. -- Banjeboi 16:54, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

• Hey Benjiboi, that sentence you quoted wasn't there very long--I looked at the article yesterday and found some typically weaselish phrases there and a slew of URLs simply dropped in. I attempted to clean it up, and ended up rephrasing a lot of what there was (and I think I dropped one less-reliable source). I thought it was important, for instance, to name Lund and Galindo: those sources stated it as fact, and that they did is surely of interest (of enough interest, for instance, for the Washington Post to write about it). What I don't rightly understand is how this is encyclopedic: "Weir's sexuality has been speculated on likely because of his flamboyant fashion and more interpretive and sensitive skating." That doesn't even claim that this is someone's opinion; "likely because" is simply OR.

  If folks feel (like the IP below) that this is outing, one way or another, well, I disagree, but I'm not about to fight to keep it in. Drmies (talk) 19:40, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

How is imposing a sexual orientation, through the false device of "quoting" others speculating, encyclopedic?99.142.6.146 (talk) 17:03, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

• • Drmies, I had left the Galindo and Lund bits in; the phrasing I used was from telecast announcers who are trained in the field but I agree it was poorly worded, i was just trying to ensure it was discussed as part of his skating rather than kind-og plopped in there. I'm open to whatever works. -- Banjeboi 20:36, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

We don't lead, we follow. The source stated it as fact and we reported that in context directly quoting and citing what the source stated. If you want to add something back in asap maybe propose it on the talkpage, I just don't see the need but others obviously do. After the Olympics a more thoughtful discussion on cleaning up the article including what to use about the gay question can ensue. I just don't see the rush and this is the biggest event in his life. -- Banjeboi 17:11, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

You do realize that you're proposing that we institutionalize and perpetuate stereotypical labeling by calling someone a "fag" (Ahh, but for "good" reasons I hear you say ...) because of the way they act - and then justifying it by saying, "... well that's what someone said." As to the "legalism" of prefacing it with "some people speculate", is Wikipedia just a Gossip Repository in which we engage in the age old, "now I would never say this, but I heard "...? I prefer Ralph Waldo Emerson's take on this, "Why need you, who are not a gossip, talk as a gossip?" _99.142.6.146 (talk) 17:48, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Reliable sources say it, we say it. If they're speculating, we make it clear that they're speculating. No where in the article does it say "fag", or anything of the kind. The lead does not open with "...is a homosexual figure skater". It reports on what reliable sources have been saying about him later in the article. --King Öomie 17:55, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

You do realize, I hope, that there is a delicious irony in using as pious justification for the act - that well worn euphemism for gossips, the classic - "reliable source"?[350] _99.142.6.146 (talk) 18:09, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I see no purpose for speculation on sexual orientation - even from "reliable sources" - in a reputable encyclopedia. If he is, he is; if he isn't, he isn't; and if no one but him and his know, then there's no point to speculate. Just because a "reliable source" speculates on something doesn't mean we have to care. --Golbez (talk) 18:16, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

It's a part of NPOV, if multiple reliable sources interview him and ask "the question" and he answers all in context of his notability (his skating) and even more reliable sources do speculate and devote content to this issue, again in relation to his notability, then it reaches a tipping point where it's POV not to include something. The exact wording needs to be sorted out but Wikipedia remains not censored. He's been a worldwide celebrity for years now and this speculation goes back at least 5-6 years from what I've seen. In contrast, if he was never asked, never answered and no speculation existed in multiple reliable sources we wouldn't be discussing it. -- Banjeboi 18:34, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

You must be kidding, "Weir's sexuality has been speculated on likely because of his flamboyant fashion and more interpretive and sensitive skating."[351] Can we get anymore stereotypically biased? Why not just say, "Look, you can tell he's gay, how can he not be?" _99.142.6.146 (talk) 18:37, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

At the risk of being misunderstood, allow me to suggest that there is a purpose to these types of speculations or spreading of innuendo, which is really just another form of POV pushing. It's the same reason we have labelled Jay Brannan as gay despite his requests not to characterize his sexuality. It's the same reason we have labelled David Ogden Stiers as gay despite the fact that the only source is an interview with an obscure and unreliable blog. It is pro-LGBT advocacy of a kind that is carried out mainly, to borrow a phrase from Sister Kitty Catalyst, by "homo-propagandists" and should be viewed the same as any other type of POV-pushing. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:49, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I am of the opinion that speculations about someone's sexuality, even when reported in mainstream press, are not particularly encyclopedic and their coverage should be kept to a minimum, especially in BLP cases. However, I don't quite see what the point of discussing the issue at AN/I is. The proper place for this discussion is the article's talk page, or perhaps the BLP noticeboard, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard; and, in case things get out of hand, perhaps WP:RPP. Nsk92 (talk) 18:54, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

It's a fundamental question, does this institution condone using the 'politics of denial' to shoehorn bias and perpetuate sexual orientation stereotypes? ? _99.144.240.136 (talk) 19:52, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I concur that the article talkpage likely is better as the main issue remains what do reliable sources state and how do we present those NPOV. The sources I was leaning on, including Wall Street Journal and The New York Times lead and we follow. That is not POV pushing as the rather WP:Baitey post by Delicious carbuncle suggests but using long-established community policies including consensus to find the best path forward. As the discussion at David Ogden Stiers demonstrates several of us actually called the actor's publicist over a week to sort out how to reconcile worldwide coverage of his coming out with unverified denials. Luckily we only had a few socks over there so the WP:Drama was minimal. I didn't get involved at Jay Brannan as far as I recall but there seems to have been lots of WP:Drama there as well. Accusing others of POV-pushing seems wholly combative but a visit to Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard may be the logical next step. As for Weir, I recommended waiting until after the Olympics to avoid exactly this kind of nonsense, I still do. Whatever reliable sources stated yesterday will still be stated by them two weeks from now. There's no need to push to add anything and reasonable editors can sort it on the talkpage or in userspace if the drama can't seem to let it go. -- Banjeboi 20:36, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

It appears that since you're telephoning subjects and have a committed involvement with the goal of outing BLP subjects, this is best dealt with here. Your issue advocacy is a problem, as is your wp:original research and co-ordinating article coverage off-wiki with professional publicists. People with a "cause" are often naively blind to the effect it has on their ability to approach a subject in a disinterested, neutral and academic manner.99.144.240.136 (talk) 20:54, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Benjiboi appears to be setting himself up as Wikipedia's Peter Tatchell. Unfortunately Wikipedia does not need a Peter Tatchell. Guy (Help!) 21:30, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

This is reminiscent of a similar discussion we had about Clay Aiken. Prior to his coming out, his sexuality was the subject of considerable speculation and he had been asked about it on a couple of occasions. We dealt with it by reporting his own comments on the matter.   Will Beback  talk  21:47, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Either use only his own comments - or omit any reference to it at all. I'm sure we've covered this issue dozens of times. The guy isn't notable for his sexual preference anyway. Rklawton (talk) 22:22, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Let's not confuse "preference" with "orientation". His "orientation" might be gay or straight or anywhere in between. His "preference" might be 3 times a week. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:49, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

A healthy young male's preference might be three times an hour. Sufficient opportunities rarely exist and real life tends to intrude. Nonetheless he's famous for his figure skating, not bedroom gymnastics. Leave that angle of his personal life out of it unless he chooses to discuss it. I don't care whether a skater's tastes are for men, women or goldfish: what matters is whether he lands a good quadruple axel. Durova⁴¹² 05:06, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Whether 3 times a week, hour, or year, we both said "might" be. All speculation. I'd like to see him land a quad axel. It might screw him into the ice, but that's the price of glory. Near as I can tell, Weir's primary interests are figure skating and "all things Russian" as the announcer said the other day. P.S. I like goldfish. I also like ritz crackers and triscuits. :b ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:28, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

That settles it: the article editors are welcome to devote space to his interests in Russian culture. :) Durova⁴¹² 16:23, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

The world will not end if we wait for a few days before we fix anything. I would protect the page ASAP. Bearian (talk) 22:24, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

• Note: Discussion has been ongoing at the article's talk page where I've proposed wording to address this issue. Wine Guy~Talk 22:47, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Weir kind of comes across as one you might consider "likely", but until he himself confirms it, it amounts to mere gossip and doesn't belong in the article. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:01, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
• Clearly some editors have a more obvious interest in him being called gay than others do. It comes down to a simple answer. Until he says it, it stays out. Guesses, speculation and conjecture don't belong in the bio, regardless of what magazine, commentator or other "expert" said it. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:11, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

• Request: Would it be appropriate to request that this discussion be carried on exclusively at the article's talk page? That seems the best place to have this discussion. I do understand why User:99.142.6.146/99.144.240.136 brought it here in the first place (a request to edit a semi-protected BLP article was not acted on immediately, i.e. within an hour), but trying to follow parallel ongoing discussions of the same issue in two places is rather difficult. Wine Guy~Talk 21:57, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Consensus

There appears to be a consensus that speculation re: sexual orientation is not in and of itself acceptable. I actually supported a form of inclusion[352], but am now swayed by the implicit arguments for cultural normalcy, and respect the apparent consensus that barring notable activity regarding sexual orientation (Obviously activism, political hypocrisy and the like are in and of themselves notable) we should treat Weir as we treat other's - as a person. (Note here the lack of "sexual orientation"[353][354][355][356]). I think this is a fair take on the general principles expressed by the community above.99.144.240.136 (talk) 18:30, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I stumbled upon a comment

I stumbled upon a comment and I know very little about the origins of the comment. See this comment. I would be grateful of a diplomatic administrator would advise the new user. I am asking for neutral administrator assistance at a early stage to help to ensure the least disruptive outcome. Snowman (talk) 15:09, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, instead of a diplomatic admin, you got me. I see where it came from, but there was no way the activity deserved that kind of comment. I repeated the warning: hopefully, when they come back, they'll have cooled down and be able to edit within community norms. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:46, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Snowman (talk) 16:28, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

There is also this comment [357], which is also totally unacceptable (it was reverted, but no warning given). Rapido (talk) 16:35, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

He last edited 2 days ago and was told he would only be warned once. I'm sure if he comes back and is still acting like he's "off his meds", as the saying goes, then an admin will swing his vorpal sword. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:07, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

This deserves a block, previous warnings or not. Woogee (talk) 20:29, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I reviewed and agree. Blocked for a week. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:40, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Someone's sock. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:42, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Block pls

Resolved

 – Buzzzsherman (talk) 18:51, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

38.116.202.43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) As normal i dont ask unless we our having problem keeping up with the problem see-> [358] ..again thks to Admin for all you do..its a thank less job!!..But thank you !!Buzzzsherman (talk) 18:46, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you User:Jac16888 that was fast!! ..Buzzzsherman (talk) 18:51, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Proofreader77 Indef Block consensus review.

These issues are pending attention at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Proofreader77 blocks, collapsing for readability.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
ProofReader is currently blocked. He was originally blocked for 48 hours and then recently this was extended to indefinite. With the utmost respect to User:Gwen Gale I think this is a bit extreme. The user is blocked and is doing what he normally does in his blocks, gather documentation and talk about going to ARBCOM. However it is on his talkpage.....and if admin simply WP:DENY or salt his talk page during his block the issue is solved. I also didn't see justification for the block lengthing and find it somewhat punitive aalthough it may not have been meant that way. I'd like to have the community discuss to gain a Consensus on if this is a way we want to go. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 22:37, 14 February 2010 (UTC) The indefinite length is wholly preventative. If Pr77 carries on with wikilawyering, trolling and months-long threats to take flocks of editors to arbcom, which are meant only to frighten others from dealing with him, his talk page should be shut down too. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:44, 14 February 2010 (UTC) I support the indefinite block, which does not necessarily mean "permanent," and agree with Gwen's comment above. The fact that the user "is doing what he normally does in his blocks" speaks to the general problem here, namely that Proofreader77 has engaged in troubling and at times bizarre behavior of a disruptive nature in the past. There is no sign of that stopping, and it's already wasted a lot of time. This latest incident that led to the initial block was discussed here. Personally I have severe doubts that Proofreader77 is contributing in good faith, and given past incidents I think an indefinite block is completely appropriate. If there was any indication that the behavior was going to change then certainly an unblock would be worth considering. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:47, 14 February 2010 (UTC) He's said he was taking people to arbcom before. To my knowledge he never has, let him vent his frustrations. If you think that salting the talkpage will help great but a indef for documentation for something he fels is unfair. It isn't paticullarly disruptive if you ignore it. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 22:48, 14 February 2010 (UTC) I did not lengthen the block to indefinite because of his sandbox. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:50, 14 February 2010 (UTC) (ec) Blocks, including indefinite blocks, do not require consensus to impose; they however generally require consensus (or ArbCom) to overturn. So far the blocked user himself has not yet made an unblock request, so an ANI discussion is probably premature. That said, I am not quite sure why the block was increased from 48h to indefinite. Just because of the weird wikilawyering on the user talk page? A block won't stop that.  Sandstein  22:58, 14 February 2010 (UTC) To Hell In A Bucket, I respectively disagree and think Proofreader's behavior is quite disruptive, though the issue goes well beyond what was posted at that editor's talk page. As I said at WP:AN, I would have supported an indef simply because of the behavior discussed there and the past problems. Almost every comment I've ever seen from Proofreader77 involved mockery, jokey poetry, or drama-mongering (often all three combined). If there is something else I'm missing let me know, but the positive contributions would have to be pretty strong to outweigh what seems a clear path of disruptive editing, the reasons for which are difficult to comprehend. We're all volunteers with limited time and one of the things we need to get a lot better at collectively is saying "you're not helping, rather you're wasting our time with this nonsense, go away now" to people who are here to play games and stir the proverbial pot rather than help write and maintain the encyclopedia. I think that's where we are at with Proofreader77, but I'm serious when I say you should let me know if there are a bunch of positives I'm missing which should cause us to reach out to this editor and try to deal with the problems. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:00, 14 February 2010 (UTC) I have my differences with Proof. He can be irritating and I was invovled with his first block. Yes he is a bit eccentric with the poems and such, but as you point out we are all volunteers and he has made monetary contributions for us to be here. I'm not suggesting this gives him carte blanche in anyway to be disruptive but it is something to consider. He's been here a few years and does have wiki's best interest in heart. If you can point out how he doesn't I'd be interested in knowing but if that is my base premise on Proof I simply understand he has a unique way of expressing himself to the community and I'm not the person who has to like it. He does.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Hell in a Bucket (talk • contribs) The fact that Proofreader donated money could not be less relevant, and indeed from what I can gather in the past the user was essentially threatening to not do that anymore (or take it back) if something did not go their way. That's not good. My point is not that Proofreader does not have Wikipedia's best interests at heart—perhaps they do (I have no idea). My point is that the evidence of disruption is extensive and ongoing. We can't accommodate people who maybe are trying to help but who in all their time here go after others, disrupt conversations, and generally waste time and piss people off (if everyone has a problem with how they communicate, that's pretty relevant). We have behavioral norms so we can work together, and people who can't follow them should not be here, just as is the case for organizations (volunteer or otherwise) in the real world. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:15, 14 February 2010 (UTC) "Threatening to go to arbcom" as justification for an indef? Asking for a proper block notice is wikilawyering? Pathetic. DuncanHill (talk) 22:51, 14 February 2010 (UTC) As I said above, if Proofread77 has made good contributions recently that would suggest we should keep them around I'm very much open to hearing about them, all I've seen is disruptive editing. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:00, 14 February 2010 (UTC) Support If this was only about the threat to go to ArbCom, I would oppose. However, this user has a history of problematic edits to Wikipedia and user talk space. I don't see this changing, and the only unblock I would support would a limited one for him to finally file his long promised case against anyone and everyone. AniMate 22:55, 14 February 2010 (UTC) So if you cut your finger with a paper you amputate the hand? That doesn't make sense....Hell In A Bucket (talk) 22:59, 14 February 2010 (UTC) If you keep cutting your fingers off, it might not be a bad idea though. He's consistently disruptive. We don't need an editor like that. AniMate 23:03, 14 February 2010 (UTC) Oppose Indef Block I browsed over the myriad of links prior to this, and I definite agree that Gwen Gale was out of line. However, i'm not sure why he was blocked in the first place, and i'd be happy to get more information on what exactly happened here. Doc Quintana (talk) 23:00, 14 February 2010 (UTC) Support. Pr77 has a history of being problematic and refusing to get the point when blocked. Indefinite does not have to mean infinite, but maybe a month or so away from the project might help him get the point. HJ Mitchell | fancy a chat? 23:04, 14 February 2010 (UTC) Support ...reluctantly. The rationale would seem weak normally, but he adds those freaking little "documentations" things in places other than his userspace, wherever something happens that he disagrees with. Proofreader has consistently shown himself to be a non-constructive presence at this encyclopedia. He's a dick to everyone, and the incident] with User:Rodhullandemu, that originally sparked the exchange that led to the block, is just the latest example. If he wants to vent, he should write an essay in userspace or something, rather than continually remind everyone he comes into contact with about how badly everything works around here and that eventually he plans to do something about it. It's enough already. I'd support unblocking him if he said he'd stop with that crap, though I'm not sure if he has the ability to understand what exactly the problem is. Equazcion (talk) 23:06, 14 Feb 2010 (UTC) About bloody time. Guy (Help!) 23:07, 14 February 2010 (UTC) Support As said by others already, the user has a history of being problematic, and given the threats for arbcom and the general...stubbornness(?) I would almost call it contempt (per arbcom threats)...he shows when people tell him he's in the wrong, he doesn't seem to have the right attitude for an encyclopedia at the moment. However, also as stated above, indefinite != permanent. I would also like to see him actually file an arbitration request as he has long been promising rather than holding it as a threat over everyone's heads. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 23:16, 14 February 2010 (UTC) Support - NLT generally exists to prevent users from coercing other users to do what they want. Arbcom is essentially our court system, and 77 was threatening anyone who he had thought wronged him, or disagreed with him with with a potential case about their own actions. Yes, NLT was aimed at the actual court systems, but the fact remains that 77 was using Arbcom to get other users to stop discussing his poor behavior. If this block remains, he'll hopefully someday realize why it is bad to act as he has been. Why it is bad to threaten users to get what you want. This kind of stuff shouldn't be allowed(threatening with arbcom to coerce). Long deserved, good block.— Dædαlus Contribs 23:23, 14 February 2010 (UTC) Neutral One of the things that I think everyone needs to remember here is that while forceful, he still has his points. I think in a sense, he has been disruptive, and does in fact deserve a block. Comments, Allegations, etc. seem to only stem when he is backed against a wall and he wants to force his way out. We, as Wikipedians, need to remember the difference between reality and the online world. He, in essence, has not shown he can differ between the two. I support a block, but I oppose an indef block. While disruptive, he has shown that he can be a constructive editor. I think that one of the larger underlying issues is that there may have been bad faith blocks made in the past, and there is still a grudge being held there. If there is, ArbCom cannot help him there. That is the past, and as such, he needs to get over it. If he has such an issue with Sysops on Wikipedia, then he shouldn't edit here. If he continues to try to make a point, I think that an Indef block might be acceptable, as the disruption could possibly be more than on his userpage and talk page. Continuously crying and saying "I'm going to ArbCom" or "I'm collecting evidence for ArbCom" only shows that he is not willing to accept a penalty for his actions. DustiSPEAK!! 23:30, 14 February 2010 (UTC) I've asked this above and really would be interested in any information, but on what basis do you conclude that Proofreader "has shown that he can be a constructive editor?" I don't doubt you and am not familiar with Proofreaders' every contribution, but I've scrolled through the last 1500 edits (which go back to late December) and do not see a whole lot there besides talk page comments and notes in drama forums. It seems the only article this editor has created is Fang Xingdong which is about someone who has a web site with a name like Proofreaders' own web site. My point is that I'd be much more inclined to work something out with this editor if there was evidence they were really helping out the project, but I just have not see that, or at least not anytime in the recent past. If there is something I'm missing, which is quite possible, please let me know. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:43, 14 February 2010 (UTC) Support He's been disruptive, and his constant threats of going to Arbcom are just threats to frighten off other editors. Now, he can finally have time to file that long-awaited Arbcom case, and see what they think. And for the last time, no one should care how much money he's donated. Dayewalker (talk) 23:37, 14 February 2010 (UTC) Oppose Indef Block. It's to extreeme. Sir Floyd (talk) 00:01, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Comment I don't see any diffs for blockable behavior, or any significant discussion prior to the block. It's hard for any uninvolved editor like myself to see why this account was blocked indefinitely. Folks should really do a better job of documenting blocks for non-obvious reasons like "trolling".   Will Beback  talk  00:30, 15 February 2010 (UTC) The block is for disruption. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Disruption of what?   Will Beback  talk  00:50, 15 February 2010 (UTC) The encyclopedia. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:59, 15 February 2010 (UTC) How did he disrupt the encyclopedia? Can you please explain more fully with diffs? Doc Quintana (talk) 01:04, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Strongly oppose, and for the first and hopefully last time in my entire life, I agree with DuncanHill and Doc Quintana. This is not the first time I have seen Gwen Gale use admin tools in an abrupt way when another admin has already dealt with the situation. This is a terrible, terrible block. Tan | 39 00:52, 15 February 2010 (UTC) ::Strong oppose as per Tan. <swatiska redacted> The Main Edge <swatiska redacted> 00:54, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Oppose - With Gwen Gale's almost refusal to provide any form of diffs for this block and where she directs at the bottom sub-section to go to her talk page (when there she direct users to this ANI thread), I see no reason for an indef block when there are little to no diffs and lots of questions. Request an uninvolved admin roll the block back to the previous 2 weeks 2 days until Gwen Gale can produce some diffs on why this has to be an indef block, otherwise it just looks like punishment than a block. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:57, 15 February 2010 (UTC) It was actually 2 Days. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 01:00, 15 February 2010 (UTC) HellinaBucket is correct and I will change that. Thanks. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:01, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Oppose- Proofreader was a bit obtrusive but nothing imo worthy of an indef.Off2riorob (talk) 01:05, 15 February 2010 (UTC) 'Comment Proof has not, at this moment, requested an unblock. PhGustaf (talk) 01:15, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Oppose Indefinite is a very nuanced tariff, mostly it is "forever" but sometimes it is "for as long as necessary" - if this was "for as long as necessary" then I would support, but the response above indicates that most people would want it to be "forever"... and I do not see the disruption being so severe as to require that. I also have some dealings with P77, and while eccentric do not raise to the level of disruption - I also think that having someone with a different perspective, one who makes others take the trouble to rationalise what they are doing, is of a benefit to the project. Such an individual is Proofreader77, and I think a fairly long but finite block is all that is required in this instance. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:04, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Oppose. I oppose indefinite blocks as a matter of general principle. Any serious editor will be more careful even after a three month block. A pure vandal on receiving an indefinite block will merely discard the account and start again. If a serious editor is not careful after a three month block and gets another three month block, so what? Eventually they will come to realize what is acceptable behaviour if they wish to engage in constructive and uninterrupted editing. David Tombe (talk) 03:57, 16 February 2010 (UTC) Question For Gwen Gale Could you provide some diffs explaining why an indef block is necessary here? Doc Quintana (talk) 00:31, 15 February 2010 (UTC) I already answered this on my talk page. When I asked you to take this to ANI, I was thinking of any further input you might have. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:41, 15 February 2010 (UTC) No, you didn't answer this at all, you just said look at his contributions, which number around 15,000. Can you please answer the question? Doc Quintana (talk) 00:50, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Put it this way, click on any 20 of his contributions from the last one or two months and the pattern straightforwardly shows up. If you don't agree, that's what this thread is for. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:56, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Gwen, stop beating around the bush and give us some diffs or this looks like admin abuse. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:00, 15 February 2010 (UTC) I concur. If I had administative powers, I would revert the indef block at this point. I am not sure about the 48 hour block, but I am definitely sure now that the indef block is inappropriate. Doc Quintana (talk) 01:02, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Like I say I have my differences with Proof but I had my own block extended at one point in this same manner. Proof documentating a case for arbcom is his own thing. That is his business Christ if the shoe fits wear it, if not brush it off and have confidence in your own actions and his documentation will lead nowhere. It does sometimes appear to be a bit crusader but if he feels there is a issue he can appeal to Arbcom. Blocking him for preparing his case is ludicrous and can be seen as a appeal to fear for both sides. Per the blocking policy unless he commits another infraction while being blocked that he has previously been warned for the original block should never be lengthened. Most of this can be immediately cleared up with a specific diff that violates a referenced policy, thus justifying the need for extending the already proscribed remedy. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 01:13, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Some folks here really ought to do what Gwen is suggesting, even if you think it comes across as a brush off—click on any set of 20 diffs from the last couple of months and determine if you think this is really a user who is here to help, or to have a bit of a laugh and waste time. It's one thing to object to an indef block, but there's a reason this editor has been blocked three times before, and why they were blocked for 48 hours just prior to this (which related to an incident where they were basically taunting a fellow contributor). I'll look and throw together some diffs, but it's not an exaggeration to say you can click at random on this user's contribution's list and find little but problems. I'd like to see those opposing the block explain what Proofreader77 has contributed to the encyclopedia. This is a serious question and I've asked it several times without having it answered—indeffing this account seems a no-brainer to me since I've seen nothing but low-level (and sometimes high-level) disruption from it. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:16, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Perhaps the next block could be indefinite but this is out of procedure. After the remedy is handed down by the blocking admin the editor must offend another policy. One of the references to legal threats above is a joke. We start using our own policy as legal threats is absurd, what is next blocking for a ANI thread threat? Let's look at the current institution of the indef block as to what offense warranted it. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 01:20, 15 February 2010 (UTC) I didn't lengthen the block for legal threats. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:22, 15 February 2010 (UTC) To Hell in a Bucket, Wikipedia is not for process wonkery or "procedure" for the sake of it, it's an encyclopedia. Do you think Proofreader has done anything to help that endeavor of late? I haven't seen it, and when I asked you for evidence above you provided none other than "they gave us some money." I have seen an extraordinary amount of disruption which wastes the limited amount of time we all have. If it's important to folks that we have a big pow-wow and analyze diffs endlessly before doing absolutely nothing and letting Proofreader pursue their agenda of writing poems, threatening ArbCom cases, and toying with other editors then so be it, but y'alls can handle it next time when Proofreader gets unblocked and starts disrupting the project again as will inevitably occur. Honestly, at times it's necessary to apply a bit of WP:COMMONSENSE, and surely common sense suggests this person is an obvious net negative to the project. Not one person has suggested otherwise as yet which is telling. Probably some admin will come along and unblock, but as far as I'm concerned future disruption by Proofreader is on the shoulders of that person and others who have commented here in support of the unblock out of fear or "admin abuse." Indeffing disruptive accounts protects the project, which is what admins are supposed to be doing. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:31, 15 February 2010 (UTC) As regards contribs, here's the bigger picture, which I add without comment. Rodhullandemu 01:24, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Gwen, what did you lengthen the block for and provide diffs. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:25, 15 February 2010 (UTC) NeutralHomer have you looked at Proofreader's block log and contributions history? Do you see anything in the latter in the last couple thousand edits that suggests this is a person who is here to help us, rather than make odd comments and have a go at various people? I'm asking in all seriousness, because it seems plain as day to me that this account has done nothing but edit disruptively for quite some time, which is in and of itself a reason to indef block. And I will try to add some diffs here, but seriously go click on some things at random and see for yourself. It's good to understand the context before crying admin abuse. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:35, 15 February 2010 (UTC) His blocks were for being annoying more or less. This doesn't mean we show him the door. Look at his contribs, 40% in articles? So what he's annoying ignore him, don't make it a personal issue. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 01:37, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Bigtimepeace, it isn't shouldn't (and isn't) your place (but thank you for doing so) to add those diffs. If Gwen Gale wants this block to be upheld, she needs to be forward with the diffs, give as much information as possible on what she though this block was needed to be indef. So far, she has been vague, withholding and kinda rude when it comes to answers on most questions about this block, which makes me question if the block is even needed in the first place and whether Gwen Gale is acting in good faith (yeah, I am going there). When an admin refuses to provide any information on a block they have made, it is our duty to overturn it until they can do so, willing or not. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:42, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Disruption isn't allowed because it drives away helpful volunteer editors. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:40, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Gwen, please stop giving bromidic boilerplate answers and explain yourself. It's great that Bigtimepeace is fighting your fight for you, but maybe you could summon up the energy for more than a sentence? There's clearly concern here. Tan | 39 01:41, 15 February 2010 (UTC) I don't agree with anything in that post, Tan. So far as I can tell, you don't seem to think Pr77 is likely to be disruptive after 48 hours. I think otherwise. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:48, 15 February 2010 (UTC) So your answer to everything here is to simply state, over and over, that any pertinent facts are so blindingly obvious that there is absolutely no need to explain yourself, other than making sure you say a variant of the word "disrupt" many, many times? I think I'm going to overturn this indef block. Tan | 39 01:51, 15 February 2010 (UTC) I think you're angry. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:56, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Good Call. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:52, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Ok what disruption did you extend the block for? sometimes everyone makes bad decisions but if it is as clear as you claim it to be it should be little matter and effort to show the offense warranting the extention. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 01:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC) You should look at hist past 2000 edits stretching back a couple of months or so (only 99 edits in article space). A vastly different pattern. He needs to go back to article writing. A project and/or user talk ban should help, temporarility at least. Pcap ping 01:43, 15 February 2010 (UTC) I see no disruption on this contribs, I seen him being an annoyance at the most, but that can be ignored easily...overturn the block and let's move on. Gwen Gale hasn't given us any motive to keep this block at indef. Overturn back to 2 days or even time served and I highly recommend Gwen Gale be taken before ArbCom for this. This is a definite bad act and not becoming of a respected (and she was to me before this point) admin. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:47, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Some editors think Pr77 has been highly disruptive and others don't think Pr77 has been disruptive. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:52, 15 February 2010 (UTC) What that sentence right there shows me is you have zero reason for your extension of this block to indef. I have definitely lost all respect I had for you over this incident and believe you need to turn in your adminship immediately if you can't use it better. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:54, 15 February 2010 (UTC) I've given my reasons, you disagree as to the level of disruption. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:57, 15 February 2010 (UTC) No, you have given extremely vague reasons with no evidence to back it up. That is not what a good admin does. Sorry, but you haven't swayed anyone with your vague answers and no evidence. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:05, 15 February 2010 (UTC) ::::::::::::I recommend that this user's conduct should be requested for comment. <swatiska redacted> The Main Edge <swatiska redacted> 02:16, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Well, who are you to recommend anything, Mister Fifteen Edits To Their Name? In fact, the fact that you seem to know your way with wikicode makes you smell somewhat sock-like.HalfShadow 02:26, 15 February 2010 (UTC) I can't see the swastikas on my UTF-8 system. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:29, 15 February 2010 (UTC) ::Everyone is entitled to participate in discussion regardless of edit count or how new they are right? <swatiska redacted> The Main Edge <swatiska redacted> 02:30, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Redaction of Hindu Swastika With regard to the redaction of what appeared to be the Hindu Swastika symbol in a signature during the above discussion, I am unclear if the editor mistakenly confused the Nazi Swastika (rotated by 45 degrees) with the Hindu symbol. Is there a prior consensus that applies to such redactions of any character or image that may be confused with the Nazi Swastika? Ash (talk) 06:30, 17 February 2010 (UTC) Arbitration An involved party should just file an arbitration case, please. It's clear there's not going to be consensus here, and far too much repetitive argumentation. Besides, Proofreader77 indicates on his talk page that this is what he wants. Pcap ping 02:07, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Link, please? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:09, 15 February 2010 (UTC) [359] Pcap ping 02:12, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Filed [[360]] Hell In A Bucket (talk) 03:22, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Proposed Based on the refusal of the extending admin to back up block extention by policy, we should revert to the original 2 day block. Proofreader77 should be admonished he is on thin ice and the community would like to see the Arbcom case filed or dropped. Dragging on is unacceptable and it can lead to indefinite blocks in the future if the disruption warrants it. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 01:55, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Support per above.--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 01:57, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Support per above as well. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:58, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Whatever. I'll support so long as everyone freaking out about the indef gets a trout slap once the account is again indeffed in the future (after it's wasted a lot of time in the interim) either here or at a long, stupid ArbCom case (and that will happen). This is a triumph of process wonkery over basic common sense as to what kind of contributors we want around here, but we often do a terrible job of applying common sense in these kind of situations. It should also be noted that Gwen's block (and I don't even know Gwen) was supported by 8 people immediately, so the idea that it was wildly out of process and inappropriate is absurd—it apparently did not have consensus, but that does happen from time to time. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:07, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Sure Works for me. Diffs next time though. Doc Quintana (talk) 06:55, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Done I reinstated the original 48-hour block per the above. While I feel that it would be a delicious irony to simply let it be without explaining myself (perhaps stating the term "inappropriate" a lot, in lieu of anything else), I'll say that admins should not simply extend blocks - especially to indefinite - without having a strong argument to support themselves. As it became painfully clear that Gwen Gale had no argument prepared and isn't likely to prepare one anytime soon, I reinstated Fut. Perf's original block. Tan | 39 02:05, 15 February 2010 (UTC) You did so without consensus and your rationale, as put forth here, is mistaken. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Given your penchant for handing out indefinite blocks after admins have already meted out shorter blocks - with nary an attempt to discuss it with the admin first - I'd say that it's you that's short on consensus. Tan | 39 02:22, 15 February 2010 (UTC) I see consensus above for a permanent block. Did you miss it? And are the opinions of other editors of no value compared with that of the blocking admin? Does the expressed wish of the community mean nothing to you? Rodhullandemu 02:28, 15 February 2010 (UTC) 8-8 is a consensus? Since when? Did I miss it? Are the opinions of the eight dissenting editors of no value compared with the other eight? Tan | 39 02:30, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Consensus isn't about numbers, it's about strength of arguments. Whereas one or two of the supports might reasonable be discounted, so equally can one or two of the opposes. The remaining opposes are largely based on lack of evidence to upgrade the block, whereas the remaining supports are based on longitudinal assessments of this editor's disruptive behaviour- and that, to me, is the distinction. There comes a time when an admin is duty bound to take action to protect the encyclopedia (remember that?) against negative influences. I'm not convinced that a case has been made either that Proofreader77's recent (i.e. going back to December) behaviour has been of net benefit to the encyclopedia, or that previous blocks have been effective in making that point to him. Taking a longer view, I don't necessarily see that situation improving, although that is up to him, and I can confidently predict that we'll be back here before long. Rodhullandemu 02:41, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Hell, I'll confidently predict we'll be back here before long. I hope I'm wrong, as I often am, but I'm also confident in my stance in this block. Gwen had every opportunity to explain herself, and instead opted to, well, not explain herself. An admin had already assessed the situation and plotted a course of action. For another admin to unilaterally (save the irony comments) lengthen the block (from 48 hours to indefinitely, no less), without any discussion, explanation, reasoning, etc. is simply wrong. Look at her attempts to deflect responsibility above; it's astonishing. Tan | 39 02:46, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Comment on IRONY, Gwen you claim Tan has changed the block out of process, yet you fail to explain how your original modification was based on. Can't you see the hypocrisy? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 02:25, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Comment -- I'd just point out Sandstein's comment above, that indefs don't require consensus to impose, but do require consensus to overturn. I'm not seeing said consensus here. Equazcion (talk) 02:05, 15 Feb 2010 (UTC) There was no evidence for the block in the first place, so the block was nothing but punishment, which is not allowed. Tan's overturning of the indef block was a good call. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:08, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Regardless, the question of whether the indef was indeed inappropriate should be left up to consensus, not the unilateral decision of you or an admin. I don't see consensus here. Equazcion (talk) 02:10, 15 Feb 2010 (UTC) Well, it has been undone, so it doesn't matter. Hell in a Bucket below makes a very good point (you should read it). This entire thread should be marked as resolved and closed. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:16, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Also look at the fact thaqt most of the issue is personal dislike and annoyance. The proposed action doesn't protect him if he fucks things up, just gives him enough rope to either get himself out of the corner he is in or hang himself. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 02:11, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Overturning was fine given the reaction (even though it's a dumb outcome), but eight other people supported the block almost right away. It's wrong to suggest that this was something horribly bad on Gwen Gale's part, she extended a block of an obviously problematic user, a lot of people agreed, but just as many or more disagreed, so the block was overturned, and now the user can continue to create problems. Like I said it's dumb, but beyond that there's nothing to get worked up about here. Let's hope Proofreader does not waste too much of our time in the week's ahead, but I won't hold my breath. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:13, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Call it principle. I'm willing to listen to a whole lot of "I told you so" if it means that admins are required to explain their indefinite blocks (in the face of concern) with more than Gwen mustered above. Tan | 39 02:16, 15 February 2010 (UTC) We can only hope he makes the right decision you are correct. But next time the case would be lock stock and barrel if he gives a justifiable offense and then it wil be moot. The ball will be in his court. Maybe the thread will make him see some different perspectives. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 02:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC) To Tan39, there's no doubt that Gwen could and should have explained better, but there was no rush to unblock either (indeed none was requested), and you might have let the conversation continue since there was arguably just as much support for the block as non-support. It's obvious that some of those who were asking for an unblock were just not familiar with the background, or the fact that Proofreader recently e-taunted another editor who expressed anger at a comment and explained he had experienced recent trauma in real life (hopefully you know what I'm talking about since it started the whole incident). Honestly to me that was worthy of an indef block all by itself and I said so at an earlier thread on AN, which is maybe even where Gwen got the idea. It's a difficult question round here when it comes to a choice between doing something "on principle" that might result in a shitty outcome or being not strictly process-bound in the interests of doing the right thing. Given that you brought to the table your own past problems with Gwen's admin behavior (and obvious anger over this affair, which comes out in your sarcastic comment after unblocking), I don't think you were the right person to decide what to do here. I do appreciate you taking ownership of the unblock though, and hopefully you'll be the first one to deal with future problems from Proofreader so the rest of us don't have to. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:34, 15 February 2010 (UTC) If the block is only 2 days again, can an admin at least please give Proofreader some kind of official notice that once the block expires, he's not to continue with his arbcom threats or "documentations" or else risk being blocked again? I realize he says he'll be filing imminently now, but who knows exactly when he actually will. Equazcion (talk) 02:28, 15 Feb 2010 (UTC) I do agree with this as indicated above. A little article creation or work would do him good in lieu of a Arbcom case. If he does choose to do so then it is over and he will have his behavior jkust as closely scrutinzed as those he accuszes of impropriety. Sometimes better to let sleeping dogs lie. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 02:31, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Admin warning should come from Tanthalas39 who did the unblocking. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:37, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Again, can an admin please issue a formal warning to Proofreader regarding posting his "arbcom documentation" crap? He seems to still be at it. Equazcion (talk) 03:23, 15 Feb 2010 (UTC) I suggest dropping Tan39 a note and asking him to do it if you think the warning is needed—it's best if it comes from the unblocking admin such that the warning is basically part of the unblock (i.e., "your unblock is in part contingent on you not doing X anymore"). --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:41, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Done, here's hoping. Thanks for the suggestion. Equazcion (talk) 03:46, 15 Feb 2010 (UTC) Just to say, told you so [361]--Jac16888Talk 11:11, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Belated comment. Sorry, I've been involved in other things, which pushed reading WP:AN & WP:AN/I way down on my list of things to do. However, I regret that the indef block against Proofreader77 was reverted to a 48-hour block: he has been problematic in the past (see, for example this incident), as well as a nagging suspicion I've had since our last interaction -- over the incident Benjiboi alludes to above below -- that he has been Wikistalking me. Personally, I have been extending to him good faith & otherwise ignoring his actions because I can't determine whether he is simply well-meaning but clearly missing the subtleties of Wikipedia norms, or that he is intentionally pushing the limits of our patience much as a troll would. WP:AGF & WP:BITE both encourage us to have patience with other users, but there comes a time when we have to say enough. Based on Gwen Gale's action, I would say that we have reached it. And even if this rollback of an indef block is maintained, his next block ought to be his last -- & an indefinite one. -- llywrch (talk) 17:42, 16 February 2010 (UTC) Topic ban from Arbcom and editing restrictions against diff gathering for any "potential" arbcom cases This seems to be something he loves doing. A user disagrees with him, wrongs him, and he threatens arbcom. As far as I have seen, these threats are only used to push other users away. He cannot be allowed to continue this. I know that this is not a real legal threat, but it's just about as close as you can get. NLT was create to prevent people from threatening court action to coerce people into doing what they want or backing off. There should be a separate policy, or a modification of NLT to account for threats to go to arbcom used for coercion. This can't be allowed to continue. I, as the writer of this, obviously support.— Dædαlus Contribs 03:54, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Nahh, let him file one if he desires. If ARBCOM accepts, then he had a reason to file one, whereas if they reject it, it'll make a stronger statement to him than if we ban him from filing one. However, I would support banning him from threatening other users with going to arbcom (the exception being notifying them if he actually files a case), as that's just ridiculous tactics aimed at getting other editors to "cease and desist" what he doesn't like. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 04:48, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Per your response above, I have downsized and made things more clear. He's basically only allowed to prepare for the case without alerting any of the involved users(as he normally does by posting it all over his talk page), and he is only allowed to alert any of the involved parties if it has been filed.— Dædαlus Contribs 06:53, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

New proposal

• Proofreader77 is restricted from threatening or alerting other users of "pending" or "potential" arbcom cases unless alerting them of a case already filed, nor can Proofreader77 ask anyone(on or off wiki) to do this for him.
• Diff gathering by Proofreader77, or any user they ask to help them(on or off wiki), must take place on a sub-page in Proofreader77's user space or user talk space. It may not take place on his user page or user talk page.
  • Under no circumstances shall other users be made aware of this page by Proofreader77, or anyone that Proofreader77 has asked(on or off wiki).
    • This page shall not be linked by Proofreader77, or anyone they have asked(on or off wiki), from his talk page, or his userpage. He can easily save a bookmark and watch the page if he wants to keep tabs on it.
  • Should the arbcom case in regards to this page not be filed within a timely manner, then the page may be subject to deletion.
• Should any of these restrictions be violated, then Proofreader77 is blocked for (insert good amount of time here).

Per Ks, I have revised the restrictions and tried to outline everything. I believe that sums things up. As the writer of this, I obviously support.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:50, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support Of course Proofreader77 is able to prepare a case for arbcom, and is able to gather evidence for a likely case in a subpage. However, the irritatingly high noise-to-signal ratio is a problem: please stop talking about proposed arbcom cases, and please stop repeating points that have irritated other editors. It is disruptive, and leads to total time wasting like this discussion (which will not be totally wasted if we can achieve a consensus to reign in Proofreader77's talk page drama). 07:29, 15 February 2010 (UTC) signed correctly this time, sorry Johnuniq (talk) 08:05, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Could you fix your sig? I don't want to do it for you, as I think you might want to. c.c — Dædαlus ^Contribs 07:31, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. The first proposal about not threatening ArbCom cases makes sense I suppose, but I don't understand the second bit about keeping diffs gathered on a separate page. Whether Proofreader links to it or not, any other editor who checks his or her contributions (which will happen) will immediately "be made aware of" it—you can't really "hide" a page you are editing. As such I'm confused as to why doing this "diff gathering" would be less troublesome at User Talk:Proofreader77/Diffs than at their normal talk page. Even the first proposal about not threatening ArbCom cases seems unnecessary to me, though I have no problem with it. This indefinite block had significant (if not sufficient) support, and I think the next time there are any shenanigans there will be resounding support for such a measure. I'm not sure we need to impose any formal restrictions in the interim, and surely Proofreader77 knows they are on thin ice. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 09:56, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

In regards to the bit about it being on a sub-page, this is because when 77 posts these kind of things on their talk, they are either insulting, irritating, or threatening by their very existence, such as when 77 posted that I took 5 edits to undo a resolved tag. Stating such a thing is rather insulting, as I was just having a bit of trouble with the template. There is also no good reason to record perceived flaws as openly as 77 has done in the past. Especially when they have continually threatened arbcom, but never really gone through with it.

In case the above is tl;dr: They use their talk page as a means of an indirect threat against those that are there, or some over project page like ANI, to leave, or they would become a party in his next case. There is no need for that kind of thing here.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 11:01, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you, my point is just that shunting those "indirect threat" sort of comments off to a subpage does not really do anything about the problem. They will be somewhat less visible, but will still be there, and people will obviously know about them. Indeed the page would almost certainly come under discussion as an attack page possibly warranting deletion, so it might actually create more problems. I understand the spirit of what you are proposing, I just don't think it would have much of an effect. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Having the page deleted as an attack page is actually a better course of action than what we have currently: 77 makes threats about potential cases on his talk pages, and as they are "pending", and on his talk pages, they can't be deleted when he fails to file any such case. If they were restricted like I write, those pages could be deleted when he fails to file any such case for a due amount of time.. and as such, going to clarify that above.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 20:31, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comment, I'm unsurprised to see this editor here as the last time I was trying to deal with them Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive578#Roman Polanski interpreter or referee needed (November 2009) they were specifically told unambiguously they were on thin ice and needed to work with other editors and stop overwhelming opposition. That same thread includes a link to another thread of mass distraction whereby Boke, a disambiguation page, had to be rolled back by reasonable and productive editors with an immense amount of energy as evidenced at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation/Vulnerability of short pages to attack, UD overflow, and other issues of Boke (April 2009) . Unfortunately I see little to show that they have changed. Myself and several editors have tried to deal with them regarding Roman Polanski but simply walked away instead. I think the relative concept is WP:Competence, perhaps a line needs to be added their that even if you can spin a sentence in twelve ways and utterly frustrate all others on a talkpage does not mean you are correct or that anyone agrees with you; and WP:Hear. Gwen Gale, IMHO, has been patiently dealing with this and these editing restrictions (in November 2009) should likely be strengthened as part of this. I also feel Gwen Gale's suggestion of a mentor is a solid one that likely should be enforced for Proofreader 77 to remain. -- Banjeboi 15:15, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I agree with this assessment. This user may not be here to help build an encyclopedia. ++Lar: t/c 23:34, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
  • As do I. This editor appears to be on thin ice repeatedly. Maybe a formal ban proposal...? Equazcion ^(talk) 04:04, 16 Feb 2010 (UTC)
  • Agree with BB for reasons (especially about Gwen's patience) I've stated elsewhere in this thread. The problem originally may have been one of ability, but Proofreader77 has now moved on to being a distraction in other ways -- which does not indicate he wants to contribute in a positive manner. However, a mentor will only work for Proofreader -- as for anyone --only if she/he wants to be a productive contributor here; I'm not convinced that is the case. -- llywrch (talk) 18:07, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

There's a considerable amount of irony going on here. Proofreader77 spammed me out about a month ago when I raised the issue of law keeping on wikipedia. I considered his behaviour to be somewhat irritating. He was resisting the proposals that I was making. Yet those proposals were designed to protect editors from the very kind of excesses that Proofreader77 has now found himself at the brunt of. Proofreader77 nevertheless has a sense of humour and I have no desire to see anybody blocked indefinitely. I'll repeat my view that all serious editors will eventually mend their ways if they are subjected to enough 3 month blocks. It's quite simple. If genuine disruption occurs, then block them. Begin with short blocks and build up to 3 months. Three months is a long time. If they continue the offending behaviour when they come back after 3 months, then block them for 3 months again. They will soon tire of it. Could it be any more simple than that? There is no need for all these complex restrictions and probations, and topic bans. There is too much time wasted on it. And why are we witnessing so many cases of short blocks being suddenly bumped up to indefinite? It's a bit like watching traffic fines being bumped up to the noose because the accused looked at the magistrate the wrong way. I'm just glad however that Proofreader77 won't be able to spam me out on this occasion, at least until tomorrow anyway. David Tombe (talk) 07:22, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

You've never had to deal with a real problem editor, have you? Repeated 3 month blocks just means we'll be blocking certain people every three months ad infinitum. An indef block is actually less of a penalty, as they can come back whenever they can demonstrate they're no longer going to be disruptive. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:28, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be making out here that pushing the block button is a major effort. Yes, I've had problems with Proofreader77, but I believe that remedial measures need to be kept proportionate. There is something seriously wrong when somebody gets blocked for 48 hours, and as soon as he squeaks, somebody else piles in and bumps it up to indefinite. Why? Why this excessive action? If they thought that 48 hours wasn't long enough, then why not 72 hours or a week, or even three months? Why go storming straight in for indefinite? It strikes me as being a case of kicking somebody when they are down. Look at me everybody, nobody can kick harder than I can. I've no objection to having a wikipedia jester as such. It adds a bit of humour to the project, yet at the same time such a jester needs to be strictly regulated. And I don't agree with your assessment that you'll necessarily be repeating the blocks every 3 months. Even an encyclopaedia jester will soon tire of having his jokes interrupted for 3 month periods at a time, and they will quickly learn how to be humorous in a less annoying way. And a block of any length can be appealed, so I don't follow your logic that an indefinite block is less of a penalty than a three month block. David Tombe (talk) 16:42, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Respectfully I disagree. In many cases an increasingly lengthy approach is sensible. I think this editor may need some exceptional intervention but do note they have been blocked a few times lately. Having been frustrated by their winding up the talkpage on a BLP for months to frustrate any change, no matter how insignificant is just my experience. It was a colossal waste of energy driving away the very editors we want to be using a talkpage to make significant improvements, their involvement wholly frustrated and in some cases rolled back improvements. Court jesters, fine we can use a few. Humour? Great, no problems there. But disruption remains disruptive and whatever their goals here they seem rather incapable of adhering to community and collegial approaches to editing. We really don't want to encourage intellectualized battlegrounding. Just because other editors give up in frustration doesn't mean the oppressive side's view is correct. This has been played out many times going back almost a year if not longer. If this is a social experiment of theirs put a fork in it and call it a day. Having said all that it seems their block was reinstated to just the original 48 hours. If they don't show a remarkable about face to working with other editors then editing restriction and topic bans are in order. Roman Polanski remains a BLP mess but I won't bother until Proofreader77 is off that article altogether. Generally blocks should increase incrementally, but as in this case several blocks that likely should have occurred didn't. I've seen this before where the right people didn't bring an editor's behaviours to wider attention in the right way. And ... the situation grinds until it hits a breaking point and then looks like it's an over-reaction. The initial case could have/should have been presented in context of months and volume of disruption - "what is the best way forward". It wasn't so here we are to pick up the pieces and mop the mess. Maybe Proofreader77 can explain where they're coming from and how they will bring their eccentricities in line with community standards without the spin, poetry, etc. -- Banjeboi 17:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I was only pointing out the need for proportionate action. As regards the case of Proofreader77, my opinion is that you weren't hard enough on him when you needed to be, and then suddenly you went over the top. Recently an editor came to my talk page regarding problems with Proofreader77. He had raised the issue on a noticeboard, and if I recall correctly, the admins turned the tables right around on him, ultimately leading to a block, and Proofreader77 got off scot-free, no doubt with a smile on his face. Turning the tables on the person complaining seems to be a cowardly tactic which is rife on wikipedia. Hence you gave Proofreader77 a licence to continue with his behaviour. And suddenly then you clobbered him hard, and a trail of discord has been left along the way.

What you should have done was listened carefully to the complaints that were being made against Proofreader77 back in January and taken heed. A block for a week or two would have eased the pressure at the Roman Polanski article, while at the same time allowing Proofreader77 a chance to think it all over, knowing that he would be returning again. Had the cycle repeated often enough, I can assure you that he would have tired of it unless his sole objective was to become the first wikipedia editor to get a block record which carries on to a second page.

But to let him off scot-free and encourage him, and then to block him for 48 hours when he's not expecting it, and to suddenly bump it up to indefinite because of some talk page edits serves no purpose other than to wind him up. Why should his talk page edits have been a problem to anybody? I don't habitually look at Proofreader77's talk page and if nobody else did either then they wouldn't see anything that they didn't like.

Apply blocks proportionately and fairly when they are required, and there will be alot less discord on wikipedia. David Tombe (talk) 18:08, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I hear you and generally agree however in practice a lot of problems are ignored until they boil over. In Proofreader77's case(s), IMHO, it's never a simple read and it's always WP:TLDR. -- Banjeboi 18:19, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. When a user dances on the boundary between what is permitted & what is not, it can be hard to see whether that is due to simple naivette or careful malice. And Admins who take a firm stand in one instance should always step back & let another Admin, who has fresh eyes & no vested interest handle the next. In this case, however, I'm finding it hard to continue to extend good faith to Proofreader77. -- llywrch (talk) 18:56, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but you must never bang the door totally in someone's face, and that is what an indefinite block does. That's how you wind people up. If he really is being big trouble, and has been so for a long time, then block him for 3 months. If he starts again as soon as the 3 months is up, then block him for another 3 months. I assure you that he will get the message, and although he may be angry at the lengthy blocks, he will not have had the ultimate insult of having had the door shut completely in his face, and he will know that he will ultimately be allowed another chance when the period expires. Even Jimbo Wales himself has expressed the opinion that any punitive action should not exceed one year. I personally think that 3 months at a time is adequate, but there are still many admins and arbitrators who are dishing out indefinite sanctions. This needs to be stopped. Ironically, it was on this very issue that Proofreader77 spammed me out when I raised it on Jimbo's talk page in December. All Jimbo needs to do is set the software that blocks can't exceed a certain maximum length of time. That will remove alot of discord and alot of indulgence. A week long block in January would have sufficed, but instead they preferred to wind up Tombaker321, no doubt leaving him totally sour about the project. David Tombe (talk) 19:17, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Can you please indent your replies so we know who you're talking to?— Dædαlus ^Contribs 21:02, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

You "assure" us he'll get the message, huh? Forgive me for not being so naive. Indef is not this "ultimate insult" you claim it to be, and your indefinite rolling blocks are useless. Personally, I think we shouldn't have blocks that automatically release after 48 hours. If we're blocking someone for more than two days, something is wrong. An indef says, "we'll let you edit once you demonstrate an understanding of what a collaborative editing environment is." That's it. If you find that insulting, I'm not sure what to tell you. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:30, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Tweaked sanction proposal

After tweaking Deadalus' proposal:

1. Any user who appears to be acting in such a manner as to circumvent the effect and/or spirit of the following restrictions may be sanctioned appropriately at the acting admin's discretion.
2. Proofreader77 is prohibited from
   1. asking anyone (on or off wiki) to act in a manner that would circumvent the effect and spirit of the following restrictions;
   2. threatening or alerting any user of "pending" or "potential" arbcom cases, except where notifying an user of a case that has already been filed.
   3. using his user page and user talk page for the purpose of diff gathering. Diff gathering, if any, may only take place on a subpage in Proofreader77's user space.
   4. linking such subpages anywhere on-wiki, or making any user aware of the existence of such subpages, on or off wiki.
3. Should the arbcom case in regards to such subpages not be filed within a timely manner, then the page may be subject to deletion.
4. Should any of these restrictions be violated, then Proofreader77 may be blocked by an uninvolved administrator, for up to one month in the event of repeated violations. After 3 blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one year.
5. Administrators are not permitted to reverse or modify actions taken under this set of restrictions without explicit authorisation to do so by the acting administrator, or a clear community consensus to do so. Taking action under this set of restrictions shall not constitute involvement for the purpose of future such actions.

I think that sums it up. Ncmvocalist (talk) 01:26, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Number 4 is too bureaucratic (it could be completely eliminated), and number 5 is trying to take an opinion on the Gwen Gale/Tan issue and make a rule about it. Tan | 39 03:42, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I certainly didn't have any "Gwen Gale/Tan" issue in mind when tweaking this; nor have I ever wanted to add unnecessary bureaucracy where it's unrequired. This is simply a standard way many editing restrictions listed at WP:RESTRICT have been enacted, be it by ArbCom or the community. It's just a clear definition of what each thing means for the purposes of this restriction so admins are firmly acting within certain limits, yet are also given a broad level of discretion - leaving the definitions open to general site norms would simply mean more of the time and space taken to debate what means what as there is no set definition; I think one of the more useful points of having a restriction is to reduce the unnecessary time and space that would otherwise be taken. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:21, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support I don't think I really need to explain myself here. I have already done so several times above.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 21:03, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Motion to end this

Given the latest developments [362], he was indef blocked [363] by User:Future Perfect at Sunrise. Pcap ping 07:45, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I think this may be wise as long as action over there actually happens which we cannot force. Is there a means to track this to ensure it is sussed out there and if not addressed here? -- Banjeboi 07:45, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

He was blocked by an admin, not by ArbCom. Pcap ping 07:54, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes but the issue is there right now and Proofreader77, IMHO, shouldn't have to defend themselves on two fronts when we have an elected body of generally dispassionate editors at Arbcom looking into the issues. My only concern is that if they don't take action it is revisited here to address the concerns raised. 07:59, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

The community is sorting this out here so there is no good reason to close this off, particularly when ArbCom have pretty much declined the case. The above sanction proposal is for enacting, should Proofreader77 be unblocked again. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:10, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, I think then that the above needs to be severely tweaked to take on board prior concerns not just the no legal threats parts. -- Banjeboi 08:15, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd be more than happy to continue tweaking with the community, though I'd need a concise list of the specific concerns that have not been addressed. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:28, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I think the editing restrictions from last year remain relevant and some additional points may be useful here in one form or another. Not sure how all can work or - likely - simplyfying so everyone can easily digest these:

A. You are to follow the spirit of not Wikipedia:Wikilawyering, specifically admonishing the absence or encouraging formal proceedures, using legal language needlessly and conducting editing as if Wikipedia were a courtroom.
B. In the spirit of WP:Talk - "The prime values of the talk page are communication, courtesy and consideration." - talkpage posts are to remain clear, unambiguous and easily understood by all editors. Talkpage contributions should be no longer than 1000 bytes (or 100 words, whichever is easier to gauge/enforce) and no more than 5 contributions per day to any one talk page except your own userspace. Any editor may use {{collapse}} or alikened templates to redact the breaches.
C. You are not allowed to use non-community standardized formatting anywhere but in your own userspace. Boke was an example of this which made normal editing nearly impossible. Poetry, specifically meta-discussions on other users seems antagonistic and unhelpful. Do this off-Wikipedia if it must be done at all.
D. If you seek and successfully obtain mentorship for help with evidenced idiosyncratic style and make meaningful progress improving your communication skills, these restrictions may be lifted by a consensus of editors.

I think that covers the areas I've seen. I'd like to ensure that the end product is easy understood by us now as well as the next folks who come new to the situation. -- Banjeboi 10:03, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

This indefr block is as good as the last fucked up one. Who the fuck cares if Proof wirtes in Poetry. What policy did he violate by posting a idosyncratic post at arbcom. SHOULD HE HAVE GROVELED MORE? That's sure what it looks like from this end, indef blocked because he actually followed through and posted on the Board. Make up you fucking minds, first you say he shouild and when he does you indef him again. I wish to hell people, meaning blocking admin start laying off the block button for frivolous reasons. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 17:06, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Writing in poetry is, essentially, giving the middle finger to the community. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

So is borderline stupidity but it is tolerated in Mass Force here. This is a personal dislike not a detriment to wiki. 19:08, 17 February 2010 (UTC) comment posted by User:Hell in a Bucket

It depends on whether the "stupidity" is willful or not -- and even if it isn't, I'm in favor of considering serial incompetence to be disruptive. As for the current case: writing in poetry cannot be considered as anything but a willful act, a deliberate slap in the face. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:18, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Writing in poetry is one thing, however, writing in poetry to specifically insult other editors isn't allowed.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 21:06, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

It's more than that. If you occasionally write a poem in a light-hearted and friendly exchange with another editor, or use it to defuse tension, that's one thing. If you write a poem in a situation that calls for a straight-forward explanation, then you're being disruptive, whether or not the poem contains a personal attack, which is a totally seperate transgression. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:06, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Damn, I really hoped he would heed the warnings and turn himself around, I really did. *sigh* Oh well...good block. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 21:20, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to answer HiaB's question, even if it means beating a dead horse. Nobody cares if another Wikipedian writes poetry as part of how she/he communicates with other editors -- in itself. (If you can write readable, or even entertaining, poetry, I welcome you to do so.) But with Proofreader77, the problem has been that she/he fails to respond other people in an understandable way, & her/his sonnets only compound the problem. It's the equivalent of an instance where you ask me why I made such-&-such an edit, & I start talking about the time I met Ward Cunningham. All very nice, you reply, but what about that edit I made, & I continue to talk about Ward, & you rant at me for being unresponsive -- at which point I post a sonnet. What you have is an example of dealing with PR77: she/he appears to have a valid point, but fails -- almost stubbornly -- to engage other users in a productive -- or even useful -- manner. At this point, I feel the best that can be said about this person is that PR77 suffers from Asperger's Syndrome; at worst, we have a troublemaker. If you disagree with my opinion, feel free to offer to mentor Proofreader77; but I think your time & energy would be better spent on anything else. -- llywrch (talk) 20:34, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Everything else aside, I find it hard to believe anyone could honestly argue Proofreader to be an asset to the aim of building an encyclopedia. There's no other way to see it – the vast majority of his energy here is spent engaging in abstruse rhetorical experiments on talk pages that, oddly, prevent any actual communication from taking place. He's obviously heard that this is a problem, but won't (or can't) address it.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:25, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

All that aside, I would rather keep this open in the event that he is unblocked, in regards to the proposed restrictions above.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 21:09, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I support the block (as I did previously) and strongly enjoin other admins to not unblock unilaterally. The problem some people had with Gwen Gale's previous unblock (though an equal number supported it) was that it did not provide a significant rationale, and was essentially overturning the action of another administrator who had only blocked for 48 hours. Now that original blocking admin User:Future Perfect at Sunrise, has blocked indefinitely and provided a clear rationale. This action is fully within an administrator's purview and should not be reversed lightly. Of course if there is a strong consensus against it, or if the Arbs want to reverse it and have a case (which seems unlikely) that would be different, but this is not the kind of block where another admin can waltz by and say "I don't like that, unblocking." If there are not significant objections in the near future this thread should indeed be closed. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:19, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

• Having a fairly large reservoir of good will towards PR77, I've taken the time to look thru the initial dustup with Rod, the AN thread, the ANI thread, and the RFAR. I believe, as usual in cases like this, that this is something that spiraled out of control, and that the fault for that does not lie with any one side alone. PR77 could have handled this better, but several people need to rethink their definitions of "disruption" and "personal attacks". I do not believe any of PR77's comments are "mean"; and I take his description of what happened in good faith: he tried to be lighthearted, was slapped in the face for it, and things went downhill from there.

  It bothers me that some of the same people who find his sonnets to be disruptive to communication seem to believe that the block button is somehow not disruptive to (and, indeed, is a satisfactory replacement for) communication. I find it annoying that he has been insulted by several people, but he is blocked for mocking someone. I find it annoying that we are going to block someone for "disruption" when what we really mean is "we find him sufficiently not like us".

  So, in spite of the tide being against this, I would propose and ublock, contingent on:

  • An assurance that based on feedback from the community, PR77 limit his poetry to places he knows it will be appreciated (my talk page, for instance), or to pages in his user space. He can link to these if he wishes to put his poetry "on the record"; people can choose to ignore it or read it, as they wish.
  • There is no limitation of PR77's ability to file an ArbCom case; reciprocally, PR77 stops talking about this potential ArbCom case until it actually happens.
  • PR77 and Rod endeavor not to cross paths for a while. Not as part of some formal interaction ban, but as a gentleman's agreement.
  • PR77 is free to assemble diffs that he plans to use in an ArbCom case on his talk page, or on a subpage, with no interference. If no case is forthcoming in 2-3 weeks, he takes it off-wiki and the page is deleted.
  • The sanction proposal above be rejected.
  • A little more good faith be extended to PR77; I see a lot of assumptions of his motivations above that do not jive with my own interactions with him.

--Floquenbeam (talk) 23:16, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd maybe be more inclined to support unblocking if you or some other admin were essentially willing to take personal responsibility for Proofreader77's editing going forward. That is to say that you would handle any future problems/complaints that come up, discuss issues with Proofreader as they arise and get that editor to stop certain behavior if it's problematic, and if necessary reblock in the long run. I say this because your comment seems to suggest that you believe Proofreader77 has something to contribute to the project (beyond original poetry, which even if valued by some is not really what we're looking for in terms of contributions). I scanned through the last 2,000 or so edits going back a couple of months, and aside from some minor reversion on articles Proofreader seems to be here mainly to make comments that he or she finds amusing and generally stir up drama (in both the Wikipedia and literary senses). I view editors like that as a severe drain on community resources (witness this thread, another one on AN, and a prospective ArbCom case) and think we need to be better about showing them the door when it seems clear they are not really here to help us write an encyclopedia. However I'm also a huge believer in WP:AGF and appreciate that you have a larger well of that with respect to Proofreader than I do. I think unblocking risks (indeed probably guarantees) further disruption, but if you're willing to essentially take a measure of responsibility for that then maybe it's okay. That's not necessarily a fair deal to you and really you should only be responsible for yourself, but I think it's going to take something like that to get Proofreader unblocked, because many of us (including me) have no interest in dealing with this problem again in the future were the indef block to be lifted. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:24, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

PR77 is an adult, he doesn't need me to "take responsibility" for his edits. He does need a few more people admins! to stop calling him "stupid", or infer mental problems, or tell him to "fuck off", or have the most involved admin there is block him from editing his own talk page with not a peep from anyone, or stop assuming you know his motives, but it appears he isn't going to get that right now. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:52, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you that Rod should not have locked out talk page access and have told him so. Most people supporting the block(s) now or previously have not made comments like the ones you cite above, and the fact that some others are does not invalidate the concerns here. I stand by my original point though—many editors feel Proofreader77 has already been quite disruptive enough up to this point and are not going to be amenable to an unblock, based primarily on the assumption that further disruption would be the inevitable result. You're not convincing me that won't happen, and you're also not offering any evidence that Proofreader77 is here to contribute positively. I believe you're the third or fourth person I've asked (quite seriously) to point to good contributions of late, and so far no one has responded, which to me is telling. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:15, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

PR77's constructive edits? Easy: First, look at his contribs, filtered for article and article talk space. Constructive. He seems quite active at Roman Polanski, and although to be honest I haven't looked into that mess too closely, it appears he's trying to protect a BLP. In addition, if you look at the content of his posts in usertalk and project space, rather than the methods he uses to post them, 50% are helpful/beneficial, 25% are just friendly, and 25% are indecipherable (I made those numbers up, but they're probably close). But indecipherable is not disruption. He's no angel, but he's not a troll. And his much derided and mocked donation announcement, although certainly not a get out of jail free card for disruption, is evidence that he supports the project (since his motivations are being called into question).

If he's been less productive in your eyes lately, that probably has something to do with being blocked three times for what he considers unfair, bullying reasons (I don't go quite that far, but I do find most of them dubious). You'd likely be pissed off too. I certainly wish he'd handled this differently, and as I say above, there are some changes he could make that would be beneficial, but IMHO he is not a disruption, and is not harassing people, no matter how often people that don't like him fling those words around. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:04, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

With due respect the only reason I'm aware of this editor is the near roadblock they have created at the Roman Polanski article driving away editors who do seem to want to find the middle ground between the polarizing Polanski sides - that he raped a child vs. context. Arguably it's a sensitive area but we have guidelines on content that can lead and instead it's been one wikilawerish scuffle after the next and the article continues to violate BLP IMHO. We specifically work to ensure NPOV but unfortunately this article has some real issues and IMHO, PR77 has been the main source impeding progress. There may be another SPA over there but they would quickly get sorted if PR77 was pulled from the situation. No comment if they make constructive efforts in other areas, I haven't looked so wouldn't know. -- Banjeboi 23:49, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

To Floquenbeam: It's entirely possible that the the fault lies on both sides here, & that blocking/banning someone might not be the best solution. (Most of the tools we have to deal with problem editors are extremely limited in their effects -- even the block button, which can be evaded quite easily.) The problem is that, due to how Wikipedia works, you can't make anyone on Wikipedia do what you want them to do. Maybe occasionally in the short term, but in the long term people will work on the articles they want to work on, think the way they want to think, & behave the way they want to behave. Effective Wikipedians not only want to build an encyclopedia, but they want to work well with others. (And if they can't -- well, there are plenty of articles that need work where they can go & effectively be left alone. Or settle for wikignoming.) And if someone points to you or me that there is a problem with our behavior, & they do not explain it clearly enough that you or I understand, then if we are willing to work well with others then we need to get a clarification about the problem. In ProofReader77's case, numerous people have tried to explain to her/him the problem (including me), but she/he doesn't want to understand what it is & fix it. In some cases, we might be able to find a way to handle this, but in this case the only thing we can do now is to tell ProofReader77 that it's time for her/him to find something else to do than volunteer labor to Wikipedia with an indefinite ban. -- llywrch (talk) 17:46, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Well yes, I understand the general theory about why we sometimes have to block people; I just don't think the reasons we're giving for blocking are reasonable in this case. As an alternative to blocking, we could just ignore minor idiosyncrasies, because he's helping in other ways, and the problem is not that large. We make that decision all the time. Once you have a block log, all your behavior after the block is seen thru the lens of "problematic user" (or, if we assume good faith, "probably problematic user"). I believe much of PR77's recent issues stem from the fact that he does not feel the first block was reasonable or fair, and that it led to a second unreasonable unfair block, which made it easier to impose a third block, etc. Evidently I am in the minority of people commenting here, but I do not think PR77 is problematic; indeed, as I've said, I think the behavior of several people attacking him are more problematic; in the long term, a culture of bullying (imperfect word, but better than "aggressively imposing our non-vital desires on others") is going to drive away more people than a guy who writes more poetry, and takes people less seriously, than they think he should. Indeed, I think that's at the heart of the current "admins vs. non-admins" meme that seems so common these days. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:04, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I strongly support the indef block. We routinely go out of our way to accommodate stupid editors so long as we are convinced they are stupid in good faith. Since this a project to write an encyclopedia, not an education project, that approach is actually not OK and will have to be revisited sooner or later. Our current way of dealing with stupidity is definitely not an excuse for dealing with other forms of disruption through incompetence in the same inefficient way.

We shouldn't have to care whether PR's unique pseudo-communication style is caused by some form of autism, by a psychosis, by having been raised in a community where everybody speaks like that, or whether it is just plain trolling. (In fact, it's not even appropriate to speculate too much about the precise reason.) It is obvious that he will never contribute to building the encyclopedia, and his attempts to do so are highly disruptive. Per WP:COMPETENCE that's enough for an indef block.

I support closing this discussion, since it is very unlikely that we will get a consensus for reverting this valid block. Hans Adler 00:34, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I also support the indef block and closing this discussion. After some off-topic comments on Jimbo's talk page, Proofreader77 accidentally got up the nose of an editor who was stressed at the time. Proofreader77's follow-ups since then have been particularly unhelpful and not all connected with the encyclopedia. Johnuniq (talk) 01:43, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Floquenbeam's suggested course of action is kind-hearted, but misplaced. Proofreader77 has had a considerable amount of good faith extended by the community, and it has not been conducive to changing their behavior. I do not think the community needs to go to great lengths to tolerate an individual who refuses or is unable to meet the community even half-way, especially when the editor's contributions to Talk pages and the Wikipedia domain unnumber their article edits, and when their primary contribution there is 181 edits to an obscure disambiguation page.[364] I don't see this as a person whose worth to the project is sufficient to outweigh the problems they cause. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:41, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I am getting the impression that Floquenbeam's support for Proofreader77 is not so much based on kind-heartedness but on the naive assumption that because Rodhullandemu is wrong, Proofreader77 must be right. [365] Hans Adler 04:32, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually the arguement is valid. I do not hold malice for Rod or Gwen......But their actions were innapropriate and examplifies a problem. The sad fa ct is I've had my problems with Proof that ultimately landed his first block. Since then it sure semed to be personal and everyone was ganging up on him. I'm not cool with that. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 18:26, 18 February 2010 (UTC)