Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

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

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

---

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

Start a new discussion

Harassment Charge By Bishonen Against Ferrylodge

I had not intended to visit ANI prior to pursuing dispute resolution, but now think it might be a good idea, and I look forward to any advice people can offer here, prior to dispute resolution.

I was recently blocked by Bishonen (an administrator), after she accused me of harassment and gave me a block warning.[1] [2] Allegedly, I was harassing another administrator, KillerChihuahua ("KC"). The incident I am reporting here is action by Bishonen, and not action by KillerChihuahua; KillerChihuahua did not make the accusation of harassment, and did not give me a block warning.

The unblock request, which is here, was denied not because of harassment, but rather "for the purpose of disengaging you from your dispute with KillerChihuaua." I disagreed with that unblock decision (because I had already promised to disengage from KillerChihuahua before the block), but this ANI incident report is not about the block or the unblock request. This incident report is mainly about Bishonen's preceding accusation of harassment. I deny the harassment accusation, and want it resolved. Unfortunately, the background is a bit complicated, and I will try to be as brief as possible.

Here's what happened, pretty much chronologically, and with as little excruciating detail as possible. This whole controversy began regarding an organization called the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists ("RCOG"). On May 23, an editor who I do not know (and never communicated with) wrote in Wikipedia's fetal pain article that RCOG is "pro-choice".[3] Another editor (not I) installed a "citation needed" tag.[4] I then did some research and provided a citation, since that was the only "citation needed" tag in the whole article (an article to which I had contributed substantially).[5] KC then reverted, saying in the edit summary: "Please provide a source that this government institution is 'pro-choice' - abortion is legal in the UK, and that the official govt. chartered college are to make that safe is NOT pro choice."[6] Also in the discussion thread at fetal pain, KC said:

“ The way you have it phrased, they are a "pro-choice group" - they're not. You've found a source which shows their sympathies, or professional view, or whatever, is not anti-abortion. It may even establish their position as pro-choice, I'm not sure - I'll have to think that one over. But the RCOG is not a pro-choice group.[7] ”

So, KC distinguished a "pro-choice group" from a group that has a "pro-choice position" on a particular issue. I researched some more about RCOG (see above where KC said "please provide a source") and I learned that RCOG is not a government institution, that most of their members live outside the UK, that its governing documents do not specifically limit its activities, that many of its members do not have medical degrees, et cetera. So, I concluded that the best place to deal with all of this would be at the article on the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists.

At that RCOG article, I added quite a bit of info unrelated to abortion.[8] [9] [10] Plus, I wrote: "RCOG takes a pro-choice position that abortion 'is an essential part of women's healthcare services and adequate investment and workforce is essential.'" This was reverted a couple times by another editor (not KC), without any discussion at the talk page. Ultimately, I concluded that I needed to quote an even more unambiguous expression of pro-choice sentiment from RCOG, in order to satisfy everyone that RCOG has in fact taken a pro-choice position on an issue.

So, I edited the RCOG article to say: "In the United Kingdom, RCOG takes a pro-choice position against 'reduction in the time limits for abortion.'"[11] Then things started getting nasty (or nastier). KC showed up at the RCOG article, reverted this edit, and accused me of being disruptive, et cetera.[12] I left it reverted. I figured that this was becoming interpersonal, so the place to take this kind of thing is to the user's talk page. So I went to KC's talk page, where I asked her to assume good faith.[13] Instead I got further accusations: edit warring and bad faith.[14]

Ultimately, I said to KC: "Show me once other than here where I edited any Wikipedia article to characterize a position against reduction of abortion time limits as a 'pro-choice position.'"[15] KC replied that "the contested edit is characterizing RCOG as 'pro-choice'", and she cited a bunch of diffs.[16] And she said: "If I have to dig around and line up diffs of your disruptive editing again, I'm not going to bother to do it to satisfy your demands." But that was obviously incorrect, because KC had already emphasized (see blockquote above) that saying RCOG is a "pro-choice group" is entirely different from saying that it takes a "pro-choice" position on a particular issue. The edit we were arguing about (i.e. a sentence saying that RCOG opposes reduction in the time limits for abortion) was a position about a particular issue, and indeed a political issue about what the governing laws should be. So I quoted the blockquote above back to KC, and I said as clearly as I know how: "You yourself said yesterday (and I agreed) that there is a difference between characterizing RCOG as a pro-choice group, and characterizing a particular position of RCOG as pro-choice."[17] I also gave her some of her own medicine: "I hope I will not have to waste my time dealing with your disruptive editing again," and my edit summary said "let us not engage in smear jobs."

At this point, Bishonen jumped in.[18] KC had never asked me to leave, much less to tone down what I was saying. But Bishonen says at KC's talk page: "That's enough of that. Ferrylodge, you're done posting on this page. Do it again and you'll face a block for harassment." Needless to say, I was surprised. I felt that I was being harassed by KC. I've never been charged with "harassment" before. I felt like this was all a big trap (and it still seems to have been a trap); after all, KC had told me that being a pro-choice group is different from taking a pro-choice position, and I then edited accordingly, only to be accused of edit-warring, disruption, and bad faith for making the very distinction that KC had explicitly urged. After the harassment accusation, I left a message at Bishonen's talk page saying I thought that KC was the one being malicious here.[19]

So those are the basic facts. I will not describe here the subsequent block; that block was upheld on other grounds which I find very unpersuausive, but that is a somewhat separate matter from the harassment accusation. I very much believe that I was not harassing anyone, and therefore the harassment accusation was false. Do you agree or disagree? What sort of dispute resolution would you recommend? Bishonen has already rejected mediation.[20] I feel very strongly that the harassment allegation was unfounded.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ferrylodge (talk • contribs)

Some kind of mediation is needed. In the UK the term "pro choice" is loaded, and is not appropriate for an encyclopedic entry about RCOG, which is a medical body. You've said lots of stuff about RCOG which doesn't agree with their webpage. One example would be about membership -- they've been very clear about who can be a member, and what type of member they can be, and what the requirments for that type of membership are. The term "Pro choice" does nothing to add any useful content to the article. Why is it there? It's obvious that a group of obgyns will include many people who do not disagree with abortion. Allow the term "pro choice" to be taken out, find a suitable alternative, and let people make up their own minds. Dan Beale 12:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

In response to this specific point, I'd agree with that - "pro choice" is an american term and is biased towards american thinking and it's use would indicated an unbalanced articel as it tries to impose an americian context on external agencies, social and political systems such as the RCOG. --Fredrick day 12:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Dan, I appreciate your comment, but this Incident Report is not about whether the word "pro-choice" should be taken out or not. You say,"Allow the term 'pro choice' to be taken out." It already has been taken out. Whether it should be reinserted is a different question. The question here is: is Bishonen correct that I harassed KC?Ferrylodge 12:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Folks, I appreciate the info about the use of the term "pro-choice" in England, I really do. But no one made that point during the controversy at issue. You may be right, and I would be interested in looking into the different usages of the word "pro-choice" in the UK versus the US, but that is just not relevant to whether I harassed KC. And, Dan, every fact I stated about RCOG was fully cited by references and footnotes at the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists article; if you think there are mistakes in the RCOG article, please point them out at the RCOG article. Thanks.Ferrylodge 12:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion the accusation of "harassment" is correct. You posted controversial material on a page against concensus, you then travelled to another page to make a similar point, you then posted on a talk page, and then you posted after reading this -"Now I'm done. If I have to dig around and line up diffs of your disruptive editing again, I'm not going to bother to do it to satisfy your demands. This is enough for an Rfc right here. KillerChihuahua?!? 01:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC)" message. In my opinion it'd be interesting to see an RfC. Dan Beale 13:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Dan, your edit summary says that you think the harassment was perhaps "mild." I don't think there is such a thing. It's kind of like saying a "genial" case of murder. If it weren't a very serious charge, I wouldn't be here discussing it.

Anyway, I don't think you've correctly described what happened. I added a LOT of info about RCOG at the RCOG article, in addition to info about their abortion stance. The diffs are in my initial post above. A fetal pain article was not the appropriate place to get into such detail about RCOG. Moreover, when I was at the fetal pain article and decided to get the RCOG article involved, I repeatedly said so in the fetal pain discussion.[21] [22]

Instead of focusing on various other edits, please focus on the edit that prompted this whole thing. This edit was not against consensus, because this edit had never before been made at any article; there were not even any comments at the RCOG talk page when I made this edit to the RCOG article.

Anyway, regarding an RfC, the guidelines say "at least two editors must have contacted the user on their talk page...." I am only one user. Therefore an RfC does not seem to be possible, unless someone volunteers to join me. I don't need a second person complaining, I just need a second person to endorse the complaint; i.e. to agree that it has merit, and also to contact Bishonen and try to resolve the issue. There's no formal requirement to do an RFC before an RFAR, but I would like to do an RfC, even though this whole thing is extremely time-consuming and costly for me.Ferrylodge 13:33, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, let's have some definitions. From Wikipedia:Harassment, harassment is defined as "Stopping other editors from enjoying Wikipedia by making threats, nitpicking good-faith edits to different articles, repeated personal attacks or posting personal information." Is the second part of that the problem here? No views as yet either way, I'm just providing the definition of what is not allowed. Moreschi ^Talk 12:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Moreschi. The second diff in my initial post here indicates that Bishonen was particularly accusing me of "user space harassment." Here's the definition, in case it might be helpful:

“ Placing numerous false or questionable 'warnings' on a user's talk page, restoring such comments after a user has removed them, placing 'suspected sockpuppet' and similar tags on the user page of active contributors, and otherwise trying to display material the user may find annoying or embarrassing in their user space is a common form of harassment.

A user page is for the person to provide some general information about themself and a user talk page is to facilitate communication. Neither is intended as a 'wall of shame' and should not be used to display supposed problems with the user unless the account has been blocked as a result of those issues. Any sort of content which truly needs to be displayed, or removed, should be immediately brought to the attention of admins rather than edit warring to enforce your views on the content of someone else's user space.

”

Incidentally, I also quoted this definition in my unblock request.Ferrylodge 13:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Would someone please help me with an RfC? The guidelines say "at least two editors must have contacted the user on their talk page...." I am only one user. I don't need a second person complaining, I just need a second person to agree that the RfC has merit, and also to contact Bishonen and try to resolve the issue. There's no formal requirement to do an RFC before an RFAR, but I would like to do an RfC.Ferrylodge 14:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: Ferrylodge is stating his block was unfair, as he'd only posted one "I'm done" message after being told to cease posting on my talk page. He is leaving out a few details. After I said "I'm done", Ferrylodge posted twice morestill arguing the RCOG edit and accusing me of disruptive editing. Bishonen posted her "that's enough" message[23], then Ferrylodge posted "I most certainly am done here"[24], then linked it to another post he'd made on Bishonen's page, where he stated "You have spared me the agony of dealing further with her blatantly false and malicious accusations of disruption, bad faith, and edit warring". I removed that, as it constituted a back-door method of getting one last attack against me on my talk page, and he replaced the content, expanding slightly, but not the link. This constitutes edit warring on my talk page, to the tune of five edits, including a link to an attack and reverting me on my talk page, after being told the conversation was over. Oddly enough, he has mistaken five for once before, see my talk page for details (see the part of the section User talk:KillerChihuahua#Please Assume Good Faith concerning the diffs he'd asked for.) KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I would appreciate if KillerChihuahua would please use quotes instead of misdescribing what she thinks I stated. I never said that I only posted one "I'm done" message after being told to cease posting on your talk page, KC. So, please don’t claim otherwise. What you say is false.

My initial post above focuses on what happened up until the harassment charge and block warning. For details about what happened after the harassment charge and block warning, people can see my unblock request, to which I linked in my initial post above. The issue here is whether the harassment accusation (accompanying the block warning) was appropriate, not whether the block was appropriate (I don’t think it was, but that matter is distinctly dealt with in my unblock request).

I do not think it would be helpful to get into an argument here about what I did or did not do after the harassment accusation that accompanied the block warning. Things are complicated enough already. Suffice it to say that I believe a person charged with harassment should be entitled to at least make a brief and polite denial of the charge, at the place the charge was made. That is why the following statement by me occurs at KC's talk page after the harassment accusation that accompanied the block warning: "I am glad to be done posting on this page, but, for the record, I dispute any suggestion of harassment. Please do not delete this comment." As I have said elsewhere, I am grateful to KC for not deleting this denial of the harassment charge. And yes, KC, I think your behavior toward me was malicious; I said so when the harassment accusation was made, I said so in my unblock request, I said so in my initial post above, and I'm saying so again now. Saying so is the plain truth, and is not harassment.Ferrylodge 14:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I stand corrected: you claimed to have made two posts, not one, according to your talk page: "I posted a brief goodbye which was deleted, and an hour later I posted the following at KC's talk page: "I am glad to be done posting on this page, but, for the record, I dispute any suggestion of harassment. Please do not delete this comment" (emphasis added). This was brief, polite, and cooperative. However, Bishonen tells me that this denial was "the last straw" that caused her to block me.". You left out that you'd already made two more posts after I had said I was done, and the edit in which you linked to your post on Bishonen's page - which she linked to as "the last straw", not your third edit after Bishonen's warning as you state on your talk page. Its still five edits, not two, and you left out, not only here but so far as I can tell, everywhere you've protested this block, the link you made to your post on Bishonen's talk page which was the reason Bishonen clearly linked to in her block statement to you. And if the issue is Bishonen's block, which you have stated is the case (unless I am somehow misunderstanding you) then what happened after the warning is highly germane. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

KC, you are misdescribing what I said, yet again. This statement of yours is simply false: "You left out that you'd already made two more posts after I had said I was done." When you said "I'm done," you in no way suggested that I should not respond, and I immediately responded twice. The bulk of my two responses to your "I'm done" remark is quoted in my initial post above, as well as in my unblock request: "You yourself said yesterday (and I agreed) that there is a difference between characterizing RCOG as a pro-choice group, and characterizing a particular position of RCOG as pro-choice."

I have to work at my job until the end of the day, and therefore must take a break.Ferrylodge 16:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

This is stupid. Ferrylodge was harassing KillerChihuahua. Ferrylodge is told to stop. Ferrylodge does not. Bishonen blocks. Why are we talking about this? End of story. Can't we find better things to cry about, like GNAA, or dead babies on wikipedia? ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 15:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Concur with Swatjester. Let's move on and write some articles, shall we?. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I wish that all the vapid people at Wikipedia would be so straightforwardly vapid as swatjester.Ferrylodge 15:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Ferrylodge, give it a break. The more you type, the more any pretext to AGF in your case goes *poof* and the closer you get to being considered a troll. And see WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, and WP:AGF. •Jim62sch• 21:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I see, swatjester can call me a harasser without providing any explanation whatsoever, and imply that I am stupid to boot, but I must be polite and sweet. And you can suggest that I'm a troll, whereas I should be respectful and polite.Ferrylodge 02:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Ferrylodge, please try to read in context without adding your own spin to the words. My exact words, should you have missed them the first time were, "the closer you get to being considered a troll". Think that all the way through. Did I say you were a troll? No. Did I say that you might come to be considered one if you continue on your current path? Yes. Note that this is conditional. It all depends on your actions.

Swatjester is free to state his opinion, based on his no doubt careful reading of the evidence, that you were harrassing KC. I concur with his evaluation. I too am free to state my opinion in this matter.

As for implying that you are "stupid", I don't think Swatjester did that. I think he just tried to explain the issue in as simple a manner as possible so we could move on. Thank you. •Jim62sch• 14:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Jim, please let's not haggle. If I were to say to you, "The closer you get to being a stinking asshole...." that would not be a compliment. And if I were to say to you (without elaboration), "This argument of yours is moronic...." that would not be a compliment either. They would both be insults. Period.Ferrylodge 14:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Putting this in context

This incident is the tip of an iceberg that is six months deep. Ferrylodge has been making tendentious edits throughout abortion-related articles since late Dec. 2006. If you want a full picture of the level of activity, see the the talk page of almost any abortion-related article (for example, Talk:Abortion (archives 26-27), Talk:Late-term abortion, Talk:History of abortion, Talk:Intact dilation and extraction, Talk:Fetal pain), or even the talk pages of some articles which are not inherently controversial and which are not natural extensions of the abortion topic (Talk:Stillbirth, Talk:Fetus, Talk:Pregnancy). Honestly, I don't know what Ferrylodge hopes to accomplish with this, because, frankly, it's beginning to look like the "campaign to drive away productive contributors" described in WP:DE. Whether it was inappropriate for Bishonen to intercede at KillerChihuahua's talk page, the posts Ferrylodge made on KC's page and on Bishonen's page subsequent to the warning were hardly constructive, and served little more than to have the last word after being told not to post there again. There are a thousand things Ferrylodge could have said which might have justified posting again after being requested to stop, if the intent was toward dispute resolution, but confrontational statements like "I most certainly am done here" and "You have spared me the agony of dealing further with her..." aren't among them. This dispute arose when Ferrylodge did not observe consensus at Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, by adding the description "pro-choice" to the article, which had already been objected to by 3 editors at Talk:Fetal pain. I don't really see where Ferrylodge's complaint is coming from in light of this and in light of the history of his involvement in Wikipedia. -Severa (!!!) 16:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Severa, it always muddies the waters to bring in extraneous issues. That has been happening in this thread from the start (e.g. "pro-choice" means something different in the UK than it does in the US). My regard for you is I'm sure as low as yours for me, probably a lot lower. However, it does no good to get into a huge brawl about extraneous issues, without addressing the issues at hand. And you are dishonest and misleading, as usual. When I said those words you quote --- "I most certainly am done here" --- that was shortly after KC had said "I'm done" and Bishonen had said "you're done." And now you're using those words of mine as some kind of evidence against me. This is most insincere of you, as usual. And neither you nor KC, nor Bishonen has EVER addressed the blockquote in my original post above, where KC distinguished between saying a group is pro-choice and saying it takes a pro-choice position on an issue. Never. And doubtless you never will. What a fine bunch you people are.Ferrylodge 16:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Now I really must go for the day.Ferrylodge 16:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

"My regard for you is as low as yours for me, probably a lot lower." Wow. Great way to prove you're a civil and cooperative editor. Next time, you might want to really impress people with your manners, and say, "dear nazi". Anyways, this is veeery simple. If bishonen had posted no warning at all, you might have a point. If she'd blocked you indefinitely, you'd probably have a point. But, when an administrator feels the need to get involved, and tell you, "Look. This is harassment. You're done.", and you follow that by posting, anything... um... no. Sorry, but just accept the block. It was just 24 hours, for the sake of stopping a specific behaviour. And you really might want to just stop for a little while, and look at everything that led up to this, and then see if you really think you were so horribly wronged. Or not. Your decision. Bladestorm 16:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm having more of an issue with his assertion that Severa is "dishonest and misleading, as usual" - excuse me? One, Severa is painstakingly honest and a role model for AGF, and Two, NPA anyone? I'm getting more or less accustomed to having trash heaped on my head, as virtually my entire watchlist is controversial subjects, where I attempt to guide editors to work with each other, work towards and within consensus, follow policies, and remember to comment on the content, not the contributor, so I of course have lots of bad-faith and confrontational editors making wild accusations against me. So far in this thread Ferrylodge has managed to insult Bishonen, Swatjester, myself, and Severa, and that's just today. I'm beginning to think an Rfc might not be a bad idea after all. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict, reply to Ferrylodge's last post) It is completely relevant to consider the RCOG incident from the context of being the most recent example in a long pattern of similar incidents, rather than as being an isolated, first-time occurrence. It's seeing the forest for the forest, and not just its constituent trees. To quote the relevant bit of WP:DE:

"Disruptive editing already violates site policy, yet certain editors have succeeded in disrupting articles and evading disciplinary action for extended periods because their actions remain limited to a small number of pages and they do not commit gross violations of Wikipedia:Civility. Collectively, disruptive editors harm Wikipedia by degrading its reliability as a reference source and by exhausting the patience of productive editors who may quit the project in frustration when a disruptive editor continues with impunity."

I don't understand what you hope to accomplish with the sort of comments you have directed toward Swatjester. If you have a specific concern, please put it forward, but vague accusations like "you are dishonest and misleading, as usual" are only a hair's breadth from being as completely unhelpful as personal attacks ("I wish that all the vapid people at Wikipedia would be so straightforwardly vapid as swatjester"). This is all starting to remind me of Cindery. -Severa (!!!) 16:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

From my brief reading of this thread, I'm becoming increasingly uncomfortable with how it's being handled. If there were personal attacks, then could someone simply post the diffs, and this can be over with? Otherwise, as it stands (and I'm not saying this is the case), it just looks like people are unhappy with Ferrylodge for his/her position in an edit war (which, BTW, doesn't look like disruption to me, at least from what I've seen). If people could simply give the diffs, and tell Ferrrylodge exactly where (s)he went wrong rather than simply stating you made personal attacks, you deserved it, this could be over. In any case, the comment toward Swatjester was uncalled for, though, like I said, Swatjester provided abosolutely no proof, so I can sort of understand why it was made. Guys, provide the diffs, and we can close this dumb thread. Otherwise, it will look like a personal block. The Evil Spartan 20:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

(ri) You're kidding, right? Ferrylodge's personal attacks on this page alone should be sufficient evidence. •Jim62sch• 21:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

There are no diffs because there was no harassment before the harassment charge was made.Ferrylodge 02:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

You realise that that reads as, "there was no harassment before the harassment charge, but after that ..." •Jim62sch• 14:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

What occurred after the harassment charge was complicated. As shown by the response to my unblock request, the person who denied my unblock request also said that I should not have been blocked for the reasons Bishonen gave. As this whole long section shows, this matter is complicated, and I am trying to keep it focussed on what I see as the grossest error: the harassment charge. How can anything that happened later possibly be relevant to whether that harassment charge was a gross error?Ferrylodge 14:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Severa, you say that I've been "tendentious" and "confrontational" and "disruptive". You cited a comment that I made ("I most certainly am done here"), but this was misleading and dishonest of you, because that quoted comment immediately followed the statement "I'm done" by KC, and "You're done" by Bishonen. Can't you see that the example you cite proves that I was merely echoing what had been said to me? Why should you be able to call me "tendentious" and "confrontational" and "disruptive" (and a million other disparaging words you have used for me), but I should never say anthing less than flattering to you? Do you deny that when I said "I most certainly am done here" it was immediately after almost identical statements by KC and Bishonen?

I feel that you are simply trying to distract from the issue here. There was no harassment by me to justify Bishonen's accusation of harassment. No one has cited ANY diff of me harassing KC prior to when Bishonen uttered the word "harassment." No one here at this ANI page has bothered to consider the facts of this edit dispute. You can bring in extraneous accusations if you like, and maybe you have found some Wikipedia guideline to justify trying to bring in extraneous factors, but I know this for certain: there is no Wikipedia guideline to justify ignoring non-extraneous factors.Ferrylodge 02:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Evil Spartan, you obviously didn't take the time to look at Killer Chihuahua's talk page. You should go do that now. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 21:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

When did it become the responsibility of the reader of AN/I to find the relevant examples of misbehavior? Telling us to "do your research" when someone asks for these diffs only makes your case look less persuasive. I'm with Evil Spartan here: you make your point more quickly & more effectively by furnishing diffs than all parties involved exchanging heated words with each other. And if you don't like that opinion, then don't complain when you fail to persuade the rest of us that something bad happened. -- llywrch 22:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Please focus on what this thread is: Ferrylodge started it to see if there was support for an Rfc against Bishonen's block of him (not an exact quote). Many diffs have been provided by several people posting here. The question at hand is not the edit dispute, which Ferrylodge posted a lengthly description of his view of; nor is it Ferrylodge's incivility (which comments about here concern almost exclusively his posts in this very thread, hence, no link necessary). The block was made, and reviewed by at least two administrators and unblock was delcined. Ferrylodge is seeking some kind of redress or acknowledgement that the block was inappropriate. Do you find grounds for this? Do you require diffs for his assertions? KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

No, KC, put yourself in my place. I don't spend an inordinate amount of each day on Wikipedia, but I have been around for a while. I don't like troublemakers, I don't like tendentious editors, & I don't like established editors who decide that they're special & the rules don't apply to them any more. So any time someone claims that they are the victim of one of these three, I'll start to read what they have to say.

However, too many effing times when a charge like this is raised, the discussion disintegrates into the equivalent of a bunch of 5-year-olds whining "he hit me first" -- "no he hit me first". In other words, the good guys are acting just like the bad guys & I can't tell the difference. I might have wanted to get involved, find out who did what & act on it. But like too many other threads in this forum, after a few minutes of reading, I end up wanting to just toss all parties involved into a windowless room, lock the door, & tell them only one person gets to leave the room alive.

I've been involved in a few disputes myself. So I know quite well that only a true saint could keep her/his temper in such a situation, & not start playing dirty because the other side has been. That is why I'm insisting that all parties actually try to fight this temptation, & just give us the diffs. Otherwise if I want to get involved, I have to choose my side based on which person is more familiar to me -- because I'm very much aware that I only have a small slice of time to decide & make a difference. The time I spend untangling a dispute is time I could have spent making edits -- & I'd rather make edits.

Yes, I am being lazy. Yes, this is unfair to everyone who is involved in the dispute. But I'm going to let you in on a secret: most people involved in Wikipedia think like me -- we're here to edit articles. We could care less about how X is being treated unfairly by Y. Why shouldn't we just give them heavy & sharp weapons, lock them both into a room, tell them only one gets to come out alive, & let the rest of us contribute to Wikipedia? If you want me to care, then do the work for me so I understand what the problem is & make me care.

So far I've spent an hour writing a response to you that I could have spent improving articles on Wikipedia -- well, I hope my edits improve them. I happen to know I'm a crappy writer, so it takes me probaly twice or three times as long to write a response that is as intelligible as anyone else. Asking me to defend my opinions steals far more time from my ability to edit than anyone else. If you want me to argue my point -- that people disputing behavior in this forum need to furnish ample facts & not just argue over who hit who first -- I'll argue them. But some articles I could be improving will continue to languish in their present state because I didn't have the time to work on them.

<A very naughty word or phrase>, maybe I ought to simply not care about who is screwing over whom on Wikipedia, trade my Admin bit for a gift certificate on Amazon, & stay in my forgotten corner of Wikipedia where I can edit undisturbed. Some days, I think that would be a better use of my time. -- llywrch 03:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

KC, you say, "The question at hand is not the edit dispute, which Ferrylodge posted a lengthly description of his view of...." It's not surprising to me that you would want people to look the other way, and ignore the description of administrator misconduct that I gave above. You certainly have ignored the blockquote. No one in this thread has addressed the blockquote. That blockquote shows that you, KC, told me one thing, and then when I followed your advice you started hurling accusations which led to a harassment charge. The question at hand most certainly is the edit dispute which led to the harassment allegation. You are doing your best to direct people away from that edit dispute, and quite understandably so, given what the facts show.

The question at hand is whether I harassed you during the edit dispute, i.e. before the harassment accusation was made. Yes, I reacted imperfectly after the harassment accusation, and I even got blocked, but all that happened after the harassment accusation was made. Will you ever address the blockquote in my initial post above? Will anyone? Is there anyone here who has bothered to consider the implications of that blockquote? Or is everyone at Wikipedia too busy to consider details? That's where the devil is, in the details.

The whole matter leading up to the harassment accusation was one long personal attack on me.

Now, I am not being soft-spoken here. I know that. Swatjester calls this whole thing "stupid" and says I'm a harasser without saying why. So I'll call him vapid. It was a vapid comment he made. "I don't understand what you hope to accomplish with the sort of comments you have directed toward Swatjester." What I hope to do is convey my disrespect for people who are not considering, much less addressing, the facts.

I'm sorry this is coming across negatively. But I feel that KC is urging people to ignore my initial post (especially the blockquote), just like she has been consistently doing. I feel like KC, and by extension Bishonen, are just having whatever they did rubberstamped here, without any serious consideration of the edit dispute.Ferrylodge 01:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I guess I am the person who brought up the initial concerns at Fetal pain that lead to the content dispute. I've been following this quietly, and felt like I can try to address this concern of Ferrylodge: the blockquote. I think the most important part of the blockquote is It may even establish their position as pro-choice, I'm not sure - I'll have to think that one over. Note may and I'm not sure - I'll have to think that one over. So KC posted something that MAY have been sympathetic to the content Ferrylodge wanted to include concerning the RCOG. However, KC clearly stated that she needed time to think that one over. Was KC given that time? The comment was made 22:58, 24 May 2007 but the phrase "pro-choice position" which was still under dispute at Talk:Fetal pain was added to Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists at 13:26, 25 May 2007. 24 hours later, this addition was reverted by Severa, and in an edit summary Ferrylodge acknowledged the KC stated that she needed to think things over.

What is clear to me is that KC's biggest concern was that associating the word "Pro-choice" with the RCOG would paint them as some sort of political activist group, when they are a reputable medical organization. KC later concluded that Ferrylodge's rewording did not alleviate these concerns; that saying the RCOG held a pro-choice position was still connoting that they were an activist group. Ferrylodge has tried to paint KC as having flip-flopped on this issue, but I only see consistency. The blockquoted statement says that there MAY be a situation where what Ferrylodge wanted to express would be relevent, but we needed to be careful about how we went about describing it. KC later concluded that Ferrylodge's changes were not careful enough to address the concerns stated (but not quoted by Ferrylodge) directly after the blockquoted text.

I believe that in this content dispute Ferrylodge was a little premature in the editing, and it would have helped to discuss things out further on talk, and perhaps make proposals before editing the article. I also admit that because this conflict dealt with 2 different articles (some perhaps not on the watchlist of those editors involved in the dispute), things were not always cut and dry (I was not involved at RCOG, but I was involved at Fetal pain). I also that KC's assessment that Ferrylodge's 2 reverts were "disruptive" was accurate. Editors should know better than to re-insert a disputed wording right in the middle of a content dispute. Someone doesn't get controversial content into an article by force, you get it in through consensus (well... if it's controversial enough, it won't get in at all). After that, happened, Ferrylodge went to an admin's page (KC) and told her to assume good faith, trying to defend his edit warring as non-disruptive. It is only antagonistic to start off a dialog with an established editor with "Please Assume Good Faith". The fact of the matter is, we had been discussing the "pro-choice" label in regards to the RCOG on the fetal pain talk page. That spilled over to the RCOG page. The content was removed from the fetal pain article while discussion was on going. Then the content was removed from the RCOG article while the discussion was on going, yet Ferrylodge re-inserted it twice, with no editors supporting the changes (yet 3 showing concern over them). Just because Ferrylodge posted a justification for the edit on talk does not give him a free pass to edit war. The proper process would have been to post on talk first, see what other editors felt, and once reached a consensus, then edit the article. Not the other way around. So when KC wrote, in reply to the AGF claim Ferrylodge threw at her on her talk page, edit warring against consensus is disruptive. Inserting OR when multiple editors have informed you this is inappropriate is disruptive. Assuming good faith means there is a question about the editor's intent. I agree 100% with that sentiment.

The discourse went downhill from there. Uninvolved editors and admin got involved, siding with KC, and it got to the point where Ferrylodge was warned by an admin. Ferrylodge readily admits that he ignored the admin and was banned for doing that. That ban was uphealed by other uninvolved admins. I just wanted to post my perspective above, and say that I support the admins actions thus far and do not feel that any action or sanction against Bishonen is appropriate. Trying to get the last word in, and defending his pride, even when told to back down is what got Ferrylodge blocked. It seems like this block has only made the sentiment stronger (I was hoping for the opposite result). I really wish that Ferrylodge would cool down, take a step back, and just let things go so everyone can move on.-Andrew c 02:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Andrew c, I would like to respond. You say that the most important part of the blockquote is "It may even establish their position as pro-choice, I'm not sure - I'll have to think that one over." But you have grabbed that sentence completely out of context, without either the preceding or following sentence. The full blockquote is:

"The way you have it phrased, they are a 'pro-choice group' - they're not. You've found a source which shows their sympathies, or professional view, or whatever, is not anti-abortion. It may even establish their position as pro-choice, I'm not sure - I'll have to think that one over. But the RCOG is not a pro-choice group."

The sentence before and the sentence after make it crystal clear that she was 100% certain that a group can have a pro-choice position about something, and yet not be a "pro-choice group." There is no ambiguity there. Zero. Yet when I later made a single edit that said RCOG had a pro-choice position on the issue of reducing abortion time limits, she cited diffs that had absolutely nothing to do with that being a pro-choice position. And she cited those diffs as evidence of me being (A) disruptive, (B) edit-warring, (C) having bad faith. And merely for arguing to the contrary I was charged with harassment. There is not one single diff of one single harassing thing I said to KC prior to or leading up to the harassment charge. This has been one long personal attack against me, and I do not find your plucking a sentence out of context to show anything relevant.

You emphasize that "The blockquoted statement says that there MAY be a situation where what Ferrylodge wanted to express would be relevent, but we needed to be careful about how we went about describing it." There were ambiguous aspects of the blockquote, but KC was completely unambiguous that a group can have a pro-choice position about something, and yet not be a "pro-choice group."

You are correct that "KC later concluded that Ferrylodge's changes were not careful enough to address the concerns stated (but not quoted by Ferrylodge) directly after the blockquoted text." So she reverted my edit at the RCOG article. However, she also accused me at that same instant of being disruptive and editing against consensus, at which point I took the discussion to her talk page and politely asked her to assume good faith. She refused, accused me of edit warring and bad faith, cited irrelevant diffs, and then Bishonen accused me of harassment. The whole thing was a set-up as far as I can tell. There has been a history of friction between myself on the one hand, and KC/Severa/Andrew c on the other hand, and this incident followed directly therefrom, IMHO.

Andrew c, you say that, "KC's assessment that Ferrylodge's 2 reverts were 'disruptive' was accurate." It's very difficult for me to know which reverts you are speaking of. I made an edit at the RCOG article saying that RCOG has a pro-choice position on reduction of time limits. KC reverted it. I never reverted it back. It remains as KC left it. So I do not know what two reverts you are speaking of.

You say, "It is only antagonistic to start off a dialog with an established editor with 'Please Assume Good Faith.'" She had just called me disruptive, and I wanted her to assume that I was not being disruptive. What was I supposed to say, "Please Assume Bad Faith"?

You say, "the content was removed from the RCOG article while the discussion was on going, yet Ferrylodge re-inserted it twice." Andrew c, the edit that led to this whole dispute was an edit where I wrote that RCOG took a pro-choice position on abortion time limits. I had never edited the RCOG article or any other article to make that statement. KC reverted it, and I never reverted it back. Is there now a zero-revert-rule for Ferrylodge (0RR), where Ferrylodge gets into deep doo-doo whenever he reverts zero times in a row? When KC wrote, edit warring against consensus is disruptive. Inserting OR when multiple editors have informed you this is inappropriate is disruptive. Assuming good faith means there is a question about the editor's intent. I also agree 100% with that sentiment. However I was not edit-warring against consensus. Multiple editors had not informed me that it would be inappropriate to characterize as pro-choice RCOG's position against reducing abortion time limits.

And Andrew c, I do not readily admit that I "ignored the admin and was banned for doing that." What I admit is that I wanted to deny the harassment charge before leaving KC's page, and I ultimately did post that denial under threat of a block ("I am glad to be done posting on this page, but, for the record, I dispute any suggestion of harassment. Please do not delete this comment"). All of that happened after the harassment accusation, so it's not relevant to my main concern here, which is that the initial use of the word "harassment" by Bishonen was bogus, unjustified, unsupported by any diffs, and completely at odds with reality.

You are correct that the block was upheld by uninvolved admins, but not because of any harassment. Go look at the unblock request at my user talk page. It was upheld merely to disengage the dispute. And again, all of that happened after the harassment accusation, so it's not relevant to my main concern here, which is that the initial use of the word "harassment" by Bishonen was bogus, unjustified, unsupported by any diffs, and completely at odds with reality.

You say, "I really wish that Ferrylodge would cool down, take a step back, and just let things go so everyone can move on." I would like to oblige, but I feel that the edit dispute here was outrageous leading up to a bogus harassment charge, and I have been unfairly branded a harasser, an edit-warrior, a disrupter, and a person of bad faith. I will continue to make every effort to get an acknowledgment that I am none of those things. And then I will decide whether to stay or leave Wikipedia.Ferrylodge 03:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to address the edit warring issue. KC posted the 3 diffs on her talk page regarding the RCOG article. Here they are: (1) 17:26, 25 May 2007, (2) 17:06, 26 May 2007, and (3) 21:46, 26 May 2007. You said above I had never edited the RCOG article or any other article to make that statement However, the edit warring accusation isn't over the time limit addition, it's over the "pro-choice" label. Look at the diffs. You added "RCOG takes a pro-choice position" to the article 3 times. The first 2 times you were reverted by Severa, the last time by KC. The content dispute that started on Talk:Fetal pain and spilled over at the RCOG talk page dealt specifically with the label "pro-choice" and how and if it applied to RCOG. There clearly was no consensus yet on this topic when you added the content. Severa removed the controversial content while the content dispute was ongoing. You re-inserted it twice after this which eventually resulted in KC's revert where she said you were being disruptive (which lead to you going to her talk page and the rest is history). As I stated above, there is no reason to insert controversial content into an article during an edit dispute. This does not necessarily make you an "edit-warrior", but it does demonstrate that you were edit warring at this particular article. And by association, edit in this manner is disruptive. 3 times you added content which labeled RCOG as "pro-choice" even though multiple other editors had previously shown concern over this and no consensus had been reached yet on the matter. I'm not saying this in order to brand you as negative label, mind you, but I am saying that KC's initial concerns that sparked your comments to her are not simply 'bogus'.-Andrew c 04:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Andrew c, I do not see that you are saying anything relevant here.

First of all, regarding the three diffs you cite, none of them happened at KC’s talk page. Bishonen charged me with user space harassment, so I don’t see how those three diffs establish anything regarding the harassment charge. Perhaps I misunderstand, and Bishonen meant to charge me with harassment at the RCOG article. But the only type of harassment she mentioned to me was user space harassment.

Regarding what happened in the RCOG article, perhaps a brief analogy will help. Suppose you make edits at some article to say that Venezuelans have a pro-US position about American music and culture, an anti-US position about American politics, and a pro-US position on oil sales. These are three different issues. If you get reverted on the first one twice, it’s not any offense at all for you to write the last one once. That’s basically what happened to me at the RCOG article. I wrote that RCOG has a pro-choice position on reduction of time limits only once, and then I was reverted with the accusation that I was disruptive, which soon escalated to accusations of edit-warring, bad faith, and harassment.

You and KC cited three diffs from the RCOG article. How they relate to user space harassment is beyond my understanding. But let’s consider those three diffs: (1) 17:26, 25 May 2007, (2) 17:06, 26 May 2007, and (3) 21:46, 26 May 2007.

Only in the last one did I assert that RCOG takes a pro-choice position on reduction of time limits, and that's what got me in trouble here. Andrew c, you say “the edit warring accusation isn't over the time limit addition.” But then why is your third diff about the time limit addition? KC was very clear that the edit-warring accusation was indeed about the time limit addition. See here.

KC was wrong. I never wrote at any other article that RCOG has a pro-choice position on reduction of time limits. It simply never happened, and therefore KC’s accusation of edit-warring is simply false.

KC wrote that my characterization of the time limit addition was “virtually the same contested assertion” as assertions I made elsewhere, and therefore amounted to edit-warring. But the blockquote in my initial post above shows KC saying that merely using the word “pro-choice” twice in connection with RCOG does not create two assertions that are virtually the same. RCOG’s position on reduction of abortion time limits deals with a political question about what the governing law should be. It is very different from an RCOG statement about what should happen under existing law. I was trying to address KC’s assertion that RCOG was merely trying to follow the law --- she had said that “abortion is legal in the UK, and that the official govt. chartered college are to make that safe is NOT pro choice.”[25]

Thus, you are comparing apples and oranges. The third of your three diffs is nothing like the first two. And of course NONE of them occurred at KC’s talk page, and thus they do not help to establish user space harassment.Ferrylodge 13:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me for being totally confused. When KC above suggested "Please focus on what this thread is" regarding your initial concerns with Bishonen's harrassment ban, you said No one in this thread has addressed the blockquote. That blockquote shows that you, KC, told me one thing, and then when I followed your advice you started hurling accusations which led to a harassment charge. The question at hand most certainly is the edit dispute which led to the harassment allegation.. How can you say that the original edit dispute is so important, yet when I address the original edit dispute, you say that it is off topic? That I am comparing apples to orenges? You disputed that you were an edit-warrior and a disruptor (in addition to disputing that you were a harrasser). Above, I was addressing the former claims. The latter claim was addressed in my post below this. I'm perfectly fine with not addressing the content dispute again. I guess I mistakenly thought you wanted to discuss it when you claimed KC wanted "people to look the other way".-Andrew c 15:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Andrew c, at 14:40 on 31 May, I wrote in this thread, "I agree with you that the propriety of my conduct at KC's talk page is somewhat related to what happened at the RCOG page...." No dispute there. I just don't see how your previous comment says anything relevant to establishing harassment or edit-warring or disruption or bad faith on my part. As far as "comparing apples and oranges", I already explained: "The third of your three diffs is nothing like the first two." The third of your three diffs involves a position of RCOG about one thing, and the first two involve a position of RCOG about another very different thing. So I don't see how you can cite the last diff as evidence that I was edit-warring or being disruptive or having bad faith. It's only one crummy diff, after all.Ferrylodge 04:17, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

(reset)Since there is this big issue about "post the diff of harrassment", I felt I'd give it a shot. I'd first ask editors to simply read Talk:Fetal pain, Talk:Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, and User talk:KillerChihuahua and look at the article diffs. FL and KC were involved in an edit dispute. FL was edit warring at RCOG, and KC reverted the controversial edits and said Reverting disruptive edit. You do not have consensus, and indeed have considerable opposition for this OR edit. The consensus and OR remarks reference previous talk page discussions, and the "disruptive" remark references the "RCOG takes a pro-choice position" disputed text that was twice added to the article after it was removed once due to talk page concerns (by Severa). So in defense (or retaliation) to having been called a disruptive editor:

• FL goes to KC's talk page and posts this. Asking an established editor to "Please Assume Good Faith" may be baiting, or it may be a gentle reminder that we are all human and fallible. The post starts off polite. It digresses into accusations against two editors, claiming that they needed to address the topic to FL's standards in order to remove disputed content. Nothing completely unreasonable at face value, mind you, but still on the offense and maybe even antagonistic. Bold and brash.

However, KC and FL have a history, look at User talk:KillerChihuahua/Archive09#Moving Stuff to Talk Page. It's almost deja vu. Back and forth between the two. With this taken into consideration, the initial "Please Assume Good Faith" post by FL is a round about way of saying "I'm in the right, you are in the wrong, explain your actions to my satisfaction". In a very succinct manner, KC replied to this, stating clearly "edit warring against consensus is disruptive. Inserting OR when multiple editors have informed you this is inappropriate is disruptive." This explains how FL's behavior can be classified as "disruptive". While perhaps these points could be disputed (I personally agree with them), FL does not respond by saying "how was I edit warring?" or "where is the consensus?":

• FL replies with this, accusing KC of edit-warring, and ignoring the previous comment. This sort of accusation and tone can be seen as harassment. The conversation is no longer a dialog about wikipedia policy and past actions, its about who is in the wrong.

At this point, and uninvolved editor comes along and says "Nope, don't see any edit-warring on KC's part. Sorry."

• FL replies asking if the user feels he had participated in edit warring, and if he agrees that KC ignored the initial post. This is another snide comment regarding KC's reading comprehension.

Then an involved editor comes along and tries to explain further how FL was edit warring but KC was not.

• FL replies by saying the accusations against him are "totally ridiculous" and that everyone is lacking even an "ounce of objectivity". But somehow saying that is ok because he used an emoticon.

KC replies that FL has misrepresented the situation and explained how this was about more than a single edit by FL.

• FL replies, implying KC is lying or being deceptive, and demands that evidence is supplied up to his standards.

KC does so, but not without saying the task was tedious and not necessary unless for the purposes of a RfC.

• FL replies that KC is "very much mistaken", and tries to claim that KC said something that FL believes to support the controversial edits that started this mess, while neglecting to comment on the the diffs KC provided that he had previously demanded be shown.
• He then posts a post script where he says and I hope I will not have to waste my time dealing with your disruptive editing again. Again this comment is only reactionary and antagonistic towards KC, accusing her of disruptive editing again, using a snide tone.

Sure KC had ended her previous post by expressing that she was fed up with trying to meet the demands FL had placed on her. KC wasn't entirely calm and sweet through the conflict. There was some back-and-forth going on, but KC stuck on point and avoided unfounded claims. At this point, the uninvolved admin came along and warned Ferrylodge to stop posting on KC's talk page. He had demanded that KC explain her revert up to his standards. Demanded an explanation on how his edits were disruptive, demanded an explanation on how he had edit warred, demanded diffs for his edit warring, and then once all that was meet, replied by saying KC was very mistaken and accused her of being a disruptive editor. All of this was because Ferrylodge edited the same controversial content multiple times during a content dispute, was reverted, and told those sorts of edits are disruptive. Read the conversation for yourself and judge whether it is harassment or not. Regardless of whatever label you want to use for the situation, the warning and subsequent ban were necessary at the time to deter the provocation and escalation of the situation. Unfortunately, as shown by the continuation of this discussion, the ban did not serve the intended purpose but itself acted to escalate matters (but at least the personal talk page conflict for KC has ended). That is how I see things. If other users (especially those asking for diffs) now want to examine the situation themselves and comment on FL and KC's actions, on the appropriateness of the ban, or anything else, please do so.-Andrew c 05:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll respond briefly. Andrew c, your comment begins by saying "FL was edit warring at RCOG." That's what you argued in your previous comment, and I've already responded to it as well as I can in my previous comment. So I will not now repeat what I said in my previous comment. However, I agree with you that the propriety of my conduct at KC's talk page is somewhat related to what happened at the RCOG page, so I would urge anyone who may still be around to please read my previous comment rebutting Andrew c.

Andrew c, to your credit you are now citing what happened at KC's talk page. However, you have cited about seven diffs of my statements at KC's talk page without indicating which ones you think establish user space harassment. For example, you cited my initial comment at KC's talk page, and I do not understand how it in any way helps to establish harassment. It was completely polite. Just citing a bunch of diffs without saying which ones you think establish harassment is kind of vague.

Moreover, Wikipedia has a specific definition of harassment: "Stopping other editors from enjoying Wikipedia by making threats, nitpicking good-faith edits to different articles, repeated personal attacks or posting personal information."[26] But I did not notice where you pointed to any nitpicking I did of any good-faith edits, or where I made repeated personal attacks (certainly none that were any more personal than what KC was saying to me), or posted any personal information. And you have not specified which diffs (if any) suggest comparable stuff on my part. You can't.

Wikipedia also has a particular definition of user space harassment: "Placing numerous false or questionable 'warnings' on a user's talk page, restoring such comments after a user has removed them, placing 'suspected sockpuppet' and similar tags on the user page of active contributors, and otherwise trying to display material the user may find annoying or embarrassing in their user space is a common form of harassment."[27] But I do not notice where you pointed to any warnings I made at KC's talk page, or used sockpuppets or tags, or posted embarassing info, or anything like that. I do concede that I may be annoying to KC, and she is certainly annoying to me, but I suspect that the "material" referred to in the guidelines refers to "material" other than mere conversational statements.

Anyway, I've responded this morning as best I can to your two long comments here, Andrew c. I don't think Bishonen had any legitimate grounds for accusing me of harassment. Again, I've got to be unavailable for the rest of the day, due to employment. Thanks for hearing me out.Ferrylodge 14:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

P.S. It also might be helpful to look at things the following way. Suppose you presume that all my conduct in the RCOG article was completely legitimate (i.e. no edit-warring, no disruption, no bad faith), and that KC was mistaken about that. Using that presumption, was there anything remotely approaching harassment at KC's talk page? I think not.Ferrylodge 15:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, yes. Even if one outright ignores that the RCOG article even exists(and this is easy for me to do, because I'd never heard of it before this incident, and never went back since), this was arguably somewhat harassing. (Little 'PSs' are almost always asking for troubles. Especially when they're phrased in the style of, "I know you are, but what am I?")

And, when you saw this, and you thus absolutely and definitively knew that another single post on KC's talkpage would be considered harassment, and get you blocked, you still did it anyways. You knew that'd be considered harassment, and yet you did it anyways. And yet, KC simply removed it. But, if nothing else, you now knew for certain that your comments were not desired. At all. Not even to say "I'm done". And yet you still did it again! By then, there was no way to take it as being anything but harassment. Because you knew for certain that it wouldn't be welcome, and yet you added it anyways. And you tried to use it to get the last word in. And you implicitly acknowledged that it was unwanted harassment when you asked him not to delete the comment (it perfectly illustrated that you knew he didn't want it there, but still expected him to keep it anyways). That is, even if you are given the heaviest of bias in regards to the RCOG article itself, there was absolutely no excuse for that last addition. And no way to take it as anything but harassment. I don't care about RCOG. I don't even remember what it stands for. This wasn't about someone unfairly taking sides. Nor was it based on personal opinions on a content dispute in some article. It was about clear and easily identified misconduct. My only suggestion is that you simply drop it and move on. There's no reason you can't contribute a lot; but that'll require assuming a bit of good faith in people. Bladestorm 15:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Bladestorm, okay, let’s presume that everything I did at the RCOG article was perfectly appropriate, so we would have to also presume that KC was the one who erred at the RCOG article. And we would also have to presume that when KC kept saying at her talk page that I had been disruptive, and that I had behaved in bad faith, and that I had been edit-warring, that KC was completely wrong to say all that, and was falsely accusing me of some pretty serious stuff. Okay, so there I was at KC’s talk page, and presumably she was wrongly accusing me of all these things after wrongly reverting me at the RCOG article, and you say it was arguably harassment on my part to merely say, “And I hope I will not have to waste my time dealing with ’your’ disruptive editing again.” You’re seriously suggesting that it would be okay for KC to falsely accuse me of being disruptive, but not okay for me to accurately accuse her of being disruptive? That’s just not plausible.

Here’s the harassment accusation. I want an acknowledgment that it was heinously unjustified. Yes, I could have behaved better after that harassment accusation (though I do not think it was unreasonable for me to want to deny that charge at the page where it was made). But the point here is not what happened after. The point is that the charge was unfounded. Bogus. Trumped up. Rude. Your only diffs are from after the charge was made.Ferrylodge 04:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The Point of this thread

Let's get to the point. The further I look into this edit war, the clearer it becomes to me that this is just an edit war, and that light incivility occurred on both sides (accusing others of being disruptive is light incivility, and occurs often in disputes; personal attacks, like f* you, are heavy incivility). I could provide diffs to back up my notion, but I prefer to forgive and forget, just as Ferrylodge said at the begining of the thread.

Now, the point: Ferrylodge, can you briefly sum up why you think Bishonen was out of line by blocking you (see the bold message at the top of the page: Please make your comments concise. Administrators are less likely to pay attention to long diatribes), diffs included. And if anyone could briefly respond to Ferrylodge, point by point, with diffs, as to why it's not a good argument, that would be appreciated. As it stands, I've sat here reading forever, and it's still way too much for me. If Bishonen had been involved in this edit war and then blocked Ferrylodge, I could see an RFC being valid - nothing is worse than personal blocks, IMHO. What I'm getting at is: was there a conflict of interest in the blocking? However, there is a good chance this will be ignored, and it might just be easier to let it pass by, unless there is a history of such problems with Bishonen, or she does it again.

In any case, please respond below. The Evil Spartan 17:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me? You seem to travel an awfully long way on a single banana peel there. Unless I do what again? Bishonen | talk 19:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC).

Improperly blocking again. However, if you read the statement, that was under the theoretical possibility that you did anything wrong to begin with. Which is what Ferrylodge will briefly prove here. The Evil Spartan 20:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Will he, now. Bishonen | talk 20:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC).

Bishonen, why are you assuming bad faith on my part? I'm completely uninvolved in this. Is there a reason you're looking to misuse my words? Please read my statement again. The Evil Spartan 20:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Spartan, perhaps you should re-read this thread. All of it. Including what you wrote. And possibly apologise to Bishonen. Just a thought. I could be in error. Anything is possible. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

that was under the theoretical possibility that you - bold added to show how I'm reading Evil Spartan's words. Dan Beale 22:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The part which concerns me is "why are you assuming bad faith on my part?... Is there a reason you're looking to misuse my words" and I imagine Bishonen is having trouble swallowing "Ferrylodge will briefly prove here" - neither of which admit any possibility whatsover other than that Ferrylodge is completely in the right and can prove it; and Bishonen is failing to AGF and "looking" to "misuse" Spartan's words. Perhaps you would care to reconsider and rephrase, Spartan? KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

<reduce indent>Spartan, you and I must be reading different ANI's. FL has shown himself to be petulant, angry, disruptive, and, let's be frank, childish (OK, I'm repeating petulant). This diff alone indicates a certain lack of maturity. KC and Bishonen have shown remarkable levels of patience with FL, whose edits on these topics go way over what I would personally tolerate as disruptive. Do not interpret this as an attack Spartan, but if you're going to defend FL, please show us where he's acted in good faith and maturely. I'm not seeing it. Orangemarlin 22:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

• "The point of this thread" is indeed the point. In his statement of his complaint, a long, long, long, long statement of why he has the right version. In his statement of the dispute, another argument about why he's right. AN/I is not for content disputes. If we can possibly strip the content dispute (which is going on by both sides in this thread), what do we have? "I was blocked when I hadn't been disruptive" or "I was blocked when I wasn't being very disruptive?" No one here is going to rule on the content dispute. The only thing we can do is try to counsel (rather than rule) about whether the block was justified by the behavior, not by the truthfulness of either point of view. From what I can tell, the block wasn't effective (preventing further disruption and poisoning of the atmosphere), but it does seem to be warranted (an escalating anger and desire to be proven right). Geogre 02:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• The block was righteous, and there's no need for thousands more words of discussion on the matter. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

For present purposes, I don't care if the block was righteous. The issue (in my mind) is whether this harassment accusation accompanied by block threat was righteous. I’m not talking about the subsequent block, or anything else that happened after the harassment accusation accompanied by block threat.

Harassment is a serious charge, and of course it’s even more serious to say, basically, “go away harasser and say not another word here, not even to deny that you’re a harasser, or else you’ll be blocked.” Which is what Bishonen did to me. I didn’t react as well as I could have afterward, but all of that is subsequent fallout.

Wikipedia has a definition of harassment here. I’ve quoted it several times at this ANI. But no one supporting Bishonen’s decision has quoted it or even linked to it. No one has cited a particular diff from KC’s talk page (where the harassment allegedly occurred), and said that it violates a particular aspect of the Wikipedia harassment policy. The way to avoid bullying and name-calling is to stick to the facts and the guidelines.

Perhaps the most confusing thing about this whole situation is the extent to which the legitimacy of Bishonen’s accusation of harassment at KC’s talk page depends on whether or not I had been bad at the RCOG article. After all, that’s what KC and I were arguing about at her talk page. Even assuming that I had been bad at the RCOG article, I still don’t think that anything said at KC’s talk page amounted to harassment on my part, under Wikipedia’s definition. I was not angelic at KC’s talk page, and neither was she. But harassment? Come on. So far, the worst example that anyone has cited of my alleged “harassment” of KC prior to the harassment charge was when I said this: “And I hope I will not have to waste my time dealing with ’your’ disruptive editing again.” It was not an angelic thing to say, but KC had just accused me of being disruptive and worse (bad faith as well as edit-warring). Can anyone show that I said anything worse than this at KC’s talk page prior to the harassment charge? Evidently not.

So, there was no harassment by me, even assuming that I had been bad at the RCOG article. And I can prove that I was good at the RCOG article! The edit that I made at the RCOG article that started this whole thing is here. KC says I was being disruptive, but I was not. The edit merely said that RCOG took a pro-choice position about what the law should be. I had never before made such an edit, and I have never made such and edit since, so it’s not possible to accurately say that that edit exemplifies disruption or edit-warring or bad faith.

I am not perfect. I make mistakes. I bite back when bitten. But I edit in good faith, I am honest, I do not engage in harassment, and I should not have to deal with such incredibly nebulous, vague accusations.Ferrylodge 05:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Can you please limit comments to one paragraph or less?--Popeye Doyle 05:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Sure.Ferrylodge 05:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Well...? Can you summarize it for those of us who don't feel like reading it all? Aeon Flux 05:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

(undenting) For present purposes, I don't care if the block was righteous. The issue (in my mind) is whether this harassment accusation accompanied by block threat was righteous. I’m not talking about the subsequent block (which was for disengagement purposes), or anything else that happened afterward. Wikipedia defines harassment here, and I didn't come close. KC and I were arguing at her talk page about whether I had been bad at a particular article (about RCOG). I was not angelic at KC’s talk page, and neither was she. But harassment? The worst example that anyone has cited of my alleged “harassment” of KC prior to the harassment charge was when I said this: “And I hope I will not have to waste my time dealing with ’your’ disruptive editing again.” KC had just accused me of being disruptive and worse (bad faith as well as edit-warring). So even assuming that I had been bad at the RCOG article, there was no harassment. And I was good at the RCOG article! The edit that I made at the RCOG article that started this whole thing is here. KC says I was being disruptive, but I was not. The edit merely said that RCOG took a particular position about what the law should be. I had never before made any such edit even similar to this, and I have never made such an edit since, so it’s not possible to accurately say that that edit exemplifies disruption or edit-warring or bad faith, as KC did. Bishonen had no business calling me a harasser, and telling me to go away without even denying her charge. Not even KC had asked me to go away.Ferrylodge 14:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

So, it really is possible to make a mountain out of a molehill. Who knew. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 14:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Sure, Jim, an accusation of harassment is a molehill, and so is a block threat. My mistake. I must now go to work and unfortunately will not be here for the rest of the day.Ferrylodge 14:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

FL, you missed the sarcasm. But reading what you have written above, you've missed quite a bit of the point of this ANI. Orangemarlin 15:22, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Orangemarlin for that brilliant comment. Actually, this present comment I am writing, as well as the comment immediately before yours, were sarcasm.Ferrylodge 16:30, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I am planning to proceed with a Request for Comment, as described here. This ANI discussion has been turbulent but helpful. Thank you.Ferrylodge 17:06, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Removal of RS sources

After I have a complaint about removal of RS sources from Wikipedia article to an admin (see here) including my intention to use wiki process to resolve the conflict he then began a process of removing sources from articles that I have created (see here), (see here), (see here), (See here), (see here)

There are genuinely differences of opinion about this source in Wikipedia. For example uninviolved neutral user was quoted when confronted with the RS sources of Tamilnet.

“ Comment: Yes. While recognizing that the Sri Lankan-Tamil civil war is a longstanding and viciously contested dispute, I decline to take notice of pissing matches between the various factions as to which source is supposedly discredited by its alleged adherence to one side or another. Fox TV is commonly presumed to be a biased mouthpiece for right-wing ideologues, but I don't think you'd get very far claiming it doesn't qualify as a reliable source on that count. RGTraynor 17:02, 24 May 2007 (UTC) ”

[28]

Then on Sri Lankan reconciliation project the following compromise was reached about the source see here

When such diverse opinion is out there about this source for admin to refuse to follow wiki process that has been suggested is uncalled for and will only lead to edit wars as I am sure more people will revert his edits. Some other uninvolved admin needs to get involved to resolve this issue. Thanks Taprobanus 13:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, RGTraynor also suggested that perhaps Sinhalese and Tamil people recuse themselves. Are you going to do so? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry to say that includes you because although you claim what ever you are to be, your edits parralel edit with other very specific minded Indian editors shows that one does not have to be an Indian or Sri Lankan to be part of a partisan camp. Thanks Taprobanus 14:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok. So you tell us Taprobanus that there was a consensus reached here at the WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation. Well, has Blnguyen been invited to participate? Has he done it in case he was invited? If you say that you have reached a consensus about TamilNet being a qualified source (QS) than why aren't you using an explicit attribution (TamilNet reports that...)? Maybe Blnguyen was reverting on the grounds that it was used as a reliable source (RS)? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 16:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

He was not part of the decision, but not every wikipedian can be part of such decisions any way. As the reconciliation decision is not a formal wikipedia decision such as a result of mediation or arbitration. It is as binding as suggestion:)

Now if he agrees with the suggestion, (now that he knows about) he can edit using it. But If I am not mistaken he did remove Tamilnet from a statement which explicitly stated as pro-rebel (see here). That means he is not all amenable to any use of Tamilnet in Wikipedia. His point of view is just one point of view.See here for history of involvement in Sri Lanka related articles in the past.

User:RGTraynor another experienced non involved third party (that is not a Sri Lankan or Indian who has an axe to grind in this conflict including me and Blnguyen)said very clearly that he will accept Tamilnet as a RS source.[29] So we have diverse opinion here about this source.

Already Blnguyen edit patterns which went after many articles that I created has resulted in an edit war where there was non for a long time. These were stable articles including an AFD that went through with minimal content deletion including sources. That is a lot of neutral non involved third party editors looked at them and decided that they were written from a neutral point of view with reputable sources. So how do we solve this problem? when we have editors such as myself and Blnguyen who potentially have conflict of interest because of our backrounds who say have such opposite views about this source and yet others who are non involved say it is a RS source. (I will post here other explicit statements supporting this point from number of non involved third paties here) What is the next step ? Mediation and what is the final step ? Arbitration ? I am sick and tired of wikipedians indulging in vicious edit wars based on one source. If we decide it is not RS, then it is not RS. If we decide that it is RS then it canbe used. If we decide is QS then it QS. What ever it is I want more than a mere suggestion. Thanks Taprobanus 17:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not Indian, I am of Vietnamese ethnicity, and RGTraynor did not declare Tamilnet to be an RS. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

We can claim to be what ever we are in the internet. I suppose the French colonials were very fond of the game of Cricket in Vietnam:)) Seriously just like I am a Canadian, similarly you are Vietnamese but your edit patterns in parallel with other very specific minded Indian editors shows that you have very strong conflict of interest in Dravidian and Tamil related subject matters as was noted during many entanglements with now banned User:WikiRaja. So lets us not go there about ethnicities here and lets us stick to the discussion about Tamilnet. Thanks Taprobanus 14:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

WikiRaja was a two-bit troll, intent on promoting clouded ethocentric agenda, and racist myths. WikiRaja was an anti-Brahmin also intent in working to denigrate the contributions of Iyers to Tamil culture. Might I remind you that Sarathambal would not be off limits to his ire?Bakaman 03:22, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Just because you've used Tamilnet and other such patently partisan and non-RS on scores of articles doesnt mean they become reliable sources. These sites are avowed sympathisers of the militant outfits and in some cases just the 'media arm' of the militant outfits. They dont stand a remote chance of making it past WP:RS. Any dispassionate editor, editing in good faith wouldnt use these sources, especially since there is no dearth of bonafide reliable sources like BBC or the mainstream Indian media(print and internet) etc.,. This is not some conflict raging in some 'unexplored, unknown to the modern world' corner of the globe. It is happening in SriLanka, a member nation of the UN and the entire world is watching. So, there is absolutely no dearth of reliable sources(and non-partisan ones at that). Of course, if you adhered strictly to WP:RS, you may not be able to keep a score of every gunshot and every loss of limb as you're doing now, but it will leave wikipedia in better encyclopedic shape.

And what do you mean by - "...when we have editors such as myself and Blnguyen who potentially have conflict of interest because of our backrounds..."? Are you suggesting that you have a conflict of interest here? If that is the case, I'd request you to stop editing these articles. You really shouldnt be editing these articles in the best interests of the 'pedia. And as for insinuating that Blnguyen or 'Indian editors' have a COI going here, I'd suggest that you think twice before throwing around such accusations.

And please read WP:RS, WP:EL and related policies once before you infest the references and EL sections with links to google videos, random geocities, tripod sites, blogs, or a random site of some Tamil 'sangam' in some corner of the world etc.. apart from the staple tamilnet, tamilnation cruft. Thanks. Sarvagnya 21:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Just a simple question, will you stop editing Tamil related article because of your Bangalorean Tamil backround. Seriously, you have been noted by many editors many times in the ANI. So let us talk about Tamilnet then. Thanks—The preceding unsigned comment was added by notbakaman (talk • contribs).

Blnguyen is vietnamese. He is interested in India (india is one sixth of the worlds population, a lot of people are), and I fail to see a conflict of interest. As for tamilnet, it isnt neutral but not unreliable. The views on it are divided with some calling it LTTE and some calling it slightly biased. Tamilnet shouldn't be, however, the principal source for which notability is established. As for the fighting between editors, Taprobanus has been willing to discuss instead of reverting to trolling like 213.181.56.12 (talk · contribs) who we are led to believe is a Tamil in Iraq (via traceroute). As if the plight of Tamils is the most important worry in Iraq. Back to the subject, the analogy to FOX is interesting and demands some further discussion.Bakaman 22:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I have to give my 2¢ here. Partisan websites of any nature or background cannot be automatically classified at not reliable. As per Bakaman, it isn't neutral but not unreliable. I also agree w/ Bakaman in that no article should rely on one disputed source. One thing that i noticed and may not have appeared to you is that after classifying it as a qualified source, it has been inserted as a reliable source. As i said above, if it has to be used, than obviously wording should be like TamilNet reports that.... -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 00:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I am more than willing to follow Fayssal's suggestion. Thanks Taprobanus 14:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I get the feeling that Bakaman and Fayssal are confusing 'notability' and 'reliability'. 'Notability' is perhaps all that we can concede to Tamilnet and that is why we have a TamilNet on wikipedia. However, just being 'notable' doesnt make them 'RS'. That they have a rather lopsided militant view of the situation doesnt help either. Sarvagnya 01:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment: The analogy to FOX is ridiculous. FOX is a professionally run media house owned by News corp., which is listed on various exchanges and subject to routine and professional audits by the best in the business. I am sure it is affiliated to any/all "official" press regulatory bodies that count. It has an editor with rather impeccable professional credentials who has the moral courage to attach his name to a story. If anybody feels that FOX has a slant(to right or left or whatever), then it is their POV. Tamilnet otoh hand is, for all we know run by some journalistic quack who takes his blogging rather seriously. Sorry. The FOX analogy just wont cut it. Try something else. Sarvagnya 01:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Your personal opinion or do you have serious citation for what are you saying. I have listed reserach papers others your comments are just WP:SOAP. Thanks Taprobanus 14:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Can i ask a simple question Sarvagnya? What if TamilNet announces and acknowledges a terrorist attack via their website? Would we use it as a primary reference? Would it be considered as a reliable source as well? IMHO, if you have reached a consensus in which TamilNet would be considered as a qualified source (everything but a reliable source) than why not all parties try to use the appropriate wording when using TN as a QS?

Whatever is the case, i am still not convinced that you have to sort out this issue in this board. What about an RfC? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 02:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Whether TamilNet acknowledges something one way or the other is besides the point. Also, I was not part of any consensus where a patently non-RS source has been decorated with a "QS" tag. What is "QS" anyway? Are there similar precedents elsewhere on wikipedia? It is not upto any random Wikiproject to get together and hammer out a 'consensus' on matters like this. And I dont see where there has been any consensus regarding this and other similar sources. A quick look at some of the talk pages will tell you that editors have always been against these sources. I can only say that these sources have been used in bad faith. Sarvagnya 02:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe admins can do something. It is a dispute regarding the reliability of a website. You have some few days to discuss it again before the article is unprotected. If not than obviously a RfC is just next door. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 02:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd prefer not using FOX either if it was at all possible, or LankaWeb, or Tamilnation or Tamilcanadian. This conflict is very famous, and each time there is an air strike or a suicide bombing, it is covered on BBC, CNN, AP, etc etc, so we can use those if necessary. If it is only noticed by a few small ethnocentric sources, then I would be skeptical. FOX is a proper news source although it is very biased, but I have not seen people say that they present false data and such. It does contain strong editorial bias and such, but when you use a source you should not import the bias from the newspaper and just say "described by .... as "the best" ". But in any case, if BBC or CNN have the same data, it's better to just use them instead. There are many times where a proper newspaper like Sydney Morning Herald and the tabloid Adelaide Advertiser say the same facts, in which case, I would just source the SMH since it would look better. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Can the TamilNet refs be replaced by BBC/CNN ones? If yes than the problem is sorted out. I haven't checked if TamilNet references are unique (i.e. no one else covered it...) -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 04:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Not most of the time see my comments below specifically about Sarathambal case Taprobanus 14:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that a the WP:SLR community reached a vote to name many sources as "RS", "anti-rebel" , "Pro-rebel" and "UnRs". The problem is that most srilanka related articles do not follow thse branding of articles. If you take a good look at many other articles there are lots of "anti-rebel" sources being used as RS. So if the community is saying that we cannot use tamilnet then why is the same community keeping quite on the other side of the story-using anti rebel sources. Is there something thats missing ? Or has the community not seen these articles ? Anyway if we are going to allow the anti rebel sources then we MUST allow the pro rebel sources so that in the end we will have a neutral article. However, if one is taken out the other should also be taken out to again have a neutral article. Watchdogb 12:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I am also the same view after the WP:SLR community has reached a vote to name as "RS", "anti-rebel", "Pro-rebel" and "UnRs", still there are articles which have been sourced using anti-rebel sources as WP:RS. Those who are willing to remove Tamil-Centric souces using as WP:RS for the events purported by the State Terrorism in Sri Lanka in the Tamil areas where the International Press is in total isolation, are keeping silent to the usage of anti-rebel sources as WP:RS in various articles. Whether Blnguyen has failed to see those articles or he has biased view towards the persecution of the Tamil community in the Sri Lanka to be exposed to the world is not still clear. But his vesak wishes to his friends [30][31] who are adamantly against the view there is a State Terrorism in Sri Lanka, is giving some view of his biased nature and will only lead to a RFC against him subsequently.Lustead 13:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Tamilnet does not file false data, there are serious non Indian and Sri Lankan researchers such as from the United States and Australia who have studied this news site. For example for archived version of the research paper on this see this. Read it in full before making any comments. I can provide more such research papers. I am not arguing that Tamicanadian is a RS source, so let us not confuse the matter here. The discussion here is only about Tamilnet as I said I will take it all the way because I am sure we will prevail at the end when neutral uninvolved Wikipedians see the arguments on both sides not any one belonging to a cabal or faction with and axe to grind.

Tamilnet passes RS because

• 1. It has an editorial board
• 2. It has an editor
• 3. It reviews its news reports for accuracy
• 4. It is used as a primary source by notable media

organizations such as BBC and CNN (just to name a few) to report on information that is generally censored information in Sri Lanka.

5. It is used as a source by notable Human Rights groups such as Asian Human Rights Commission and HRW (just to name a few)

To arbitrarily remove very important information that is particularly important for Sri Lanka conflicted is tantamount censoring information in Wikipedia. By claiming most information is covered by BBC and CNN.because it is not true at all.

For example in the Sarathambal rape and murder case, some one arbitrarily removed Tamilnet source which says that number of important dignitaries including number of majority Sinhalese attended her funeral. That information is not available in BBC or CNN. But that piece information humanizes the Sinhalese people that although it was a Sinhalese person who is suspected of raping and murdering this minority Tamil women other Sinhalese were equally upset about. That piece of information makes the article neutral other wise the article will be completely one sided. To remove Tamilnet from that article now makes it a non neutral one from a neutral stable article.

Then there was a claim that it was a blog ? There was a claim that it was a partisan website ? That it was a lobby group ? Now all this is personal opinion without any credible citations.

I think people simply jump to conclusions without doing serious research. Let us continue this discussion to its logical conclusion. Thanks Taprobanus 13:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Is there any source to back up the allegation that Tamilnet is not a reliable source? Partisan view can never be a parameter in deciding RS. For example, there are hundreds of articles in wikipedia which uses *karnataka* web sites which present kannad-centric views and obviously very partisan. Let's not get into the quality of these websites. Anyways, a simple search in google provided me with these sources.

A PHD thesis of Kasun Ubayasiri, Central Queensland University covers extensively Tamilnet. This is the conclusion that it derives.

"It can also be argued the Tamilnet success as internet based news service has been largely attributed to a unique position it has created as the only ‘independent’ provider of a reliable alternative view in the Sri Lankan theatre, one designed to counter the states rudimentary propaganda machine. Tamilnet has also adopted a reportage style closely resembling a wire service feed identified by western media practitioners as viable and reliable media. The prompt coverage of news both in the government controlled regions and those under the LTTE control has placed the a Tamilnet in the unique position of the being a news service with the widest coverage – a defining attribute in a media theatre dominated by Colombo and south centric media.Therefore it can be argued that Tamilnet’s strategy of providing pro-Eelamist news without any overt LTTE connections has yielded results and coupled with its reporting style and content, paved the way significantly wider coverage in both the internet and through international mainstream media, when compared with any other web based media Sri Lankan media product." here is the link

Same goes for Tamilnation.org. A simple search in google shows that tamilnation website is used as references in conference papers and other research papers. Associate press & BBC uses these websites as reference too. Praveen 15:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

May I point out that Kasun Ubayasiri is an Australian of Sri Lankan majority Sinhalese extraction which makes his point of view even more credible. His reaserch papers have appread in may scholarly jourmnals. Thanks 15:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

<deindent>I can't believe that any editor would even suggest that Taminet is a reliable source. Plain and simple, every single news organization that refers to a report from Tamilnet, Reuters [32], AP [33], Xinhua [34], AFP [35] etc etc all call Tamilnet a pro-LTTE website. So does even the BBC [36] ("Tamilnet, the pro-Tamil Tiger website"). The only reason reports from Tamilnet are quoted in international media is that Tamilnet is considered the official news website of the LTTE[37], just like reports by Baghdad Bob were widely quoted by international media.

To give a few examples, Tamilnet sometimes reports incidents before they actually "happened" [38]. Two weeks ago Tamilnet published a bogus news item containing material from an alleged "interview" with the Bishop of Jaffna, one of the highest ranking religious leaders in Sri Lanka. The Bishop later completely denied he even spoke to Tamilnet, saying "Hence I deny totally the report ascribed to me by the Tamil Net"[39].

I simply don't see any reason for this argument to continue. No one - apart from the LTTE and it's supports - consider Tamilnet a credible news agency. Regarding it as a RS for Wikipedia articles would be simply ridiculous, and there should be no two ways about that. --snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 16:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

No one - apart from the LTTE and it's supports - consider Tamilnet a credible news agency Admins please take note ofthe above WP:ATTACK on wikipedia editors who are trying resolve this matter by amicable discussion. Thanks Taprobanus 16:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Just because these news sites call Tamilnet a pro rebel website does not mean that the website fail RS. Also I can remember many protests against BBC for giving one sided information on the LTTE. So if you want to look at it that way then I guess that BBC also a unreliable source. For example- BBC reported that they had credible evidence that shows that the LTTE was running the credit card fraud in UK. However, they failed to show the "Credible" evidence. Furthermore the UK police them self have said that they have NO evidence linking LTTE to these fraud. Does this mean the BBC is not to be used in the SL related articles ? Does that mean that BBC is not a RS ? This argument brings about 2 debates. 1) Since the BBC has made false news blaming LTTE then how can we take their word on Tamilnet being pro rebel. 2) Since BBC has done this sort of biased coverage they can be considred Biased against the LTTE. So does that mean that BBC should not be used as RS ? Also as I have said above other sources have been crammed into wikipedia which are considred Anti rebel. So if thats sites are allowed to be used then why not Tamilnet (playing the devil's advocate) even if its pro rebel ? - watchdogb

Also the story about Bishop of Jaffna is not exactly as Snowulf puts it. Their title was wrong but the story is right. A close associate of the bishop told Tamilnet these stories. Tamilnet went on to say that they made a mistake and that they will change the title. They even made a article on this.

Section break

I believe i've had heard enough arguments from both sides and at at least i can have my own judgment now. I see that TamilNet respects our policy on RS. These are my reasons:

• TamilNet has been cited and used as a reference in both notable media outlets such as BBC, CNN and news agencies such as the notable Reuters. It has also been used in academic papers and still being used in government websites such as the Canadian immigration and refugee board website. (based on the links provided by participants above)
• Saying a pro-X is biased and unreliable is just like saying that opponent pro-X is biased and unreliable. Defence.lk reporting on TamilNet having lied is not a totally unbiased reporting. They are both partisan websites. In our case here, we only have one partisan side having a say in wikipedia. It is against our core policy NPOV. The article should be balanced. You are talking about "state terrorism in Srilanka" but the main accuser is silenced. Please read the next point.
• Websites and publications of political parties, religious groups, anti-religious groups, or any other partisan group, may exhibit bias and should be treated with caution. Neither political affiliation nor religious belief stated in these sources are in themselves a reason not to use them, as these websites can be used to present the viewpoints of these groups, if properly attributed. Such sources should be presented alongside references from other sources in order to maintain a neutral point of view. (source: RS/Examples).
• The argument that says that TamilNet lied once is just not a perfect one. In the list of journalism scandals you'd find almost every universally notable media. Who doesn't remember the Sorry..We were hoaxed story about the fake abuse photos of prisoners in Iraq? Daily Mirror is still considered notable. Newspapers and media in general sometimes lie intentionally and sometimes unintentionally. You can't be sure about that.
• I am a Moroccan and i use to edit Western Sahara related articles and i've never attempted to claim that the pro-Polisario (the Saharaoui separatist group)arso.org website is unreliable. We use it as a reference in many related articles. Is it biased? Have they lied? Yes, definetely but who and which is not? Many times and the lies have been mainly reported by foreign and NGO media. Has Moroccan newpapers lied? Yes, of course and in many occasions. THEY ALL LIE sometimes, if not all the time. Let me add this to you. Recently Morocco blocked access to YouTube. I was the one who first added the information to [Human rights in Morocco] article. Why it has been blocked? Well, one of the speculations is that Morocco didn't want some videos about abusing rights of some Saharawi students to be available for Moroccan public. Ummm!!!! Than which side is unreliable here? The state owned media or the partisan media who could publish videos of the abuses on YouTube? I am sorry but in this case i SHOULD consider YouTube as reliable and kick the garbage of the other side out of my scope.
• I used also to work on the article about ETA, the Basque separatist group. Everyone knows about the group but only a few would know about Gara. Well, Gara in simple words is the loudly mouth of ETA. Gara newspaper has had the habitof publish/announcing terrorist attacks executed by ETA hours before they occur. It is not only considered biased but it considered to be part of ETA, and therefore a terrorist newspaper according to their opponents (mainly the Spanish gov't) though nothing is sure or otherwise it would have been shut down as they did w/ Egin. Still, we use it as a reliable source in Wikipedia as media outlets around the word do. Do we have any dispute tag on the ETA-related articles? No. Are they protected? No.
• NPOV = Work for balance, that is: divide space describing the opposing viewpoints according to reputability of the sources. And, when available, give precedence to those sources that have been the most successful in presenting facts in an equally balanced manner. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 05:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

COI of Taprobanus

Taprobanus used to contribute under "RaveenS". In his old sandbox, he declares himself to be Raveen Satkurunathan. In his self bio, it shows that he contributes to Tamil Canadian and some other Tamil websites. A google brings up things like this on TamilCanadian and TamilNation. I believe this constitutes a conflict of interest. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:19, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Also considering that he's been pushing for these sources(Tamilcanadian, tamilnation etc) in scores of articles he's edited makes it an even more acute case of COI. Also in his message to me here, he admits to being emotionally invested in these articles. He claims that he hasnt let it seep into his editing and that nobody has ever complained, but a look at this discussion and the talk pages of several articles and editors suggests otherwise. Not to mention, he himself has admitted to 'COI' earlier in this very discussion. Sarvagnya 10:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

It is because he has written a few articles doesn't make him to view, he has some Conflict of Interest over those on-line media until otherwise he is trying to use his own articles as WP:RS or have some Editorial Capacity in those media and bring them as WP:RS.Lustead 14:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Raveen's exact words were

"Before his addiction to Wikipedia, he used to contribute to Asian Tribune.com, Sangam.org and Tamilnet.com among other e-magazines and Blogs, but since then he has stopped contributing."

Misquoting to suit one's needs?

Please do not use COI to gain upper hand in POV disputes. Thanks. Praveen 15:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

If you must, please take it to COI notice board. Praveen 16:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Now we all know why some people are so insisting having racist crap sites like, tamil nation,tamil net,tamil canadian as WP:RS here. First I thought people are just kidding as even a small kid reading those crap sites would know its merely comical to have them here in Wikipedia. But I guess its not, for the contributors to those sites.Iwazaki ^{会話。討論} 03:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Iwazaki, i am afraid to disagree w/ your opinion. My reason is that when someone says racist crap, s/he should back h/is allegations w/ fatcs. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 23:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Fayssal my good Moroccan friend,here in this case there are no evidence, that's the sad truth. Just go through those web-sites , then you would know how childish are those sites. How racists are those web-sites. And that's exactly why all the media which quote from those sites explicitly say tamil net is pro-LTTTE !! I am not sure how that makes tamil net a neutral source. And for user.raveen, we don not know whether he is contributing to those sites even now, but evidence shows that probability is quite high .And thats may be why, he wants to have those as valid sources here.Iwazaki ^{会話。討論} 01:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I just can't be unfair to anyone. "No evidence is needed" is alarming. Please, just get some. If there are none, then there are none. If we are going to focus on bold text then i have this: denense.lk is pro-x gov't!!. Nick has just said that the website was censured while he was browsing. Who blocked the access to the site? I am a Moroccan and when i talked about my youtube story (including the censorship of my own gov't) i was rational. It just happened yesterday to Nick. Does the Srilankan gov't follow this thread? If yes, then i shall give them my satute. In wikipedia, we got BALANCE. Somewhere else? i just don't care. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 05:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

A cursory look at these websites acertains that they are advocacy websites of some kind. Tamilnet.org got closed just as I was browsing through it. Perhaps some of their verifiable comments can be taken into account, while giving due respect to WP:UNDUE; otherwise, most of them look like propoganda sheets. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 06:42, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

So whats your thought about users using sites like SATP and Asian Tribune ? If Tamilnet fails RS then SATP and Asian Tribune would fail RS 2times as hard. So before talking nonsence go take a close look at the contribs you have made with those sites. Also its not propaganda sheet. Please do some real rescarch on tamilnet and if you would like go ahead and read the article thats allready here on wikipedia. Watchdogb 12:59, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I couldn’t see the following media as propaganda machinery as they are covering wide variety of news coverage,

• TamilNet

• Tamilnation

and by giving importance to Dravidian Art, Architecture,Culture, Dance and Music.

If some one wants to say randomly they are propaganda sheets, he or she should discuss here in detail.

Note: Beacaue they are covering Tamil Eelam news doesn’t make them propaganda sheets.Lustead 14:38, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Violation of privacy and endagengering my life

Cannot come with a comprehensive argument so go after the contributer, shows the caliber of argument. I have contributed to both sides of the conflict in Sri Lankan conflict. Tamilcanadian, Sangam.org for the pro-Tamil side and Asian Tribune and The Island newspaper for the pro Sri Lankan government side. Infact my biggest contributions have been to the Asian Tribune news website which is very much anti-LTTE news site. The editor himself is good friend of mine and was dissapointed because I stopped contributing after sI began to contribute to Wikipedia. So just because I have a minor history of contribution to both sides of the conflict (which has been ignored by User:Blnguyen in his arguments) I have a COI ? Although effort has been made to confuse what we are discussing, I need to point out that we are not talking about Tamilcanadian here. The argument is about Tamilnet. I am encouraged by the comments

Tamilnet.org got closed just as I was browsing through it. Perhaps some of their verifiable comments can be taken into account

by Nearly Headless Nick ^{C}. That shows when really neutral non involved editors take a look at this newssite, including editors of BBC, CNN and other major organizations, they decide to use it as it publishes verfiable information.

As the civil conflict in Sri Lankak got worse during the last 1 year I have progressively requested Wikipedia admins to change my user name from RaveenS to Taprobanus for privacy reason. I also asked a Wikipedia admin to delete contents in the User page RaveenS that showd my full name because of privacy concerns. Both were done, to retrive these information must be misuse of admin authority? People in Sri Lanka or those who visit Sri Lanka are killed regularly for having an opinion that may be considred to be different than the government. This has been documented by Amnesty International, RSF and Human Rights Watch. User:Blnguyen beacuse of his conflict with me has now published information that may lead to my death because of my contribution to Wikipedia that may be offensive to the government of Sri lanka. I want wikipedia admins to take a good look at his behaviour based on this simple violation of privacy as well as putting the life of a fellow Wikipedian in danger.

Also as these sources indicate[40],[41] most of the Journalists in Sri Lanka contribute under duress when their views are different from who ever is in power. Many internationally known contributers such as Taraki, Mylvaganam Nimalrajan and Richard De Soyza have been murdered by government proxies. RSFsee here has documented countless other murders of anyone suspected of being a Journalist with a different point of view during the last 20 years of civil conflict. All this evidence put together and the flippant decision by an admin to out me, my personal information when I had done everything to remove such information from wikipedia has to be investigated. Thanks Taprobanus 17:46, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any violation of privacy here. Blnguyen got the info from your subpage. If you want him to stop then you only have to delete that subpage. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 23:32, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I am not a computer expert, this sub page used to be the starting point for my personal page which I requested to be deleted the comment was too much personal information. Then I blanked the sub page thinking the information is gone. So my intentions are very clear, to protect myself from privacy concenrs. Then I changed my name from RaveenS to Tapbrobanus again the comment was wanting to remove too much information associted with real name. All pointing a wikipedian wanting to be able to contribute without being associated with real name. The intentions are very clear. The admin in question because I requested to him to discuss with me via wiki process how we can resolve the difference of opinion he had with me regarding one source Tamilnet began a pattern of going after articles that I have created, it sort of stopped with the ANI finding. Now he is going after some pictures I uploaded and marking them with various violations (they are legitimate) but he is not informing me of all his findings in my talk page as the template requets. He has now shown to be fishing for personal information about me by going through my sandbox very many levels below where they are all indicating WP:STALK very least if not other violations. This is issue is not black and white as to whether the information was out there or not. There is some Grey involved as I am not a computer expert and I have made my intention to remain private known to Wikipedia as an instituition. This is potentially a life and death issue for me because my intentions were very clear as I changed my name and deleted my user page information that has been fished out by a Wikipedia Admin. Thanks Taprobanus 23:52, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

The reason for your user name change is obvious.. You wanted to cover all your contributions which you made to those racists pro-LTTE web sites. Because that would enable you to play an innocent role here in Wikipedia. But luckily Thanks to great Wikipedians we all know who you are and why you are here.We do not need to go far to see your anti-Government hypocrisies. They were clearly shown by you with your creation of dubious templates(which got deleted) and lots of other non-sense stuff esp you added to Sri Lankan related articles.You have before even collaborated with other users, exchanging pass words to push your anti-government pro-tamil agendas, even calling some of your friends not-pro tamil enough !! And here you are shamelessly trying to play the victims role by accusing probably one of the best Wikipedians we have now. I have told you many times not to tell stories, stories are for kids NOT for adult Wikipedians. And here you came up with another stories. I don't think anyone in the world take what you say seriously.. Death threats ?? You must be kidding here. Why dould anyone want to threaten a person like you ? I have never heard a person got threaten in SL just because he is pro-LTTE..Some members of TNA make comments supporting LTTE in the parliament ,and even call LTTE , we, but still live in peace among the Sinhalese with of course protection of GOSL . There are many tamils openly criticizing Sinhalese people,GOSL and live in peace in Colombo. And why should people take some one like you,who may have not probably visited my country for years,and live 1000 miles apart ?? The whole tirade made by yoou is simply disgusting.ESP because it comes from sone who has no idea about whats going on in Sri Lankan, probably find info by reading those racist tamil web-sites !! Anyway, finally we all know who you are and why you are here. And we even know why you have put your self to such a low position some time.Its all to defend your POV, your bias towards a certain section, your hatred of GOSL, and probably your hatred of the country call Sri Lanka. Iam sorry, I don't think people like you deserve to stay in Wikipedia. Iwazaki ^{会話。討論} 01:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

It is well documented fact that people journalists ,political workers and people from all of walks have been killed this includes Tamils,Sinhalese and everyone particurly after 1983 both in North and East and also in the south during the War against the JVP.It is sad fact that journalists are killed in Sri Lanka just for there views by all the sides in the conflict.Paramilitary backing the Sri LAnkan Army ,LTTE and no one is above it.If he wants maintain his privacy as most people do so in the internet it is fine.I do not think anyone can question it .Most chat rooms people avoid giving there real identity to strnagers as it is dangerous.Taprobanus may feel his life is at risk this is true .Not a single sinhalese government staff want to work in the North except the Army in the south Tamils do not want to go to certain parts.This is sad reality of Sri Lanka. Harlowraman 02:25, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I would like to note to iwazaki that he is just as unabashedly partisan as taprobanus. He is correct that many tamils live in sri lanka and enjoy comfortable lives in a sinhala majority. Another major point is that not all tamils support the LTTE, infact some for religious reasons are more apt to support the sinhala. A prime example is Subramaniam Swamy. This conflict sticks its branches into South Indian politics as well, its not just relegated to Sri Lanka.Bakaman 02:51, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Not 'South' Indian politics... may be just the Dravidian politics of Tamil Nadu. Which is understandable, given the extreme tamil ideological stance that these parties and the ltte share. But it has little to do with any religious ideology, least of all 'Hindutva'. Anyway, thats besides the point. The point here is that Taprobanus has a conflict of interest which not only his subpage, but also his comment on my talk page and his comment early on in this discussion prove. His alarmist pitch now is yet another bad faith mudslinging at one of the most respected and useful wikipedians we have. Anybody, half as concerned about their privacy as Taprobanus claims he is about his, wouldnt even put up their bio anywhere on the internet, let alone on a high traffic site like wikipedia. How very convenient of him now to claim that his life is in danger! All this lawyering for what patently are advocacy sites and propaganda tabloids is now starting to spill over into WP:POINT. Sarvagnya 03:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Our "comrades" seem to have connections as well.Bakaman 03:46, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

'Comrades' have agendas and 'connections' in every corner of the globe :) Sarvagnya 04:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Giano blocked

Hemlock Martinis (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has blocked Giano II (talk · contribs) for 'incivility'. I have requested he explain his action here, so that it might be reviewed. Please everyone stay cool. We can do this in good order.--Doc^g 14:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

• I disagree with the block, I can't see anything derserving one in Giano's contribs, yes he's strong with words, but he hasn't been incivil. Ryan Postlethwaite 14:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any good justification for this block. We're allowed to say someone's edits are bad, if that's what we think. How else would a collaborative editing project work? Friday (talk) 14:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I also disagree with this block and invite an explanation. Given some of the things I've seen written the last few days, the term I would use is "proportionate," and even then he's hardly the worst offender. The Arbuthnot articles are a mess. Mackensen (talk) 14:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'm giving the blocking admin 30 min to explain himself here. Let's not rush to condemn him until he does. If he's not explained by then, we unblock. Agreed?--Doc^g 14:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

• While Giano's comments were perhaps a bit over the top, realistically this block isn't going to have any positive effect here (though I understand why Hemlock Martinis enacted it). Correct me if I'm wrong, but have we not gone down this road before (i.e. civility blocks on Giano) and seen this be ineffective? IMO, we don't block someone for stating an opinion no matter how blunt it is.--Isotope23 14:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I think Giano's comments were unfortunate, but I think it highly unproductive for the project to block Giano. I will unblock him if someone doesn't do so first.

James F. (talk) 14:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Err, the proper time and place for a legitimate explanation was when the block was made, on Giano's talk page. I've no objections to an unblock sometime soon, unless more information turns up which would make it justified. Friday (talk) 14:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

(multiple e/c) I find no justification of any nature for this block and am inclined to reverse it summarily, but will join in allowing the blocking administrator an opportunity to be heard. Newyorkbrad 14:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, make it 10 min. I'm fine with an unblock though.--Doc^g 14:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I was just about to unblock five (?) minutes ago, but was thwarted by the instruction "Please discuss the block with the blocking administrator before unblocking." Giano has at times concisely expressed irritation with others' edits; he dispensed with polite circumlocutions but also in the edits I've seen did not lack civility; writing in this way on this matter is his, anybody else's right; and for good reason, as Friday says. So, Moreschi went ahead and unblocked, and good for Moreschi. -- Hoary 14:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

• I agree with the block. Referring to another as a "menace" to the project is highly inappropriate. Further, when Hemlock Martinis approached him to cool him down (see User_talk:Giano_II#Civility) Giano attacked him, with comments such as "I wish to proceed with something more useful than time-wasting and facetious debate with you". Giano has repeatedly been blocked in the past for civility concerns. While additional blocks for civility may not produce corrective results in Giano, it must be done anyways; we don't stop blocking people just because blocking them doesn't work and thus give them a free pass to be uncivil to whomever they like whenever they like. The block was clearly warranted. --Durin 14:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

• Unblocked. I've seen a few silly blocks in my time here. That one took the biscuit. Moreschi ^Talk 14:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

• OK, a few min of discussion would have been nice - but would certainly have arrived at he same consensus. Endorse unblock.--Doc^g 14:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

• Just great. Giano gets a free pass to be as uncivil as he likes. Perhaps I should make a bunch of uncivil remarks, get blocked, and keep doing it so I can keep making uncivil remarks. Afterall, blocking isn't effective. I'm sure glad we don't apply this "logic" to how we treat vandals. "Oh gosh. Blocking that vandal didn't work; they came back and vandalized. Better let them continue vandalizing!" <cough>. Unblocking was also highly premature, in the least. We only just STARTED this thread 10 minutes ago and the blocking admin hasn't even had time to explain himself. Good grief! Why even just start this thread?????? --Durin 14:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Cooldown blocks are expressly forbidden by our blocking policy. I consider it requisite for people to acquaint themselves with our guidelines before posting on this page. The noticeboard takes half an hour to download as it is. --Ghirla^-трёп- 19:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, Giano was not being especially uncivil, and if he was being blunt, I can understand why. Blocks are not there as punishment, nor are they there to prove a point. Sysops are not automata, and nor is Giano. We cannot expect perfection, especially under trying circumstances. Basically, he's right. Cleaning up COI/POV messes is a strain: I know, I've been there myself. Went to ArbCom over it. It's hard. Giano was not being evil, and even so, clemency is the virtue of the great. Durin, I have great respect for you, but just for once I think here you're wrong. How would this block really improve anything? Moreschi ^Talk 14:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

• Giano's a well-known, extremely producitive and highly-valued, slightly fragile user. The purpose of blocks is to prevent damage to the project. What purpose did this block serve in that context? Sysops are not meant to act as mindless automata, yet your comment seems to suggest that, somewhat. James F. (talk) 14:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

  The block serves to draw a line in the sand, to say "this behavior is not acceptable". Hemlock was a messenger to that effect, and tried to calm Giano down. Instead, Giano flew off the handle. The block was appropriate. --Durin 14:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

  You are not looking at the context. I have every sympathy for the situation Giano is in, and under such stress minor lapses can be forgiven. Nor were the comments for which he was warned for uncivil in the slightest. Blunt yes, uncivil no. His reaction may have been, but that can be forgiven. Giano is not a robot, and this Arbuthnot mess has caused everyone grief. An RfC will probably help. Irrational blocks will not. Moreschi ^Talk 15:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

  And Hemlock Martinis is hung out to dry. Good grief. --Durin 15:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

  An administrator is responsible for the blocks that he makes. Blocking an established contributor (or another sysop, at that) should never be done lightly. Mackensen (talk) 15:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

  No, this is not the lynch mob. I have no intention of condemning Hemlock Martinis at all. Everyone should just calm down, walk away, and forget about it. One bad block is not the end of the world. We all do that, sometimes. Not a calamity. Not even worthy of making a fuss.

• All I would say is that calling content "a mess" is commenting on the content, not the contributor, which is what you are meant to do, and the circumstances were not taken into account. Giano is basically right. Kittybrewster's articles are problematic, to say the least. We do not block people for calling a spade a spade, whether or not they're Giano. This is not a free pass, just undoing an unjustified block. Moreschi ^Talk 15:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

  If you believe Hemlock blocked Giano for calling something a mess, you haven't read the discussion. --Durin 15:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Not to condemn the blocking admin, by the way. It's just that under strain and stress even the best of us can be forgiven for losing his rag, and Giano has been putting in a lot of worthwhile and complicated work recently. Nor, in my opinion, was he especially incivil given the circumstances and the strain of recent wikidramas. Re Durin, blocking Giano for (dubious and limited) incivility, when this has been proven not to work, just to prove the point, will not help anyone. Moreschi ^Talk 14:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

• Where can I pick up my free pass? --Durin 14:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

An RfC on the whole Kittybrester fiasco might be in order.--Doc^g 14:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

That is a very good idea.--Isotope23 15:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Moreschi ^Talk 15:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

As per Mackensen, Blocking an established contributor (or another sysop, at that) should never be done lightly. In such circumstances, a thread should be started before the block, not after. I have no comment if the block or the unblock were rightful. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 15:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Here we are again. This block was clearly unjustified. Kittybrewster has indeed (perhaps unwittingly) created a mess that needs to be (and is being) dealt with. I have every faith that the wiki process will clean the "mess" up in due course, but this kind self-interested and poorly-sourced family history is indeed a "menace" to us as an encyclopedia. From Giano's talk page, it would seem that he was blocked for asking [[User:Hemlock Martinis|] to cease prolonging a "time-wasting and facetious debate". I am not sure how facetious it was, but it was certainly time-wasting. If I may caricature their exchange: "Don't be uncivil"; "I'm not being uncivil"; "Yes you are"; "No I'm not"; "I'm an admin and you are blocked. Goodnight Vienna."

An unnecessary block, now unblocked; let us all learn and move on. Remember: blocking an established editor for perceived incivility is unlikely to help. Posting on a board, such as WP:ANI and gaining some consensus for action is more likely to produce a worthwhile result. -- ALoan (Talk) 15:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Give it a rest already, Durin. Can you not find something better to do (in the future, too)? El_C 20:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Most of us already knew so-called "cool-down" blocks[42] never cool anybody down, but always heat them up. (If you didn't, please checkout the policy: "Cool down blocks—brief blocks solely for the purpose of "cooling down" an angry user—should not be used, as they inevitably serve to inflame the situation.") And we knew that the blocking admin should post controversial blocks of established editors for review on ANI, preferably before pressing the button, but at the least immediately afterwards. And we knew we're not supposed to perform a block and then go incommunicado so that people are afraid to unblock for fear of accusations of wheelwarring. And still there are blocks like this. It's depressing. I don't get to mention it was a bad block, because we've all made them? I sincerely hope we haven't. And because the famous "Free Pass" rears it ugly head if I do? Bah. Admins apparently already have a Free Pass, Durin. You don't have to pick up yours anywhere in particular. Bishonen | talk 21:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC).

• Hurrah! It's weeks since we had any Giano drama. A welcome break from WP:BLP drama. Guy (Help!) 22:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm missing the part about why we're going "hurrah", you must really be sick of BLP drama. FWIW, I consider this block very inappropriate. ALoan's Cliff notes outline the situation admirably. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Of course it's inappropriate, all Giano blocks are inappropriate. It's absurd! Guy (Help!) 22:19, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not a free pass - long-term contributors, generally including all admins, have established a large pool of demonstrated good faith. We know they're here and working for the betterment of the encyclopedia, beyond any reasonable doubt, though that can and in a rare case has changed. Truly hostile abusive behavior (even by an admin or longtime contributor) goes beyond considerations of good faith, and sometimes requires prompt blocks anyways, but in a lot of grey area you have to wonder about it with new accounts (WP:AGF is not a suicide pact).

I cannot think of anyone, from new IP accounts up through editors, key long term editors, admins, arbcom, or Jimbo, who has not made mistakes at some point, in most cases serious mistakes. That's reality and humanity. We need to understand that it happens. That is not a free pass - that's "We all fuck up", from time to time. Georgewilliamherbert 22:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

My explanation

After my initial comment to Giano about his comment on Kittybrewster's talk page, Giano replied that Kittybrewster was a menace to the project. This statement implies malicious intent on Kittybrewster's part when Kittybrewster has shown no desire to actively harm the project. I then asked that Giano use a less hostile tone when referring to other editors, and he replied that Kittybrewster and editors who support him were ignorant and "not capable of decorating a Christmas tree". This continued aggressiveness in communication after I made two requests to take it down a notch brought me to the conclusion that a short block of twenty-four hours was appropriate. The intention was that this block would be corrective and not punitive, and to indicate that incivility was not acceptable. --Hemlock Martinis 22:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

My gut reaction is that this is a good-faith block, that is not irrational, and so no shame on the blocker. Cool down blocks can work, sometimes. However, in this particular case, a block was not going to help. There are wider issues of which Giano's response was just one side in a larger dispute. Again, if I were not already busy with one arbcom case, I'd suggest that an RfC on the 'arbuthnot' issue might help. There's certainly a problems here - and it is not just Giano that sees it. Let's deal with the content issues and not focus on a few regrettable words, spoken in utter frustration. Move on everyone. --Doc^g 23:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Whenever there is a repugnant block we see again this empty talk about "faith" (I wonder how long ago the FAITHers actually read the WP:FAITH policy) and also talk about "moving on". Eventually we do and, sure enough, we are soon back at where we were. Could it be just because we too often "move on" instead of addressing the problems that cause such mess time and again? --Irpen 23:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Let's no do this. I'm giving both Giano and Hemlock the benefit of the doubt here. The other option is we all go to the barricades shouting "let's address the problems that cause this mess". However, no one agrees what it is. One side speak of "bad blocks and abusive admins" and think that's the root, the other shouts "no, it is the free pass and the incivility". Really, having that partisan shouting match will achieve nothing for anyone. Giano please tone it down, admins please don't block Giano. And let's all go sort out the Arbuthnot issues - because that is a fixable problem.--Doc^g 01:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe this is out of line, but I think that perhaps an RfC or even administrative recall (at this point, perhaps on both admins) would've been highly preferable, as it would've allowed all parties to get the issues aired out. As others have noted, a block doesn't seem appropriate. --Edwin Herdman 01:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Wait, what? I'm the only admin involved, as far as I know. Nevertheless, I am curious as to why you're suggesting administrative recall for this. --Hemlock Martinis 02:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• It is entirely out of line, 100%, to go blocking people for something as vague as saying that a user is a menace to the project. That's first. Please read WP:NPA and read the civility policy. Neither of these give any room whatever for blocking a user for what you think might be imputing malice. It is simply not there. Secondly, the block showed that you had not investigated the matter. Blocking on the basis of tripwire language is absolutely inappropriate. You need to know what's going on in the situation, and, if you do not, then do not block. It's fine not to investigate everything, but then don't block. If you had investigated, you would have seen the thread just above, for example, largely on Kittybrewster and how he actually is a menace (in one sense) to the project as a user who knows the policies and flaunts them. The thread is under "Giano ignoring consensus," but you will notice that none of it is about Giano ignoring any consensus. Rather the reverse. Even if you did not believe that Giano's characterization was warranted, even if you felt that it was hyperbolic or insulting, that still gives no grounds for blocking. It is simply staggering to me the way that people are reaching for the block button over and over again, as if long standing users with thousands of edits are vandals. Trust me: blocking is not what being an administrator is about. I'll say it again, as it never gets old: consult, confer, discuss. Geogre 02:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• The block was not based off of NPA. Civility was the core issue; calling someone a menace to the project serves no constructive purpose and only damages an already sensitive subject of discussion.--Hemlock Martinis 04:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• This doesn't look too promising. The list of names provided are mostly members of the Baronetcies project as can be seen here, or other editors (Squeakbox, Waltonmonarchist) who have been pro-baronet to some extent in the past, coupled with other editors who are vaguely involved such as Mr. Darcy and Hemlock Martinis. I would suggest any such "task force" is comprised of neutral and previously uninvolved editors, and not ones handpicked by Kittybrewster. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 03:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• I've declined to take part. --Hemlock Martinis 03:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

What a truly ridiculous explanation. More detail on Hemlock Martinis' talk page. El_C 07:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• I wouldn't worry that idea of his will not get further than Kittybrewster's page and dreams. As for Hemlock Martinis, he is obviously in need of some admin guidance and training - some of these new admins - well I do wonder... Anyhow we have some happy news on the Arbuthnot front [43] so let us be glad that some of the pages, at least, are being improved. Hemlock can spend tomorrow reverting vandalism on her as penance. Giano 07:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Block on User:Thewinchester

I am very concerned about the basis of the block of Thewinchester, who is one of the most active editors on the Australian wikiprojects and active in vandal-fighting, checking of company articles for verifiability and the like.

On reading WP:BLOCK I see that "persistent gross incivility or gross harassment" is the standard required to achieve a block, and under "When blocking may not be used", cool-down blocks are explicitly listed. In the case of this user, who was guilty of posting one incivil talk page post [44], no warning of any kind was issued and the block itself appears not to assume good faith. Personally I would have gone for an agf-2 warning.

Could someone who is not involved please review this block? Orderinchaos 15:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Thewinchester has been block by User:WJBscribe with the reason I have blocked you for 9 hours so that you can cool down a bit this is in violation of WP:BLOCK. the unblock request was denied by User:Riana citing gross incivility, yet the language used by Thewindchester while heated is not the most offensive language used in discussion on User talk:Jeffrey O. Gustafson. Further more there was no request for Thewindchester to reconsider/withdraw or appologise for the comments neither was any warning given prior to the block. This incident needs to be looked at by an uninvolved party. Gnangarra 15:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

• The 'Oh, for fuck's sake' on Jeffrey's talk page is written by Jeffrey himself. Riana ⁂ 15:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow, that's clearly inappropriate, I fully endorse the block there, I really can't see a reason to complain about it, we can block for obvious incivility which in this case, that's what there was. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

• Thewinchester acted like a dick, and when he got slapped for it he started bitching about it. All he needs to do is recognise that he was out of line and apologise, and I'm sure he'll be unblocked, but the comment was indeed way out of line. Guy (Help!) 15:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I'd say this comment is also uncivil also a similar comment was left on Thewinchester talk page. Gnangarra 15:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Further to what I said just then after looking at WJB's talk page, I really cannot understand why you two are making such a big deal of this, the block was clearly appropriate, it was reviewed by a neutral admin who agreed with the block and to be honest - it was a clear personal attack which an established user should know better not to do. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

To clarify. My block was not a "cool down block", though I advised the blocked user to use the opportunity to step back and cool down. His comments to Jeffrey were outrageous and unacceptable. He is clearly aware of our polices in this area and chose to trample across them. He response to the block has to been to quibble the reasons for it. He has made no undertaking to apologise or to moderate his conduct. I have made it clear on my talkpage that I would unblock if he were willing to apologise to Jeffrey and showed signs of having calmed and be more likely to behave appropriately in future. WjBscribe 15:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked you for 9 hours so that you can cool down a bit. [45] Orderinchaos 16:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

• 15:08, May 31, 2007 WJBscribe (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Thewinchester (contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 9 hours (incivility at User talk:Jeffrey O. Gustafson) - where does it say cool down in my block summary? That was advice on his talkpage. WjBscribe 16:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Can someone please explain to me why Template talk:Coord comments by User:Pigsonthewing are acceptable conduct from a user with a past history with Arbcom and revert parole (I suggest checking contribs too) but Thewinchester with no warnings and a good history is treated so much differently? Orderinchaos 15:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

As I asked on my talkpage, diffs? WjBscribe 15:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

This in response to a simple (and fair) question: [46], and almost every second edit on [47] (just look at those summaries, for a starter) Orderinchaos 16:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Not seeing anything that bad. He doesn't seem to be screaming that others are complete idiots. And the diff you point me to was over a week ago... Not much can be done about it now. WjBscribe 16:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The language in that edit is *less* civil than Thewinchester's in the diff in question, and consistency knows no time boundaries - if we're going to start blocking people for use of the word "idiot", we might as well start now with half the userbase. Orderinchaos 16:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

As required Thewinchester has apologised he has also ask why the uncivil comments by Guy have had no response? Gnangarra 16:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see where the apology is... The "I'm sorry" is being used as a figure of speech, not to mean "I apologise". "I'm sorry, but can anyone not see the irony of this." is not an apology and certainly not an undertaking to apologise to Jeffrey. WjBscribe 16:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, thats not much of an apology, and I'd reckon that any from this user at this point will likely be one of those "see, I apologized, now unblock me!!1!" deals. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 16:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree, that's not an apology. As for the "cool down blocks," I think the point there is that users should not be blocked just because they're angry. But the policy needs clarification: It is certainly okay to block someone that's angry and has been editing inappropriately, and it's appropriate to tell them to cool off when you do so. Mangojuice^talk 16:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

(Thewinchester has noted that he never claimed it was an apology.) Per "editing inappropriately", what in his contribs suggests this? All I see is a lot of reasonably positive AfD participation and article editing. I believe blocking should be preventative rather than punitive (and I believe policy is clearly on my side on this) Orderinchaos 16:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

• For what it's worth at this point, I agree with both the block and with the WP:BP interpretation of Mangojuice above. Disruptive incivility should be blocked. The cooldown effect is (well, maybe not here) an added benefit, not the grounds for the block itself. Sandstein 16:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

How was the incivility in the diff "disruptive"? Orderinchaos 16:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The situation here is now that whatever the discussion, however the result the damage caused by not warning first is irreparable. Continuation of the block will not result in any "cooling down" as was quest when blocking. Also it quite obvious that any/another apology will also be pointless as however its delivered it will be perceived as meaningless. Leaving Thewinchester bitter can only detremental in the long term. The question now is how do we move forward with the problem, I think that an assumption of good faith should be extended to Thewinchester by lifting the block with a condition that he doesnt enter into discussion with User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson or the blocking/reviewing editors for an agreed period of time, say the original 9 hours. Gnangarra 16:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

No we don't need to unblock, WJB has made it perfectly clear the ground on which he is willing to unblock, with a firm appology, if this hasn't come yet, I see no reason to unblock. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I will not unblock on this basis as I don't see what Thewinchester has done to warrant this gesture. He does not seem to have acknowledged that his conduct was out of order (and the asked for apology has not been forthcoming - sincere or not). However, I will obviously respect any consensus that develops here than such an unblock is appropriate. WjBscribe 16:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I would have been fine with unblocking if Thewinchester had indicated any sort of remorse for his sudden attack on Jeffrey. I saw none. I'm an AGF-y person, but I can't do so with "I will go as far as calling you a complete idiot". Riana ⁂ 17:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Right, that's it. This is just insane. You guys let User:Joestella off with everything ([48] under "South Australian general election campaign, 2006", this AfD, my talk page for April, Joe's user page, talk comments at this user's page, this attack-dog style process, POV forking and abuse and name-calling of anyone who disagrees with him etc etc), Orderinchaos raised it at this ANI and I raised it a few days later at this ANI and he was allowed to continue to go unchecked, I was told to "assume good faith" [49] even while he continued to act that way. In the end I got sick of the abuse and chose to leave. I got five or six emails asking me to come back and in the end I have decided to. But incidents like this, where someone calls someone who happens to be an admin an idiot on their talk page possibly after having a bad day, dunno, aren't people allowed to have a bad day? Anyway, the decision above is completely unacceptable and I personally will hold you guys to account for it if or when this guy ever returns. You now have no excuse for inaction. DanielT5 21:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how this is any different from Giano's block which was undone in moments, except, of course, Thewinchester isn't Giano and so this is his first offence. Valued contributor with short fuse gets a little too curt with a sensitive admin. I won't do it myself, but would urge that Thewinchester be unblocked, and we'll assume he's learnt his lesson. Neil (►) 21:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree entirely with the above post. He should be unblocked. And we should have a discussion about what the block policy is, when to use it, and why cases like mine were not addressed while cases like this got immediate attention and disproportionate action. I'm thinking of opening up an RfC on this very subject. DanielT5 21:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't approve of the user's posts, but would probably have warned rather than blocked. This is an experienced, good-faith contributor. I do note, however, that the block will soon expire by time. Newyorkbrad 22:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, finally the block has finally expired it's time to provide some much-needed context and information to clarify the issue. First and foremost, had the original blocking and pile-on admins followed due process and issued a warning (such as uw-agf2), it is likely that the comments might at the very least been rectified or retracted altogether. Instead, WjBScribe (an admin with less than 6wks admin expeirence) chose not to assume good faith on the part of the editor in question, and issued a punitive block less than 10min after the comment had been made. Further to the block, the block in question was issued with the sole purpose of being a cool down block (diff), despite his assertions to the contary within this AN/I discussion, where he has used various weasel words to try and suggest otherwise in a style reminiscent of Wikilawyering. The editor in question was given no opportunity to respond let alone correct the issues they perceived with the editors actions. The problem was compounded by a pile-on vote by a large section of admins, who I am duly informed by a reliable third party source that they themselves engaged in uncivil discussion towards the editor in question within a private IRC channel, one of their number who commented that the user should be banned from wikipedia for not having a clue (This is one of the more milder comments). Now, has been raised by DanielT5 and ors, this issue has clearly highlighted a significant lack of consistency and balance on the part of involved admins in terms applying civility and no personal attack policies as they related to incidents raised here in AN/I (Evidenced by comments in other current AN/I debates since relating to these and similar matters). Including current cases and issues cited to date by those commenting on this AN/I, users who have a clear demonstrated history of incivility and personal attacks towards other editors are more often than not ignored and left unactioned. In my specific case, a user with a significant body of work including but not limited to article research and improvement, project participation (including meetup organisation), vandal patrol, categories cleanup, image fair use issues, dealing with significantly difficult WP:CORP AfD debates which nobody else is prepared to wade into (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Out Now Consulting (2nd Nomination) as the most recent example), and additionally recently opting in to help out with Mediation Cabal cases, is in comparison unfairly punished to the point where an admin who knows me personally has to recuse himself from taking action here simply to avoid being the subject of a likely admin pile-on against him which would no doubt result. Now I can understand the blocking admin and others involved not wanting to lose face over this matter, but to use a more modern interpretation of The Art of War, I would refer to the words of Kenny Rogers in The Gambler, You got to know when to hold em, know when to fold em, Know when to walk away and know when to run.. Other significant respected admins including Newyorkbrad (who's RfA incidentally passed 225/2/0 ) I have not ever had dealings with, have of their own accord come out and said that the block was premature and the editor should have been warned first and given an opportunity to deal with the issue. I would strongly request that this is reviewed, and the block is overturned and removed post expiry in recognition of the premature and unjustified action, plus the lack of good faith assumption on the part of the blocking admin and ors. Thewinchester ^(talk) 00:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry you felt my actions were harsh. I stand by my decision however - I do not think volunteers should be subject to such attacks. By the way as small correction, I have been an admin for 2 months and not 6 weeks. I note that IRC has become fashionable to raise in these discussions. I did flag up your unblock request on #wikipedia-en-admins so it could be responded to quickly, however I made no comment about the matter. Riana responded to it. Other than that this the matter was not discussed on IRC as far as I recall. I do not question the validity of your other contributions to this project and I recognised that this behaviour was out of character. But your conduct towards Jeffery O. Gustafson was nonetheless unacceptable. I still hope you will apologise to him. WjBscribe 01:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry you felt my actions were harsh. Can you please advise where I said that in my comments above? I did neither say nor suggest that the actions were harsh, and all you're doing is trying to take my comments out of context solely for the benefit of your own position. My disagreement with the matter at hand is on two fronts, the first being an inconsistent and unbalanced application of civility and no personal attack, which has been clearly and substantively demonstrated by a number of others admins and editors passing comment on this AN/I report. The second issue in the invalid justification for the block, a matter which you and ors know full well has been covered ad nauseum on my talk page. Your comments I note that IRC has become fashionable to raise in these discussions and subsequent references to IRC comment are as I have been duly informed by reliable third-party sources, a patent misrepresentation of the facts. For you to suggest otherwise is at best dishonesty and not keeping with the same policy you sought to punitively enforce against me. You by your own admission you are a new admin, and may need to realise considering the continued and growing community consensus by those not involved in the IRC conversations and subsequent pile-on, your block was extremely hasty and well beyond what needed to be done in this instance. I would strongly suggest you need to sit down and seriously consider walking back your actions rather than continuing to disrupting Wikipedia by holding onto the vain and pointless notion that the user should apologise over what is essentially a heat of the moment comment by a known good faith editor, for which both you and Jeffrey O. Gustafson concede would be pointless at this juncture given your actions in this matter and the length of time since the block. Is it any wonder that people like DanielT5 leave WP after being subjected increasing levels of wikistress? It's not, and in these cases can be easily caused by the cabal-like actions of overheated process-based editors which drive away a sizable chunk of good contributors. You claim to want to help Wikipedia by being an admin, so how about assuming some good faith and without prejudice walking back your actions to something a little more acceptable? Thewinchester ^(talk) 01:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

What I see here is two people who have both acted inappropriately and are too vain to be the first to admit it. Thewinchester's comment was way out of line, and he should have apologised for it by now. WJBscribe's block was a total over-reaction and a obvious violation of blocking policy, and he should have apologised for it by now. At this point, as far as I'm concerned, whoever apologises first is declared the moral victor, and we can all put the issue behind us. Hesperian 05:28, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

As a neutral party to the dispute, I feel that Hesperian's proposed solution is really the only way to move forward. Clearly, the original comment was unsolicited (i.e. not a reply to an attack from said editor, just a response to their actions elsewhere) and it's not hard to characterise it as a personal attack, and Thewinchester should have been called to account for it. However, heat-of-the-moment comments should be given a chance, especially from a contributor with no past history of bad behaviour on a matter which many people here have such a strong opinion on (i.e. the future of BJAODN). This did not happen, and the opinions on this AN/I section appear to be evenly split. WJBscribe should recognise that there is absolutely no shame in admitting one made a mistake - no human is perfect, especially with such a short history of service one would expect the odd mistake or two. Zivko85 06:30, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

The sooner Hesperians and Zivko's remarks are taken on as sensible as to how this issue should be resolved - the better for all concerned SatuSuro 08:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Block on User:Rickyrab

Just blocked User:Rickyrab ([50]) and an IP ([51]) he's known to use for repeated trolling requests for the histories of BJAODN. (See [52] [53] [54] and [55]) ^demon^{[omg plz]} 02:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Canvassing

• [56]

Near 3RR

• [57]

Trolling on DRV

• [58]
• [59] - Also says he's not willing to accept the closure of the DRV, and plans to reopen it.
• [60] - Which he did

Using a known anon in a debate he already commented in

• [61]

Ignoring my Declined Request, promises to go elsewhere

• [62]

Hope this clears up a bit more, in case there's any questions. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 02:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

He was certainly advised and warned. 48 hours seems fair enough. Rklawton 02:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Seems fair to me. Endorse block. --Coredesat 05:12, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for trolling. — Rickyrab | Talk 01:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

School Block Request

I am requesting a school block on the IP I am currently using. I am a student of the school and also an active wikipedian. I have become annoyed with the constant editing of people on this IP and it is causing our school and IP to look bad in the face of wikipedia. I also want to state that you may only need a small 19 day block because school closes soon...it is your choice though — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.20.123.21 (talk • contribs)

Have school officials considered subscribing to the RSS feed from the Talk page instead? It would be better for them to be proactive on this and police their own network. --Dynaflow babble 15:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The school has tried to police but they lose interest and then it all starts again, I figured a schoolblock would be the best step in ending pretty much everything...also if you did not notice they messed up putting up the "this is a school IP" warning and failed in scaring people from editing...by the way can I fix those? Just notice they have also asked for a school block.

P.S. The IT teacher here said he will be contacting you guys later. He is bound to forget but I will remind him.

Have someone in authority send an email to appropriate address from this page: Wikipedia:Contact_us ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 17:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Use an email address with the school's URL. -- Lima Golf ^{Talk | Contributions} 09:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Civility of Jeffery O. Gustafson

I'd hate to do this, but... Jeffrey O. Gustafson (talk · contribs) has been less than civil lately, especially regarding the BJAODN issue.

I left him a message on his talk page, saying that to me, his civility has been lacking. He responds with saying that was incorrect observation. I post an example of what I mean, and he reverts my edit without reason or comment. [63]

Sincerly Whsitchy 17:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, off with his head! ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 17:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Awww, I was using that... --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 18:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Err... I mean, do you have any more examples? We don't really care about such a minor event if thats all there is. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 17:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Jeff has the same rights as every other Wikipedia editor to remove additions to his talkpage at will. I personally think it is a bad practice, but he is free to do so... and I don't find that diff horribly incivil...--Isotope23 17:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Look at his comment above that, where he's asked to reinstate the BJAODN pages (here), and the comment at here (in the middle). I'm sure there's others. Whsitchy 17:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Found another talk revert [64]. It appears to me he's removing comments he doesn't agree with to save face. Whsitchy 17:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Or perhaps you could assume good faith of his reverts? Perhaps he's entirely sick of being harassed over deleting a wretchedly unfunny copyvio? Sounds eminently plausible. Moreschi ^Talk 17:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Bingo. Plenty of stuff in my archives from folks taking issue with me over one thing or another. But trolling, personal attacks, and nonsense gets reverted on sight. The first revert noted above was trolling (I already know what I said, repeating it serves no purpose than to troll), and the second one was trolling on behalf of a blocked user using arguments that make no sense. Indeed, I say right on the top of my talk page (more or less since 2005) that "I quickly archive items nowadays, and reserve the right to revert and refactor at will." --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 18:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I think he tends to roll things back too much. But, what are you proposing should be done about it? I don't see how this is an administrative issue. Friday (talk) 17:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

BTW, using rollback on your own talk page is probably not the end of the world either. Moreschi ^Talk 17:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

To Friday: Public warning maybe, I dunno, just something to get him to calm down. I didn't know where to post this, and I thought this was the best place since he was an admin himself. To Moreschi: I'm not saying the revertings are the problem though. Whsitchy 17:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah Jeffy O. Gustafson's archiving practices are a bit exentric. I think this part of the userpage policy can cover this though - "The removal of a messages is taken as evidence that the message has been read by the user." WjBscribe 17:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm saying the problem is his civility, not the reverts of his pages. Whsitchy 17:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

As for the diffs, Rickyrab was blocked for trolling requests along these lines and I can't say that Jeff's response is all that out there given the "unique understanding" of the GFDL Ricky is displaying. The other stuff isn't all that incivil really. If you want Jeff to calm down, it's probably time for editors to stop asking him to restore content that he clearly is not going to restore.--Isotope23 17:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Yup, BJAODN is gone, it's pretty much unlamented, and I shouldn't think any admin will restore it. No point, none whasoever, in pestering people over the thing. Ye shall reap what ye have sown, etc. Moreschi ^Talk 18:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Ahem. It is clearly not unlamented; otherwise there would not be controversy over the deletion of most of the BJAODN. As for editors asking him to restore content that he does not want to, yeah, there's no point in doing so any further (especially when there are admins out there that are interested in restoring the BJAODN in a GFDL friendly manner, such as the Cunctator, see below for the conversations involving what was almost a wheel war about BJAODN). Furthermore, BJAODN is not completely gone. — Rickyrab | Talk 01:46, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I didn't rule out stress for the comments, and I fully understand that part. Just that it sort of bothered me, that's all Whsitchy 18:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Complaints against Gustafson crop up pretty frequently (I discovered this after making one myself). I'm curious as to how someone like this ever became an administrator. Perhaps a request to stand for reconfirmation is in order? Simões (^talk/_contribs) 18:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Temporary unpopularity because some copyvio gets deleted does not a bad admin make. If you really think something is broken, the kind, loving gentlemen of the Arbitration Committe are that way. Moreschi ^Talk 18:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Hahahahaha, reconfirmation! --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 19:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Heh, annoying red link or not, Jeffrey's a great admin. This is bordering on trolling now. -M^ask? 19:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, let me set some facts straight. I am not doing this as "revenge" against Jeffery for deleting the sub-pages. I can see where he was coming from when he did that. However, I just thought some of his comment towards users weren't really civil. That's all. Whsitchy 19:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, a slap on Jeffrey's wrist is in order.

*slap*

There. Can we all go on about our business, please? Thank you! Phaedriel - 19:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, time to move on here.--Isotope23 19:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The comments may have been blunt but they certainly weren't uncivil. Now put your Spiderman pyjamas away. Nick 19:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Can we still increase the distance between his ears and shoulders? :p ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 22:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• I find this totally amazing that an admin is let off for being uncivil particularly when he has a history of it. Even worse still, he was involved in a whole whole debate here regarding a very minor breach of WP:CIV where one admin clearly chose to overreact and despite clear community consensus against his actions (ignoring pile-on votes), refused not walk back his decision, and clearly does not wish to respond to any comments or have anyone see or hear further discussion on this matter diff. Jeffery O. Gustafson should know full well the policies and as such his actions should not go unpunished by the community, particularly since he is an admin and should be held to an even higher standard than the regular tireless contributors. This is a further demonstration in the disparate application of WP policies against certain groups of users, and quite frankly does nothing other than to weaken WP policy in these matters. I have removed the resolved tag from this AN/I report and I am asking for immediate review of this decision particularly in light of these additional facts, and a subsequent enforcable undertaking or punishment be issued to Jeffery O. Gustafson. Cheers, Thewinchester ^(talk) 04:11, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

The demands in here for the above user to apologise to Jeffery for one single comment now ring rather hollow in my estimation given the above proceedings. I am concerned about the clear lack of balance which seems to have emerged, as was pointed out at the time by User:DanielT5, but emphasised beyond doubt in this case. Orderinchaos 04:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Please note that Jeffery is now removing Talk page edits which dare to point to where one can find the BJAODN content. Corvus cornix 04:17, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

OK! OFF WITH HIS HEAD! OFF WITH IT! HE COULD JOIN THE HEADLESS HUNT FOR ME INSTEAD. :) — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 05:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Yawn... WP:EL: "Sites that violate the copyrights of others per contributors' rights and obligations should not be linked." --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 10:08, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

No, Nick. We must lynch him. It is the only way the community will be satisfied. -Pilotguy hold short 13:16, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Cmapm on Estonian SSR

Cmapm has repeatedly reverted Estonian SSR into a former, less detailed and less sourced version, making on its talk page unsubstantiated claims of WP:NPOV violation and copyright violation, but finally admitting to WP:IDONTLIKEIT regarding the longer version. Specifically, he appears to dislike its detailed description of damages caused by Soviet occupation of Estonia.

Considering that having Yet Another Edit War over this obvious partial blanking issue is certainly not the preferrable move, what should be done? Digwuren 19:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Please stop forum shopping. This page is not part of our dispute resolution process. You know what to do when you have a content dispute. --Ghirla^-трёп- 19:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Forum shopping!? This persons actions are seriously disrupting! It would be a content dispute if the person engaging in these actions had some content. He has not. He is just deleting stuff he does not like.--Alexia Death 19:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

There seem to be reasonable concerns that you and Digwuren are the same person. Why do you always second each other, in a matter of several minutes? --Ghirla^-трёп- 19:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

If you would read the checkuser discussion to the end, you would see there's nothing reasonable about such a "concern". Digwuren 20:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Because we watch same articles of course! And I personally watch every known opponents talk page. As to us being the same person, read it. It says NO CONNECTION, when a person with networking knowhow looked on data. --Alexia Death 20:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, no connection isn't at all what it said... it was more like "indeterminate"...--Isotope23 20:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I quote David Gerard: "Just looking at this. I can't nail a link with any of the first three and anyone else based on CheckUser.". Does not seem indeterminate to me.--Alexia Death 20:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I also object dragging that case, in witch all sockpuppeting accusations were proven false in the end into this debate as a weapon making me defend myself all over again. I do not see an honest reason for doing so...--Alexia Death 20:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Does someone need to pop over there and protect the wrong version?--Isotope23 19:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Looks like protection is warranted, even to just give both sides a chance to talk it out. -M^ask? 20:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The talk page shows that Ive asked this person to present his sources and info. To that he said that he basically answered that the wasn't going to...--Alexia Death 20:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe protection is desirable, although we have a separate noticeboard for such requests. --Ghirla^-трёп- 20:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying me on my talk page. BTW, you've forgotten to give a link to our discussion in Talk:Estonian SSR, from which origins of the "incident" can easily be traced out, showing who was first to remove disliked references and "thoroughly rewrite" the article, giving overwhelming preference to Estonian source over other ones. And I agree with an experienced user whom I respect very much, Ghirlandajo, that you are believed to have chosen a wrong way for content dispute resolution. Cmapm 22:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing up the issue here. I see very little commitment to discussing and resolving the issue on the talk pages. Therefore I do not think the normal dispute resolution mechanisms will work in this case. The way I see it, the only way this dispute can end, is that one, or both of the editors involved in the dispute, is permanently banned from editing Wikipedia.

One of the editors here is clearly a single-purpose account, with an agenda. His contributions to Wikipedia thus far seem to be limited to WP:TE and WP:DE. I suggest that administrators closely follow the editors involved in this dispute, if for nothing else, to gather evidence for the upcoming WP:ArbCom.

As for the article. It has been neglected for a long time. I welcome the expansion, and I believe the article should be allowed to grow. As for possible POV, I believe it can be sorted out at a later date, once this round of expansion ends. -- Petri Krohn 01:33, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, you gotta love how Petri helps to encourage discussion[65], no more comments needed.--Staberinde 06:09, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

May the record also indicate that Petri Krohn attempted to get rid of this link. As above, any comment I might add would be rather unnecessary. Digwuren 18:00, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I did not come here to point the finger at anyone or name either party as responsible for the incident. (Let the records speak for themselves.) With your last edit, you have hovewer managed to maneuver yourself right under the ☞ tip of this finger of blame. -- Petri Krohn 06:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

To Petri Krohn: Your attacks are becoming very tiresome. What happened to assume good faith? If theres an ArbCom coming I welcome it, if it means that after that these personal attacks and insults stop.--Alexia Death 06:38, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

As of June 2, the page is under protection. This would appear to resolve the issue for now, but it is not a stable solution. Digwuren 08:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Kaikolar_are_Thevadiyaal, User:Willow_Walker, User:Baccarat on article Mudaliar and Talk:Mudaliar

The following user IDs are making statements of extreme vulgarity. They maybe sockpuppets of the same user User:Kaikolar_are_Thevadiyaal, User:Willow_Walker, User:Baccarat. They are involved in highly uncivilized language and deleting the RFC I posted in the talk page. Please take appropriate action against these logins.

Please restore my RFC request on the talk page.

Sriramwins 20:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• I don't see evidence Baccarat (talk · contribs) is a troll, but I blocked the other 2 accounts.--Isotope23 20:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, this is interesting. I haven't taken a close look at the situation but it is definitely at risk for the arrival of sockpuppets of User:Mudaliar and User:Venki123, both blocked per the ArbCom case Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Mudaliar-Venki123. Somebody take a look and see if we'll need some ArbCom enforcement/checkuser. The Behnam 18:49, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Night Gyr

Please see this diff. Admin Night Gyr has announced that s/he will be providing the press with material that was deleted as a BLP violation. Corvus cornix 20:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

My comment was misinterpreted. 'her' refers to the subject of the article, not the author. This was in line with what happened in the Sean Hornbeck case and was endorsed by several other editors and administrators, including Newyorkbrad: "I endorse this approach and was actually planning to ask whether it would make sense for an OTRS volunteer to reach out to the Hornbeck Foundation and solicit their views on this matter (including the views of Shawn Hornbeck himself, specifically) as part of our overall effort to build sensitivity to the needs and rights of crime victims to our approach to this type of article. I would have no objection to temporary reinstatement of the article for a day or two so they can look it it, if that is requested. Night Gyr, I would also appreciate your drawing the attention of whomever you are in touch with to the reasons that I gave for the deletion. I think that in fairness they should know that the basis for my concern was the privacy interest of victims, especially minors, even if a given person victim might be prepared to consider waiving such privacy interest in this particular case." (quote from newyorkbrad) Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• I read the comment the way Night Gyr clarified above. A query, is it a BLP violation to send a copy of the article to the subject of the article? Clarification as to the community's opinion on that might assist in resolving this before it hits crisis mode. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 20:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I read it the other way, but either way, I don't know. Surely the subject has certain rights? Moreschi ^Talk 20:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Night Gyr has been desysopped. Corvus cornix 20:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[66] - I asked the stewards about this, and Guillom did an emergency desysopping while the arbcom decides this. He says: "[guillom] DavidGerard_, just tell them this was an emergency procedure, because the arbcom wasn't reachable ; now they have to take care of that and if the emergency was not justified, then a bureaucrat will sysop him without delay" - David Gerard 20:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

(multiple edit conflicts)

Ok this is ridiculous. I am not planning to and I never intended to say that I would release content to the press. I'm simply using the reporter as a contact to see if he can put me in touch with the article's subject, since he wrote the front page article about it. This is a practice that I have done before with wide endorsement. See the remarks in the Sean Hornbeck case. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I think everyone read your grammar wrong. Moreschi ^Talk 20:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

It was quite clear to me and, presumably, a bunch of other folks who didn't de-sysop him , so 'everyone' is a bit of an overstatement.  :) Don't panic, folks. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 20:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Is an arbcom case open and if so where? If not, who's bringing it? This all seems to have happened rather hastily... -- ChrisO 20:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The numerous "her"s are certainly not a smoking gun, and given that Night Gyr has now clarified the matter, I hope a bureaucrat will resysop him promptly. CMummert · talk 20:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Corvus, I believe you may owe Night Gyr a bit of an apology. Considering the seriousness of the accusation, a critical read of the text is warranted, and it's quite clear that he was speaking of sending a copy not to the press, but to the subject of the article. A rap of the knuckles on other folks involved might be appropriate too, c'mon guys. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 20:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

No, I may well owe Night Gyr one. I'm still running around trying to find a current arbitrator online - David Gerard 20:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Did you consider leaving a note on an ArbCom member's talk page and not taking action until then? It's awful when people aren't on IRC, I guess. A block would normally work a bit better than a demotion, unless the person then unblocked himself, and then you might have cause. Sheesh. How many "instant super fast" actions do we ever really need? Geogre 01:55, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

The writer was the subject of the first clause, so it's entirely natural to assume that it's the subject of the second clause. Hence the confusion. Moreschi ^Talk 20:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

and I was pretty sure the writer was a dude, so her was unambiguous to me. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Not to me, I'm afraid :) Moreschi ^Talk 20:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Given that his name is "Eli", I feel that his "dudeness" was a reasonable assumption, although I suppose it could be short for "Elizabeth"? JavaTenor 20:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't the first to tell Night Gyr that his/her suggestion was inappropriate. I did think, though, that it needed wider circulation, which was why I brought it here. I apologize to Night Gyr if he/she did not intend what a read of the comments would have led a reasonable person to assume that he/she meant. but I still think that this should have been addressed here. And *I* wasn't the person who did the desysopping, I don't have that ability. Corvus cornix 20:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) to be fair, my wording could have been clearer before I went back and edited it. My attempt to contact her was sparked directly by this comment on my talk page. I just figured I'd send her the text directly instead of such a biased opinion on it. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

So it's okay to send deleted content to other people, as long as we don't send it to the press? Sorry this won't wash. --Tony Sidaway 20:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I was going on the Sean Hornbeck precedent. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Tony, to be clear, he was talking about sending the text of the article to the person the article was about. Does your objection stand? If so, this may be a grey area of BLP that should be hashed out. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 20:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about this Sean Hornbeck precedent, and I'm not amused by the suggestion that our deleted material can be leaked. It cannot. Has Night Gyr has sent deleted material to the subjects of articles in the past? Is that why he claims a "precedent", because he got away with it? --Tony Sidaway 21:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Did you read the statement quoted from Newyorkbrad at the beginning of this section? or the Sean Hornbeck DRV? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, just to be clear : Night Gyr's statement was ambiguous enough to require an emergency procedure (that was asked by people from your wiki). I knew there was a possibility of misspelling, but there was also a possibility of disclosure. I desysopped him to let the time for the ArbCom to look into this case or for him to explain himself. If he was really about to disclose deleted bio content, risks were high and action was necessary. If it was only a misunderstanding, losing his admin tools during a few hours was no big deal, and any bureaucrat would give him his tools back without any problem. Cheers, guillom 20:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Didn't seem ambiguous to me, he specified the person he was sending it to by name. Poor, hasty judgment from folks on this wiki may have contributed to the confusion. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 20:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Not originally, I edited it after I got a message on my talk page about it. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Yep, the original diff actually is clear-cut (the wrong way) if you don't know about the gender of the writer. Moreschi ^Talk 20:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

or that I was writing it in response to FCYTravis's request to email the subject of the article. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

This is the ambiguity: [67]. The steward action seems wise given the implications. If Night Gyr just expressed himself poorly he can of course be resysopped but guillom seems to have acted correctly. WjBscribe 21:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Concur; the desysopping was entirely appropriate as a preventative measure. The log notes it was an "emergency" desysopping. There was a serious concern that a sysop might be intending to release BLP deleted material. I suggest we drop criticism of the desysopping and focus on the issue at hand. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• I am baffled as to why we would consider that it's OK to say that a bunch of guys who type with one hand drooled over this girl even if she did "approve" it in some way. And anyway, OTRS is the channel for that kind of thing. Tis was an incredibly bad idea, whatever the motivation. Guy (Help!) 21:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • If the concern was that she wouldn't want it on the internet... Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, well either way, do we send the article to this lady? Is that, as it were, the proper course of action? Seems to me we might want to sort that out. Moreschi ^Talk 21:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Have you taken leave of your senses? No we do not. And we do not contact her at all unless and until she contacts us. --Tony Sidaway 21:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

tell that to FCYTravis. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that FCYTravis was employing a rhetorical device to get you to come to your senses, not actually advocating that you actually contact the victim here. But I suspect that if you are ethical in the way most of us are, thinking about what you would say to the victim would indeed have brought you to your senses. I hope so anyway. ++Lar: t/c 21:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

"Would you mind having a brief biography of you listing your records and explaining what happened in wikipedia?" or "What do you think of this article text that we're thinking about using?" Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

"Oh and by the way, we can't promise it will stay as that version, and anyone can come along and change it at anytime" --pgk 21:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I have just become aware of this situation including the fact that comments I made earlier in the week in another DRV are being referred to. What happened in that case was that I deleted two articles that referred to abductions of and sexual assaults upon two minors, out of respect for the privacy interests of the minors and their families. In one of these cases the deletion has raised relatively few eyebrows, but in the other (Shawn Hornbeck) it has been pointed out that the Hornbeck family has affirmatively sought publicity as advocates for missing children and established a website and a charitable foundation for this purpose, which led some of the commenters on the DRV to question whether my concerns were misplaced in this particular case. The DRV is still ongoing and I would welcome additional comments there (see, Wikipedia:Deletion review#Shawn Hornbeck and Ben Ownby).

During the course of that DRV, Night Gyr indicated that if a major ethical question about our article on Shawn Hornbeck was whether the Hornbeck family would consider that it invaded their privacy rights, a reasonable step would be to contact the Shawn Hornbeck Foundation for their input. This could obviously not be the course pursued in every BLP-related deletion but under these circumstances it seemed like a reasonable thing to do. In any event, Night Gyr's statement that he had done this and my comment that I endorsed this step in this particular instance was not commented on, adversely or otherwise, by any of the dozen or more other editors, including relatively senior admins, who have participated since that time in the DRV.

Frankly, the factors present in the Shawn Hornbeck case are not equally applicable to the present situation. Extrapolating from that situation to this one was unwarranted and I would not have and certainly do not endorsed Night Gyr's proposed initiative in the case of Alison Stokke, in part because there is no evidence that this subject or her family have affirmatively sought any form of publicity and in part because the policy arguments for retaining her article are much less strong. As a general matter, we all know that we must be careful about reinstating or deleting any deleted material, even though in this case it is apparently that little harm would actually have been caused by relevation of the material (although more harm might have been caused by unsolicited contact by a perceived Wikipedia representative in general, no matter what the person had to say, given the history of the past couple of weeks). In the limited cases where outreach to an article subject is warranted, this should be undertaken only by an approved OTRS volunteer and after appropriate senior-level consultation.

The fact is, however, that if Night Gyr had actually undeleted and restored the entire Allison Stokke article, this action would have been criticized and he would probably have been added as a party to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff or a similar arbitration case, but I doubt there would have been an emergency desysopping. If reinstating the article for the entire world to read would not have warranted emergency desysopping, then it is difficult to see that suggesting an intent to disclose the content to a single individual should do so, particular where the content, although highly troublesome under BLP, does not pose an imminent danger and consists of material that was on the front page of the Washington Post last week.

I would suggest that Night Gyr's sysop bit be restored on condition that he clearly and definitively drop any plans to disclose any deleted material to anyone or to contact the subject of any article or any member of the press. Further measures, if any, can then be considered by ArbCom if anyone desires to bring a case. Newyorkbrad 21:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Not sure that makes sense. You argue that Night Gyr shouldn't have been desysopped even if he'd threatened to leak to the press (which I disagree with) but then impose conditions before his sysop bit is restored. Surely if you think he did nothing that warranted losing them, he should just get the tools back... WjBscribe 21:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The point of my post is not to finally evaluate the merits of this matter; that's ArbCom's or the community's job. I think that Night Gyr used very poor judgment in this instance. However, my purpose here was to suggest an interim solution that everyone could hopefully live with. Obviously if Night Gyr states that he will not do any of the actions that he was desysopped for fear he would do, and assuming that no one disbelieves him, my hope is that the circumstances that led to an emergency desysopping would be alleviated. (It is ironic that Night Gyr is on the other side from me in pretty much every one of these BLP debates, yet I find myself here to an extent defending him. That seems to happen to me a lot lately.) Newyorkbrad 21:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I agree with you that a few of them should be deleted/redirected/stubbed, just want to see a little more civility and respect (for process too) around here. Anyway, I thought [68] was pretty unambigious that I wasn't going to do what I got desyssopped for seeming like I was going to do. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:26, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• I would note in passing that there is a huge difference between contacting the Shawn Hornbeck Foundation - a charitable body - and attempting to contact an individual who has been the subject of some pretty unsavoury attention on the Internet. I would hope that this would not actually need pointing out, but apparently it does. Guy (Help!) 21:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • In neither case I did I contact the subject directly, just someone who could place me in contact with them to ask if they would forward a message or place the subject back in contact with me at their discretion. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:26, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Guy is obviously right and I believe I said this above (using more words). Newyorkbrad 21:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
      • That's why I tried contact the news outlet that interviewed her. Obviously she's talked to someone about her fame, and I'm not trying to stalk her down at home. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad, if you're suggesting that Night Gyr undertake, as all administrators have, not to disclose the contents of deleted pages, then resysopping may be merited provided he agrees to it. As suggested any decision on desysopping could be taken on due consideration by the arbitration committee, in the light of this and other problematic incidents involving that admin. --Tony Sidaway 21:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Also I'd like to note that Everyking's desysoping came after offering to reveal personal information, not article content. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Everyking's left me a note to say I may have misstated things here. Just going by my reading of the signpost article, so don't take my word on it. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 02:42, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I can't see a problem here. NightGyr's choice of words gave the impression that he might do something undesirable, but probably not so undesirable as to warrant emergency desysopping. He has no intention to do so. The probably-unnecessary emergency desysopping should be reversed forthwith, and Ma'at shall look indly upon the world. The Land 21:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

This is a serious over-reaction. Night Gyr should be re-sysopped at once. This is the first I've heard about any undertaking to not disclose the content of deleted pages. Things get undeleted all the time. In this case, the blp problem seems to have been the existence of the page, not its content. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Seconded, it was absolutely an overreaction. Almost Bostonian in scope. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 21:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Thirded; I'd even go for Chicken Little in nature. Ninety-nine percent of people willing to release confidential information to the press would either (a) not say that in public or (b) make a copy of said confidential information before saying that in public. -- tariqabjotu 21:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Fourthed. I've seen a number of admins in the past state that they would provide the content of deleted pages upon request. If there has been a recent uproar, and people keep mentioning some ongoing arbcom case, it might be worth noting that not all admins spend their days following the latest development in wikipolitics, and may have no idea about the latest panic. The sheer length of this discussion is evidence that there was ambiguity. Admins are required to follow policy, not be immune to bouts of stupidity. If people are saying that the idea is stupid, but can't make an uncontroversial argument about why his idea is clearly against policy, there is no cause for an emergency desysopping. The fact that resysopping is taking so long is ridiculous. - BanyanTree 03:35, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it was an overreaction. We don't leak info that's deleted due to BLP to the press. But given Night Gyr has clarified that this was not his intention, I propose he be resysopped without further condition. WjBscribe 21:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Offering to copy controversial deleted content off-site is a poor decision regardless of whether Night Gyr meant to send it to the journalist or to the article subject. Undeletion, in fact, is less of a bad decision, since it can be reversed; copying it outside Wikipedia can't be.

I also wonder at Night Gyr's reasoning for wanting to contact the article subject, who's already bothered by all the unwelcome attention, purely to send her the content of a deleted Wikipedia article. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

that, as linked earlier in the post, is why I sought her opinion. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

A note, he didn't threaten to leak it to the press, and the corrected confusing wording had been fixed well before the hammer dropped. It's an important distinction, and compromises one of the many missing inanimate carbon rods that are supposed to keep this type of meltdown from happening. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 21:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I corraled Fred Bauder and Morven, who are looking into the thing right this moment - David Gerard 21:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm still getting a handle on this, but let's be absolutely clear about something: it would be completely and utterly improper to disclose potentially libelous/slanderous/bad revisions to the media (or anyone, really), and on reading that diff that sounds like what Night Gyr was offering to do. Text can be deleted and undeleted on-wiki, but once emailed it's gone, out of our hands and control. Imagine if we'd caught the Siegenthaler problem in time, but somebody decided to email him the article regardless. This may have been an overreaction but I cannot fault the people responsible. Mackensen (talk) 21:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

No one has claimed that the article was inaccurate, though. It wasn't libelous like Siegenthaler, the concern was whether the subject would be harmed by existence of an article that didn't violate anything else. So I decided to ask, as I was prompted to do. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• You know something? If Night Gyr's reaction had been "Jeez, you're right, that was dumb, wasn't it. Oops", I dont think we'd be having this conversation here. Guy (Help!) 22:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually, I went to change and clarify within minutes of the first message on my talk page, but the wheels were already in motion. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • like if you check this I actually changed the wording before the ani post was made. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • first I hear of it reply on his talk page, not realizing that I was misunderstood, then I fix the wording in the next three minutes. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• But your follow up indicates that you have not seen why this was such a dumb idea. Which it was. I mean, I have done some abysmally stupid things and got away wiht them, there but for the grace of God and all, but really - really - the mere idea of takign this to either the press or - infinitely worse - the subject was so wrong that there is no sane response but to slap yourself on the forehead and say "duh!". Guy (Help!)

• no one had ever said anything but positive things to me about talking to the subject... Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
• JZG, I've asked for clarification on the subject of sending the BLP deleted data to the subject on WT:BLP, your insight would be appreciated. I'm not sure it's as obviously abysmally dumb as you've asserted, it seems like an area of BLP that has yet to be defined. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 22:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not at all obvious to me why people are referring to this as an "overreeaction", when, in the best possible reading of events, an en: administrator intended to use their ability to read deleted content to track down the subject of unwanted internet attention in order to email them an article about their personal life and the harassing incident. Should I take the "chicken little" comments above to mean that en: administrators think that this is responsible use of adminship privileges? I'd much rather have one less en: admin than a news story about how Wikipedia's deleted content was emailed to the latest internet meme victim by one of Wikipedia's "trusted users". If we are going to say that this is okay, further thoughts here. Jkelly 22:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

yeah, you are misreading it. All I did was click this link on this article and type in a message asking if he'd let her know that there was a discussion on whether wikipedia should have an article about her and her opinion was being sought. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• This desysopping was way out of line. I've had it with BLP fascism. There is no evidence that the information in the article was not verifiable and well-sourced, and it is absolutely clear that the article was deleted out of process. So much for Wikipedia is not censored. IT IS NOT OUR JOB TO MAKE MORAL JUDGMENTS. WE'RE A GODDAMN ENCYCLOPEDIA, WE REPORT RELIABLE SOURCES, WE DON'T PASS JUDGMENT ON THEM. *** Crotalus *** 22:19, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Fascism as a type of government involved a merger of the public and private spheres, an assertion of economic autarky, a promotion of mass nationalism, and the rejection of the transcendental and the Enlightenment. What this has to do with BLP I can't fathom. Mackensen (talk) 22:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I was of course using the term in the metaphorical sense, to express my level of disgust at this witch hunt. (Oops, there's another metaphor.) *** Crotalus *** 22:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
      • I know what you meant; I found it to be in appalling taste, and I doubt very much I'm the only one. Mackensen (talk) 22:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Godwin's Law, game over, you lose. Corvus cornix 23:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Admins shouldn't be misusing their tools to undelete articles in the interests of outside bodies. Articles should be deleted and undeleted in the interests of Wikipedia only. Exceptions are where someone has written an umambiguously harmless thing that was deleted because it wasn't policy-compliant and he doesn't have a copy; then okay, maybe e-mail it to him. But if in even the slightest doubt, or if there's any controversy, then definitely not. SlimVirgin ^(talk)

In this case, it was supposed to be in the interest of wikipedia to settle once and for all whether the outside party would object, given that many arguments were based on that. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

You were going to send it to a newspaper! We have a communications committee to decide that kind of thing. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

...No I wasn't. I've clarified this many times. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 23:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

In my view admins contacting article subjects independently is a bad idea. If article subjects come here and involve themselves that is all well and good, and we can then communicate with them, but approaching private citizens who have not involved themselves is intrusive. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I dunno but if I were a reptilegentleman from the press I think my first reaction to this would be a folow up article on how wikipedia has decided to start asking subjects of articles what they think about them. Que 5,00 word op ed on whats wrong with wikipedia. For this reason, if no other, I do think that this wasn't the brightest idea we have had for a while. The last think we need is more wikidrama - especially with all the BLP stuff going on right now. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Speaking as a press handler, I shudder at the thought. But I don't think PR hypotheticals should be a consideration here - David Gerard 23:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Emergency desysopping

I think the more important point about this discussion is not the rights and wrongs of NightGyr's intentions, but the emergency desysopping. As I understand it there are three levels of speed to an involuntarily desysopping

• The normal speed: Arbcom opens case, makes judgement, steward desysops
• The emergency speed: Arbcom hastily corresponds on irc/email and authorises desysopping pending review
• The 'imminent threat to the project' speed - someone convinces the first available steward that there is a really really good reason to desysop someone.

I am unclear whether anyone from ArbCom at all was involved in the decision to desysop NightGyr, so whether it's in the second or third category. In either case I do not see anything in his comments requiring desysopping right this instant. I think the speed of the desysopping, and the lack of clarity about procedure, is what makes this incident particularly concerning. The Land 22:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• The fact that you don't see anything requiring an immediate de-sysopping doesn't exclude the fact that others did. Read the comments above. The specter of an administrator emailing content not meant for publication to third parties clearly bothers a lot of people, and it sounded as though he was about to act. A series of misunderstandings perhaps, but at the end of the day he gets his bit back and no harm done. Mackensen (talk) 22:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I can see why Corvus got very worried when seeing the comments. I don't see why it requires the same level of action as if NightGyr's account had been compromised by Willy on Wheels. Particularly as NightGyr was promptly explaining his actions. We should not be spooked by a 'specter'. The Land 22:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Were the account compromised he would have been blocked indefinitely, which did not occur. Further, your comment fails to account for the fact that what he actually proposed, per his own clarification, was also quite inappropriate. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Nonsense. If admins act inappropriately then you talk to them, raise the matter here or with Arbcom. You don't immediately get someone to desysop them. The Land 00:16, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

If I'd been able to find an arbitrator it would have been second; as it was I thought doing something quickly was in order, so I went to the stewards and went "WHAT ON EARTH". I'm not an arbitrator, but I'm an ex-arbitrator and a noisy bugger and so forth. So the steward who acted said "emergency desysop, resysop quickly if the arbs say so" and I immediately continued in search for them. The AC is discussing this actively and Fred has spoken on Night Gyr's talk page - David Gerard 23:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Were he about to act, he would've already had the deleted article on his hard drive anyway, and desysopping would've made no difference. As it stands, however, it appears his intentions were good even if possibly misguided. This makes no sense. I'm as much in favor of BLP as anyone, but it's being seriously overreached recently. It's a good policy, but WP:ENC is worth remembering too. There will come times when it's encyclopedic to cover bad things that happen to a good person, and while I don't think this particular case is one of them (15 minutes of fame stories belong on Wikinews), we need to be prepared for that case when it does happen, and not shy away from it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Has NightGyr been resysopped yet, now that it's been clarified, or is arbcom still reviewing? Georgewilliamherbert 23:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Still no buttons. I answered Fred Bauder a while ago back on his talk page, not sure what's left to say. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 23:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Ugh... why do people call them buttons??? Maybe I'm using the bootleg version of Wikipedia, but they look like tabs to me. -- tariqabjotu 01:18, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Sysops can access deleted pages for administrative/janitorial purposes. Nothing else. Transcribing and sending deleted pages is not what that access was meant for and it's an abuse of position. If an article was deleted, it should remain hidden. (Remember copyvios? wikipedia keeps them and is on the safe side since it isn't disclosing them to public, admins are expected not to make public deleted stuff) -- drini ^[meta:] _[commons:] 01:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

A number of admins openly advertise "I will hand you a copy of the contents of a deleted article" for review purposes or to see if a salvagable new version could be done using some of the old content. Presumably admins are expected to not abuse BLP deletions in that manner, and can't overcome oversight in that manner, but I think you're overstating the expected secrecy level for deleted pages... Georgewilliamherbert 01:59, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I think this whole thing was rather abusive -- the "emergency" demotion -- and shows some serious flaws in the way things are going around here. Did anyone decide to talk to the supposed dangerman? Seeing how easily this was cleared up here, why was it not cleared up first? Did anyone consider a block? If the admin were set on causing massive legal damage, then he would unblock himself, and then there might be grounds for a demotion. Finally, what makes anyone think that they were catching a rogue admin bent on world domination? If one of us really were about to go bonkers and betray the Foundation, then that one would simply do it, and not suggest that he was thinking about doing it.

This business is horrendous. How was it even possible? How was such a quick, unreasoned demotion possible? The demented decision making at the speed of light suggests that reasoning and acting were being done by some medium other than Wikipedia.

I am not blaming anyone for wanting to stop a BLP violation. I am not blaming anyone for misreading the post. I am not blaming anyone for thinking that we had a fire that needed stamping out. On the other hand a demotion and without so much as a "did you mean it?" And this happens in how much time? Bad, bad, bad. Geogre 02:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Let's not over-react to the over-reaction. Not everything is evidence of IRC conspiracy. David Gerard made a judgment call. There was some miscommunication, and the situation finally turned out to be less urgent than feared. It sounds like Night Gyr will be re-sysopped shortly with no prejudice. There is little damage to him or the project in his not having buttons/tabs for a few hours. If we want to discuss the procedure for emergency de-sysopping, it might be better to do that tomorrow and elsewhere. Tom Harrison ^Talk 02:32, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

• It's no different in character to a block. It's done to prevent a perceived problem. And then we can talk about it (as we are). No big deal, although I'm glad it's not me. Guy (Help!) 07:07, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Restoration to user sandbox space?

So as a point of clarification, does this mean that restoring deleted articles to user sandbox space is also inappropriate? I have seen admins that accomodate this quite often. It now appears that this is not acceptable. --Tbeatty 06:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Depends on why it was deleted. It has never been acceptable to give away material that was deleted because of potential libel issues, or other BLP concerns. Admins need to use good judgement and the consequence of bad judgement is desysopping. In this particular case the deleted content does not appear particularly sensitive, but getting into an argument at DRV and saying, "I'm going to send the deleted article to the Washington Post" (which is what he seemed to be saying) is bound to trigger a red alert, at least until the situation can be clarified. Thatcher131 06:25, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Assuming good faith

So I've read through all of this, and maybe I missed it, but if an admin says their going to do something that is not a good idea, isn't the best response to assume good faith and assume that the admin is operating with the best of intentions? Would it be difficult to leave the admin a message on their talk page or e-mail them saying "I don't think this is a good idea, here's why..." or "Did you know that this is against XXX policy?..." If that had happened in this case, the matter might have resolved itself very quickly with a reply that de-obfuscated the pronouns. If we can't assume the good faith of our fellow admins, Wikipedia will become a very unpleasant place to hang out! -- ☑ SamuelWantman 08:17, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Unless the admin in question has already shown a tendency to disregard gently worded suggestions not to do things, of course. ++Lar: t/c 18:27, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Deleted content is rarely secret content

Just because something got deleted doesn't mean it's necessarily secret. In this case the Wikipedia article contained nothing not already very widely published both in online and offline sources. Anyone can cobble together an article like that in five minutes. There wouldn't have been any "leak". Haukur 09:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

It is an easy and obvious act to copy a page, along with its history and the associated discussion to one's own hard drive when it looks like an interesting or useful article might be deleted. Not rocket science, does not require any admin powers. Beside any Google cache or Answers,com mirror, anyone could in fact copy any articles up for deletion to an alternate site they created for the purpose, "Deletopedia" or some such, under the GFDL license and keep it there forever, if they had the bandwidth and server space. This action made way too much of "special admin powers" and was closing the barn door after the horse departed. Edison 16:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

More like burning down the barn with the horses still inside. (if we're gonna go wrong with our metaphors let's go really wrong)Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 16:31, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, the exact text in question was still publicly available on the Internet when Night Gyr was ostensibly "emergency" desysopped so he couldn't get his hands on it. It still is publicly available on the Internet. If Night Gyr had really set his mind on sending the text to person A or B the desysopping wouldn't even have slowed him down. It makes a mockery of the essential process of emergency-desysopping. Haukur 17:59, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Anyone got a status update on the arbcom proceedings or anything? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:35, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Are there any? Fred Bauder accepted your explanation and is fine with resysopping you. Morven was fine with it too, he just asked for a confirmation that you wouldn't do "this or similar in future". It's a bit unclear what 'this' means in the context (i.e. where Morven thought you were going to hypothetically send the content of the article, the subject of the confusion) but I'd advice you to just go over to WP:BN say that you've learned whatever lessons there were to be learned and ask for your bit back, citing the arbs' posts. Haukur 23:08, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Question@User:Stevewk

ResolvedMOS issues explained and ignored; blocked for 60 hours by Tariqabjotu for multiple 3RR. --YFB ¿ 02:20, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Stevewk seems to want to put in hard spaces into the following article ... could someone look at the situation ...

Miscellaneous Works of Edward Gibbon

The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire

Edward Gibbon

... thanks ... J. D. Redding 21:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Point him in the direction of the manual of style? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Abusive moves by Gryffindor

Gryffindor (talk · contribs) has been using his admin powers to delete and move pages. In particular,

• He has moved Elisabeth of Bohemia to Elisabeth Stuart, without any discussion, and despite a lengthy and harmonious discussion, still on the talk page, which also resulted in the present text of WP:NCNT.
• He moved Province of Trento to Trentino unilaterally and in the middle of a discussion on the talk page, in which he was deeply involved.
• He has moved Merano to Meran-Merano and to Meran. He was also deeply involved in this discussion, and the move is contrary to the agreement reached at Talk:Communes of South Tyrol and recorded at WP:NCGN.

For his log, which demonstrates that he has deleted pages to perform these unilateral and disruptive moves, see here. I request that these moves be undone, pending an RfC on his behavior. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

20 points from Gryffindor, 5 for Slytherin. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 01:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Headmaster ;-> Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Block evasion by SanchiTachi

Recently, SanchiTachi was indefinitely blocked following a discussion on this board, and some related edit warring on a variety of pages. A few days afterwards, another post was made here, detailing "disruptive" edits to a number of the same pages. I noticed, as did several other users, that these edits were similar in nature, and tone, to those made by the blocked user. As a result, I filed a check user case, which was then added to by another vigilant editor. As a result, it has been confirmed that SanchiTachi has been block evading, and using sock-puppets in this content dispute.

However, that's not really my question. So far, none of the IP addresses involved have been banned - but, I can't find a sock-puppet template to put on their userpages that says as much; all of the current ones say "this user has been banned". I'm not sure what to do at this point. --Haemo 00:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Write, and document, a new one? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I guess I could try writing a new template - it will be my first shot at it. --Haemo 01:03, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

No, this doesn't seem to be an easy fix; all of the current sockpuppet templates inherit from one which doesn't really work how you suggest - and it's editprotected. It's not worth the hassle. --Haemo 01:13, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Is {{IPsock}} helpful? -- Flyguy649^talk_contribs 03:46, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Sanchi's sock-puppets have been blocked now. --GentlemanGhost 19:32, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Gon4z for the xth time

As most of you might know User:Gon4z has an incredible history of vandalism, insulting other users, 3rr edit wars, lies, unsourced edits,… some of the former bans he got can be seen: here, here, here, here and here Now he is back and at it again: misquoting his own sources, putting in POVs and calling me racist... Anyway: I continually keep an eye on his edits to spot his sometimes outrageous edits like: "a Orthodox crusade on the Muslims of Kosova" is his reason for an increased interest in Islam in Albania today.
Users User:Sthenel, User:Bluewings, User:PANONIAN, User:Denizz and User:Reinoutr had problems with him this week, but nothing on the scale of what User:MrMacMan or I experienced. I kept an eye on his edits and they were all unsourced, POV, disruptive, erroneous and/or plain lies. Some examples from just yesterday:

• [69] He left the changed sentence unfinished and has no sources for his edit.
• [70] The source he gives has no information about the topic he writes about and every other editor disagrees with his edits- but he states that other editors additions are “vadalism”.
• [71] He deleted 10 lines without sources-just stating that the other user’s additions are “vandalism”.
• [72] He changed the number of Albanians killed from 10.000 to “tens of thousands” BUT that was after he inserted the number 10.000, which was after he had deleted the number of civilian deaths and before that the number of dead Albanians in the article was given as 4300.
• [73] He removed a very well sourced data (4 sources!) with some of his unsourced numbers and inserted the following: “The war (in Kosovo) had a big influence in the growth of Islam as the world saw that as a Orthodox crusade on the Muslims of Kosova where the Serbian Orthodox people tried to expel all Albanians from Kosova, over 550,000 were forced out of Kosova and 20,000 were murdered, also the backing of the KLA by most Muslim countries and the 3,000 Mujahideen’s who volunteered to fight in Kosova helped widen Islam to the Albanian people.” The reason he gives for his edits is “Reverted vandalism”.
• [74] With his edit the the number of Albanians in Turkey suddenly jumped from 50,000 to 5,000,000 people. This time his reason to inflate is a bit more colourful: “This stupid vandalism has to stop, I ahve sourced all of my edits…” but no source is given at all by him.
• Furthermore he has returned to reedit his “Albania is ready for war with Greece or Yugoslavia” stance into the article Military of Albania…

In my opinion Gon4z’s only purpose is to disrupt the hard and good work of Wikipedia editors and to push a nationalistic Pro-Albanian stance. I haven’t seen one useful edit by him! I.e. the edits he made in the last days to Greek diaspora, Islam in Serbia, Montenegrins, Greeks, List of countries by the number of billionaires, Muslims by nationality, Religion in Albania and Islam in Austria were all reverted by other editors.

• This morning he continued and made edits to Turkish Armed Forces and Turkish Army doubling the military expenditures and giving as source the official site of the ALBANIAN Military: a site that doesn't even mention Turkey! and in good tradition he has once more reverted every other article saved by other users to his version and calling all other edits "vandalism".
  

Here is a comment he made on April 20th that explains his insistence to insert his "Orthodox people are on a Crusade against Muslims" stance. He is also deleting paragraphs he doesn't like from talk pages! and now a bit more of his insulting stuff [75], [76], [77], [78]
I collected the worst insults here below:

• "you need to take you head out of your A** and smell the roses things are not what you like them to be just because some of you Albanians in Albania want to be European and become AMERICAS SLAVES AND PUPPETS"
• "POLITICIANS have a hand up their back sides"
• "so be quiet ignorant KID"
• "Your brain is clearly not advanced enough to comprehend the truth that's why you keep repeating you self and DENYING evidence that if served to you on a platter that's a sign of defeat"
• "these things your saying are bullshit propaganda"
• "I can see you an (scuse my language) American ASS licker"
• "But I have no intention in continuing to fight with you because you are pretty Ignorant and a Super nationalist but don't forget not all of our people are like you"
  

I believe this has to stop now- once and for all time! Anything but a indefinite ban is not enough anymore as he has learned nothing and proceeds with the behaviour he already showed in his first edits! noclador 00:43, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

He also has vandalized the Serbian Air Force article, posting unsourced information, and reverted all spelling corrections into incorrect english along with reverting sourced information by replacing it with biased and unsourced info. Zastavafan76 01:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I have recently given him his final warning, any more and I will deal with it appropriately. Prodego ^talk 02:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I have also noticed Gonz4's inappropriate actions here on Wikipedia, he does not source his claims and worse speaks of heavily biased subjects on very sensitive matters which cause offense to others. It is clear that Gonz4 is not mature enough to follow the rules of Wikipedia. I leave you to ponder and deal with this matter as best as you see fit I trust your judgment will be more than fair. Regards Bluewings 22:16 1, June 2007 (UTC)

My two cents is, to take this matter to WP:ArbCom. Mads Angelbo ^{Talk / Contribs} 13:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we need to trouble ArbCom with this. This is a highly disruptive user who's been given the benefit of the doubt numerous times and has exhausted any pretense of good faith or collaborative editing. I think that the next offense (now that User:Prodego has left a warning) should result in a lengthy or potentially indefinite block. I'll keep an eye out. MastCell ^Talk 18:38, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the matter is to far gone. In the case that he/she won't get a permanent ban right away. Then take it to arbcom. Mads Angelbo ^{Talk / Contribs} 18:43, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Curtis (50 Cent album)

Resolved

 – username blocked ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 06:57, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

User:The Black Wall Street keeps reverting the article to a version that is incorrectly formatted, there seems to be an edit war going on. --- Efil4tselaer: Resurrected 02:13, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

indefblocking per username. See The Black Wall Street Records which is founded by 50 cent's arch rival. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 02:55, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Annnnnnd unblock request granted. The unblocking admin (can't remember nor pronounce his name anyway) likely did not notice that it is the name of a company....it IS there on his talk page, but it's kind of buried among some other bluelinks, and I would have assumed that he had read this AN/I....I left a message on his talk page, there's no need to immediately reblock before consultation even though this is a cut an dry case. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 05:06, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

aaaaand reblocked by aforementioned admin. Case closed, move along. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 06:57, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Xavier cougat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

All this user has done so far is edit the Talk namespace, causing trouble and moaning about criticism sections for about every single article talk page he comments on. He said he thought Flying Spaghetti Monster wasn't notable enough (words to that effect) and then when I told him he was wrong, he asked for a criticism section. I'm sure he's just a troublemaking account. Right now, I'm thinking an indef block is appropriate but would like to see if everyone else thinks I'm being too harsh? --Deskana (talk) 02:23, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Wow - every single one of his edits is some criticism of the article he's replying to, requesting things which are not in line with Wikipedia guidelines, and wasting people's time with tendentious argument. I'd support some kind of block for such behavior. --Haemo 02:34, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I failed to AGF from the early goings with this user, and bowed out early in an attempt to AGF and let other editors convince this user that his edits seemed disruptive. I've been watching since then though, and see no reason now for any further good faith to be assumed. This user is just trying to stir up controversial topics on talk pages. --OnoremDil 02:45, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

User's blocked. He's not here to contribute to the encyclopedia.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:08, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Let me play devil's advocate here. The guy (?) has been here for 2 days. He's not clear on how Wikipedia works, and has Wikipedia's talk pages confused with a discussion forum. Not OK, but these are common mistakes, especially for newbies. We do generally encourage people to utilize the talk page of controversial articles. We have Template:Uw-chat1 through Template:Uw-chat4 for such occasions, but I don't see anything approaching a final warning. Are we indef-blocking users who seem misguided and slow to catch on (but not out-and-out trolls or vandalism-only accounts) after only 2 days? I'm not saying this is a future FA-writer necessarily, but was the threat to the encyclopedia so great that we needed this indef-block? For the record, I disagree with the block. I don't feel strongly enough to unblock, but I'd welcome more feedback, because my sense is that we're being a bit hasty in indef-blocking misguided but harmless newbies under the "not here to contribute to the encyclopedia" umbrella. I didn't see vandalism in my skim of the user's contributions - can we really judge a non-vandal's future encyclopedic contributions in 2 days? Should we? MastCell ^Talk 03:33, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I really fail to see the problem. The user was told several times to stop arguing and stop using talk pages inappropriately and he continued to do so. You propose we continue to let him demand criticism sections in every article he can stumble upon and cause arguments by ignoring what everyone else says if it contradicts him? I don't think that makes sense at all. --Deskana (talk) 04:14, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I must say I'm very much opposed to this indefinite block. I've been dealing with this user on Talk:George W. Bush, and while he/she may be a bit misguided, there is nothing here that warrants a block. Especially, without being warned that discussing changes could result in a block. I'm very tempted to remove this block as nothing this user has done amounts to disruption or harm to what we're doing here. - auburnpilot talk 16:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Reality check: before you do that, you might want to actually look outside of your small corner and check out, oh, all of his OTHER attempts to stir up shit at Talk:Charles, Prince of Wales, Talk:Flying Spaghetti Monster, Talk:Rush Limbaugh, Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, Talk:Communism, Talk:Intelligent design, Talk:Falsifiability, Talk:John Lennon, etc. Seventy total edits; 64 to talk pages, 6 to his own talk page, bupkis to articles. He ain't here for the editing. --Calton | Talk 16:28, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I guess that's what I get for trying to edit before I've even gotten out of bed. I'd confused the contribs of Gonezales (talk · contribs) with those of the above indef'd user. Carry on; I'm not unblocking Xavier cougat. - auburnpilot talk 17:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Centrx is reverting minor format fixes

Why aren't archives full protected if even edits this minor aren't allowed? See: here, here, also see: Special:Whatlinkshere/User:White_Cat/sig. I feel the user is now stalking/harassing me since he had no edits on the ANB/I archive page. -- Cat ^chi? 04:06, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Haven't we been through all this before? It seems like you're bringing these problems upon yourself. Just stop editing archives and your problems are solved. ChazBeckett 04:12, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

In the light of common sense. Would you mind reconsidering your position? -- Cat ^chi? 04:21, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Common sense would be having a sig that does not require maintenance. -- Ned Scott 04:22, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

My position is that you should stop editing archives and perhaps pick a signature that you'll stick with for more than a few days. That seems like common sense to me. ChazBeckett 04:24, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive250#User:Cool Cat -> User:White Cat signature changes. -- Ned Scott 04:13, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Wait a second, I'm just realizing what's new about this time around. This Cat isn't changing "Cool Cat" sigs... he's changing "White Cat" sigs, which he designed to point to User:White Cat/sig, but has decided to delete that page and then update every page that once linked to it. It was bad enough that this was attempted with the User:Cool Cat sigs, but hey, it was a name change. Why is it happening again? Wasn't your new sig only days old? How many times are you going to change your mind about your sig and go back and update them again and again and again. That's not how sigs are supposed to work. -- Ned Scott 04:19, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I am reorganizing my sigs, I will be signing now on by year only 2 pages link to my old "/sig". You are just opposing it without even loading the diffs. Just 7 minutes after my post here might I add. -- Cat ^chi? 04:24, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually I saw Centrx's reverts before you posted them here (zomg, watchlist). -- Ned Scott 04:28, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Moby Dick also said something similar... -- Cat ^chi? 05:21, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Short answer, telling you "don't do this, it's stupid" is not the same thing as harassment. Long answer here. -- Ned Scott 05:30, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

As already explained, archives are not protected because 1) it would be a large burden that is generally not necessary because few people try to change the contents of archives, and even common vandalism in archives is almost non-existent; and 2) there are legitimate edits to be made to archive pages, even outside of removing real names or potentially libellous statements, such as archiving additional sections, re-factoring, or changing headers, that would be impeded by protecting the page and likewise create additional burden if there were a scheme to have administrators protect and unprotect these pages. —Centrx→talk • 04:25, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes Mr. Cat, you should stop all this. Even better, linking directly to your page rather than doing subpage gimmicks would be a good idea. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:27, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

What the heck? The change I made is less significant than section header corrections. The visible text is NOT affected in any way. Why is everyone being so dense!? -- Cat ^chi? 05:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

If everyone but you appears dense, you should ask yourself if you're the one being dense. --Deskana (talk) 07:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Cool Cat, stop making stupid edits and you won't have to worry about being reverted. You're not supposed to go through and modify all of your old talk page comments. It simply isn't done. They work well enough with the redirects. Your bot to do this was already denied because it's a Wikipedia policy that working redirects shouldn't be bypassed because it uses server resources at no benefit, and now you're still out there doing it anyway on your main account? Stop it and find something better to do. --Cyde Weys 15:13, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:AIV

Resolved

 – Everyone would be best off if we left all this alone. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:34, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Could an admin take a look at WP:AIV? Corvus cornix 04:39, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

What's wrong with it? —Kurykh 04:42, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

At the time that I made my request, there were six names on it. Corvus cornix 04:46, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Having six names is quite normal. When the list goes over 10, then notification may be necessary. —Kurykh 05:07, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for being so concerned. Are you an admin? if so, why not start doing your job? Corvus cornix 05:14, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Last time I checked, this is a volunteer position. Therefore, not our "job". (If it isn't, I really want to know where the crap my paycheck is!) As for backlogs: they do happen. Ideally it would stay lower than this, but six is really not worth worrying too much about. It happens. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:17, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

(EC) I realise you (Corvus cornix) were genuinely concerned about a developing backlog at AIV. User:Kurykh was trying to be helpful; the sarcasm wasn't necessary. Flyguy649^talk_contribs 05:19, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Kurykh was not trying to be helpful, he/she was more interested in belittling my concerns. If you don't want to get involved at AIV, don't, but don't put me down when I'm trying to fight vandals and am not getting any help. Corvus cornix 05:21, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Flyguy's analysis. There is nothing belittling in Kurykh's comment. Please assume good faith. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:23, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Where's the AGF from the other side? I guess vandal fighting isn't a high priority around here. Corvus cornix 05:25, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Corvus cornix, for tossing WP:AGF straight out the window and start accusing me of slacking off on a thankless job. I will remember that. —Kurykh 05:28, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

And for your information, I don't see the absence of AGF in my initial statement. —Kurykh 05:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Why did you feel the need to comment? If you weren't interested, you could have just not said anything, but by making the comments you made, it was clear that you were basically telling me, "go away, you are not important". I don't know what that last sentence means, either, unless it's a threat, but I will remember, too. Corvus cornix 05:30, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Could we please take this somewhere else? This board is not the WP complaints department, and the original issue has now been resolved. Continuing this discussion here is not helpful. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:33, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Because I will not stand by such an insult to my intentions. And I never implied that you were not important, and I apologize if you misconstrued it as such. And if you're going to blow this completely out of proportion, then be my guest, but I stand by all my statements that I have made here, minus your interpretation. And if you're going to look at everything as a threat to you, then I have nothing else to say. This will be my last statement regarding this matter. —Kurykh 05:34, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Corvus, you're completely out of line in your comments here. Please chill out. - Merzbow 06:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Seconded. --Dynaflow babble 06:13, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Since Heimstern had asked that discussion not continue here, I had decided not to post on this subject any further, but since there's a gang up on Corvus cornix going on here, I will say one thing further, then nothing more on this topic: If you don't feel the need to do anything, why comment on it? Corvus cornix 06:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

To inform you there are better things to do with your time than leave a notice here when AIV has 6 names listed? - auburnpilot talk 06:20, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I left a couple of notes on this on Corvus's talk page. Perhaps it can be dropped for now? Flyguy649^talk_contribs 06:23, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

User:ERMD55

ERMD55 (talk · contribs) claims to be an MTV casting director, which would be a WP:COI violation since all of his/her edits are to Real World articles. But they are also repeatedly edit warring to claim first, that Real World Atlanta would air in 2014, and now is going to air in 2008. Repeatedly explaining CRYSTALBALL hasn't seemed to work. Corvus cornix 07:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Socks puppet, simple vandalism

User 87.247.189.210‎, also registered as Pejman.azadi is playing socks puppet (Good hand edits, Bad hand edits) doing repeated deleting and removing resources and text from the intro of Persian Gulf article, and do simple vandalism by inserting disputed names for geographical place that looks like trolling.

He is registerd with his name as his IP address as he can edit the semi-protected article, and has a Welcome Message in his IP username's talk page by someone interested in his works.

He has been warned many times in his Talk Page for this behaviour. Here, I seek an oversight and considering blocking for his two account. He had contributed some comments through the same IP address before in WP, but it looks he now has another account with his IP address. Ralhazzaa 11:38, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Alithien

Removed my notification on Zero0000's talk page that an arbitration case involving him had closed, claiming that it was "vandalism". I reinstated it, but he removed it again, leaving a rather odd message on my talk page. I don't want to get into an edit war, so perhaps someone else could take a look. David Mestel^(Talk) 08:58, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

31 hour block.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:03, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

This is a really odd reply—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:11, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

It's French for "blank". x42bn6 Talk Mess 14:27, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Betacommand

Well thanks to that sad **** BetaCommand (the username itself just sums it all really), Wikipedia has lost yet another editor. His stupid bot is just vandalising my pages. I have explained very clearly that I do not understand this rationale and asked for help, but instead of helping he is just ripping up the pages of simple low resolution Sports logos and then trying to 'boast' how many he has done with his pathetic little bot in its talk page. Try being constructive instead of attention seeking. I used to enjoy my editing but utter losers like this has finished Wikipedia for me. Now my sport I was trying to support via this project will suffer.

I have several of my own photos on Wikipedia which I will now also remove. I just don't see why I should waste my time and I know of many others who now feel the same. Good luck to all in the future. Hammer1980 09:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:FURG—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Well you've licensed your own contributions under GFDL so removing them is not necessarily that simple. In an ideal world there would be no need for Betacommand to be doing what is being done, but the sheer volume of this seems to demonstrate how far we are from conforming to foundation policy (i.e. we've been relaxed, ignored one here, ignored one there - end result we now have 1000 upon 1000 of "problems"). When I notice edits of yours like this, I wonder if you read the results of your work - the page is left with just a generic tag which states quite clearly "This tag is meaningless without an accompanying fair use rationale which must be unique to the usage of THIS image in each article in which it is used. You must also give the source and copyright information for all fair-use images uploaded." this of course is not met, even you are tagging the image to specify the requirement you are apparently unable/unwilling to meet. --pgk 09:59, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I have read it before, I dont understand any of it. The bot is just a pointless ego trip. Try making a bot to replace with Sports Logo rationales. They will be more or less similar to each other. Then there are surely less violations than there are with no rationale. BetaCommand is just a stat junkie. Good luck with Wikipedia.Hammer1980 10:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

There were no rationales. That's what the bot looks for. Either add them or leave.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 10:06, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

It can't create the rationales, it can't examine the way in which the image is being used and create a suitable rationale. It certainly can't guess the source information or the copyright status of the image. (i.e. what is the real copyright status which forces us into using it unlicensed under the fair use doctrine). I can't understand how you feel that reading policy and not understanding it is a good reason to ignore it, then edit war over the proper tagging of the images. If I know there is a requirement but I don't understand it I either (a) avoid that area or (b) seek help --pgk 10:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you can also explain how having read it and "don't understand any of it", you can then conclude that "They will be more or less similar to each other". --pgk 10:53, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand it, hence the reason I took changed the tag was s to save images until I got some help. I have asked and better asked but all I get is robot type answers and basically get talked down to like a bloody tool. Well I am passed all that now, just do whatever you all see fit. Its this high and mighty attitude, the blatent vandalism of peoples hard work buy a bloody bot run by some plum on an ego trip and the total lack of help that is killing Wikipedia (especially here in the UK). I can conclude that they will be more or less the same as sports team logos ARE the same. Not rocket science is it. I have previously looked at other football team logos and everything seems to have the same thing referring to not causing monetary hardship. If that is an acceptable rationale then why not make a template to that effect. Surely slightly wrongly tagged images are better than no tags. Clearly Wikipedia is center of some people's universe but it isn't mine. Good Luck to you all. Hammer1980 11:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

In all honesty, what Hammer1980 is saying has some legitimacy. I frequently add {{frn}} tags to images, however, if there is sufficient information already on the page to put together a rationale, then obviously that's preferable. I've added a fair use rationale template with minimal information to his images, which took me 15 minutes. I would suggest this could probably be automated, even though improving the rationales may have to be done manually. Addhoc 11:40, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

And the source and copyright information? Many will be similar (or the same), some won't so a bot cannot do that, items with incorrect rationales are worse than no rationale. As to it taking 15 minutes, that's great it also makes you wonder why User:Hammer1980 is making such a big deal of it, threatening to leave etc. Instead spend the 15 minutes and bring us closer to 100% compliance with our policy for fair use images. --pgk 11:43, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Pgk ... How about you spending 15 minutes helping instead of trolling through an admin page ! Hammer1980 11:53, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Hammer1980, please read WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA and remember not to make personal attacks. its the responsibility of the uploader to make sure their images are compliant. so stop your complaining and make your images compliant with policy. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 11:58, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Beta ? What ? Does the truth hurt ? Why not try taking a leaf out of Addhoc's book. He has started to put the rationales on the items and is actually HELPING. Just do what you have to. You have now put a halt to a sporting section and you obviously get some sort of pleasure out of it. Easier to destroy than create. Each to their own. For the record.... Thank you Addhoc, shame there are not more like you.Hammer1980 12:06, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Hammer1980, your sarcasm and personal attacks will not help you in any way. Do you know that there are close to 25000(!) images with missing fair-use rationales? Multiply that by 15 minutes and that would be nearly 250 days of work that Betacommand would have to do. There is no one here who will support you in your case that these images are not violations of policy. What this tagging is doing is alerting each and every user who have uploaded bad images that their images are in violation of policy and that now is the time to do something about it. If nothing is done, then the images will be deleted. - Aksi_great (talk) 12:12, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

That is out of line. BetaCommand is doing a humonguous task that simply NEEDS to be done because we were not careful enough in the past. Unfortunatly we cannot wait for all of this to be corrected by the editors. It simply would not happen. As such, whenever Betacommand tags your image, see if you can correct the rationales, and if not, let them be deleted and upload new images that can have a proper rationale. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 12:13, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Another thing. A message left to you about by a bot is in no way belittling you or your contributions to wikipedia. If anything, it is a reflection on us as a community that we had not enforced our image policies in the past. But now things are changing for the good. If you choose to leave wikipedia as a result of this, it would be unfortunate. - Aksi_great (talk) 12:18, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

This bot is a hellish bureaucracy at work. I've had a few corporate logos tagged. The license says it all "fair use, corporate logo." It's obvious from the "where this is used" link that the logo is decorating a page about the corporation. It's clearly fair use. Asking me to go back to each page and type "Duh, it's the company's logo and it's being used on the company's page" is pedantic. Jehochman ^Talk 12:20, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

So it's a complete and total pain in the ass for you to follow our policies here. I've never heard that one for as long as I've been here. -Pilotguy hold short 12:38, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I thought I was following policy, but thank you for cursing at me in the edit summary. I think you need to have a quick read through WP:CIVIL, speaking of policy. Jehochman ^Talk 12:47, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

An opinion of a concerned editor

I must admit that I am deeply concerned about what's being done here. Obviously the tagging of images is being done by the book and there's no denying that however, it contravenes the following points:

• WP:PANIC - yeah, well, it's a panic alright. A "zOMG they'll take us down!" shouting like if it was really an issue. It's like some new law was instated yesterday and suddenly half of Wikipedia became a copyright violation. No, it's simply a new interpretation of it issued by the Foundation is what pushed us in this direction. It's fine, but should be done with consideration, not haste - we don't need "deletion heroes" (and it is my completely personal opinion that Betacommand is creating himself as one) here - we need to expend some effort.
• WP:LAZY - used to be an essay about deletion being a substitute for improvement. That's exactly what's being done here - deletion is easy, improvement is difficult. The sports logos are an example of content we're losing by haste and laziness in this matter. They're obviously irreplaceable by free alternatives - that's all the more reason to actually expend some effort in providing those damn rationales (which ain't that hard - just not enough people to do it). This ties to the situation with {{spoilers}} - I used to go and remove them, but in some cases I have found it better to do some cleanup at the same time. It is trivial to write a bot that will indiscriminately remove all these tags, but it takes some effort to improve things while at it. So, having discovered that such bots are being run, I had to give up (both being merely a slow human and not having enough time to pursue the issue) - as a result, when the storm's over, we'll have a lot of articles which could be improved in the process but haven't. Back to sports logos, when the time of deletions is over, we'll find ourselves impaired by a loss of significant content the images constituted.

As final words, please don't get me wrong and refrain from throwing copyright policies at me - I know many of them all too well and by all means support the removal of excessive non-free content from Wikipedia. I am only concerned that the solution being implemented here is a lazy approach at a problem where some effort could lead to a significantly better solution. Миша13 14:43, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Us being sued, or not, is irrelevant. For many years it's been a free-for-all. The words "free encyclopedia" have become a joke. We've slowly turned into FairUsePedia. Half of Wikipedia may not be copyright violation, it just defeats the whole purpose of us being a free encyclopedia. Moreschi ^Talk 14:46, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

But then again, will what's the difference (legal-wise) whether we 1. butcher the images in one month and 2. give it a chance to do a proper cleanup in three? None. And the difference for Wikipedia is tremendous. Like it or not, some media are irreplaceable by free content - there's a golden proportion we have to seek between being free and being an encyclopedia. We won't reach that in a rush. Миша13 14:55, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Do we need a new thread on this every day? The fact is that we need to follow the law of the land that the servers sit in, Florida. So what Betacommand is doing is absolutely necessary. Do we need to make a template that we subst onto threads on ANI that complain about betacommand enforcing policy? It is getting so common we may just need to write one. ^(H) 14:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid you missed my point completely here. Миша13 14:55, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

A bot can't do a human's work. Case 1: Non-free image with bogus fair use rationale. Bot's conclusion: has fair use rationale - keep. Case 2: Non-free image with no fair use rationale stated, but the fair use rationale is obvious from the situation. e.g. a corporate logo used for a corporate article. Bot's conclusion: delete.

The bot should flag all these images and make list, preferably sorted by category, and then a human should review every one of them before deletion. Will that be a lot of work? Sure, but we have a lot of volunteers who can get involved. In the process, we can improve a lot of articles and images. Jehochman ^Talk 14:54, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Uhh, if I'm not mistaken, isn't that in place now? The bot isn't deleting the images, rather, just tagging them to be deleted. Metros 14:59, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but aren't they then deleted automatically by some other bot, or is a human going through each report to see whether the image should be deleted or not? What would be really helpful is if the creator of this bot followed good programming practices and documented what the bot does and how it functions. That would eliminate a lot of this tiresome discussion. I've look at the bot's user page and top of the talk page, but there is no clear explanation of what exactly the program does. Jehochman ^Talk 16:59, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Jehochman, I do follow good programming procedures. Just because I dont publish the code means nothing. Ive see some really dumb people come through both WP:BRFA and WP:BOTREQ that could use my code, the issue is I want to avoid the damage that stupid people can do with the scripts. (I dont make my programs stupid proof) its the essence of WP:BEANS. if you look at the request for bot approvals that I have filed you will see how my bot operates. if you have any further questions/feature request please bring them up on my talkpage. As for deletion there is currently no bot with administrative privileges so they cannot delete images. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 17:26, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Betacommand, I am sure you are a very good programmer, but could you put a short list of steps on the bot's page that explains what the bot does and explain the surrounding processes, and links to the relevant discussions. We don't need to see the code, just clear documentation. You might also add a note to the bot's warning messages with a link to the documentation. I think you're catching a lot of needless flack because people don't understand what's happening and why. Jehochman ^Talk 17:55, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

They are all being deleted by people (at least in theory). Christopher Parham (talk) 17:17, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Misza - I do see your point, but OTOH the levels of fair abuse are IMO quite reasonable cause for someone to go "NO! WHAT THE HELL DO YOU THINK YOU'RE DOING? STOP THIS SHIT! REALLY!" There's gotta be a sea change in attitude to just copying stuff onto the encyclopedia under the "I Wanna" clause, and it's hard for me to see this as a bad thing - David Gerard 15:13, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Why not just make new templates similar to {{pokefair}} (used on Pokemon fair use images) for fair use rationale? Or shall we simply go on a Pokemon image deleting spree? Funpika 00:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Harassment by Tfoxworth

Hello;

I am being harassed, or "WikiStalked" (if there is such a term) by the user Tfoxworth. Many months ago, he was involved in creating several POV forks for articles regarding members of the previously-sovereign Russian Imperial Family and had his various articles deleted on those grounds. He would frequently verbally harass or attack me at that time, as he is doing now.

His last edit at that point was on December 1st, 2006. Recently, Mr. Foxworth has returned to editing (under this name on May 18th, 2007) and all of his edits so far have been reverts of my edits (for no reason) or unfounded and unwarranted chastisement and insults on the talk pages for some of the articles. Mr. Foxworth's first recent edit was outside of his usually "territory" and was directed at me on the talk page for Dannielynn Birkhead paternity case (an article where he has absolutely no prior involvement). Just before that edit under his username, there was an edit by the anonymous IP address 68.3.40.59. At this point, the user's only edits have been at the two pages that Mr. Foxworth has edited at. If this user is not Tim Foxworth, it is a peculiar incidence that the user's only three edits have been at the two pages where Mr. Foxworth has been attacking me.

He also edits from the IP address 12.146.101.146, as evidenced by him signing the IP address' posts. From the 68.3.32.53 IP address he edited the Maria Vladimirovna article and talk pages, even creating what is probably an unauthorized subpage. Additionally, there is a new user called I_vonH whose first edit was one in agreement with Tim Foxworth's 12.146.101.146 IP address. I have a suspicion that this user is probably also Tim Foxworth.

For what it is worth, I feel that Mr. Foxworth, who has a somewhat extensive warning history, should be dealt with in a manner in which he will no longer be able to harass me. He has not made any constructive edits and for the most part, all of the history differenced between his edits and mine are him reverting my edits ([79], [80], [81], [82], [83], [84], [85], [86] (this last one days after an editing spree of his)), inserting his specific point of view about certain people ([87], [88]) or him running his mouth about me on talk pages ([89], [90], [91]). Many of these pages are ones where he has no previous edit history and has been stalking my edits. I hope this draws an administrator's attention to the situation so that Mr. Foxworth may be dealt with in a timely and appropriate manner. Charles 12:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

School children - vandalising

Earlier this evening I blocked Murlock (talk · contribs) for repeated vandalism including moving Indonesian Declaration of Independence to Fake Indonesian Declaration of Independence. He responded to the block with this in short claiming that they are at school and all login at the same time causing vandalism to be attributed to the wrong accounts.

the other accounts

• Haggawaga - Oegawagga (talk · contribs)
• Blowland (talk · contribs)
• Kermanshahi (talk · contribs)

Any suggestions on what to do with these editors/accounts. Currently I've blocked them for all for 24 hours Gnangarra 13:30, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Kermanshahi (talk · contribs) has responded here Gnangarra 13:56, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I think a more reasonable explanation is that the kid is lying. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 16:07, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be some association - they have edited each other's user pages without any comments or discussions, before or after. See discussion here. Merbabu 16:34, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it's time for an indefinite block and a hard IP block of all involved. I've asked User:Ciell who's an admin over at Dutch Wikipedia to comment. Kermanshahi is currently indefinitely banned as a sockpuppeteer and a known troublemaker over there. I gave Kermanshahi the benefit of the doubt last time Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Kermanshahi, but from the looks of it, he's outstayed his welcome. --  Netsnipe  ►  17:59, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

This is remarkably serendipitous - just yesterday, I made User:Neil/hmm because the above users' activity seemed hinky. They award each other barnstars, voted keep en masse on some very hoaxy articles (anbd I have a strong feeling a bunch of articles on medieval Frisian people are still floating around that are utter hoaxes with no references or references in Frisian). I would imagine we would need to checkuser the above users and also:

• Mrlob (talk · contribs)
• Ezza61 (talk · contribs) (note, I think this one is less likely to be a sock, but he edits the same articles, has the same barnstars, and edits 15 minutes before Murlock most of the time)

There also seems to be a raft of ropey walled garden articles that need going over. Neil (►) 19:32, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

School on a saturday? It is established with a dutch checkuser, that there are several accounts working from this (high)schooladress. I would advise you though, to contact User:Oscar, who did a cross-wiki check when I last requested a checkuser on Kermansjahi and his friends and told me he found more interesting stuff. Gebruiker:Blowland (user:Blow?) wasn't found to be a sockpuppet. The dutch policy about checkuser isn't that open as the english one, so I can't tell you what he found out. Ciell 21:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's pretty clear this is not a schared school IP these guys are using. I'll doublecheck User:Blowland's contributions but I think it's a pretty obvious sock. Neil (►) 21:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

At least one of the three adresses is a school IP. Ciell 22:30, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it's an open proxy? -- ChrisO 22:37, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

No, don't think so. RonaldB would have blocked them by now. I know someone else who edits from that adres, so am pretty sure. I'll alert Oscar, maybe he's up for it tonight. Ciell 22:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

This is a joke, right?

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ryanzilla13

Created by a guy who just set up an account today. Call me a bit jumpy, but this doesn't look right.Blueboy96 14:49, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

He said he had a lot of IP edits. That may be why. --əˈnongahy ♫Look What I've Done!♫ 15:20, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Taken from WP:AIV

Resolved

Well, I am not sure if this is the right place to post for a troll but here goes. SteakNShake (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was being disruptive and generally rude at Talk:General_relativity. I posted a message on his talk page User_talk:SteakNShake that asked him to cool his jets and find some sources. He replied and asked me to point out where he was being pejorative. I pointed out those instances, he replied in a fashion that would lead me to believe he is a troll or a crank of some sort. Also User_talk:Ems57fcva contains another instance of his rudeness. Oh and he just started vandalizing again at GR. He just threatened User:DVdm.--Cronholm144 14:47, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Looking at his contributions, I think there isnt any uncivil remarks, also WP:BITE is worth reading. I would recommend that you ask for page protection to stop the revert waring while the issue is discussed. Gnangarra 15:38, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Follow up protected the article and advised of bite, agf, civil, and 3r Gnangarra 15:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!--Cronholm144 15:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm a big fan of WP:BITE, but in this case it seems to be the newcomer doing the biting. Although too early to make a judgement, this is so far a single purpose account, that purpose being WP:POV-pushing at General relativity, so far in a very disruptive fashion. In terms of WP:CIVIL, although I would not say this is a serious case of taunting, it heads in that direction. I would like to assume good faith, but the description of one form of trolling at WP:UNCIVIL as attempting to "push others to the point of breaching civility, without seeming to commit such a breach themselves" does resonate somewhat in this instance. So I'm not convinced protecting the article is the best way forward here. Geometry guy 16:06, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Just a note, his username could be summarily blocked as per WP:U... that would be dumping a major amount of gas on the fire, but I thought I'd point that out. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:32, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

BJAODN undeleted

The Cunctator just undeleted the BJAODN series. I ask you all DON'T GET INTO A DAMN DELETE/UNDELETE WAR OVER THIS because that would be unutterably WP:LAME. Instead, could the BJAODN advocates please get on with fixing the credit under the GFDL? I thank you - David Gerard 16:43, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Gee, did I miss the DRV? ^(H) 16:46, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

This looks like it's going to degenerate into a wheel war very, very quickly. Sean William @ 16:46, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Already has. Jeffrey O. Gustafson deleted them again. - auburnpilot talk 16:47, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Just asked him on IRC, he's stopped and is leaving it now - David Gerard 16:54, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Jeffrey just asked for a 24-hour block in contrition for his delete-warring, so I did: "16:57, 2 June 2007 David Gerard (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Jeffrey O. Gustafson (contribs)" (autoblock disabled) with an expiry time of 24 hours (requested block in contrition for delete-warring) (Unblock)" Um, weird. But he's very sorry - David Gerard 17:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

While I certainly never like wheel-warring, even in the mildest cases, I don't believe Jeffrey needs to throw himself on the sword here. I doubt he'll continue in the same manner, and I'd support anyone who removes the block...or would we be wheel-warring? ;-) - auburnpilot talk 17:08, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that a compromise could be to allow a (say) 2 week period of grace. A challenge to the advocates to fix the GFDL problems - after that all non-compliant stuff gets nuked. They might want to start with the stuff that is actually funny.--Doc^g 16:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

YUO ARE TRYING TO DISTORY WIKIPEDIA WITH SENSE! - David Gerard 16:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I've noticed in my review of the lifecycles of innovation that they last about seven years (see the Augmentation Research Center and Xerox PARC) before they degenerate or calcify, so we're right on schedule for Wikipedia to become utterly humorless about itself. --The Cunctator 16:56, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read all of the archived discussion about BJAODN. Sean William @ 16:58, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

You're two years too late. 2005 was it, when Process became Important - David Gerard 17:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey Cunctator, I don't go to a joke book to find useful information on a subject, so why would you go to an encyclopedia to find a collection of jokes? ^(H) 17:03, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

BJAODN wasn't really that humorous, unfortunately, and because of the GFDL issues, I don't see how we can undelete it. Cunctator, did you read any of the previous discussions before wheel warring? --Cyde Weys 17:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

It is really against Wikipedia's best interest to restore so many GFDL violations, especially considering it had about 0 encyclopedic value. ^(H) 17:14, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

You can't 'fix' GFDL violations. Once you screw up you are screwed, do not pass go, do not collect $200. Kotepho 00:10, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

The undeletion will make the process we'd put in train at the BJAODN talk page much easier as more people can help us mine out the good ones for proper scrutiny (previously this could only be done by admins). I agree with you that most of them weren't funny, but some were classics and should stay - I'd guess about 1 in 60, you could probably make two pages from the good ones then rule out half on GFDL untraceability. Orderinchaos 02:25, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Oops - they're actually gone again. Oh well, still doable. (For the record I actually agree with the issues on GFDL and BLP, and am glad to see there's now going to be movement on that issue and inclusion standards for BJAODN - I just disagreed with the process by which it came about and lack of discussion beforehand.) Orderinchaos 02:29, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I always remember where my favorites are. Keegan^talk 03:34, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

User Memeco checkuser confirned sockpuppet of user Jonathanmbaez

Resolved

 – indefblocked by User:Coelacan - Alison ☺ 17:22, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Seeking the blocking of user Memeco who is a confirmed sockpuppet of indef blocked user Jonathanmbaez. Jonathanmbaez was blocked for for vandalism. He then creates another account and continues on with the same behavior. A check user was done and user ws confirmed as a sockpuppet. [92]. Consequently seeking his blocking. YoSoyGuapo 17:07, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Suspicous editing behaviour?

I noticed a a user I disagree with in an article has an incredible number of daily edits on countless other articles. Many edits are only 1 minute apart (in some cases the same time) even though they are on completely different articles. Is that fairly typical behaviour by a heavy Wikipedia user or am I dealing with multiple people sharing the same account? Sorry if this is not the right place to put this question. Just let me know where to if I need to move it. If it wrong to even ask the question, then I apologize in advance. Thanks!
Typical daily edits, in this case for May 30th:

Page 1
Page 2
Notice these two edits, on completely different articles but at the same time? How is that possible?
16:44, 30 May 2007 (hist) (diff) m Battle of Embudo Pass (→Battle) (top)
16:44, 30 May 2007 (hist) (diff) Sir Walter Synnot
Page 3
In short, 172 edits in one day... LordPathogen 17:09, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see anything suspicious here. 172 edits is nothing for lots of contributors here. Nick 17:21, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Non admin comment I think this user is just enthusiastic which is good, if a user is just making minor edits then you can easily get two within the space of a minute, the first edit might have been made (unintentionally) just after a minute had passed on the clock so then another minor edit which doesn't take too much time could easily be done in the same minute, I dont think their is any need to worry about his speed of editing; as long as he/she is not vandalising. Regards --The Sunshine Man 17:23, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Looks fine to me - Alison ☺ 17:30, 2 June 2007 (UTC) (wishes her edit count was that low :) )

(e.c.) Editors who "go that fast" are often using semi-automated tools to help them do what would otherwise be rather tedious maintenence tasks quickly and effortlessly. You can learn more about them at WP:TOOLS. --Dynaflow babble 17:33, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Yep, looks fine. If you look at the two 16:44 diffs using popups, you can see the first was made at 16:44:14 and the other at 16:44:52 (38 seconds apart). - auburnpilot talk 18:03, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Editors who use a web browser which supports tabbed browsing (I am one such editor) may also appear to make a bot-like number of edits in rapid succession. Looking at my recent history, I logged eighteen edits in one minute rolling back the addition of a spam link to a series of articles—and I've never used any automated or semi-automated editing tool. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, I use Safari, and have repeatedly gotten close to ten edits in a single minute. 172 edits in a single day isn't that hard, either... in looking over my editing milestones, I see that I averaged 500 edits a day for a bit (broke 11k on Nov. 23, broke 12k on Nov. 25). I have no doubt that someone with more free time than I could approach a similar number, especially if they use a semi-automated tool (which I don't). EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:21, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree - anyone who's ventured into the murky world of WP:WSS can easily get their edits up to 5-600 a day without particularly trying even working manually, and easily over 1000-2000 in a day if you're doing something like mass-changing categories using AWB. As regards the simultaneous edits, there are plenty of legitimate reasons for this - if I move an article I'll submit the edits to the double-redirects simultaneously, to avoid either creating temporary links to a redlinked page, or temporarily leaving them as double-redirects, and I'm sure a lot of editors do the same — iridescenti (talk to me!) 19:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Most of the contributions are actually WikiProject tagging of articles, something I do all the time. It's possible to do 600-700 a day even reading each article carefully, and I've in fact had to set up a second account for those so people following my contribs as an admin and editor don't get lost in pages of tagging. Orderinchaos 02:31, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

policy on reverting change?

Has anyone tried to use the UNDO button lately? There's a new box at the top that says something like "If you are reverting someones edit, non vandalism, you MUST use a edit summary different than the default that explains why you are reverting." That sounds like an undiscussed policy change to me. It's certainly not reflected by the meta page master at WP:REVERT. It's certainly not reflected by the admin rollback button, which does not even give you the chance to change the edit sum. When did this happen? ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 20:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that earlier, but didn't pay it any attention, as I was already in the middle of reverting some bad interwiki links. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:17, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Anyone know how to find out what the page for that MediaWiki template is so we can see who edited it? ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 20:44, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

It's MediaWiki:Undo-success, and it was Cyde. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Further discussion on it's talk page ? It has not that much to do on the ANI i guess. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 21:18, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I changed it to "please" rather than "you are required to", because you're not required to ... it's a courtesy. Neil (►) 21:45, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Appreciated. I asked Cyde on his talk page, so maybe we'll hear from him here. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 22:12, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Seven new User:MascotGuy sockpuppets

Resolved

 – blocked by User:Alison - Alison ☺ 02:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

There are seven unblocked MascotGuy socks that are listed at WP:LTA/MG. They are Public vs. Private (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Coppertop Guy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Dream Lover Guy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Mr. Spoke-'em (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Wildfighters (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Baxter's Glowball (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and Zapper Guy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). User:Tregoweth usually blocks these types of sockpuppets, but he/she hasn't edited since 22:54, 28 May 2007. Pants^(T) 21:11, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Anon editing and User:Stevewk

Seems similar ... could someone look @ this ...

Contributions 70.110.157.87

Special:Contributions/Stevewk

Thanks. J. D. Redding 21:54, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

The specific pages are

• The Work of J.G.A. Pocock
• Miscellaneous Works of Edward Gibbon
• The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire
• Edward Gibbon
• The Club (Literary Club)
• Outline of The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire

I don't want to revert them ... but 70.110.157.87 seems like Stevewk (talk · contribs) ... J. D. Redding 23:00, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Angry Sun

He made fun of me and called me a idiotMarioman12 22:40, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Non-admin comment Could you provide some context for this? I can't really tell what's going on. --Haemo 22:52, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Probably this. Other than claiming you are psychic, it's original research to claim something that was seen in a dream, in the future, or as a weird hunch. If you want to put something in an article, especially in an article about an unreleased game, please source it. That diff and the text above wasn't a personal attack, but it was a tad uncivil. x42bn6 Talk Mess 23:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

So, who wants to write WP:PSYCHICPOWERS to cover this defense against original research. --Haemo 23:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

My ascended planar consciousness is telling me that would be needless instruction creep. Marioman12 certainly earns points for originality though. --tjstrf talk 23:19, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually that policy is added during april 2009. --Fredrick day 23:21, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, even if you are psychic it's no different than adding something because you say you saw it with your own two eyes. If it's not published in a reliable source, we can't really rely on it. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 00:00, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

You are not helping the situation and my mind is f***ed up so that's how I see into the future for once it wasn't something completly useless like the side of the building I'm sorry if this sounds ridiclous but I think its true I think he over did it by calling me names and he could of just counted it under original research not been so meanMarioman12 23:47, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

He never called you names, so I don't really see what the problem is here. --Haemo 23:58, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it's because it isn't exactly nice to call someone "kid" or a "Yoshi-fan" as a response to something that goes against guidelines. Probably not a personal attack, but uncivil, and maybe warrants a nice gentle message. x42bn6 Talk Mess 00:15, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

First off I got no beef with Duris Bane that link is not right this is what Angry Sun said to me:

The only people that are psychics are people in cartoons and shows like Pet Psychic. Face it kid. You are just a die-hard Yoshi Fan. Angry Sun 20:27, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

First off. I did. Second that was not a personal attack. I suggest you read the policy. For it to be a direct attack I would have said..."You are not freaking psychic idiot." But I did not. Therefore I didn't attack you. Also IP...Don't freaking trust everything you read. This guy is full of himself. I have dreams that I'm Godzilla. That doesn't make it true does it? Angry Sun 22:09, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Marioman12 00:11, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

He mentioned what he didn't say to make it a personal attack. That doesn't make it a personal attack. I think maybe one should pull away from this issue a little - it is incivility rather than personal attacks. x42bn6 Talk Mess 00:15, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

He said i'm full of myself and freakin psycho idiot Marioman12 00:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Also this isn't his first time: == Please remain civil ==

Comments like this are not helpful. The uncivil behavior of other editors (even anonymous editors) is no excuse for making uncivil comments yourself. Everyone can read the comments you write, and you may give others a bad view of Wikipedia. Often, editors will behave rudely in an attempt to provoke others — do not allow yourself to fall into this trap. (This and more is discussed at Wikipedia:Civility. Please take the time to read it, if you have no already done so.)

This editor is apparently unfamiliar with our policies. There was no need to be insulting to him. Instead of an edit summary of "Go ask Nsider for god sakes. We aren't GameFAQS.", try something along the lines of "Removing discussion unrelated to article." Remember — Edit summaries are intended to give a description of your edit. User:Pagrashtak|Pagra

Look - everyone just needs to be civil and stop jumping at every little comment. Wikipedia is not a battleground. --Haemo 00:35, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

He made me feel bad Marioman12 00:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes? And? If you have a serious problem, start a request for comment on him. Other than that, the admins are not your personal feelings police. I'm sorry you're upset, but sometimes people will do that to you, and all we can really do is ask them nicely to stop. I see you haven't decided to talk to him about this - perhaps that would be a place to start. --Haemo 00:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Marioman, I don't think from reading this that Angry Sun really meant to call you an idiot, though I can understand why you think that they have and why you feel bad about it. Sometimes people are not nice to you, and you just have to remember that they are a name on a screen and they don't know who you are or anything about you. My advice would be not to reply to or deal with Angry Sun for a while until you have both calmed down, and just edit the articles. I would also say that you should read What is a reliable source? and No Original Research for what you can and can't put in a page on Wikipedia. Orderinchaos 02:36, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

3bulletproof16

Affected articles: Staples Center, Los Angeles Memorial Sports Arena, Pontiac Silverdome.

3bulletproof16 is a prolific editor of pro wrestling articles (and not much else) who is apparently part of a small group of Wikipedia editors who feel the need to insert pro wrestling references into as many unrelated articles as possible, including articles for sports venues. Judging by his edit history, he has been flirting with violating (if not outright violating) WP:OWN for a number of months. His only response to my counsel that pro wrestling is a fringe topic and not a sporting event was to "tell that to WP:PW". Can an admin with some weight to throw around set him straight? Thanks in advance, I Always Win 23:27, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

This looks suspiciously like a Chadbryant sockpuppet to me. In his last run before being banned he was attempting to remove the same information from various articles. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 23:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, you must have me confused with someone else. How about addressing the issue at hand instead of throwing out the SP accusations? That seems to the the course of action when a Wikiclique feels threatened. I Always Win 23:35, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Chadbryant, but I'm not a member of the wrestling project. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 23:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

This is a ridiculous request - firstly, no admin can interfere in content disputes. Secondly, pro-wrestling is not a fringe topic. Thirdly, whether or not a pro-wrestling subject matter deserves mention depends on individual articles. I would recommend that you discuss these content disputes on the article talkpages and at worst, open an article RfC. And 3bulletproof16 is a respectable editor. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 23:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it's clear that much of the rasslin' content on Wikipedia needs to be purged, and that WP:PW seems to not take WP:OWN very seriously. The sockpuppet junk merely reflects the immaturity often associated with fans of this pseudo-sport.I Always Win 23:44, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:NPA Hypnosadist 23:47, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't lump together all editors of a project together, because of actions of a few. That's very rude. Just because wrestling is scripted/fake (and for whatever reason: you seem to hate it): it's still a notable subject for Wikipedia. As for sports venues: if a notable wrestling event took place at one, then it should be listed on the sports venue article. RobJ1981 23:55, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Why? --Calton | Talk 00:26, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Smells like socks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 23:58, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Try bathing. I Always Win 23:59, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

How about some on-wiki proof? User talk:Tv316/Archive 01#I think they were Chad.2C yea.. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 00:01, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Save your manic accusations for someone else. You can have your precious rasslin' back. I have no interest in having a single-purpose account. I Always Win 00:06, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Check out what his user page says now. [93] Hypnosadist 00:12, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

While I tend to agree with I Always Win that wrestling is an overexposed pseudo-sport, it is also highly notable, thus his arguments are baseless. Personally, I think this entire string should be added to a new and improved WP:BJAODN. Its never wise to be uncivil on an administrators noticeboard... ;o)Resolute 01:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

JB196 sockpuppet

Resolved

 – blocked by Phaedriel - Alison ☺ 01:48, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Staysswungbaby (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Please block, thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 23:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Question

Can you block someone for not spelling correctly at all on talk pagesMarioman12 23:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

No, not really - but if it becomes so persistent, and the user ignores requests repeatedly, that it becomes disruptive, then possibly. --Haemo 00:00, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

And even then, only if the misspellings become so incoherent that it becomes disruptive. Nobody wants to spend minutes decoding "wt i ths thg u r talkin but" is. x42bn6 Talk Mess 00:08, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Well he says he is spelling impaired when I ask him about which is Bs is you ask meMarioman12 00:06, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Not everyone has perfect spelling, and some choose not to bother with spell-checking as long as the message gets across. We don't go round handing out warnings because you spelt tomorrow with too many "m"s, for example. x42bn6 Talk Mess 00:08, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

He spells "to" and "try" wrongMarioman12 00:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

No big deal. x42bn6 Talk Mess 00:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Here is an example: Diu you rilly want me tue fix it. Anubiz 23:17, 2 June 2007 (UTC) Marioman12 00:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

You're complaining about spelling mistakes when your sentences suffer from a distinct lack of punctuation and separation of sentences? Pot, meet kettle.

The user is question is Anubiz (talk · contribs), with comments by Marioman here and here. Phony Saint 00:22, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

The admins are not spelling police, and they're not going to hunt down a user on that basis. Talk to the nicely about it before seeking some kind of administrative action. --Haemo 00:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:ANI is not an end-all for all complaints. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 01:02, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Spelling is *not* a matter for AN/I. In some cases, the user may have a disability (note - it seems the user in question *does* - see his user page) or very poor education, or maybe just not very good at English, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with them editing the encyclopaedia so long as they conform to our policies when editing. Wikipedia does not discriminate against anyone who wishes to edit in good faith. Orderinchaos 03:34, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Re:New block for Hayden5650

Resolved

Although Desiphral began this discussion based on the above-mentioned user's edits on Romani-related articles, Romani- and Holocaust-related articles are not the only ones he has vandalized. He has also deleted Maori names under edit summaries like "rm nonsense," just because he does not speak Maori (he gave this reason here, using his IP address). Even in the article and talk page on Aquamarine (color), he attempted to change the spelling of "color" to British English "colour" with absolutely no discussion, usually through redirects [94], [95], [96]. As is clearly shown in the current version of the article, all three of the edits to the last article were reverted. --Kuaichik 00:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

He has violated Wikipedia:Civil on the Marlboro talk page, using offensive language ("nanny-state PC drivel," "you really do have your head up your rear end"). He knowingly [97] removed the part of Wikipedia:Introduction that was not supposed to be removed, not once but three times [98], [99], [100]. He has vandalized the article Homosexuality as well, including one offensive edit summary [101], which was reported as vandalism on his talk page [102]. The list goes on and on (see [103] and [104]). --Kuaichik 01:12, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Reblocked. While some of the edit diffs above predate the first block, his editing patterns since his last block expired demonstrate no difference in behaviour from what he was originally blocked for. As it was for the same offence I bypassed the 4-level warning. Orderinchaos 02:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by Vilerocks

I put it on WP:CN as I simply do not have any more patience. User:Vilerocks/User:BassxForte has been editing disruptively since January. I am very interested in getting something very, very quickly. Evidence here, here and here. - Zero1328 _Talk? 02:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Problem With An Anonymous Creationist

It was recommended that I post this complaint/concern here, rather than Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Anonymous user 12.214.122.176 has been making repeated edits to Behemoth in order to make its POV more creationist-friendly [here], [here] and [here], and now, in Leviathan, too, [here]. When I warned him about this back in May, he became [insulting and argumentative]. Is it possible to do something about this anonymous person?--Mr Fink 03:03, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately it's hard to argue the case on the edits as all of them were unsourced possible original research (quite likely true, but an independent source is going to need to be found to back them up. I note the other editor is guilty of the same, for the record - Dinosaurs-Unleashed is a tertiary source effectively.) The last comment on the linked talk page appears to point to a more conciliatory tone. I don't think admin action is required - it would seem the IP editor is quite young (I'm guessing < 13). If they get into edit wars over sourced content in articles or over non-RS sourced content that they are contributing, let us know. Orderinchaos 03:22, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Followup: I left a message on the IP's talk page. Orderinchaos 03:27, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

EdwinCasadoBaez (talk · contribs)

• EdwinCasadoBaez (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Multiple references of personal attacks [105] "Do you think i give an F*** about the no Personal Attack policy" [106] "This Annonymous User is so stuped." [107] "Where the fuk did i said that...you stupid idiot..."(keep it short). As well as on user talk pages, [108] ,[109]. He has been warned numerous times [110], [111], [112] . As well as uses multiple IP's and usernames [113] . A block due to these multiple and flagrant violations is believed to be in order.

New issues include going onto checkuser cases and making personal attacks [114] YA ARE LIARS!LIARS!LIARS , [115] stating his extreme anger for the checkuser "I'm angry because is unfair that already two people are banned for wrong acussations...memeco, and platanogenius..ya are being to narrowminded over here" and his amazement of his own listing [116] "WHy am i relisted in the top???Why is my name written on top?I'm going to be acussed a sock puppet too???this is crazy here!are ya going to block the whole wiki Population jut to get what ya want?" . He has continued with non-civil behavior referring to people as "dumb ass" [117] refering to other users as idiots [118] and telling banned members (platanogenius) to get a new account [119] . He has continued on with uncivil behavior by stating that talk page convo and sockpuppet issues were "dumb shit" [120] . He has been given a final warning concerning his behavior but continued with this [121].. He has had at least 8 previous warnings on his talk page for this behavior. [122] Please take a look at this and consider that this user should be blocked. This is his second major report of unruly behavior on wikipedia. [123] [124] YoSoyGuapo 02:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for a week. Please adjust, agree, disagree, discuss. Grandmasterka 05:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Otane

I have noticed two editors creating substantially the same article Otane in the last hour. It was created by User:Tabletoptuna, deleted, and then re-created by User:Lollypop land wow. In both cases, the article was virtually empty; the latter version consists solely of the text: "hi there no info on otane." The former version was similar but added the information that "otane is a dump."

A similar article was deleted twice a few days ago [125].

This may be a case for WP:SSP but I can't determine exactly what is going on, and I don't know whether the earlier deleted versions were created by either of these editors or by other editors. --Metropolitan90 04:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

It's a town - so, probably people from the town making test edits. --Haemo 04:27, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I just added a redirect to the district it's a part of, so people will no longer be inclined to make such edits. I'll watchlist it, too - that should solve the problem. --Haemo 04:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't do that. It should be a redlink so that people will see there's no article and maybe someone will make a legitimate stub. (Unless you want to open the "small towns are/are not notable" can of worms) --Random832 04:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I made a little stub, like the other ones there instead. --Haemo 04:35, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

RfC needs admin approval

I posted this at WP:AN but no one has taken action on it yet...I'm told that an RfC that I opened on myself yesterday needs admin approval or else it will be deleted tomorrow. I understand that opening an RfC on yourself doesn't require a second endorsement or certifier, but I didn't know admin approval was still necessary. If so, would an uninvolved admin please review the RfC, approve it if appropriate, and move it to the "approved" section of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct? If not approved, please let me know why and what the appropriate next step is. Thank you in advance. CLA 05:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)