Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

• For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
• To request review of an administrator's action or other use of advanced permissions, use Wikipedia:Administrative action review
• If you are new, try the Teahouse instead.
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead, follow the instructions on Wikipedia:Requests for oversight.
• For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent.
• Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here.
• Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• If you want to challenge the closure of a request for comment, use {{RfC closure review}}

When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough.

You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search)

Start a new discussion

Current issues

"Shops"

Hello all, I was just wondering what you thought of things like this and this? I know we've had people's personal shops before, but not multiple people like this. Seems like instruction creep to me...just wondering what people think. Regards, Keilana 01:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

what is the point? Viridae^Talk 01:15, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

(ec) Unless I'm missing something, this is just a witty approach for offering to help others. Strikes me as good natured and constructive, and goodness knows we could use more of both qualities around here. Raymond Arritt (talk) 01:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

It may be helping users, but I think the dollar stores are coming to Wikipedia. I've "purchased" items from one of them before, and, to clarify things, I AM NOT AN EMPLOYEE AT CHAMPION MART!!! —BoL @ 04:41, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

*sigh*. Daniel 07:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not really doing much at all, in fact, it's doing harm to those who receive Christmas cards that are "bought" from these shops and displayed in dark green on bright red. Even though they claim to be helping users by making them feel cheerful and happy about contributing, but in my opinion, they appear to make the whole place look like a social networking site and end up getting people blocked for social networking. My two cents, anyway. Spebi 21:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

But looking at the positive side of these shops, you don't really have to buy anything, just copy the code from the source and the owner's can't come to your talk page complaining of "card theft". Spebi 21:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Only complaining of a GFDL violation. -- SEWilco (talk) 21:44, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I think what's best is if we drop the subject, then bring it back up if Gp and Vintei start warring about it. —BoL @ 23:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Ridiculous. This is a valid discussion topic, especially considering the fact that some users are now talking of "friend requests" – [1], [2]. Spebi 04:51, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify things, shops were created to help users, not to build an emporium of shops. Also, User:Gp75motorsports has a note that the goal of ChampionMart is "to become the largest multi-use shop in Wikipedia", and Wikipedia is not a web host, nor a shopping mall. Macy's123 01:31, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, the "shops" are really intended to help users, mostly newcomers (I have a shop myself). And the workers are volunteers, not conscripts.-- Vintei  Talk  01:46, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

(undent)Yeah, so do I. I think Vintei and I are speaking for all shop owners (there may be more) when we say that the shops are easier to use for newcomers because all they have to do is copypaste the source code. I'd rather copypaste a premade design or request a design from a more experienced user than have to continually reference the userpage design center if I wanted a unique userpage. --Gp75motorsports ^{REV LIMITER} 02:04, 22 December 2007 (UTC) :Look, just drop it for now. If you two start flaming about it, it will be dealt with. —BoL @ 02:06, 22 December 2007 (UTC) You know what? Scratch that. I have nominated both their shops for deletion. Looks like they're going too out of the edge, I mean, Gp75 copied the src from Vintei, so I'm doing it. —BoL @ 02:10, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Wait, scratch that. I'll file a request for comment. —BoL @ 02:11, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Remind me again why having "a unique userpage" is essential to building an encyclopedia? Shouldn't we be helping newcomers learn how to improve articles and not how to have gaudy userboxes, signatures, and user pages? Metros (talk) 02:08, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

No reason. —BoL @ 02:10, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I hate people who judge before they see. We also do templates and userscripts. And BoL here is only saying this because he works for Vintei. --Gp75motorsports ^{REV LIMITER} 02:45, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

"Because he works for Vintei" — on so many levels, I hope you were joking. Daniel 04:05, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I don't really work for anyone, really. I mean, checkout? You got to be kidding me. So, I'm just going to kick back and relax and see how this goes. I may merge your stores into one and have you guys work together. Seems cherry? I didn't think so. Anyway, I'm not sure whether this is the right place to report it, but UAA is backlogged. —BoL @ 05:20, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

We already have places, in projectspace, for requesting templates and user scripts. Mr.Z-man 00:11, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Shops nominated for deletion

I have nominated both shops for deletion. You can see them at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Vintei/shop and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Gp75motorsports/ChampionMart. Metros (talk) 03:06, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

(this is a copy of my comment from here) I say that we should be able to keep shops in some way or form, whether it be a wikiproject or hosted on someone's userpage. I don't know why there are so many delete votes when something like this passes. I mean look at their keep rationale, all of their rational apply to shops as well, if not more. If you think shops are a waste of disk space, what do you have to say to the huge lists of userboxes we have up? Although shops will probably be deleted anyways, I would like permission to have a wikiproject or a WP: page, where there is no competition. Thanks -- penubag  23:46, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Penubag. I'm even willing to create an alternate account solely focused on shops. —BoL @ 04:15, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

An alternate account? How in the world would that alleviate the problem? Metros (talk) 14:03, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Problem?, I don't see one....-- penubag  23:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

*yawn*. There's something strange going on here, as the relationship between the accounts don't appear to be a coincidence. MER-C 13:04, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I mean an alternate account that's not used for editing and is solely used for shops. But, I don't think that's needed because if the shops are deleted, there's a Wiki that just started in Wikia. Just can't remember what the title of that Wiki was... Happy Holidays from —BoL 00:44, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

• Question- So if I offer helping people make sigs, that's not allowed? or does it have to be a subpage dedicated to that before it gets deleted? I have a userpage2 just with ASCII art and facts and if I offered to design ASCII art for a user, should it be deleted? How far does it go before it get's deleted? I can list 10 users that have sig shops and others, but I don't see theirs deleted. -- penubag  03:28, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• I nominated the {{user friends with} template for deletion as well [here]. Avruchtalk 03:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I guess this thread could be resolved, all shops have been deleted. Not only that, I think the shops should be restored for two minutes so I can retrieve the source code and transwiki over to wikia:codesnippets. —BoL 06:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Question

Sorry, i haven't seen any existing shops which you all are talking about. And the examples cited at the top of this section have now been deleted. could anyone please point me to some examples of these? thanks very much. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC) Never mind, that got deleted. But you can kinda view an example here. —BoL 00:14, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Claim of abuse of administrator privileges

Section title refactored to a less strident form, as the claim was considered unfounded. The original claim is preserved below. Carcharoth (talk) 01:44, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

The account was blocked for a myriad of reasons, and most can agree on "username violation." Arguing about hypothetical alternative reasons for blocking is less than productive for an encyclopedia. —Kurykh 01:28, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

For the record the account referred to by Kurykh was User:No i wont talk with u, not User:DGG--CastAStone/^/(talk) 14:29, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I've just seen this--nobody mentioned to me that I was being discussed here. I have indeed removed obvious spam links a number of times from this article over several months; there appears to be a need to pay considerable attention to this one, and others on the general subject. People keep inserting links to their favorite projects. I see the article has just come under attack again, by User:Certified planner, whose contributions are limited to adding duplicate links to this article; there were earlier editors named User:Urbancity and User:Nighttemper doing just the same. DGG (talk) 16:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

you should have been notified, especialy due to the absurdity of the claims made. You were in the right nuff said.--Hu12 (talk) 22:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Apologies on my part as well for taking part in this thread and not notifying DGG. Following talk page discussion, I agree that it would be best to change the title. I'll do that now, and then we can let this thread archive in peace. Carcharoth (talk) 01:44, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Potential Sneaky spam?

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

This caught my eye as I was removing some redirecting links. A pattern emerged as I was going through the links, they all (200+ at the time) seem to have been added by a single user, Splamo (talk · contribs). This raises several policy issues, WP:SPAM and WP:NOT. On the surface all of this users activity seems like it might be good faith, however, all the links that i came across were added to wikipedia by Splamo to cruisecritic.com, adsense account (pub-4131962432578484). The big question is, does this apear to be someone who is using Wikipedia to promote their own interests?--Hu12 (talk) 04:41, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Just restating what I posted at User talk:Hu12 regarding the above information:

I agree that the Adsense issue is a concern. Unfortunately, I believe that the alternative is for WP to not link to any cruise ship reviews. The Cruise Critic star ratings, based on their reviews, are utilized by multiple travel sites (Orbitz, Travelocity, and Expedia, are three of which I'm aware) so they seem to be viewed as a standardized rating tool within the industry, and I've seen them referenced as a source on NY Times articles about cruising. The only other review sites of which I'm aware tend to be more biased, or are directly owned by various travel agent sites and would certainly be inappropriate.

The problem, of course, is their Adsense usage, and if that outweighs the information above. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 05:42, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

FYI: further discussion on this at WT:SHIPS#Cruise_Ships_and_use_of_review_links --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:58, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• Barek, I think you have missed the reason and point of this inquirey. It is not the content of the links that interest me by the time it has got to this stage. Wether they are "referenced as a source on NY Times articles about cruising' or not, is irrelevent and does not make for exemption of official Wikipedia policy. In this case, as in most cases - spam is defined not so much by the content of the site.. as by the behavior of the individuals adding the links..--Hu12 (talk) 12:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• cruisecritic.com/Splamo diffs;
  [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] [69] [70] [71] [72] [73] [74] [75] [76] [77] [78] [79] [80] [81] [82] [83] [84] [85] [86] [87] [88] [89] [90] [91] [92] [93]
  I forgot to add diffs --Hu12 (talk) 10:39, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Splamo, a high-school student, has done Wikipedia a valuable service by starting dozens of articles on individual cruise ships, as shown by the differences shown above and the histories. In those articles he relied on information from CruiseCritic.com. Some of that information can be problematic as I mentioned here, but that does not mean there should be a search-and-destroy mission to remove the links. Personally I prefer to use more direct sources (and in some of these articles I have added references to those sources) but the site can be and is a useful source of general information, and apparently was used by Splamo for those purposes, as I mention here. We should assume good faith on the part of the editor who relied on that site to make infoboxes and add content; the edits linked above demonstrate that. Kablammo (talk) 13:25, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

It is not only spammers who concentrate on particular types of articles, or make multiple additions from a source. it is a perfectly feasible and even desirable way to work, to find a good neutral reliable source that is applicable to improving a number of different articles, and add it, and then go on to the next source. People working this way with particularly useful online or printed content could greatly improve our sourcing. The assumption of good faith extends to instances like this. DGG (talk) 16:24, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I never realized way back when I did those edits that it would cause all this. I'm truly sorry it did. I guess back when I made those edits, I didn't realize the rules and such. I used the CruiseCritic articles at the time because it was a reputable, well known, well referenced site. I realize now that relying on that site as heavily as I did was probably a mistake and I should listed/referenced them differently. In the future, as I become a more knowledgeable and experienced editor, I will do things differently. If anybody has an qualms with my decisions, I would like for them to discuss it privately on my talk page. Thank you, and I apologize again for what I did. Splamo (talk) 02:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

fake move attack

• OK, Let me explan this, some guy keeps using variant ip adress to add information of a fake move Tom & Jerry: The Great Beginning into DreamWorks Animation,Droopy.Screwball Squirrell,Spike (MGM),Barney Bear,Spike and Tyke,Nicktoons,Piracy,John Goodman,Long John Silver,Butch (Tom and Jerry),Lil' JJ,Jack Black,Mammy Two Shoes,Wanda Sykes,Tom and Jerry Tales since 30 November 2007
  • 30 November 2007, this guy was using 63.215.28.109 ,I reported to User talk:Luna Santin ‎and WP:AIV
  • 1 December 2007, this guy was using 172.132.65.29 ,I reported to User talk:Satori Son ‎and WP:AIV
  • 2 December 2007, this guy was using 172.131.135.201 ,I reported at WP:AIV
  • 5 December 2007, this guy was using 172.135.171.74
  • 6 December 2007, this guy was using 63.3.0.1
  • 7 December 2007, this guy was using 172.168.14.245
  • 8 December 2007, this guy was using 172.163.145.36 ,I reported at WP:AIV
  • 9 December 2007, this guy was using 172.163.10.210 ,I reported at WP:AIV
  • 10 December 2007, this guy was using 172.133.24.150 ,I reported at WP:AIV
  • 11 December 2007, this guy was using 172.132.218.98 ,I reported at WP:AIV
  • 19 December 2007, this guy was using 63.3.0.129 ,I reported at WP:AIV
  • 20 December 2007, this guy was using 63.215.28.110 ,I reported at WP:AIV
  • 21 December 2007, this guy was using 172.162.11.138 ,I reported at WP:AIV Tom & Jerry Fan (talk) 20:55, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
    • When I defending DreamWorks Animation today, many people said that I AM vandalism, and some administrator said I have to apologize here , what would I do? Tom & Jerry Fan (talk) 20:55, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
    • This guy will keep try to attack these articles, what would you do?Tom & Jerry Fan (talk) 20:55, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I think semi-protection may be in order, if you are correct. WP:RFPP may be best. WP:AIV will ensure that these IP addresses are constantly blocked for sensible amounts (they are IP addresses, so it's not really possible to block them for a long time). x42bn6 Talk Mess 21:04, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

(x42bn6 understand Chinese , so I reply in Chinese)Tom & Jerry Fan (talk) 21:32, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

(Chinese)我擁有相同想法,我在WP:AIV請求semi-protection for 6個月,可是沒有任何administrator 願意這麼做，他們頂多semi-protection for一星期至一個月,那是沒有用的,semi-protection for 6個月比較好Tom & Jerry Fan (talk) 21:21, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

(Chinese)用常理去推理就知道是假的,Tom & Jerry只有一部movie(1993年製作),之後的都是direct to video,This guy還說Tom & Jerry: The Great Beginning是made by DreamWorks Animation(with Nickelodeon Movies, Rainbow S.p.A., Amblin Entertainment, Phoenix Pictures, Spyglass Entertainment, 4kids Entertainment, National Geographic Society, O Entertainment, Sony Pictures Animation, TriStar Pictures, Columbia Pictures, The Kerner Entertainment Company, Walden Media, Castle Rock Entertainment, Revolution Studios, Imagine Entertainment, Universal Studios, The Weinstein Company, & Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer),這根本不可能.Tom & Jerry Fan (talk) 21:27, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

(anyway, in english) He says that he wants the items semi'd for 6 months by an administrator and something else semi'd for one week to one month, while the other one gets semi'd for 6 months. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blow of Light (talk • contribs) 21:29, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

No, No, No, I mean I agree with x42bn6 and I want the items semi'd for 6 months by an administrator, but administrators seem they don't want to do this , they semi'd the items from one week to one month only , it's no useTom & Jerry Fan (talk) 21:35, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

(ec; my attempt at translation) "I went to WP:AIV asking for semiprotection for 6 months, but the administrator there only protected for 1 week to 1 month. This is not long enough; six months is better." "Common sense will tell that it is false, there is only one Tom and Jerry movie (made in 1993), the rest is direct to video. This guy also says Tom & Jerry: The Great Beginning is made by (list of production companies); this is impossible." —Kurykh 21:37, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

最不可能的是This guy says Tom & Jerry: The Great Beginning features Mammy Two Shoes, 自從1954年開始Hanna及Barbera 就把Mammy Two Shoes這個角色取消了,因為Mammy Two Shoes的存在被認為是racist,最新的Tom and Jerry Tales也沒有Mammy Two Shoes(製作人員根本不敢放這個角色)Tom & Jerry Fan (talk) 21:57, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with (semi-)protection for that long as well. One does wish anyone can edit articles. Protection for that long prevents that. I only know how to speak and listen to basic Chinese, by the way. x42bn6 Talk Mess 21:38, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Um, the entire post is composed of translations of the above posts by Tom & Jerry Fan. None were of my opinion. —Kurykh 21:41, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Declined – There is not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection at this time. There is no need to protect such a wide swath of articles for minor vandalism for such a long time. Semi-protection is not preemptive. —Kurykh 21:46, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

那怎麼辦?If they protecte for 1 week to 1 month only,This guy還會回來Tom & Jerry Fan (talk) 21:57, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

If we protect for six months that guy will come back too. We'll see after the protection is over. Reverting (for admins) is a one-click task, and so are blocking and protection. —Kurykh 21:59, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

我是不要緊啦,我也可以revert,不過今天我revert DreamWorks Animation的時候有三個人(其中一個好像還是administrator)說我是vandalism,這可讓我非常生氣Tom & Jerry Fan (talk) 22:10, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

我不太希望下次維護這些 items的時候又有人跑過來說我是vandalismTom & Jerry Fan (talk) 22:15, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I can say with certainty that your edits were not vandalism. So be sure of that. —Kurykh 22:23, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

And that vandal does seem persistent. I'll give you a hand here and watchlist all these articles, reverting when necessary. Just like Tom & Jerry, vandal fighting is, unfortunately, a lot like a cat-and-mouse game. x42bn6 Talk Mess 00:11, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Protection of Wikipedia:Private correspondence

I have fully protected the above until midnight/now (or a few minutes ago, knowing my habit of over-verbiage) to stop a nascent revert/wheel war. If a previously uninvolved admin or two could keep an eye on matters to stop this spiraling out of control I believe the community would be well served. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:00, 27 December 2007 (UTC) (bingo!)

Unfortunately, immediately after the protection expired, the wheel war started again. A request has been made at WP:RFPP to reinstate full protection; however, as at least two of the wheel warriors are administrators, additional warnings may be appropriate. Merry Christmas everyone. Risker (talk) 00:10, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

The two opposite alternatives should probably be split with a disambig. That might help the edit warring. -- Kendrick7^talk 00:15, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Terrible idea, unfortunately: one is supported by policy, the other by wishful thinking. Ideally, of course, we would not need a policy ro guideline, since publishing the contents of a private email is a dickish thing to do. It's also problematic re copyright, and has led to censure in several ArbCom cases. The competing version says, in effect, just do it and take the whacks. That's not smart, not least because anybody with a shorter history than Giano would be in deep shit for posting the contents of a private email, and also because where we've seen such publication there have been instances of forgery, as with the recent IRC logs. The appropriate people to deal with private data are the arbitrators, and they have said they will do so. They can contact the purported senders and original recipients, validate the contents, cross-check the headers without risking revealing private IP data, and come to some conclusion. Guy (Help!) 16:04, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Review of protection

I would also invite review of my sysop actions, as an editor with some input, in protecting the pages. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• Protecting was right, though longer would probably have been better given that the edit war was almost certain to break out again. Yet another ridiculous episode that could've been avoided; some of those involved should really know better. BLACKKITE 00:22, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. No wait, wrong page -- ah yes, agree with BLACKKITE. Intentions were good but protection should have been longer, and especially some of those involved should really know better. Raymond Arritt (talk) 00:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

After the 13 minute protection expired, edit warring resumed. At this point, User:SlimVirgin, User:MrWhich and User:Crum375 have all reached three reverts, all of them hitting their third after the brief protection. Fortunately, Alison has fully protected the page for a week before anybody hit a clear fourth revert and garnered a block. Four other users also reverted once each. Protecting for such a short time wasn't effective. If Allison hadn't already protected, I would have blocked all three of those who did a third revert after the protection, as they clearly knew that they were edit warring, 3RR is an electric fence not an entitlement, and intentional edit warring deserves blocks. GRBerry 00:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• I reverted back once after Crum375 to the short-lived protected version. I'm assuming Alison saw my request for protection on the protection noticeboard. The first protection was fine, but should have gone longer. Lawrence Cohen 00:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I've just found this commentary now. I'm a regular WP:RFPP patroller - one of the most active - and happened to see the request going up. I have protected the article for a full week due to edit-warring and, as ever, have no interest or preference for whatever arbitrary revision has been protected - Alison ^❤ 00:45, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• Process question....some of the users (many actually) of those involved in this series of policy edit wars on the use of private type information are admins. Is there a mechanism to prevent their editing the protected version anyway? or just good will? And what (if anything) could/should/might be done if folks do edit through the protection 'inapproprately'? --Rocksanddirt (talk) 05:42, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• Sysop tools do enable an editor to bypass page protection, however one of the criteria that is considered in the request for adminship is whether the powers conferred would be abused. Being able to edit protected pages is allowed to both maintain the page, and to make edits that have consensus. I suspect (no evidence - but such a facility might exist in the case of virus infection or similar) that there is a further level of protection which may only be applied at Steward or Dev (or Founder?) level, but I doubt it forms part of the normal community processes.
• The only thing that keeps sysops from abusing the tools is the personal sense of responsibility to the community, and the knowledge that as admin is a position of trust the effect of having the tools taken away is to have it known that the community believes you untrustworthy - this, more than the fact that desysopping is possible, is what keeps admins from violating their position. That is not to say that abuses do not occur, but it is not by the majority and is extremely rare (and often a matter of error) in those who have. Admins are just people, with some extra buttons, and are thus fallible. My request for review is a case in point; I violated the letter of policy in protecting an article to which I had contributed, in pursuit of the spirit of the policy on not engaging in edit wars. I then placed my actions for review - seeking permission to violate policy after the event - so to determine I had not abused my position. If consensus is that I had abused my rights then I would need to review my being granted the tools. Some admins have signed up for a process called recall to enable the community to question if they are suitable to continue using the mop. I haven't, because I don't think a process will be necessary to determine it - my actions and my actions alone will provide the basis on whether I continue to have the trust of the community.
• Short version. There is no regular way that admins can be stopped from editing protected pages, except by their own sense of responsibility to the applicaton of policy. Abuse of the tools can lead to sysops having the tools taken away, either voluntarily or non-voluntarily. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

So what happens if anybody with admin powers edits a fully protected page after protection? spryde | talk 12:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

That would be determined largely by the nature of the edit. Non-controversial edits, such as correcting typos or formats, removing previously missed vandalism, etc., or editing per consensus reached at the talkpage are expressly allowed. Controversial edits are expressly not permitted, since it negates the premis of protecting the article and also means that only a certain class of editor seems permitted to edit according to their viewpoint. There might be some temptation to make such edits, since protection is not concerned about which edit is "correct" but to stop edit warring (or other vandalism) and therefore any subsequent edits should not be reverted - which wheel war also disallows. Of course, a sysop that gets into the habit of controversially editing protected articles runs the risk of being sanctioned and the tools removed temporarily or permanently - a single or couple of instances will most likely earn a rebuke. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:48, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of mechanisms to prevent admins from abusing their privileges to edit protected pages...JzG edited the page in question and this was brought to Alison's attention on her talk page. JzG then self-reverted. That informal process seemed to work in this case. Cla68 (talk) 01:58, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes admins edit protected pages accidentally, overlooking the protection notice at the top. I've done that once or twice. It's akin to banner blindness. (This is just a general comment; what happened in this case obviously went beyond that.) Raymond Arritt (talk) 02:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to put that page on MfD as soon as protection lapses. As should be obvious from the talk page and from this, no consensus will ever emerge from that train wreck, much less a useful policy or guideline. Jtrainor (talk) 13:29, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

User:BetacommandBot & Wikipedia:Image copyright help desk

Just to let people know that in light of the above discussion, I've gone ahead and created the above Image copyright help desk for users to ask for image copyright help and to ask questions concerning BetacommandBot. All users with image copyright and fair use experience are welcome to fulfill help requests from those users needing help and advice. Nick (talk) 02:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Good move, and very welcome. I think it would be helpful, however, if User:BetacommandBot's tags on images could include a reference to this new help desk. I'm willing to watchlist it and give assistance where I can. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 02:50, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

It would also be helpful if someone well versed in image issues would swing through WP:FAC twice a week; this issue has been coming up for well over a year, and we still don't have anyone regularly reviewing FACs for image issues. WP:FAR too, but articles are there for at least a month, so twice weekly wouldn't be necessary. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:55, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Once my Belarus FAC is done, I can swing around. Plus, the folks from FAC can come to us and we can deal with the issues there. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Nice initiative, this has the potential to alleviate a lot of the problems with BCBot. My only concern is that there seems to be an overlap between this page and WP:MCQ. Is the new help desk intended to field only bot-related image questions? ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 03:45, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

We mention on the new page that if there are questions about specific images, we send them to MCQ. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:49, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

"To ask a question about ONE specific image, Click Here" - I have no idea how I missed that... ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 03:58, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Don't mean to be negative, but I'm a bit skeptical about this in relation to Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. MCQ is for queries, primarily questions, both about general issues and specific images. The only non-redundant use I see for the new Help Desk is (to quote the BCB talk page) "complaints [regarding BetacommandBot's operation]." Betacommand does get a great many complaints, but I don't think it makes sense to move them to a "help desk" -- it's effectively like moving the whole user talk page to project-space, except for some barnstars and the like. If I had a genuine complaint against BCB, I don't know if I'd respond positively to being redirected to a help desk. It sends the message of "you're wrong; post here if you'd like someone to tell you why." I just don't see why it's needed. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 04:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Because people were not satisfied with his responses or refuse to speak to BC. So other users are giving this page a shot and see if it works. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I agree that some users have been unsatisfied with Betacommand's responsiveness, and I don't exactly blame BC considering how many redundant complaints he receives (not that that necessarily makes the complains unmeritful). But other users already hang around his talk page; I don't see what moving the discussions to project-space would do (well, except for users who refuse to talk to BC, as you pointed out). I guess it can't hurt to try, anyway. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 04:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes people are right. Hopefully there will be feedback mechanisms in place to get the bot, the tags, and the overall message improved. I suggest a summary section on the helpdesk page titled "suggested bot improvements", or something. Carcharoth (talk) 04:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

It gives the message "you're in the wrong place," not "you're wrong." We constantly direct people away from AN and ANI to AIV, RFPP, and other alphabet soup boards, but the "you're wrong" connotation doesn't exist if it is not explicitly stated in the redirection. —Kurykh 04:36, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think anyone minds being told that there is a better forum for what they're posting, so long as it is done in a reasonably polite way. My concern was separate from that, though. Post location is just a triviality; I think upset users would respond differently when genuine complaints are redirected to a "help desk." It's a bit like telling them to read some section of List of common misconceptions. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 04:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

So the problem is the name of the board. But then, we have Wikipedia:Help desk, which last time I checked wasn't the Black Hole of Ignorance of Wikipedia (I know I'm exaggerating, perhaps a bit too much). Getting back to the serious point, it seems like you don't have a problem with the concept per se, but the naming. —Kurykh 05:04, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I guess that's a fair observation. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 07:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Ideally all taggings by BCBot would be explicitly guided by policy. If that were the case then you could simply redirect users to the relevant policy. Unfortunately, BCBot's management has not been that consistent and uploaders are often intimidated by the weighty set of Wikipedia image use policies. In either case, any opportunity for greater oversight is welcome. The name could be simpler though, something like the "BetacommandBot Question Center", to clearly set it apart from WP:MCQ. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 05:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I like the idea making it explicitly about BCB to avoid redundancy with WP:MCQ. Wikipedia;BetacommandBot discussion center maybe? — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 07:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I had a couple of concerns with naming the board directly after BetacommandBot, mainly, I don't want to drive users away who are struggling with image issues highlighted by, but not directed related to BetacommandBot, so users really struggling with writing fair use rationales, image size, and so on, and the problem if the bots functions are split and or the bot is renamed, as has been proposed elsewhere, so I thought I'd try and see how a fairly generic sounding name went down first. Nick (talk) 14:42, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Not really a content contribution on my part but I'm quite happy with "Image copyright help desk" - I occasionally get questions about rationales, which I'm not too skilled on (I just copy other ones usually) and it would be nice to have a place for people to go who can field such questions with some knowledge. WHat I'd suggest too is building an easy to read FAQ collection to assist volunteers at such a help desk who can link people to answers on the FAQ (or paste them in as Wikicode) in response to most common questions. Orderinchaos 23:23, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

experience is that most people understand better if there is some attempt at a personalized answer, not just a referral to a policy page. DGG (talk) 16:18, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

The policy is part of the problem. Its written so we can understand it, but other than copyright lawyers, about no one else can. Mr.Z-man 01:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

The reason Betacommand needs his own help desk is his lack of responsiveness and helpfulness to legit concerns. We should not encourage this by ducking the issue and making a help desk to handle complaints about him and his bot, he should do that himself. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Protecting non-existent pages

Just so you guys know, we can protect non-existent pages now thanks to a change done by brion. Cbrown1023 talk 22:10, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I think you'll find that i did it. — Werdna talk 10:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I know (but had actually forgotten when I made this post ;-)), you added it into the MediaWiki software but brion made it live on WM sites. Cbrown1023 talk 16:11, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

So is WP:PT needed anymore? Or rather, should we even have it anymore? —Kurykh 22:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

You must return here with a TitleBlacklist... or you will never pass through this wood... alive. east.718 at 22:25, December 27, 2007

It's in the works. :-) Cbrown1023 talk 16:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Wow very nice! I just noticed this ... I was scratching my head trying to figure out where my twinkle SALT button was and why I had a "protect" button on a deleted page. --B (talk) 22:51, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

The interface still needs some work for this, but it should be the end of the bagillions of #if's on SALT. Once done we should migrate them to normal protected redlinks. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Any thoughts on a standard time to leave them protected? Is there any server overhead (in other words, we want to expire them eventually) or should pages that will never exist (like "Jimbo Wales on wheels" or something) be protected infinitely? --B (talk) 02:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Good question, I've begun migrating some of the lists, and copied over the indef protection, but for most pages this isn't really needed, and new articles (or other migrations) can have a limit placed on them. Most of these pages are the results of media attention, spammers, or specific vandals--that eventually go away. Just out of the hat, 1 year should be more then enough time for most of these. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:58, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

This is a great new option to have. By the way, the protect button is not available in the Classic skin (unless I'm blind) -- but I was able to invoke it by changing to MonoBook. Antandrus (talk) 03:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Will we need to make a note of these protected pages somewhere, or just protect them and move on? J Milburn (talk) 15:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Should be able to just protect and move on, they'll be listed on the Special:Protectedpages soon if not already. Cbrown1023 talk 16:16, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

They are at Special:Protectedtitles. mattbr 18:43, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Code shops

There are currently three "shops" on MFD at the moment.

• User:Vintei/shop
• User:Runewiki777/shop
• User:IXella007/Shop

Vintei has 230 mainspace edits out of 1350 edits. Runewiki777 has 1489 mainspace edits out of 3188 edits. IXella007 has 29 mainspace edits out of 345 edits. This is a dangerous pattern here. These users are spending way too much time with their shops and whatnot instead of working on the encyclopedia. In the past, these pages (autograph books, signature shops, secret pages, etc.) have been discussed on a case-by-case basis. We seriously need to come up with some sort of policy dealing with these unencyclopedic pages and unencyclopedic contributors soon. A user with 29 mainspace edits with the rest to his/her userspace that make up several hundred edits total should not continue to waste resources such as these MFDs and their non-contributions.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Two of them have been already been deleted and I doubt the third one will survive for long, if a user is using Wikipedia as a host space I see no reason why these sub-pages can't be just directly deleted instead of consuming time on MFD. - Caribbean~H.Q. 04:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I completely and totally agree (which is why I nominated several of these for deletion). See also Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Gp75motorsports/ChampionMart which was basically the same situation. In addition to the users who create the shops, there are also those who frequent the shops and who work at them. These are basically walled gardens of non-encyclopedia contributors. Something does need to be done. Metros (talk) 04:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I recommend having the users adopted, I used to be something like that, but lookee here, 360 mainspace out of 985 (wait, is that good?), and mainspace is the one that's at top for me. If adoption doesn't work, I'd say block. —BoL 04:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not good. 10.5% of your edits are to userspace, whereas only 0.2% of mine are - and that's only towards a place where I collect sources for article writing. east.718 at 04:24, December 28, 2007

East718, which edit counter are you using? While your premise is correct, I'm not sure your math is.—Kurykh 04:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

44 edits to my userspace aside from JavaScript out of 16336 total edits (but then again, kate returns more, which it should never do, and river just breaks). east.718 at 04:55, December 28, 2007

Well, counting my edits every time I nominate an article for speedy deletion, the user:mainspace will go down. —BoL 04:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

...and it will still constitute 36.7% of your edits. —Kurykh 05:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

If pages such as these aren't helping expand, edit, or maintain the encyclopedia, then I would agree that they need to be deleted. However, I don't think that a sweeping policy is warranted, since many "shops" of these types would already fail existing policies, and would be (justifiably) deleted. I'll also add that there are contributions made outside the mainspace that still contribute to the maintenance of the encyclopedia, and that raw numbers of contributions aren't necessarily a clear indication of a user's willingness to improve the project. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 14:18, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• I agree with the gist of these. Code shops are very much an embodiment of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not - however, by the same token I'm planning to create a page in my userspace about creating infoboxes - would that be allowed under policy??

Infoboxes fall into both project improvement and maintenance, and are a skill to learn. --Solumeiras ^talk 16:11, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

True. We can really use an example on that new codesnippets wiki, that should put the shops to rest forever. If someone comes to Wiki to build a shop, immediately delete it, but only after you transwiki the source code to the new wiki. —BoL 00:17, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Unblock of Zeraeph

The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.

Case in RFRAB. See Wikipedia:RFARB#Zeraeph ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:51, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

---

The unblock of Zeraeph I view as magnificently unwise, given her onsite and offsite stalking and multiple attacks on SandyGeorgia. I ask that close eyes are kept on this user. Ceoil (talk) 18:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

For reference - Zeraeph (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Best, UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 21:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Please note that my questioning on the unblock of an account that has harrassed SandyGeorgia and a number of others on site and off site has decended to (ahem) Re Sandy; she is someone I have previously dealt with, too. Small world. Now fuck off. LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC) Dear, oh dear, oh dear. Ceoil (talk) 01:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Moving from LessHeard vanU's talk:

'I have dealt solicitors, barristers, Queens Counsel, and the like in my professional career and am used to writing in those terms'

Please, am I supposed to be impressed this; I dont brush streets myself, and not that it matters or is anyway relevant. And I impressed that you are 48? My mother is 63. So what, actions speak louder than years. Please take regard of the substance, and the background. Ceoil (talk) 00:32, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, you must think I am a fool. Mattisse 00:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Please clarify who you are talking to Mattisse. Ceoil (talk) 00:47, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I am talking to User:LessHeard vanU. Mattisse 00:53, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

why should I care that you wish to involve yourself in discussions between two other parties?

Well, the thing is that Sandy is a friend, has been for a long while, and has helped me enourmosly during my 'career' here . She was harrassed. For months, on and off site. The account that harrassed her was unblocked. I asked why. I was given bullshit reasons, and told, authoratively I have dealt solicitors, barristers, Queens Counsel, and the like in my professional career and am used to writing in those terms. What the fuck? Ceoil (talk) 01:00, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I was explaining why I was using the terminology that I did. Simple. That is how I wrote to members of the legal profession back in the day. That is my personal style in these circumstances. If you don't recognise that you were getting an explanation, in much the same manner in which I was conversing, then I doubt there is any point in continuing this conversation. Re Sandy; she is someone I have previously dealt with, too. Small world. Now fuck off. LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

"Re Sandy; she is someone I have previously dealt with"; Now fuck off? Oh boy, it gets interesting now. So I can cut to the chase now right?? Because I know whats going on here. I was just too much of a gentelman to say it out loud. Ceoil (talk) 01:28, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Remember this: [94]. watch your lip. So you won't mind if I reply in kind; "Fuck off until you learn not to piss on your neighbours lawn!" LessHeard vanU 17:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC) ??????? Funny how history repeats. Oh boy. Ceoil (talk) 01:54, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

• I always believed that consistency was a good thing in an sysop. LessHeard vanU (talk) 02:16, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

You told her once to fuck herself, you were not sactioned; so now you can do it at your pleasure? My god, man, thats fairly corrupt. Ceoil (talk) 02:20, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflicts)I said, "Fuck off" (for which I later apologised - which was accepted) which means go away in rather violent terms, per your own example above, whereas "fuck (her/your)self" means... something different altogether. Please try to be accurate in your comments, it really does help the reader. LessHeard vanU (talk) 02:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Ceoil, I don't know what your interest is in this. I've not seen your name on any of the articles in question, though I've not looked at everything, so maybe I've missed it. Regardless, the situation seems to be that there are allegations from a number of sides about harassment. It's hard to work out where the blame lies, so the best thing is to move on, if at all possible. If we find more harassment (coming from anyone) in future, we can deal with it then. In the meantime, let's try to get the protracted content dispute at the heart of this sorted out. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, the thing is that Sandy is a friend, has been for a long while, and has helped me enourmosly during my 'career' here . She was harrassed. For months, on and off site. The account that harrassed her was unblocked. I asked why. I was given bullshit reasons, and told, authoratively I have dealt solicitors, barristers, Queens Counsel, and the like in my professional career and am used to writing in those terms. But whatever. Out. Enjoy. You wake up with the fleas you sleep with. Enjoy. Out Ceoil (talk) 02:54, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I have never harassed User:SandyGeorgia on-Wiki, let alone off-Wiki...and as she is not saying anything herself that is all I need to say right now. (Except maybe to ask that the language be toned down a little?)--Zeraeph (talk) 02:26, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Can I also add that I am a little scared and threatened by User:Ceoil. I have never interacted with this user, yet he is becoming very personal and heated, I have just realised that he also seems to live within 30 miles of me. --Zeraeph (talk) 02:31, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

LHU, did you write "fuck off" at the end of your legal memos? It was in response to the rather mild comment "..don't do it again," [95]. I respect your work, and i recognize that you have been the target of abuse from time to time, but if you use that kind language again here, i will block you, if anyone is willing to support me. DGG (talk) 02:31, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

There's an awful lot of cross-posting about this issue, so that it's getting hard to see who said what and where. I hope everyone can just forget about previous allegations and focus on sorting out the content dispute. Anyone who wants to help is very welcome at Talk:Psychopathy. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:35, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Nice deflection SV; pity you are talking to adults and not children. This IS NOT about content. This is about stalking, and harrasment on WR. Ceoil (talk) 02:57, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your concern, I really do. I'm on record as strongly opposing harassment. But this is your 39th post about this issue in four hours. You've made your point, and it's well taken, but please leave it now so that we can move on. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict - reply to DGG) Well, let's see... 10th February 2007... 29 December 2007... Hmmm, you might have to warm up the old banhammer mid October 2008. Oh, and don't worry about any others, you just do what you feel is right - it works for me. LessHeard vanU (talk) 02:43, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Thwack!, Trout is best served 10 months old. --Hu12 (talk) 02:48, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

As an uninvolved party, I hope I'm not the only person who finds Zeraeph's ".. he also seems to live within 30 miles of me" comment somewhat grave. Is Zeraeph implying Ceoil is a stalker? That's quite a serious accusation, so I hope others refrain from making such hyperbolic comments. We need to remain firmly rooted in reality here, and not make such off the wall comments. Such comments can be deemed personal attacks. LuciferMorgan (talk) 02:49, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not suggesting anything, I just feel genuinely scared to see so much completely groundless vitriol, from a total (I hope) stranger emanate from such a nearby geographical location. Forgive me if I find this unnerving, with a potential to be seriously so. --Zeraeph (talk) 03:46, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

You say you're not suggesting anything, yet make the comment "..from a total (I hope) stranger". Please feel free to expand upon why you used the words "I hope" in brackets. Do you need to hope? This is a clear cut personal attack in my opinion, and I will repeat again that you should refrain from such personal attacks. LuciferMorgan (talk) 04:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm a little troubled at SV's questioning about how Ceoil came to this matter, when the order of events is plainly visible on WP:AN, where the unfair block of Ceoil is discussed directly above discussion of an off-Wiki attack on me on a site that is less than friendly to SlimVirgin, for which apparently the next step was SV's premature unblock of Zeraeph. My response is on my talk page; I want nothing to do with another circus. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand your post, Sandy. I come to this dispute without knowing the background. I've advised Zeraeph to stay away from you, and not to respond to, or comment on, any post you make about her. My advice to you is to do the same. Everyone needs to turn down the heat here. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

For those who want more background, you may wish to review this thread from last year, the diff noted by Newyorkbrad several paragraphs down, the discussion linked by that diff, and the additional links in that discussion. Z mistook a stalker for SandyGeorgia, made scurrilous and false accusations against Sandy which were proven wrong, yet Z inexplicably continues her mistaken vendetta against Sandy. Look at Z’s first contributions on 27 December after she was unblocked: Everyone else is at fault; she is the victim.

This situation should have been firmly and finally dealt with a year ago. It was not; it has recurred; and it will continue to recur until it is properly ended. Kablammo (talk) 03:24, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

So this confirms Zeraeph has a history of insinuating that certain editors are stalkers then? She has done the same above as concerns Ceoil; "Can I also add that I am a little scared and threatened by User:Ceoil. I have never interacted with this user, yet he is becoming very personal and heated, I have just realised that he also seems to live within 30 miles of me." Such accusations need to be frowned upon, unless cold, hard evidence can be given to prove such allegations. Otherwise, accusing others of being stalkers is a very serious personal attack. Can Zeraeph please refrain from calling others stalkers per the reasons I have given? Thanks very much. LuciferMorgan (talk) 03:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

The background that I can see is that Zeraeph was being stalked off wiki. She then ran into SandyGeorgia, who she feels was pursuing her around Wikipedia. She put two and two together, came up with five, and assumed SandyGeorgia might be the user name of her offline stalker. She was wrong. Since then, so far as I can see, she has not engaged with Sandy, and indeed has tried to avoid her. Sandy, however, continues to post long comments about Zeraeph, while saying she doesn't want to get involved. I can understand Sandy being very upset at being accused of stalking, and this is why she continues to post about it. But the very act of continuing to post about it is a large part of what's causing the problem to persist. I've therefore asked Sandy not to mention Zeraeph again, and I've asked Zeraeph not to respond to any of Sandy's comments about her. This situation was combined with anon IPs leaving insulting posts on Zeraeph's talk page while she was blocked. The toxicity needs to be allowed to drain out of this situation, and if people would stop posting about it, there'd be a better chance of that happening. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:51, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

The background that I can see is that Zeraeph was being stalked off wiki. Wrong from the first sentence; actually, there's not a sentence in your analysis that's correct, but let's not worry about the facts. Z claims a lot of stalkers; I've seen the "evidence" and it's bogus. SV, you might have done the homework before you unblocked an editor whose history you clearly haven't followed and don't know. It could have prevented a lof of speculation at a time that you say you want to turn down the heat. I don't think adding speculation on top of speculation ever serves to turn down the heat. Please, inform yourself of the facts beforehand next time. This looks like a COI unblock because of the clear chain of events on WP:AN and the off-Wiki attacks on me on WR. I suggest you let uninvolved admins step in; mentorship of Z has already been tried. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Sandy, precisely what ARE you doing, on this thread, right now, misrepresenting and slandering me if not trying to stalk me off Wiki? I want no more of your false insinuations in the hope that nobody will check the facts. You actually confirmed YOURSELF that I was being stalked [96] and then refused to turn that evidence over to me or anyone supporting me [97]. Since tat time you have mercilessly tracked, harassed and misrepresented me. You refuse to bring this to mediation, you refuse to enter dispute resolution but you persistently jump in and lie to discredit me at the smallest opportunity. This is just wrong. --Zeraeph (talk) 04:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Zeraeph, I have repeatedly told you not to accuse people of stalking. Zeraeph has repeatedly accused people of stalking now, yet nobody has intervened. Can an administrator please tell Zeraeph that repeatedly accusing others of stalking her will not be tolerated? These are serious personal attacks, and shouldn't be allowed. Thanks for your time. LuciferMorgan (talk) 04:40, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I have no COI, I have no idea what the clear chain of events was (obviously not as clear as you think), and I am an uninvolved admin -- so uninvolved that you say I don't have a clue what I'm doing. You may be right, but I'm going to keep a close eye on the situation from now on, and time will tell. In the meantime, please AGF. I'm going to take my own advice and stop posting here about this, unless someone raises a fresh issue. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:11, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I find the language and attitude of user:Ceoil shocking, frankly. I don't agree with NPA blocks, but this user is behaving viciously. LuciferMorgan, who has a long history of getting in trouble for uncivil language and attitudes, is meanwhile lecturing both LessHeard and SlimVirgin on how to be a good administrator. SandyGeorgia, who I have seen nibble at a person until they say something bonkers, is the only one whose statements sound like old times, as she's being the victim. Poor, pitiful SandyGeorgia, who is utterly powerless against a lone editor.... What we need is for SandyGeorgia to document the "real life" harassment, and there would be an instant ban for Zeraeph. Otherwise, I'm inclined to believe that actually people are back to their scripts, that LuciferMorgan is not the dispassionate, friendly user of legend, that SandyGeorgia has a grudge (and I should know about that), and that Ceoil is on the verge of being blockable for disrupting conversation with excessive rudeness. Geogre (talk) 12:42, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Have you possibly misread Ceoil's statements? Gimmetrow 17:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

It's hard to keep up with all these posts; I missed that one. Yes, the day we accept that regular editors can't question an involved admin's unblock and are told to fuck off by an admin because they questioned is the day we should all give up here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Do not say again that I'm an involved admin without saying exactly how I'm involved. I had no background knowledge of this situation at all, as I've told you repeatedly, and which I think is obvious. So please explain what you mean or else stop posting conspiracy theories.

You know, all that's needed here from you, Sandy, is a bit of empathy, and an agreement to disengage, which you say you anyway want to do. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:11, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I am retiring

I see no other option, because whatever I do User:SandyGeorgia will find ways to harass, stalk and discredit me, and to attack anyone who shows any support for me. In September 2006 I sincerely mistook her for a sockpuppet of a woman who has stalked me since 1999. I made this mistake for the very simple reason that User:SandyGeorgia behaves just, uncannily, like her. I knew that then, and it is proved to me many times over since.

I am proud of the way that I have behaved on Wikipedia, in spite of all the abuse thrown at me by a (sadly powerful) handful of people who are ruining this project for everybody else. It is not easily to be civil when constantly subjected to a constant double standard imposed by the efforts of a bully like User:SandyGeorgia. It is not easy to pick you way around a constant stream of slander and insult, day after day, and KNOW that even though you are the only one telling the truth you cannot win.

I stayed with this so long simply because Jimbo showed me that he is one of those very rare people who is exactly who he says he is, and abides by his own stated principles. That meant something to me, something worthy of respect and acknowledgement in the form of staying with the project against all odds and against all malice, without breaking the rulesw MYSELF, however bad it got. I also want to thank User:DeathPhoenix for his "cowardly lioning", User:LessHeard vanU, for staying up so late with this, and most especially User:SlimVirgin who, in spite of a normal run in or two (and a tiny bit of unjustified maligning on my part that I never did apologise for) deciding to treat me as the equal of anyone else on the project and actually LOOK at the facts, instead of complying with the volumious insinuations.

All I have to say to User:SandyGeorgia is that, at least, when you are plotting, scheming and bullying me you are leaving some other poor sod alone. --Zeraeph (talk) 04:42, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Zeraeph, you have just made serious accusations against SandyGeorgia without evidence. You've had multiple chances, as evidenced by your block log. You've received warnings. Be careful. I suspect that any further incidents of this nature will result in a lengthy block. Now go in peace, and feel free to return in peace. Jehochman ^Talk 05:05, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I second that comment. I'm a close wikifriend of Sandy's, and have respect for SV's role on WP. Forgive my cynicism: Zeraeph's track-record strongly suggests that the turbulence she has been associated with will re-emerge. I'm sick of having to deal with it, either directly or as a bystander. I have no reason to disbelieve Sandy's claims on this matter. And since Sandy has taken on a critical job at WP, in assisting Raul654 in directing the FAC page, we cannot afford to distract her from this task. I trust that SV's warnings to Zeraeph, if Z returns, will be heeded. I'm watching this matter closely, as are a number of other key people at policy and guideline pages. Tony (talk) 05:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Aren't we taking this to personal? SV is an established administrator in this project and I trust that if Zeraeph ever makes a wrong turn she will be watching closely and will know what to do, even users that have a disruptive past have a chance of becoming good, if not great contributors lets just give Zeraeph a chance to prove that her intentions are good if she decides to come out of retirement. - Caribbean~H.Q. 05:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you aren't following closely, Caribbean H.Q. This is Z's third "retirement" in about two months, and she's got others before that. Each time, she departs leaving a personal attack on me in her wake. She "retires" as regularly as she accuses people of being stalkers. And, the post above pales in comparison to what was standing on her talk page about me at the point that SV unblocked her. SV prematurely unblocked someone she supposedly knew nothing about and had had no previous interaction with because she just happened across her, apparently without reviewing the standing attacks on her talk page at the time she unblocked, including referring to me as a "madam".[98] When mentorship has already been tried, you're asking that we extend yet another chance and trust that SV is going to be "watching closely" when she doesn't appear to have been watching closely the first time, and when Z began a content dispute within hours of being unblocked ? The question is still, why was Z unblocked to begin with, and how long is this going to be allowed to continue? Mentorship has already been tried; Z has never stopped being involved in content disputes, and when she shows up on AN/I again and again, she claims it's somehow my fault, even when I don't even edit those articles or usually know the editors she wars with. Z has never stopped this pattern, in over a year. She has already demonstrated she is not able to do otherwise. Why did SV happen across Z and happen to decide to unblock her just after an attack against me was lodged at WR and highlighted here at WP:AN? It would be helpful if editors unfamiliar with the history here would stop speculating. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:13, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

It would be helpful if the editors involved calm down and let the community dicuss the topic as well, both of you are quite upset and that is never good when trying to find resolution. - Caribbean~H.Q. 16:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Community ban

I know you dislike bans, SandyGeorgia, but is there any reason not to community ban this editor? We can discuss a ban right now. Jehochman ^Talk 07:19, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Support community ban. Or at least beginning the discussion of one. "In September 2006 I sincerely mistook her for a sockpuppet of a woman who has stalked me since 1999. I made this mistake for the very simple reason that User:SandyGeorgia behaves just, uncannily, like her." Right, and my postman looks like my dad so maybe my dad's come back from the grave. The serious disruption that Zeraeph's editing brings—especially the persecution complex—needs to be put an end to. Marskell (talk) 07:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

• We do not need to give additional chances to editors who repeatedly cause trouble and then make bad faith remarks: "To cap it all, as I found out this year, your apparently impeccable content isn't so good at all if one looks closely, you just politic a little clique of people into providing consensus (largely either as a quid pro quo, or because they are too scared of your malice to refuse you). You are a poisonous little Madam...and I have needed to say that for a very long time..." [99] (emphasis added)Jehochman ^Talk 07:41, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there's a reason not to community ban her, Jonathan, and that's that she's just been unblocked, and I'm going to watch the situation. There were some appalling attacks on her talk page when I came across it, which is why I looked at her case. Whatever has happened in the past, when I saw her page, she was clearly being bullied. This is a situation where a number of strong-willed people with strong views about their subjects have had personalities clashes, and the whole thing has escalated to the point of people feeling harassed and stalked. It's time to calm it right down. From what I can see of Zeraeph's editing, it is good, and so I hope her energy can be channeled into producing good material without the accompanying hullabaloo. Perhaps she needs to learn more about collaborative editing or something, but I don't see huge problems beyond that. I've also not had a chance to speak to her mentor about the situation, which I intend to do tomorrow if he's around. In the meantime, two admins are dealing with it (LessHeard VanU and myself), and hopefully between us we'll come up with a way forward. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 07:46, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

(ec reply to JE) You and I discussed this before, when I was unhappy about how fast and how unfairly community bans were being imposed at the now defunct Community Sanction Noticeboard. I believe that discussions of bans should proceed as they did in the discussion of a community ban on Z.[100] That discussion was brought by uninvolved admins, unbeknownst to me, while I was traveling and had limited internet access, but because the discussion was civil and occurred over a long period of time, I was able to weigh in even though I was traveling. The mentorship ultimately failed, but we can all say we tried our best. I agreed to the mentorship even when others admins were insisting that they were sick of seeing Z show up at An/I after walking out on 3 mediations and that they would take her to ArbCom if I wouldn't. During and since her mentorship, Z has continued the same attacks, the same content disputes, and the same edit warring, going on blanking sprees, and making incoherent, unfounded charges against me and any one else who happens to cross her path. The situation now is worse, as she has canvassed against me off Wiki and against Wiki articles, in addition to the WR attack. Yet, she has made it clear in many places that she operates with Jimbo's blessing, so I don't see the point in having a community ban discussion when the conclusion is apparently foregone. If Wiki can't deal with Zeraeph, something is wrong. But I suppose people can just keep telling me and anyone who defends me to fuck off no matter how hard we work to turn out featured content. Thanks for asking, Je, but methinks this decision has already been made, and Z will be allowed to continue as she wishes. Mentorship failed. I have edited articles Z edits, and I have never seen a valuable contribution she has made or a good article she has written (in contrast to the last person she has disputed with, Mattisse, who has numerous GAs and DYKs). For SV to claim this is a clash with two stong-willed people is patently insulting, because Z has never gotten along with anyone long term, has had disputes with numerous editors, and the IPs "bullying" her on her talk page are evidence of that from off-Wiki sites. Her editing is not amenable to Wiki, but she is being protected here. I'm quite sure this is a done deal, for reasons that will not see the light of day. Nothing "escalated" to the point of accusations of stalking and harassing; that has been Z's standard fare on and off Wiki for as long as I've been aware of her presence here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

You talk about Z making unfounded allegations, but you are doing it too. E.g. "I'm quite sure this is a done deal, for reasons that will not see the light of day." There is no "done deal," and I can't even imagine why there would be, or who it would be with. What happened is very simple: I saw her being attacked, I felt bad for her, I wanted to help, and Mikka said I should feel free to unblock if I wanted to. I looked at her contribs, and saw a good editor dragged down by having difficulty collaborating, which is a common problem on Wikipedia. I've advised her by e-mail that she needs to try to care less about the topics she edits, because I think that's what's at the root of this situation.

I'm one of the last people on Wikipedia who would condone harassment, having been a target of it, so the idea that I wouldn't take that seriously is far-fetched, and if I see any such thing in future, I assure you that I'll deal with it firmly. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 08:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Right. It is a done deal; it only takes one person to overturn a community ban, so it was a done deal by the time I weighed in. Curious; why is it that you think you'll be successful when Deathphoenix wasn't? You're saying all the same things he said, only he was aware of the issues he was wading into, and wasn't making opinions based on partial knowledge. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:10, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, since you say Zeraeph is a valuable contributor, would you humor me by providing a selection of diffs to demonstrate that assertion. Also, could you ask her to strike all recent insults and unsupported accusations. Thank you. Jehochman ^Talk 08:12, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

If you look at her edits today, they looked good to me. She seems to be keen on using good sources and sticking closely to what they say, which is the essence of good editing here.

Sandy, I don't know that I'll succeed where Deathphoenix didn't, and I think that's the wrong way of looking at it, because what happens is up to Z and the people around her, not any admin or mentor.

What happens a lot on Wikipedia is that people get pushed into bad behavior by getting into conflicts in areas they care too much about. What you have to do as an admin is look at that behavior and try to make a judgment about the extent to which it's context-dependent. In other words, is this someone behaving badly who would have behaved well in other circumstances? Or is this someone who's likely to behave badly no matter what's happening around him? The former deserves second (and third, and fourth) chances; and with the latter, there's no point.

Having looked at Z's contribs, I see an editor of the former type. What needs to happen now is for people to turn the heat down, so that we can see how she manages without being the focus of this vitriol. Sandy, she would like you to stay away from her. That is her request and I hope you'll respect it. And you would like her to stay away from you. So you both agree on that one thing, and it's easy enough to arrange it given the size of Wikipedia. Therefore, I'm asking you again to stop posting about her, and if she posts about you, ignore it. My guess is that, if everyone backs off, things will turn out very differently this time. And if I turn out to be wrong, I'll deal with the situation. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 08:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Why is "I'll deal with the situation" from SlimVirgin supposed to be an acceptable answer for Sandy? I've already unpacked it on your talk, so I won't do so again, Slim. I hope you've read the previous community ban discussion that Sandy's linked to. Marskell (talk) 08:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

What I'm asking is to be allowed to do my "job," as it were. I've made a judgment that Z is a good editor and will make a good Wikipedian if given another chance (a real chance, with no sniping from the sidelines, which she obviously finds highly distressing). If I turn out to be wrong, I will deal with it. I won't cut and run and leave others to pick up the pieces. That's all I meant. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 08:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

SV, you are still commenting in a partial way and based on no factual understanding of the situation. " ... she would like you to stay away from her". Are you reading your words? Do you realize she brings her issues to me, not vice-versa? Do you realize her major issues are not with me, but with others? Do you realize your solution has nothing to do with the problem? Do you realize all of her recent disputes are on articles I don't edit, or because she asked me to mediate her disputes? Do you realize Z only edits articles she is strongly vested in, and there is no such thing for her as editing an article just for the sake of editing, without having a strong emotional investment? Do you not see she immediately returned from a block to go on an editing deletion spree? You "think" her edits looked good? I've seen her editing on topics I know and where I carefully had to read the sources to remove the inaccuracies. Are you going to read every source when she disagrees with Mattisse, a credentialed professional? I have seen her edits; I'm not guessing like you are. No, you've given me no reason to think you even understand the situation, much less can deal with it when a very competent editor fully aware of the issues couldn't contain Z's tendencies even with the best intent and effort. You seem unable to recognize that Z has harassed me for well over a year, and that you've offered no proposal whatsoever for how you intend to change that in any way that Deathphoenix couldn't, nor any reason to want to be in this position yet AGAIN another year from now, still dealing with Z's fantasies, when I have work to do. I lost all evening of reading FAC articles. Are you willing to agree that you will community ban Z the first time she goes on another editing deletion spree, edit warring, or engages in a personal attack against anyone? And are you *really* going to be watching, because so far, you haven't even caught up on the basic facts of the case. The situation now is that you unblocked her, you're willing to take responsibility, fine; agree that you'll support a ban as soon as she re-engages in the same behavior she has engaged in for years. And since she has canvassed against the autism-related articles off-Wiki, get her to agree to stay away from them, because the last time I left them alone to avoid her, Asperger syndrome ended up back at FAR in worse shape than ever. Produce one good article she's written. Then review the entire talk page and edit history of alexithymia, the article she asked me to mediate just before she went on a blanking spree. Please, inform yourself before saddling all of us with a premature decision, again. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that she seems to edit in areas she's emotionally invested in, which is not a good thing. I also agree that she's made inappropriate allegations against you, and you're rightly angered by them. But I also saw you continue to post long comments about her when she was blocked and wasn't responding, and hadn't been editing any articles you were interested in. So you've inadvertently prolonged the situation, and made her feel she was being victimized. That's why I think this may just be an ugly dynamic that has somehow gotten out of control.

Untrue. I had a long conversation with Mattisse before Z was blocked, and when Z was blocked, I told Mattisse that I expected her to show good faith by leaving those articles alone while Z was blocked, and then I took Mattisse to task for her own block record. That was the long conversation. And I took an admin to task for siding against Mattisse without knowing the facts. My long conversation with Mattisse was about Mattisse's behavior. Please take care with the idea that something is true because you say it is. It's not. Z stirs these issues up, Mattisse came to me totally by chance because I've encountered her elsewhere, she didn't even know I knew Z, and then Z posts to WR that I planted Mattisse? Honestly, do you realize how off that is and what it's like to live with that kind of paranoid ideation? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:16, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

As a first gesture of goodwill, Z has removed some material critical of you from her user page. I hope you'll respond by, at least, toning down your comments about her, and preferably not commenting any further. After that, I hope Z will consider striking some other comments she's made about you. And bit by bit, maybe relations will thaw.

Excuse me, in a community ban discussion about Z, you want me to stop commenting, while you fill the page with half facts? How does that work? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:16, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Please take one point seriously -- rightly or wrongly (and I'm stressing this: rightly or wrongly), she feels you are bullying her, and she is very upset about it. Therefore I'm asking you, please, to disengage. Please show that you're not bullying her by just stepping back. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 09:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

SV, you are being naive. DO you not know that bullying is Z's main topic, on and off-Wiki? She thinks everyone is bullying her. No one is responsible for her fantasies. Relations will thaw? SV, please catch up with the facts. Relations did thaw; Z asked me to mediate her disputes with others. That's the only reason I got drug back into her sphere. This is how it goes with her. Please, SV, get up on the case before you make opininions and judgments. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:16, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Z has done some legit anti-vandalism work,[101] [102] but is a recurring center of drama. If she's serious about "backing off", she should start by removing the comment on her user page about "one editor" stalking her. Otherwise, it's a standing personal attack. Gimmetrow 08:44, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Five hours ago Zaraeph announced her retirement from Wikipedia,[103] but instead of following through on that promise four hours later the same editor announced she wanted to initiate an arbitration case openly. Another hour has passed, yet this editor has made no attempt to initiate such a request. A previous consensus already agreed to community ban. This editor can barely make a post without adding to the volume of unsubstantiated allegations of misconduct against SandyGeorgia. I strongly support a community ban (first choice), or (second choice) if no ban is forthcoming at this time I request the intervention of a different mentor other than SlimVirgin. Durova^Charge! 09:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I asked for that hours ago, and now we are way past the point where someone needs to tell SV to back out of a situation that has all the appearance of a COI on her part, and she is clearly worsening an already bad situation. She unblocked Z after Z attacked me on WikiReview and after that was highlighted here on WP:AN. Her unwillingness to see and understand the most basic facts of this case is, again, prejudicing me and dragging me through having to defend myself now against SV's misstatements. Someone please get SV to back out of this. Z has already refused to strike her attacks on me; what else need be said? It's clear, and to those of us who have followed this for a long time, it's always been clear. SV enabled more of the same by unblocking and empowering Z, evidenced by Z immedately returning to the last article she left and edit warring. Enough. I lost all evening at FAC and tomorrow I'll be behind. This is nothing but an insult, and worse, from someone who should know what it feels like. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:44, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether COI is the word for it, but it's clear that this is someone whose strengths lie elsewhere. Good intentions don't necessarily generate positive results. Slim, please bow out gracefully. This site has many excellent mentors. You've tried your best. Durova^Charge! 10:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I haven't even started trying yet. I've spent all my time on this answering these posts, unfortunately. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 10:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

If you're serious about mentoring Z and containing this situation, you'll have to be prepared to spend your time this way. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:33, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

And why would you request that? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 09:40, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Obviously your influence doesn't curb the problematic behavior. Durova^Charge! 09:44, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

That's hardly surprising given this pile-on. If people would just disengage, and allow me, first of all, time to read the history thoroughly, and more importantly Z time to calm down, there might be a different outcome. Could you show me please where a community ban was decided? I can find no such discussion. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 10:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

The normal course of action is to do such research before unblocking. My advice is that you withdraw; I will not complicate that with anything that might appear to contradict it. I now withdraw myself. Best wishes, Durova^Charge! 10:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, it's hardly reasonable to expect her to file an RfAr within a couple of hours. It'll likely take her days to get that together. The other thing that confuses me, Durova, is if a community ban was already agreed, why didn't it go ahead? Mikka only blocked her for a month, I believe, and said he didn't mind her being unblocked. Where is the discussion agreeing to a community ban? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 09:43, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with a community ban. Do we have any reason to believe that the user interacts poorly with other users (I mean other than those going to tell her how evil she is to SandyGeorgia)? Do we have patterns of bad action throughout, or do we have a user who really can't stand another (Sandy really not being able to stand Zeraeph) and one who gets pushed over the edge by the other? A community ban should be for someone who is bad in the community. (By the way, I don't count LuciferMorgan in this. I've never seen that user disagree with Sandy, and I've seen him go to be virulent where Sandy is merely aggrieved, so Z being miserable with LM is not evidence of bad action in the community.) Finally, let me remind everyone involved here that community bans take place, like prod, only if there is no dissent. SlimVirgin dissents. I do, too. If we want a solution, we tell SandyGeorgia to go to an uninvolved administrator when she has an issue with Z to take up, and we tell Z to leave off talking about or to SandyGeorgia. There: community served. As for Ceoil, I'd caution him to never be so insulting, angry, and inflammatory when dealing with a person who believes herself injured, and never talk to the rest of the community the way he did, above. Geogre (talk) 12:42, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

This is all very wrong

I deserve a fair shot at clearing my name against all these false accusations. So far I have never had one. Let's take it to arbcom, once and for all. --Zeraeph (talk) 08:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Filing at ArbCom is easy. Getting them to accept the case is a bit harder. I suggest you bear with this discussion and see whether a consensus forms or not. You may be satisfied with the result here. Would you be willing to strike out any of the remarks you've made to help de-escalate the conflict? Jehochman ^Talk 08:19, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

It is not fair to ask me to bear false witness against myself without a gesture of goodwill. In the event that SandyGeorgia is prepared to strike all her personal attack against me, leave me in peace for good, and desist from all personal attacks in future, I am happy for the whole thing to be deleted and a fresh start made - but not without a gesture of goodwill. I did that before and got it all thrown back in my face, with interest, as it is now. --Zeraeph (talk) 09:57, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I would be completely satisfied with Z striking her accusations from her user page, from her talk page, and agreeing to sanctions if she ever lodges those kinds of attacks again against me or any other editor, or if she ever goes on an edit warring/blanking rampage again. Of course, SV now has agreed to police that, and since Z has never gone more than a few months without edit warring, that will be a chore. If Z agrees to cease these activities, I'm happy. The other things SlimV is suggesting (that I stay away from Z); well, SV hasn't caught up on the facts yet. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

What are you offering to do about the far more numerous, dishonest and unprovoked attacks you have made on me in a variety of places, including in the above comment?--Zeraeph (talk) 09:57, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

See soapbox. I'd worry about an arb case. I think more passers-by can comment on the community ban idea, and we'll take it from there. Marskell (talk) 08:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Read the previous ban discussion for all the reasons this shouldn't go to ArbCom, and then factor in the time that Z already lost by walking out on 3 mediations, and ask me how I'm going to invest the time to see her walk out again. The community either deals with this ... or it doesn't. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

What you forget to mention is that I walked out on those mediations in the sincere belief that you were a person who has (to your certain knowledge) stalked me for 9 years, and if that were so I would have been very ill advised to engage in mediation indeed as her sole motive is to hijack my attention for as long as possible.

What I know with certainty is nothing, because you're all a bunch of screenames to me. What I've seen in e-mail is very friendly correspondence between you and your alleged "stalker" who isn't a "stalker" at all, but a friend that you accuse of stalking whenever she disagrees with you. Don't presume to say what I know when all I know of all of you is the strangest e-mails I've ever seen (and never responded to). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

If I am as terrible as you repeatedly claim all over Wikipedia (with impunity) the arbcom would just be a small formality and a rubber stamp, so why would you have a problem with that? --Zeraeph (talk) 09:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Already answered; if Wiki wants to allow you continue to harass me, and can't find a means of stopping it, it's not up to me to invest any more time into resolving this when you've already walked out 3 times. Wiki needs to deal with this; not me. You are SV's responsibility now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I deserve a fair shot at clearing my name against all these false accusations. So far I have never had one. Let's take it to arbcom, once and for all.--Zeraeph (talk) 08:28, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Z, why did you delete my previous post and replace it with yours? I will restore it now.[104] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:39, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

S that was a sincere and unintentional edit conflict, I have no idea how it blanked...as you ask, indeed, why would I delete any single one of your posts, after all they are all equally dishonest and abusive of me, why pick just one? --Zeraeph (talk) 08:51, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Understood; I've seen it happen before. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Zeraeph, you're more than welcome to file an RfAr. If there have been failed RfMs, the ArbCom will almost certainly hear the case. Or you could consider filing a formal request for mediation between you and SandyGeorgia. Or you could both just agree to stay away from each other. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 08:39, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

At this stage I do not think it is fair to ask anyone to mediate. It certainly isn't realistic to "agree to stay away from each other", that was tried before, I stayed away, but at the slightest hint of any trouble anyone wanted to make, or even a content issue I needed to bring to WP:AN/I User:SandyGeorgia popped up like something on a wire to exacerbate it. I was truly sorry for mistaking her for the person I did, it was a genuine mistake, but when I see her behave exactly like her, lying about me, and making trouble for me, month after month, I cannot go on feeling sorry, I don't have that kind of masochism in me. (signing late for clarity) --Zeraeph (talk) 09:57, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

You may think you were truly sorry, but you never retracted it and you never apologized to me, and you continue to make false statements about me off-Wiki and to advocate that my edits are overturned. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

AS a matter of fact I did apologise to you recently (you cannot read my mind, you do not know what I am, and am't sorry for...you just know the lengths you have gonme to to "make me sorry"), but I am happy to do so again, I am extremelly sorry that I mistook you for a person who has stalked me since April 1999. However that was a sincere mistake, apart from which I have never made any false claims about you on, or off Wiki...though you have cold bloodedly and deliberately made many about me, even today. Also, I do believe many of your edits should be overturned. The reasons why are various and have validity...but what editor here could not say the same about any other editor? THe one exceptional reason why I think some should be overturned is that you consitently prioritise "personal control" over "validity", but there are other reason. I do not think I should need to become your meatpuppet to be allowed to edit here in peace and on equal terms. --Zeraeph (talk) 09:41, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Why is Zeraeph allowed to continue attacking SandyGeorgia? Can someone please put a stop to this? How many times does this editor need to be warned? —Viriditas | Talk 09:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Usually, these days, I get blocked so that I cannot publicly request an arbcom hearing, that is why I am requesting it now. I dread it, but it is better than the alternatives, certainly better than trying to go on subject to a double standard, where people can lie and abuse me to their heart's content without censure, but I cannot even defend myself honestly without being threatened with a community ban. That is just terrorism, and it is not what Wikipedia is supposed to be about. --Zeraeph (talk) 08:48, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not investing time in ArbCom to see you walk out halfway through all that work just like you did in mediation, where you even had the nerve to close the cases yourself (including cases I opened, and then come here and say I've never allowed mediation, which is a bold lie). I will not be dragged through my time being wasted again, with someone who has a long and established history of walking out midstream. There is nothing to arbitrate; you either cease this kind of behavior or you don't. You have never ever not once produced a diff showing any issue with or from me; why should I invest the time? Produce a diff showing something I've done to deserve this, and then we can talk about something to arbitrate. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

What you forget to mention is that I walked out on those mediations in the sincere belief that you were a person who has (to your certain knowledge) stalked me for 9 years, and if that were so I would have been very ill advised to engage in mediation indeed as her sole motive is to hijack my attention for as long as possible.--Zeraeph (talk) 09:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Even when blocked you can email ArbCom to request help or file an appeal. I strongly urge you to back away from the conflict by striking your hostile remarks directed at SandyGeorgia. If you do that, I will ask her to reciprocate. That will be the fastest and least stressful way to resolve this conflict. Jehochman ^Talk 08:58, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Bear in mind that not everything needs to happen tonight. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 09:17, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

there is no permanent record of emails to arbcom, there is of public appeals. Jehochman, this may seem very strange to you but I have an aversion to lying that makes striking any of the remarks I have made with a sincere effort to be scrupulously truthful (no more, no less, whether it suits you or not) absolutely impossible. That would be tantamount to pretending I lied when I have only told the honest truth. I should not be asked to bear such false witness against myself. I got myself into this position by following the rules and letting the truth be pushed aside. I will not do that again.

I also find it very strange that, as her remarks preface mine by some time, you do not ask SandyGeorgia to do this first rather than me (surely not a "double standard" at play?)? If I am all the terrible things you personally claim, an arbcom hearing should be no more than a small formality, a rubberstamp, I fail to see why you would have any resistance to that. --Zeraeph (talk) 09:13, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Z, if you want an ArbCom case, the only people who can stop you are the ArbCom themselves. So that is always an option for you, and they will examine everyone's behavior in this.

In the meantime, I do advise you to strike through any negative comments you've recently made about Sandy, as a gesture of goodwill. Then hopefully she will do the same. One of you has to make the first move toward more peaceful relations. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 09:17, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Stike? As far as I recall, the conversation on my talk page is not about Z but about your premature removal of her block without being informed of the issues, and LHvU's telling Ceoil to fuck off. Honestly, it's really not all about Z all the time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

No, before the unblock. You posted at least one long very critical comment about her, but I forget where I saw it.

The bottom line is that both parties feel harassed. Z, what upsets Sandy is that, feeling she has been harassed by you, she sees the unblock as an insult. I understand that. I've had people who were harassing me be unblocked, and it feels like a kick in the stomach.

The other side is that Z feels harassed too, and every time Sandy posts about her, or anyone else posts in support of Sandy, she feels that kick in the stomach too. The result is two very upset women. I hope both will try to respect the other's feelings, even if each feels they're not based on facts -- because regardless of the facts, the feelings are obviously very real. Sandy, it would go a long way to making Z feel better if you could locate any recent negative comments you've made about her, particularly before the unblock, and strike them. It's late where I am, BTW, so I'm going to have to resume this tomorrow. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 09:31, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Well this [105] (taken at random) apparently was about me. I am sure there plenty more since, shall I post them all or can people read for themselves with an open mind?

Slimvirgin, I would love to comply, but I cannot bear false witness against myself by striking remarks that I ensured were only scrupulously honest, and there are no others. After all the months of lies and abuse from SandyGeorgia, I am capable of being neutral, but without apology and amends from her I am honestly incapable of feeling goodwill...would it not only be revolting and ridicluous of me to pretend it? --Zeraeph (talk) 09:28, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

You don't have to pretend. You can strike the comments as a gesture of goodwill, even if you don't feel it. That's not dishonest; it's just a sign that you're willing to do whatever it takes to mend fences. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 09:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I cannot, the only honest answers to the lies and attempts at sophistry still being thrown at me here exist in even stronger terms...it would be idiotic to strike as I defend myself. And what about the NEXT person she bullies? When they go through edit histories frantic for ways to defend themselves against a flood of calculated vitriol and all they find is that the truth has been voluntarily struck out? --Zeraeph (talk) 09:47, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Stop the attacks. Never, once, through dozens of AN/Is, 3 mediations and a checkuser have you ever produced a single diff to back up a single thing you say about me. I'm such a terrible bully that you asked me to mediate your dispute at alexithymia and awarded me a barnstar for doing it. That is what you call a "bully". Produce a diff of "vitriol" from me such as when you called me an "erotomanic stalker" or LHvU told Ceoil to fuck off. Won't find it, doesn't happen. Stop. This is enough already. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:51, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

That is an outright lie...only today I produced two diffs above that prove you were consciously, deliberately lying when you claimed something I said was "bogus". You just deny that anything that doesn't suit you happened and then bury nit under so many words no-one has the energy to challenge it. Does it ever penetrate your skull that when I asked you to mediate that situation on the Alexithymia article I was holding out a very sincere, and respectful olive branch in the form of requesting the assistance of what I then believed were your strengths (I have seen reason to doubt since, because that is what you chose to show me), and that I gave you recognition it choked me to give (after all you put me through) as part of that? I even trusted you to answer a question about something dear to me, another, stupid gesture of sincere conciliation I should never have been daft enough to attempt. And that you have done nothing with any of that but find ways to throw it back in my face ever since. Sandy, has it ever crossed your mind that I, and others see you as an unscrupulous, controlling bully simply because that is how you choose to treat us? And that I mistook you for someone else simply because you were choosing to behave exactly like her? Because bully me as much as you like, tell as many lies, for as many hours a week as you can, that is the simple truth here. --Zeraeph (talk) 10:14, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Z, you're very upset now, so my advice is to get some sleep, maybe even take a couple of days off, and come back refreshed. If there's no other way of settling things, you can file an RfAr. But I think right now, continuing to comment is not a good idea. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 09:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Sandy, you asked for an example of a post from you that could be called vitriolic. This is one, from before the unblock, and indeed I believe from just before the block. You write at great length saying you don't want to be involved, but that long post clearly constitutes involvement. It upset Z a great deal and it fed into her feelings of being victimized, just as her comments about you have fed into you feeling she's harassing you. One of you needs to make the first step toward stopping the dynamic by just disengaging, which you've said elsewhere, Sandy, is your preferred approach in other situations. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 10:00, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Done. Now try to stop what you started, SV; it's not furthering anything good. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:20, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. That's much appreciated. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 10:33, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I have removed Z's blatant personal attack against Sandy on her talk page, and she has once again inserted it. I reverted again and am bringing it here for review...though apparently several admins have seen it and taken no action. I find this selective enforcement of policy disturbing, to say the least. Jeffpw (talk) 10:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Apparently Slim and I reverted again at the same time. Thank you very much, Slim. I sincerely appreciate the enforcement of policy to remove vicious attacks against respected editors. Jeffpw (talk) 10:32, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I've removed it again, and the page should be protected if it's restored. Z is extremely upset now, which is feeding into the dynamic. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 10:33, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

• I have a conflict of interest in that Sandy is a close Wikifriend. Even so, I want to record my feeling that Zeraeph's participation in the project has been overwhelmingly damaging. I have no confidence that her destructive behaviour will change this time around. I appreciate that Sandy's reactions to her may appear to be over-emotional at times, but I can see why the emotion has crept in. In any case, I do not believe that that Sandy's reactions are relevant to the issue of a community ban. I ask that the ban proceed for the sake of the project. Tony (talk) 10:31, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
• Support community ban based on extensive block log concerning personal attacks and disruptive editing. This has been going on for too long and needs to stop. Sandy is not the issue here. I am at a loss understanding why Zeraeph is allowed to edit. —Viriditas | Talk 10:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I endorse Tony's call for a ban 100 percent. Wikipedia does not need this kind of drama and upset, and editors who attack other editors, do not discuss their edits even when they're contentious, and take up the community's valuable time in endless discussion of their indefensible actions are absolutely not an asset to this project. Jeffpw (talk) 10:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

• I am not yet convinced. As with Sandy's thoughts about the old CSN, I think this should not be a rushed process. I hope no admin issues an indefinite block without a bit more time to mull it over. Cool Hand Luke 11:05, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

• In “another place”, within the past three weeks Z has called SG “a prolific and unscrupulous bully” who “persistently abuse[s]”, claimed that SG is a “voluble head wreck” who “just plays wall to wall mind games” and “has become a law unto herself, as well as something of a personal Mafia”. According to Z, “SandyGeorgia is an identical kind of bully” to Z’s stalker. Z also refers to SG as “the "b*tch”.

Z called another editor “stark raving bonkers and no more a psychologist than I am a garden snail”. She also claimed an editor involved in this thread had OCD and Tourette syndrome; those comments apparently were removed.

Z called an administrator involved in this thread “an arrogant pain, but there is a LOT more to being decent than just standing up to her...does it not cross your mind that the only way to stand up to people like [the administrator] and win is to be WORSE than they are.”

Z’s on-wiki conduct over the past three days is little different, as shown by her very first edits (now redacted) upon lifting of the block.

Z has stated: “my only interest in participating in Wikipedia at all was to protect some psychology and abuse related articles from being distorted into vehicle for promoting some very questionable and exploitative online agenda of which my stalker is an active part.” The way Z carries out this personal interest is to harass and abuse anyone who disagrees with her, make false and unsubstantiated accusations against respected editors separated from her by an ocean, and claiming to be victimized by those subjected to her attacks. Enough is enough. Kablammo (talk) 11:14, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

• Well, we're all over the place (again... welcome to AN, Geogre), but No ban from what has been presented. Arbitration would be the best way, if people think that this is insoluble. If SandyGeorgia feels that she must pick at Z, and if Z has to have "justice" for what she believes Sandy has done, then RfAr is the way forward. Personally, I see poking with a stick by Sandy and exaggerated and inappropriate response by Z. I don't know whether to blame the person with the stick or the person reacting, so let's leave that for the Arbs. Geogre (talk) 12:42, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
• Obviously I will not be supporting a community ban, although I can see that there needs to be a singular change of attitude by Z in the non article spaces (and sometimes in) when interacting with some editors. A RfAr will allow many aspects of the matter to be investigated, including the actions and conduct of related parties (that should be interesting), in a far more restrained and decorous atmosphere than is apparent here. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Community retirement

A number of people have pointed out problems with Zeraeph's repeated retirements. I suggest that if Zeraeph retires before July 1 2008, the retirement be enforced with a one-year block which begins when an administrator places the block (if no admin notices the retirement then the block might have a longer effect than can be calculated, but this clause also deals with situations such as no admin noticing an announced retirement until after a return). -- SEWilco (talk) 16:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Enforced behavioral restriction

Can we set up a community enforced behavioral restriction?

• Zeraeph is banned from posting any sort of remarks about SandyGeorgia, except she may go to any administrator via talk page or email to request help for legitimate grievances. This provision may be enforced by any uninvolved administrator via a block up to one week. After five such blocks, Zeraeph may be blocked up to one year.
• SandyGeorgia is asked not to involve herself in Zeraeph's editing. If SandyGeorgia violates this provision, the agreement is suspended. Note: if the two editors come to the same article by any means other than following each other, that is allowed. If there is an editing dispute between them, they will go to an administrator for help, rather than engaging with each other.

This is a first attempt at a negotiated settlement. Can either party work with any part of this? Jehochman ^Talk 15:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I will never agree to a double standard, for which there is no justification, but if it is altered to impose the same, equal, terms on both of us I think it is worth considering thus:

• Zeraeph and SandyGeorgia are banned from posting any sort of remarks about each other, except they may go to any administrator via talk page or email to request help for legitimate grievances. This provision may be enforced by any uninvolved administrator via a block up to one week on the offending party. After five such blocks, either editor may be blocked up to one year.
• Zeraeph and SandyGeorgia are asked not to involve themselves in each other's editing. If either violate this provision, the agreement is suspended.

Note: if the two editors come to the same article by any means other than following each other, they will go to an administrator for help, rather than engaging with each other. (I do not think it is a good idea any other way, it is too open to abuse from either side) --Zeraeph (talk) 15:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

The catch here is "legitimate grievances." In the eyes of the supposedly aggrieved all their concerns will be legitimate. That's just human nature, not necessarily a comment on the two parties here. Raymond Arritt (talk) 16:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Edit conflict so I pop this here:The beauty of that Raymond, is that AS SOON as a "legitmate grievance" is posted it will involve a third party Admin to ajudicate legitmacy. However, personally, with an agreement in place, as above, that has not been broken, I do not see that either of us should ever need to mention the other. If the agreement is broken it becomes and whole other matter again, so perhaps that clause could be dispensed with?--Zeraeph (talk) 16:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

That's why they have to go to an administrator, rather than straight to ANI. The administrator will determine if the grievance is legitimate and proxy post at ANI if required. This will hopefully filter out non-legitimate grievances and remove any personal attacks. Jehochman ^Talk 16:39, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

That is one valid argument Jehochman, but the other is still that, unless the other party has breached the agreement, there should not be any need for that exception at all, as there are plenty of people to comment on "valid grievances" and plenty of other "valid grievances" for us both to comment on without ever mentioning each other again. --Zeraeph (talk) 17:11, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

(Ec) My proposal is not symmetrical because SandyGeorgia has never been blocked before, therefore warnings should be given before any block. Blocks are the last resort when lesser measures fail. If this matter goes to Arbitration, I am confident the committee will not provide symmetrical terms either.

• Zeraeph and SandyGeorgia are banned from posting any sort of remarks about each other, except they may go to any administrator via talk page or email to request help for legitimate grievances.
• Zeraeph and SandyGeorgia are asked not to involve themselves in each other's editing. If the two editors come to the same article they will go to an administrator for help with any disagreements, rather than engaging with each other.
• This agreement may be enforced by any uninvolved administrator via a block up to one week against Zeraeph, or by warnings against SandyGeorgia followed by blocks. After five such blocks, either party may be blocked up to one year.
• Either party may cancel this agreement by filing for arbitration.

Version 2 for your consideration. Jehochman ^Talk 16:35, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the idea is right, but the specifics will require wordsmithing of the sort ArbCom does. As evidenced by all the past cases, Z's idea of "legitimate grievances" aren't always in line with Wiki policy or others' ideas. Further problems with the current wording. Z has a long block log, including two blocks of a month's duration. This proposal lowers her block duration to a week, and allows her to attack editors five more times before more serious sanction. We should already be past that point; it should stop now. One more chance at a block for a month, then next block for a year. Next, the proposal doesn't even address the fact that she has attacked many more editors than me; it shouldn't be restricted to me. I have been drawn into the last four fiascos because she took on others (Psychonaut, A Kiwi, Mattisse, and Soulgany101). The restrictions should make clear she needs to stop *all* attacks; I am a very minor piece. Next, it doesn't even mention her 3RR edit warring and blanking sprees. And finally, it doesn't effectively deal with the fact that I edit autism-related articles, always have, and am frequently asked by other editors to peer review or comment in that area. I don't edit MOST of the articles Z is involved in (personality disorders, psychopathy, bullying and her other articles), but I do edit all autism-related articles and help maintain two FAs (Asperger syndrome and autism), where the off-Wiki canvassing against those articles is an issue. Finally, the proposal allows for a continuation of the long-standing issue of forum shopping. I have no problem agreeing, but the proposal does not address the issues. Of greater concern is that I see no indicatoin of anyone asking her mentor (Deathphoenix) if he thinks any of it will be workable. And he has seen the off-Wiki evidence, because I e-mailed it to him. The other issue which is glaringly overlooked here is that Z can go to any admin, but we already have admins inappropriately involved in the case when they are involved parties, and we have something going on off-Wiki when Mikka said he had "brought wrath upon his head" by his block of Z, when there is no on-Wiki evidence of that, so there needs to be some clarification of uninvolved admins. Multiple edit conflicts in trying to post this, so it may be outdated by subsequent posts. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Sandy, you keep saying that there are involved admins, but who are they, and how are they involved?

I think Jonathan's second proposal is a good one. The important point is that both parties stay away from one another. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:56, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I will not agree to anything that is not totally equal and symmetrical, anything else places me at too great a disadvantage and will make things worse, not better. It would just be a charter to goad. The voluntary undertaking, of itself, serves as a warning.

• Zeraeph and SandyGeorgia are banned from posting any sort of remarks about each other, (consider removing following) except they may go to any administrator via talk page or email to request help for legitimate grievances.
• Zeraeph and SandyGeorgia are asked not to involve themselves in each other's editing. If the two editors come to the same article they will go to an administrator for help with any disagreements, rather than engaging with each other.
• This agreement may be enforced by any uninvolved administrator via a block up to one week against either parrty. After five such blocks, either party may be blocked up to one year.
• Either party may cancel this agreement by filing for arbitration.

--Zeraeph (talk) 16:54, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Further, I would have thought it was slightly obvious that the agreement means that we should BOTH cease all remarks and attacks concerning each other, fairly and equally. But if you will not agree to it, fine, I am more than happy to go to arbcom and have it all out in the open instead. --Zeraeph (talk) 16:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with that aspect of the proposal; I'd be very happy if your name would stop popping up on my talk page. The proposal doesn't address your attacks on others and your disruptive editing, and it actually lowers the sanctions you would currently be exposed to. You have no more reason to continue to accuse A Kiwi of wikistalking, when you exchange friendly e-mails with her and have a long-standing on-and-off friendship, than you do of accusing me of being your stalker. The stalking accusations need to stop. And mistaking me for A Kiwi doesn't excuse your refusal to adhere to Wiki polices and guidelines and submit to mediation; even if I had been A Kiwi, you still should have mediated the issue and adhered to Wiki policies. By the way, in the flurry of posts last night, I neglected to thank you for finally apologizing for the egregious things you said about me a year ago. I would be further relieved if you would stop the off-Wiki attacks on me, but that's not Wiki's problem. For the record, Zeraeph, I don't have Tourette's, I don't have OCD, I have never said I do (as you claim), I don't have the conditions of any of the articles I edit (if I did, that would be quite a mix), I don't "neglect my children" and I don't plagiarize. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:19, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

You are absolutely at variance with the facts about the situation with A Kiwi (Knowingly or not? I'm not psychic? Who knows?) and if you don't have Tourettes, perhaps you shouldn't have kept claiming you had on the AS talkpages, us Aspies are very easily mislead that way? (I'll find the diffs myself before it gets to arbcom). But if you feel that either Tourettes or OCD is in any way a pejorative I am happy to apologise for using the terms in connection with you. --Zeraeph (talk) 18:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

A modest proposal

There's clearly huge issues being dealt with here, which can be dealt with far easier than realized. Let's say there is no consensus for banning of User:Zeraeph when this is said and done, or that there's a consensus to not ban. (since if banned this propsal is moot) What she should do, if serious about contributing to the encyclopedia, is just come back under a new username and have a fresh start. Then SandyGeorgia won't bother her is she doesn't make herself known, and ideally she won't bother back either. I don't know if this is a good idea or not, but I thought I'd throw it out there. Wizardman 16:22, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how that stands with policy Wizardman, but it is something I would feel worth considering myself. The only reason I have not done it before is that it would, effectively, lock me out from the articles of interest to me, because too many eyes would be watching them, and I feel there would be goading, to the detriment of the quality of those articles. Most of my "watches" are for OR, and self promotion and to sustain WP:RS in areas where I know the subjects and the "players" only too well. That is, by far, the most useful purpose I have ever served here, and possibly ever will. --Zeraeph (talk) 16:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate that. Jehochman ^Talk 16:40, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree it's not workable. Z only edits specific topics that she is heavily involved in off-Wiki, she brings off-Wiki detractors, issues and baggage, and her posts are instantly recognizable wherever she makes them. Changing names won't be effective for her, and particularly since her largest issues aren't even with me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I am fascinated Sandy, perhaps the agreement should make an exception for you to give me a daily bulletin on all the other things you know about me and my life that are news to me? --Zeraeph (talk) 17:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

You don't agree with the post Sandy made above? that would be odd, as you have said as much yourself before. Jeffpw (talk) 17:20, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Where?--Zeraeph (talk) 17:41, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

On Wikipia Review, you said virtually the same thing that Sandy posted above. Don't you remember? it was in that long post you made there, attacking her. Jeffpw (talk) 21:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Another modest proposal

I am not involved but have just read through this. How about the next time either party mentions or contacts the other they get a 1 hour block, the next time a 1 day block, then 1 week, then one month, then 1 year, then one century? It is abundantly clear that the on-wiki disruption being caused by this issue would be resolved if these two people just stopped talking to and about each other. Regardless of how it started both parties seem unwilling to give this up which is the current source of disruption to the encyclopedia. Opinions on this solution please. 1 != 2 17:22, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Again. It doesn't appear you've read and understood the entire history. Z's most recent issues have all involved editors other than me. And her attacks on me and other editors are aleady well beyond the 1 hour, 1 day block level. She accuses everyone of stalking her, and most recently referred to me as a "madam". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:32, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I have read it. I have also read it all being repeated over and over. If what you say is true then breaking off contact will be easy. Z will certainly be held accountable to any behavior issues that may happen elsewhere. 1 != 2 17:33, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I am prepared to consider any equal, mutual, undertaking to end this...the only thing I will not consider is an unequal agreement. The truth, from my point of view, is if SandyGeorgia ceases to discuss me I will have absolutely no justification in discussing her. The only actual content dispute was of the kind where there is probably, ultimately, some merit on both sides (judge for yourself the difference between these two versions [106] I prefer one, Sandy the other). I walked away from that, and left her to it.--Zeraeph (talk) 17:35, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it is an unworkable solution, as it penalizes a contributer who does wondeful things for the project, and puts them on equal footing with one who has caused massive disruption and been blocked several times for harassment, 3rr, etc. Jeffpw (talk) 17:40, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see how preventing a person from contacting someone they do not wish to have contact with is a punishment. I would think that someone wishing to avoid Z would embrace this idea. 1 != 2 17:49, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Z, you will not likely get a symmetrical agreement from ArbCom, and ArbCom will see the confidential evidence I won't display publicly. I suggest that settling something now is your best shot. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:42, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Then I will also expect to see, and be allowed to defend myself against, that mysterious "off-Wiki" evidence, as is only reasonable, arbcom it is...that was my original preference but I thought Jehochman made a good suggestion if you agreed to it on equal terms--Zeraeph (talk) 18:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I have just filed a request for arbitration. There have been many informal attempts to resolve this dispute. They have failed. I do not believe that further discussions will be fruitful. Jehochman ^Talk 17:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I admit that arbcom will most likely come up with a more elegant solution than the one I proposed. 1 != 2 17:53, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I think your proposal was pretty good actually. Even simpler -- both women should agree to stay away each other to the fullest extent possible consistent with their being able to edit articles they want to work on. When the latter means they have to meet somewhere, each should ask an admin to keep an eye on the interaction, which both should strive to make as brief as possible. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:33, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

To me that is perfect SlimVirgin, as long as all sanctions are equal, and we both agree not to mention each other at all except to an admin for grievance resolution in the event of a default. --Zeraeph (talk) 19:55, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Can we call this resolved?

Everybody seems happy this should go to arbitration. --Zeraeph (talk) 18:05, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

No, this is not resolved. There was solid unanimous community consensus a year ago that an ArbCom case would benefit no one (least of all Wikipedia and Zeraeph). Nothing has changed for the better. And no one has yet, as far as I know, spoken to Z's mentor, who argued unanimously along with everyone else that having Z's behaviors examined before ArbCom was not in her or Wiki's interest. I requested that this discussion proceed with careful deliberation, and the move to open an ArbCom case was exactly not that. A workable solution was emerging when this preemptive move was made. What is the hurry? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Sandy, you won't agree to stay away from Z, you won't agree to stop posting about her, and yet you want to stop an RfAr. With respect, that's a position not likely to work. If you agree to stay away from her, an RfAr won't be necessary, but if you don't, then it certainly is necessary, because there'd be no other way to proceed. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Can we please stop adding to the speculation here? Where have I said I won't stay away from Z, where have I said I won't stop posting about her? I said the proposal wasn't workable for other reasons (such as decreasing sanctions she would otherwise be exposed to, not recognizing her attacks on editors other than me, allowing her *five* more attacks, not addressing her edit warring), which I detailed. I said I had no problem with that aspect, since I've never been the one to seek her name constantly dropping into my talk page and I'd be happy for it to stop. Please read and respond to what I said, not what you think I said. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

All I can see is that you keep posting about her. You did it before the block, after the unblock, you've accused me of being an "involved" admin, which is utterly bizarre. You've posted some theory about how you were attacked on WR, and I immediately stepped in to unblock, as if I'm an editor who might do something to please WR. You've either asked your friends to come here and comment against Z, or you haven't asked them not to, so we've had the most amazing pile-on over what was actually quite a simple issue. In other words, you seem to want escalation, yet when it reaches the highest point it can -- ArbCom -- you suddenly don't want it anymore.

As I said above, what is needed from you is some common sense and some empathy. First and foremost, you need to disengage because, rightly or wrongly, your continued involvement with Z is like a red rag to a bull. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

SV, I must ask you again to please try to stick to facts. That I was attacked on WR is not a bizarre theory; with the exception of the portion of the attack they removed at my request, anyone can see it. You are now accusing me of asking my friends to come here, an obvious breach of good faith; my friends coming here and all the shouting and distraction in the world will ultimately make no difference, because the diffs will speak for themselves. It has been suggested that you are the person who needs to disengage. Please let other admins handle this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Sandy, wanting a licence to go on harassing me without me having equal redress is not a resolution. You have chosen to deliberately make my life a misery for over a year, unless that improves, and the only realistic way that will improve is through an equal, unconditional undertaking that we both enter into to stay away from each other, under identical sanctions, I have nothing whatsoever, to lose, and everything to gain, by going to arbcom (where YOU supporter has chosen to file), because on those terms arbcom IS my only chance of ever being allowed to edit Wikipedia in peace and on equal terms. That is the choice you are giving me, a small chance with arbcom, or no chance at all. Which would you choose? --Zeraeph (talk) 19:33, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

If this issue is being handled through arbcom then I don't think this venue is needed anymore. Though calling it resolved is not really accurate, more accurately it has moved to a more structured location. 1 != 2 18:35, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't my hurry, it was Jehochman's, he "filed", I heard about it when you did, so if you don't like it take it up with him, not me. Though I must state this is what I wanted myself. If you want to backtrack and accept an equal undertaking instead, fine with me. As long as it is equal I will support you in that.

Until, the only thing I saw as "resolved" is this particular discussion, which is superfluous now best to get back to life and let it be dealt with in due course. --Zeraeph (talk) 18:50, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Ideas on the table

I've put forward two proposals. My experience with Arbcom is that a case can be pulled before it opens if the parties come to an agreement. The proposed agreement covers Sandy and Zeraeph. Other disputes can be resolved one by one, or we can take the whole matter to arbitration. I am indifferent. It's up to the parties to decide how they want to resolve things. Jehochman ^Talk 19:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Get a neutral party on board to monitor Z's edits and keep her from attacking anyone (not just me) and edit warring anywhere, and I'll agree quickly to anything within reason (lowering the sanctions she would currently be exposed to for these behaviors, from one month to one week, and allowing her five more attacks, is not reasonable—I have no problem with most of the rest of your proposal, but it still troubles me that no one seems to have consulted Deathphoenix yet). Z attacked me on WR, in a discussion mostly about SV on a forum mostly about SV in an incident that was openly discussed right here on AN just before SV prematurely unblocked her. SV involved herself in the issue without informing herself completely of the history, according to her own posts above, where she asks for time to review the history. SV is not an uninvolved party because of the WR aspect of Z's most recent attack on me. By the way, am I allowed to post a link to that here? WR already had the courtesy to remove significant portion of Z's attack, so that evidence is already gone. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Hang on. This is completely irrational. "SV is not an uninvolved party because of the WR aspect of Z's most recent attack on me." I am an involved admin in this case, because Z recently attacked you on Wikipedia Review, and because I am often attacked on Wikpedia Review? :-) SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:11, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

See my last edit, unless there is a totally equal agreement by both of us, my only realistic chance is with arbcom anyway, so as you opted for it (thank you, and I mean that), I will take that last chance, it's the only real one I have. --Zeraeph (talk) 19:39, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

PS Sandy, not one single word about you has been removed at this point.--Zeraeph (talk) 19:44, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

(ec) Sandy, please take my proposal, Version 2, modify the parameters to your liking, and then post it. If two month long blocks instead of five one week blocks is agreeable, that's fine with me. Jehochman ^Talk 19:56, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, I hope I have the right version. I've equalized some of the sanctions and statements to include both of us, because basically there is no chance I will edit war or engage in personal attacks, because I don't do that, so I don't mind including myself in the sanctions. I am not a good writer; it will need tweaking, but it would be something like this:

• Zeraeph and SandyGeorgia are banned from referring to any poster previously mentioned in any case involving the two of them or articles they edit as a stalker, harasser, "madam" or any other term intended to defame, malign, demean or attack. Zeraeph and SandyGeorgia are banned from posting any sort of remarks about each other or other previously mentioned parties in the cases involving them, except they may go to any neutral administrator via talk page or email to request help when violations of Wiki policy or guidelines occur.
• Zeraeph and SandyGeorgia are asked not to follow each other to any article, discuss each other edits, or involve themselves in each other edits. If the two editors come to the same article they will go to a previously uninvolved administrator for help with any disagreements, rather than engaging with each other. It is acknowledged that they both edit autism-related articles; if there are any disagreements on those articles, they will go to an administrator and not engage with each other.
• This agreement may be enforced by any previously uninvolved administrator via blocks or warnings according to policy. After two such blocks, Zeraeph may be blocked up to one year and SandyGeorgia will be blocked according to blocking policy.
• Zereaph is banned from any personal attack against any other previously involved or uninvolved editor.
• Zeraeph is admonished to confine her requests for assistance to one forum or one person, and to avoid forum shopping.
• Previously involved adminstrators include SlimVirgin, LessHeard vanU, Mikkalai, ( ?? ... others ??)

It's a draft. I have clearly put myself on relatively equal footing with Z, in spite of my clean record. The intent of my version is to also cover the other people Z has attacked. My family wants my attention now to play Monopoly. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

No Jehochman, my only real chance is either bilateral agreement with equal terms, or arbcom, you chose to file arbcom, Sandy refuses equal terms, so arbcom is my only option. --Zeraeph (talk) 20:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I now agree that ArbCom is best placed to look at this, because the behavior of all parties needs to be examined. People have been poking Zeraeph and she has overreacted, which made the poking even worse, and provoked the next overreaction. The personal attacks I saw from anons on her talk page while she was blocked were unacceptable, and this pile-on -- plus the strange conspiracy theory about Wikipedia Review that I still haven't understood -- would seem to confirm that there's a serious problem here with the dynamics. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree SlimVirgin, I might not have a GOOD chance with arbcom, but I do not have any chance anywhere else. Unless arbcom can work a miracle SandyGeorgia will never leave me in peace to edit here, anyway, so i have nothing to lose at all by at least trying. --Zeraeph (talk) 20:42, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Any negotiated settlement will be imperfect, but I think Sandy's proposal is more than fair. Zeraeph, I strongly urge you to consider it because at ArbCom, you are likely to face much stricter limitations. Please listen to me. If you accept Sandy's proposal, I will withdraw the case, or you can suggest changes, but you will have to accept that the terms will not be symmetrical because the two of you do not have symmetrical editing histories. Otherwise, ArbCom goes forward, and I am confident you will not get such a good deal, nor such quick and pleasant service. Jehochman ^Talk 21:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I think Sandy's proposal is no more than a charter for Sandy to abuse and interfere with me at will, even worse than at present, without sanction and with my consent. Why on earth would I agree to that? I would not longer be realistically able to edit here anyway. I have stated, clearly and in small simple words, several times that the only agreement that will not leave me open to further abuse by SandyGeorgia is a totally equal one, on both sides. In reality, whatever you believe, how ever many nlies have been told, I am the innocent party here, and there is always a chance I will be able to prove that at arbcom. I want to take that chance. --Zeraeph (talk) 21:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

This is what I am prepared to agree to, a totally fair and equal proposal, if Sandy intends me no further harm she has no reason to refuse it:

• Zeraeph and SandyGeorgia are banned from posting any sort of remarks about each other, (consider removing following) except they may go to any administrator via talk page or email to request help for legitimate grievances.
• Zeraeph and SandyGeorgia are asked not to involve themselves in each other's editing. If the two editors come to the same article they will go to an administrator for help with any disagreements, rather than engaging with each other.
• This agreement may be enforced by any uninvolved administrator via a block of one week against either party. After five such blocks, either party may be blocked up to one year.
• Either party may cancel this agreement by filing for arbitration.

--Zeraeph (talk) 21:42, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I have tweaked your proposal by striking and substituting the bit "according to blocking policy". I think this will give us all what we want.Jehochman ^Talk 21:51, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

No, I am afraid that won't work, it must be specific and equal, just to make sure that nobody is ever tempted to try and manipulate the concept "blocking policy" in their favor. If both of us are sincere and intend to stick to the agreement it shouldn't make the slightest difference to either of us. --Zeraeph (talk) 22:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Given that Sandy's block record is clean and Zeraeph's isn't, any escalating block procedure cannot, obviously, be equally applied. Otherwise, the proposals aren't too far apart. But I would another couple:

1. User:Zeraeph clearly and unequivocally retracts STALK accusations against SandyGeorgia, and any other editor similarly accused, or else produces evidence to substantiate them.
2. Although not strictly enforceable, editors are strongly discouraged from disparaging one another on other websites, as Zeraeph has done recently. Marskell (talk) 21:54, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Only an equal proposal has any chance of resolving the situation, therefore I will only agree to and equal undertaking. Otherwise this should proceed to arbcom. I will be presenting evidence at arbcom, I am sure you are welcome to read it then.--Zeraeph (talk) 21:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Retraction of accusations is not strictly necessary. If either party informs me of inappropriate comments that have been made on wiki, I will consider removing them, as allowed by policy. We should not attempt to regulate off wiki conduct. Jehochman ^Talk 22:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

There was an easy way to deal with all of this drama before the fact

Slim Virgin should have discussed this with Sandy Georgia before ever unilaterally unblocking Zeraeph. What was the all-fired hurry to stir up all of this drama? What's wrong with pre-action discussion? Try it some time. Corvus cornix_talk 19:51, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

No, she should have discussed it with Deathphoenix; I'm an involved party. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:55, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, she should have discussed it, period, probably here, first. Corvus cornix_talk 20:00, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Why would I have discussed it with SandyGeorgia? I had no idea about this vitriolic background. I saw that Z had been blocked after a dispute with Matisse, an editor with a history of sockpuppetry. I also saw that anon IPs were leaving abuse on Z's talk page. I expressed concern about the block, and the blocking admin, Mikka, said he had no objection if I looked at the case and decided to unblock. So I did. When a new admin responding to an unblock request, and the blocking admin, get together and agree to a review, there's no need to involve other people.

What puzzles me is what SandyGeorgia was going to do in 12 days time, or whatever it was, when the block expired naturally. Was she intending to kick up this fuss then too? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

"Kick up this fuss"? What is your statement as regards Zeraeph making repeated stalker accusations against others? As regards Ceoil: "Can I also add that I am a little scared and threatened by User:Ceoil. I have never interacted with this user, yet he is becoming very personal and heated, I have just realised that he also seems to live within 30 miles of me." Yet another insinuation: "I am tired of trying to find ways to be co-operative and diplomatic with one editor, who has stalked me, "off-wiki" quite ruthlessly since 1999 (and frankly, is only here to continue the job), while also finding ways to be co-operative and diplomatic with another who seems to be making a life's work of WP:GAMEing the system to try and find ways to ensure that I am forced to submit to a double standard where other people have rights but I must submit to her control and micromanagement." You have said that you are mentoring Zeraeph, so I would like to know what course of action you are taking to prevent such unfounded accusations from occurring in future. LuciferMorgan (talk) 20:26, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia didn't kick up this fuss. Look at where, when, and how it started. Kablammo (talk) 20:24, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Sandy hasn't kicked up a fuss in the slightest. Ceoil has, and I wish he'd been more temperate about it, even if I sympathize. And Zeraeph has by leaping right back into her last content dispute and reiterating her stalk allegations. Sandy is only commenting on threads that are about her. Anyway, perhaps we should leave off to see what the arbitrators decide. Marskell (talk) 20:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Ceoil is not responsible for all these posts, Marskell. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

SV, there would have been no fuss; your unblock enabled Z to continue her previous behavior, empowered her to continue attacking me, and encouraged her to continue edit warring. Your unblock sent a clear message that she had carte blanche. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

No, what happened here is that you rushed in wanting to control the situation, and it's the control issues that caused this in the first place. Mikka, LessHeard VanU and I were the admins dealing with the situation. What was going to happen was that one, two, or all three of us would have talked to Deathphoenix, Z's mentor, and between us we would have worked out how to proceed. Instead, I've had to spend literally hours dealing with posts triggered by you, instead of finding a way to move ahead. And then you accuse me of not knowing enough about the case, and of not having spoken to DeathPhoenix, when you're the one taking up all my time. I've also had to put up with personal attacks from you about me being "involved" because you were criticized on Wikipedia Review. Well, it's enough. I think the ArbCom should deal with this now.

The bottom line here is that your harsh words about Z have hurt her just as much as her harsh words have hurt you. If you would recognize that, it would go a long way to resolving the issue. As I said above, what's needed here is some empathy, and that it's not forthcoming is very sad. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

• Slim, you unblocked Z a full 2 weeks before her block was set to expire, without, by your own admission, having really examined the situation. At best it was an ill-considered action, even if you did consult the blocking admin first. What I am reading here in the compromise that was offered was both Sandy and Z being sanctioned for remarking about the other. That is absurd on the face of it, and signals a desire on the part of admin to just dismiss this with both parties sharing the blame. From everything I have seen, Z has been posting multiple personal attacks against Sandy, both on and off wiki, at an attack site. That she was unblocked after doing that is just plain wrong. I also don't see that arbitration is the way forward, as if this was some simple dispute between two editors. What I see is one editor in good standing being attacked by an editor who has been blocked multiple times for behavior problems. In my eyes, arbitration just validates the offending editor's position, and provides another venue for that editor to continue attacking. I would simply reinstate the block that was lifted, based on the disruption this editor has caused since being able to edit again. I'll be frank: Sandy is a productive contributer without which Wikipedia would significantly suffer. Z's absence would only be noticed by the peace it would bring. Jeffpw (talk) 20:48, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm puzzled at the reluctance to let the ArbCom deal with it. The admins who were dealing with it have been prevented from doing so. SandyGeorgia was asked many times to disengage and declined. She opposes any compromise that treats both editors on equal terms, and Z opposes any that doesn't. There have apparently been aborted mediations. Therefore ArbCom is the best way forward. There's no point in simply reinstating a block that will expire in 12 days times, or whatever it was, because this will simply blow up again then. Best to have it dealt with once and for all. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:00, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm puzzled at your insistence at treating 2 editors, one who has given her all to improve this project, and one who has continually disrupted it, as equals here. Surely there is some sort of assumption of good faith for the party who has been contributing productively for years, when in dispute with an editor who has made multiple personal attacks, both on Wikipedia and on an attack site against this project. It's strange that some here want to view this one particular conflict as an isolated incident, and not as a pattern of abuse on Z's part. Jeffpw (talk) 21:10, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm always very in favor of giving good contributors a lot of slack, and the benefit of the doubt. But there's a limit to how far that can extend. Z has been editing for two years and has made 5,000 edits. The ones I've looked at have been good -- she seems to care a lot about using good sources well. What has happened is that she responded badly to being criticized, which prompted more criticism, which caused more bad reactions, and on it went into a downward spiral. Even just before Z's recent block, SandyGeorgia continued to post criticism of her, in a way that was completely unnecessary because Z wasn't interacting with Sandy. And yet I believe SandyGeorgia knew that Z has Asperger's (which Z has posted here too), which may make it harder for Z to cope with other people's emotional responses. So it's a downward spiral that a bit of empathy might have prevented. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:20, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Slim, do you have diffs for these unprompted attacks from Sandy when Zeraeph wasn't interacting with her? For months Zeraeph's user page has constituted an attack on Sandy. (Of course she doesn't name her, but to suggest she's not referring to her strains credulity.) "I'm always very in favor of giving good contributors a lot of slack, and the benefit of the doubt." You're not doing so here. Jeff says it very well in his last. Marskell (talk) 21:33, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I do [107]. It is also, to use the politest term I can, wildly inaccurate and so is this [108] What kind of chance have I ever had to edit in peace here with such poison being spread about me? --Zeraeph (talk) 21:49, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I read that at the time, I read it earlier today, and I re-read it just now. That's by no means a personal attack. You may not agree with it, but that does not make it a violation of WP:NPA. Sandy was entirely civil, and expressed her extreme frustration in a remarkably polite way. In contrast, your attack of Sandy on your talk page today had to be refractored due to it's violating policy, and an admin had to revert you after you reverted my refractoring of it. Jeffpw (talk) 21:57, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Jeff, telling lies about people to incite conflict is not usually considered "civil", and by her choice of words, any statement I have ever made about SandyGoergia was just as civil, and arguably more so. You cannot have it both ways. --Zeraeph (talk) 22:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

This is a blockable offence, and I would like an explanation by administrators as to why they have failed to do so. Editors have been blocked for much less incivil comments. Why are such attacks being constantly ignored? SlimVirgin ignored my queries, and still hasn't answered them. I'll repeat them again: Since you are mentoring her SlimVirgin, what are you doing to prevent such attacks / false accusations in future? I'd like an answer, since these delusional stalker accusations have to stop. LuciferMorgan (talk) 22:03, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Is there not an admin reading this who will block? Z has earned it many times over. Going to Arbcom is ridiculous, if only because it wastes everybody's time. Insisting that Sandy be treated with the same repercussions as Z is ridiculous. I support a community ban on Z and have watched in amazement, as a block has not been forthcoming and ongoing personal attacks have not been promptly removed. R. Baley (talk) 22:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Too bad, Arbcom has now accepted, I now respectfully suggest that all other discussion be archived and cease, because it is senseless and going nowhere. --Zeraeph (talk) 22:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

One arbitrator has accepted. Doesn't mean the case is accepted yet, it'll be a few days until enough arbs vote on the matter. Wizardman 22:32, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't realise that, but regardless, hasn't this gone on long enough here in ever decreasing circles? --Zeraeph (talk) 22:35, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I fully endorse what R. Baley just said, and also feel it's a ridiculous waste of time. That is senseless, and will actually go nowhere. Zeraeph still hasn't made any apologies whatsoever for insinuating other editors are stalkers here, a situation which is quite appalling. "Respectfully suggest" Zeraeph? I "respectfully suggest" you stop making ludicrous stalker accusations / insinuations against other editors, as they're unwelcome here. LuciferMorgan (talk) 22:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I strongly urge all editors to stop provoking Z, and for Z to stop responding. Since there is an ongoing Request for Arbitration, Z, SG and others are free to enter their statements there, and if the case is accepted, their evidence. But please stop posting accusations and counter-accusations here — this is counterproductive, and only fans the flames. Crum375 (talk) 22:46, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

(Removed personal attack. Crum375 (talk) 23:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC))

I object to the characterization of LM's comment as a personal attack. R. Baley (talk) 23:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Crum with the proper procedures running, at the highest level, it seems idiotic for either side to continue this here now --Zeraeph (talk) 22:49, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

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

New Page Patrolling and WP:BITE

Recently I learned about New Page Patrolling and I tried my hand at it a tiny bit. I also looked at what others were doing and, frankly, found it disturbing and, IMO, not beneficial to the project. Here are a few examples:

• Crazy paving - Just a little stub that found itself littered with tags - see.
• Thomas Evan Nicholas (Niclas y Glais) - Marked for speedy (here) but a glance at the ref provided indicated notability born out by a quick Google search.
• National Coalition for Child Protection Reform - Speedied (User talk:Factfinder42) but is it non-notable?? Four mentions in the NY Times (here) and an impressive board (here). That was just a quick search but I would not speedy delete it.

This was just a few that I encountered very quickly. I am not here "going after" the editors that did this as they were all different and that indicates a more general problem. The problem seems to be a very WP:BITEy system wherein editors are rushing to mark new articles, often with speedy delete tags, instead of asking nicely that the author expand them a bit or even finding a reference or two themselves. This is a bad scene, no? --Alfadog (talk) 20:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• What admin action are you seeking here? Being an admin doesn't actually give you any extra status to deal with this kind of thing. You should address your concerns with the editors concerned. Cheers Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• • One could argue that feedback on the use of the delete button in the context of new articles might be of interest to all – or a substantial subset of – administrators. Reminding admins to look into new articles just a bit before giving them the axe might not, in some cases, be a bad idea. I presume that Alfadog is concerned about a general pattern (of which he gave only a few examples) rather than about the specific cases he mentioned. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
    • I should note that the revision of Thomas Evan Nicholas (Niclas y Glais) tagged was technically speedy deletable in that form as either A1 or A7. If it was tagged a minute after it was created it might be inappropriate, but the creator had over half an hour to come up with more info than name and place of birth (the version previously deleted, created 18:54 was identical). National Coalition for Child Protection Reform read as if it was written by the group. Notability may have not been a good reason for deletion, but a speedy deletion does not prohibit recreation in a better version. Mr.Z-man 21:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree that I've had to deny way too many speedys. A1 and A7 are possibly the most abused of the criteria. I admit I tried using A1 once to get rid of an article, but I've changed face since then. If you understand clearly what the thing is, it's not an A1. And A7 only applies to people, bands, groups, and web content, but I see people regularly use it for TV shows, songs, and other things. hbdragon88 (talk) 21:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• (edit conflict - reponse to original post)The best way to ensure that as many articles are treated fairly (according your viewpoint) as possible is to continue to newpage patrol - everyone works that task in the way they think best serves the encyclopedia. The more people doing it means that more time is available to check things over. Hmmmm... I think I will spend the bulk of my evening doing just that! LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

That way lies madness. Trust me, I've been there. Raymond Arritt (talk) 21:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

That's okay - my attention was quickly diverted... LessHeard vanU (talk) 02:18, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I've also noticed that some newpage patrollers can slap a speedy deletion tag on an article without giving it enough review. There are indeed some hopeless cases out there, such as people writing articles about their garage bands or their classmates. There are other times when people apply a speedy delete tag within minutes of an article's creation, even though the subject matter appears at first glance to be notable and the article is still under construction. I prefer to be a little more conservative when using the speedy deletion criteria, and to apply a dose of WP:AGF when necessary. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 21:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

The vast majority of CSD taggings are correct. The exceptions are what stand out, but you can't adjust our CSD policies based on exceptions. The chief bad-taggings are made by new New Page Patrollers and by (oh yes) TWINKLE operators who run riot at these things and never accept responsibility for their tagging.

The real problem lies hidden in the original post - the misuse of tags in profusion ("tag and run") by (oh yes) a FRIENDLY user. More automated crap editing. Clean-up "tagging and running" is worse than tagging for deletion in many cases - I've had it done to me when I've created an article and, honestly, you just look at the tag in complete disbelief. Tags are often needed, but automated editors never follow up with a welcome message to the article creator, let alone any advice - they just tag and run. Even when they're tagging "for clean-up" a perfectly well written article from an experienced contributor.

So, again, and there is consensus for this, if you come across someone mistagging articles using automated tools, pay a visit to their monobook.js, blank it and protect it for a few days. It's not punitive, it's just protecting the 'pedia from this type of editing. Chop chop. ➔ REDVEЯS says: at the third stroke the time will be 22:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I think we've been here before, and recently. The tools are being used by people whose intentions are good, but haven't the experience to distinguish between a nascent, but notable topic, and a no-hoper. When I use NPW, I will Google for notability if it's plausible, but not asserted. OTOH, if it's a loser from the start, I'll tag it. Conversely, I've untagged allegedly NN articles which clearly assert WP:N, and have tagged "wikify", etc., articles which have turned out to be copvios, and again used Goggle to do that. NPW is not meant to be used without thought. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 00:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Normally the majority of taggings are correct. Normally I check that page once or twice a day, deleted a dozen or so articles, and decline one or two. (a higher proportion of declines than truly representative, because I try to work on the more difficult ones that are not immediately removed). Over the last few days, it's becoming declining one out of three. Equally careless in the other direction, there have been an increasing number of obvious copyvios which have not been spotted. I admit i never thought of doing as Redvers suggests, but it sounds like a good idea. Did inadequately prepared editors get the bots as a christmas present? DGG (talk) 02:22, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I've recently refused a number of expired prods for much the reasons as above. (Examples: Fire It Up ! (EP) is a mediocre article, but it's a real release by a notable artist; Icho Larenas wasn't much, but the 1st Google hit brought up usable information; Ben Olson is the starting QB for a major college football program w/ plenty of sources, and another admin tagged is for deletion without doing the simple sourcing that immediately makes the subject plainly relevant.) At least with prods, it's not gone in a flash...but the solution for middling quality articles is to improve them, not delete them.

I, like DGG, find most CSDs to be fully burninatable, but there's always an example or two of a completely salvageable article that needed 4 minutes of love and attention rather than a TWINKLE slap upside the head. I may have to start blanking monobook.js pages of repeat offenders! — Scientizzle 17:53, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I just refused the prod deletion of Picnik based on the availability of dozens of Google News hits and the relative ease of removing the promotional material from the article... — Scientizzle 18:05, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Most, if not all, of the respondents here have grasped my point. This is a New Page Patrol issue, not a normal problem with CSD tags. The problem is that NPP has no prequisites for participation, no prerequisites for "common sense", if I may be blunt. Actually, it is less common sense than a degree of maturity and a sense of where an article might go combined with a willingness to do a bit of work rather than just "tag and run". Tag and run is only a big problem, IMO, in the case of the speedy tags because then some, not all, admins may, most likely in the effort to clean up backlogs, go ahead and do the delete without themselves exercising the maturity and effort required. That is understandable but I simply point out that if NPP can be done by editors without the required maturity and sense that is only tolerable because they cannot actually delete anything and the actual deletion is done by someone that has, supposedly, demonstrated that maturity and sense. --Alfadog (talk) 17:35, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

The problem as I see it, is worse than that. Many new articles slip through CSD because they, for example, assert notability, and the lucky ones get a "wikify" tag or a stub template slapped on them; but without the original editor having either the time or inclination to expand, we are left with a huge backlog in Engine Room B; and for an editor who has no expertise in a particular subject, tackling that backlog has to be cherry-picking merely to ensure some sort of reliability. That leaves a pool of articles that are hard work to sort out, and for volunteers with limited spare time, even here, and other agenda(s) to pursue, it seems to be asking a lot. More up-front advice from NPW might limit this, especially if it were seen as being more of a responsibility to the, er, encyclopedia. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 22:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Most of the tags do come from NPP, though. I've never actually checked when they were started, but based on the fact that quite a few have {{hangon}} tags, it means that they were recently created and recently responded to. Sometimes I've done CSD tagging from CAT:UNCAT, but that is rare. hbdragon88 (talk) 23:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

This makes me shudder. There must be some sort of WP:TEMPLAR analogue for well-meaning little new articles, or at least the willingness to allow for some breathing room. New page patrol is a two way street, you have to be willing to lend a hand to keep useful articles from being deleted because of technicalities. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 05:34, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

That is a good idea. When I saw all those tags I looked for a policy or guideline that would say something like "One or, at most, two general tags per page". I thought I saw that once but was not able to find anything. --Alfadog (talk) 13:28, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, let me tell that majority of new page patrolars become too hasty to tag for deletion (it is a fact that there runs a competition between several new page patrolars that who will take the credit for highest number of speedy deletions). This is obviously not good. And I have seen that A7 is heavily misused. I have seen many new page patrillers use A7 for singles, places, fictional characters - which will obviously create a problem. And regarding this, I agree it was overtagging and I will not do this in future. I will be very careful regarding these facts in future. I propose to create WikiProject:NewPagePatrol, which will specify guidelines and will monitor new page patrolling. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 07:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

The Project is a great idea, OC, and you are commended for your commitment to self-correction. I hope that you will forgive me for not informing you, and the other editors that I used as examples, of this discussion but I really did not want to make this about the individual editors on NPP but rather about the general issue and the admins' responsibility, if any, and ideas for correcting it. --Alfadog (talk) 13:28, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

It does seem that there is a problem with NPP.

There's another problem with the guidance given for starting articles. The marking of Thomas Evan Nicholas (Niclas y Glais) as a speedy looks reasonable to me, as it didn't (at the time) start to assert any notability. Earnest would-be contributors who take the trouble to digest "Your first article" will see that their contributions must do this, but they won't see anything short and simple like "Tips for writing biographies", with its excellent (in my perhaps atypical opinion) instruction that no article should be posted, even with the intent to revise, until it's coherent and at least slightly informative and has had its facts checked [...] and should clearly state why the [subject] is notable enough to be included.

Not that discussion of this obviously belongs on this page.... -- Hoary (talk) 07:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

"(it is a fact that there runs a competition between several new page patrolars that who will take the credit for highest number of speedy deletions)."

This is exactly what I was afraid was going on. I knew I smelled this but I did not give my suspicion enough credence to mention it. This is the bad scene I mention and must be stopped. --Alfadog (talk) 13:17, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Anyone care to name names? If this is actually happening, a very big stop must be put to it. ➔ REDVEЯS says: at the third stroke the time will be 13:23, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I strongly propose to create WikiProject:NewPagePatrol. It is very much needed. This project should be created as soon as possible.Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 14:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead and create it then. Anyone can start a project. Just click the redlink and start typing. Don't worry, others will join in and help. --Alfadog (talk) 15:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I have created it. Wikipedia:WikiProject New pages patrol I need assistance from other editors.Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

A WikiProject won't magically eradicate bad judgment among patrollers. Why not channel that energy into fixing up new articles? Not just tagging or deleting, mind you, but verifying, copyediting, formatting. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 15:41, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

No. I don't think so. If that was the case, there would be no Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit. This project will draw all new page patroller under a single umbrella. Moreover it is true that nonsense pages, non-notable pages are randomly created in wikipedia. This project will conduct research on what frequency they are created, what type of pages are created most etc. etc. Please join it.Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Anthon01

Anthon01 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) joined us in October 2007 and has spent virtually every day since advancing alternative and fringe medical ideas, attacking those who promote the mainstream, and in particular attacking the Quackwatch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article. Ilena (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), banned from the project for much the same, has a mentor and partner, Anthony Zaffuto, who is a notorious kook and is also part of her humanitics foundation. I've been watching Anthon01's edits pretty much convinced that he's a sock or meatpuppet of one of several banned users with an agenda against Quackwatch, I only today looked back at his history and found:

1. 20:37, October 6, 2007 (hist) (diff) Wheatgrass (disambiguation)‎
2. 20:34, October 6, 2007 (hist) (diff) m Talk:Wheatgrass‎ (moved Talk:Wheatgrass to Talk:Wheatgrass Juice)
3. 20:34, October 6, 2007 (hist) (diff) Talk:Wheatgrass (disambiguation)‎ (moved Talk:Wheatgrass to Talk:Wheatgrass Juice)
4. 20:34, October 6, 2007 (hist) (diff) m Wheatgrass‎ (moved Wheatgrass to Wheatgrass Juice)
5. 20:34, October 6, 2007 (hist) (diff) Wheatgrass (disambiguation)‎ (moved Wheatgrass to Wheatgrass Juice)
6. 03:27, October 3, 2007 (hist) (diff) Wheatgrass‎ (Undid revision 161619050 by Healthfood07 (talk))
7. 11:59, October 1, 2007 (hist) (diff) Talk:Wheatgrass

So: edit number one was promoting the wheatgrass health meme, edit number two was to use the Undo button, edit number three was a page move, edit number four used the Minor checkbox, edit number 7 created a disambiguation page. This does not loko like a genuinely new user.

I would be grateful if people with more experience of Ilena and her cohort could review the contributions of this user and come to a conclusion as to whether this is covered by the existing arbcom findings against Ilena in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal and if so what, if anything, should be done. Guy (Help!) 20:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

JzG. I don't see how my first few edits proves I am not a new user. Among other things, I am a computer programmer, so computer related things come easier to me. All you have to do is review my WP:CCC claim to realize I am just learning the 'ropes.' I probably have a handful of edits prior to signing up. I read the policy guidelines. Edit boldly is everywhere you go, when you first start. If you look carefully, over time, you will see that when I first started editing that page, it was being used as a promo piece for wheatgrass manufacturers. I removed those items. I began eliminating the 'wheatgrass sellers website references' and adding peer-review supported text with citations. The page has a ways to go, but I was distracted by the QW debate and saw it as a way to learn the wikipedia ropes. I also debunked a very common claim among wheatgrass users, that is "1 oz. wheatgrass juice is equivalent in nutrition to 2.2 lb. vegetables." Admittedly, it looks like it may be SYNTH. But I didn't know that when I started. That is not POV pushing is it? I just followed the data where it lead me and published it. Now before you all go and tear that page apart, please make comments on the talk page. JzG: A notice on my talk page would have been nice and CIVIL. Anthon01 (talk) 12:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I also think you characterization "attacking those who promote the mainstream" is grossly unfair. Who have I attacked? You might consider retracting the comment. Anthon01 (talk) 12:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Suggest you present more evidence to support the claims. If you can make a convincing case that this is the meatpuppet of a banned editor, then her ban applies to this account as well. Other than the Quackwatch focus this appears to be editing other areas of alternative medicine, so the matter isn't open-and-shut. Unless there's a different banned account that you can link to this as a sockmaster. Durova^Charge! 01:16, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

A lot of the comments to talk:Quackwatch and talk:Complementary and alternative medicine look suspect to me, but I have a big problem with fringe pushers so I think what I'm hoping for is a few more eyes. Guy (Help!) 22:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about your problem with the fringe pushers. I have not spent much time at many of the pages where they congregate, so I don't know how bad it really is. I did notice the removal of Benviste affair in homeopathy and agree it should be reintroduced (RS), in spite of the fact that I suspect that there is some merit to homeopathy. In the reverse, I see the same think happening at QW in 'pro QW editors' refusing to allow RS material that criticizes QW, are and then trying to spin the same into a positive review (OR). I think some so-called "fringe POVs" are valid on wikipedia if they are well sourced. Some of the best data is hidden in peer review journals, something one would never know unless they have spent time in the 'stacks.' Abstracts alone don't cut it as there is much significant data not published in the abstract. I think some editors think that all fringe is fringe and is therefore unacceptable, but I don't. Anthon01 (talk) 12:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

After comparing and contrasting the contributions of Ilena and Anthon01, it appears that they do have similar article interests and editing patterns. Most of Anthon's edits were to Quackwatch, a website that actively goes against unscientiific medicine use; most of Ilena's edits were to Stephen Barrett, who is the webmaster of Quackwatch. Also, they both have a habit of adding POV edits and citations to those articles.[109][110] It is therefore likely that the two are related. However, even if Anthon is not a meatpuppet, he is still the cause of several disputes on that article, and has not been a constructive infuence on the project. Maser ^(Talk!) 22:42, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice and for giving me the opportunity to comment. Spend sometime at QW and see how constructive you can be. There are two sides to the debate there. Editing on that page is contentious with some editors of the pro QW side refusing edits critical of QW, that are WP:RS, WP:NPOV and WP:V. Anthon01 (talk) 12:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

It's comments like this from Anthon01 that give me the greatest worry. Rather than working with other editors, he views everything as us vs them, not noticing that some editors are more concerned with creating good articles and a productive editing environment. --Ronz (talk) 18:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

While there were many red flags at the beginnings of Anthon01's editing that made such meatpuppet suspicions quite logical, his further editing leads me to dismiss those suspicions. I do tend to agree with the characterizations regarding editing problems, sympathies, and conflicts.

He is apparently editing from Connecticut, which likely rules him out as Ilena or her husband, who are located in Costa Rica, or when in California send from San Diego and the LA area, but he's still worth watching.

He has a question here: "Do you know which medical orgs criticise Quackwatch?" [111] (Sent from Windsor, CT)

It is in response to this lie: "It has been rediculed by many including some medical organizations." told by a user (Dogen3) at the top. The question can be answered simply: only by one, the extremely fringe, fanatical, and small Association of American Physicians and Surgeons. They are against the FDA, vaccinations, are AIDS denialists, gay bashers, etc.. Only fringe sources criticize Quackwatch. All mainstream sources are positive about it, even recommending it. -- Fyslee / talk 03:12, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Fyslee, you know better. The J Law, Medicine & Ethics, Consultant Pharmacists, Village Voice and the ACA are not fringe orgs. Among these, the ACA is the only org that is likely to have been criticized by QW. Anthon01 (talk) 12:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Technically your are correct, in that my statement was pretty short and lacked any nuancing. I was referring to serious criticisms and attacks. Sure, Quackwatch could be improved in a number of ways. I have even written an email to Barrett some time ago and made a few suggestions, which he promptly dissed and ignored. Generally any type of "criticisms" from mainstream sources (and a few do exist) are of a minor nature, and not concerning the main thrust or accuracy of Quackwatch as a source for exposing quackery, healthfraud, and health related scams.

The sources you mention do include people who are supportive of alternative medicine, and the ACA is the largest chiropractic organization. Chiropractic is the flagship of the whole alternative medicine field and has been attacked many times by Barrett and the whole of mainstream medicine and science. So whether one wants to consider it "fringe" is just a matter of semantics, IOW whether we are referring to number of believers or to non-scientific underpinnings. On the latter point it is definitely the epitomy of fringe since its fundamental belief (vertebral subluxation) is the unproven figment of Daniel David Palmer's imagination, the very foundation of the profession's philosophy and actual practices, and is used as its legally defined right to practice and get Medicare coverage. It is stuck in a very tight spot, because to admit it was built on a fictive foundation would be to admit it's legal right to exist had always been improper. -- Fyslee / talk 18:24, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Some other reasons why I don't think he is a meatpuppet or sock of Ilena are the fact that she can't resist making very direct and personal attacks, she totally ignores Wikipedia's policies, and constantly spamlinks her website. Her interests are also in some other areas.

Anthon01 has made some attempts to learn policies and can abide by them at times, even cooperating (for a few edits) with editors who have opposing POV, but not consistently. It is when he is editing in tandem with User:Levine2112 that his editing becomes more questionable. They are an unfortunate cocktail, because Levine2112's support seems to encourage him to edit in a confrontational and non-NPOV manner. (If they were always apart from each other I think he could become a good editor.) That's when his editing begins to look more like Ilena's, with direct attacks on myself using references to the Barrett v. Rosenthal ArbCom, which involved her and was her demise. Users who use that ArbCom against me consistently fail to recognize that my opposition to Ilena's misuse of Wikipedia was vindicated and Ilena lost big time. Unfortunately the wording of the "findings" has never been changed, even though they were formulated before any evidence ("findings") was even introduced. They were false charges made at the beginning and very little if any evidence confirmed the charges against me, yet the charges were left there unchanged, and that wording is still used against me by fringe editors. The maker of those charges is self-admittedly mentally unbalanced and has not been editing much since then. He made a serious mistake in supporting Ilena, even aiding and abetting her in her disruption, and also deleting my evidence against her, etc.. A sad story. If he ever returns he could become the subject of an ArbCom for his abominable behavior that led to his unsuccessful ArbCom against me. It backfired.

Anthon01's first edit on his user page was quite an eye opener to me and others who notified me! This obviously made many suspicious that he was an incarnation of Ilena, or a meatpuppet. -- Fyslee / talk 03:12, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Part of the learning process. ArbCom was new to me and your anti-alt-med and pro QW POV is evident. The ruling discussed QW as a partisan site. Anthon01 (talk) 12:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Other problems related to Anthon01's editing are another subject. I suspect that he is an experienced editor who has learned some things while editing under another guise, and may well be a nemesis of mine (another user) who is using this user name and trying to control himself, which I don't mind....;-) He is naturally on my watchlist, along with a number of other POV warriors. I also keep an eye on disruptive editors, just as the rest of you do. As far as I am concerned we all have POV and therefore his POV is irrelevant. The only relevant thing is his editing in an NPOV manner and willingness to collaborate. If that's okay, then personal POV is irrelevant. If we see improvement, then he should be given a chance, otherwise he may end up sharing the fate of his POV-allies, some of whom have been banned, and others who are on the verge of being banned. -- Fyslee / talk 03:12, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I take the "experience editor" comment as a compliment. Fact is, I am not, although I have written health related articles elsewhere. I think that with the anti-fringe pushers, alt-med will not get a fair shake unless someone using the rules of wikipedia show them that alt-med deserves it. That's my POV. Anthon01 (talk) 12:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

While some of these problems are irritating, I don't believe that Anthon01 is a malicious person, only a fallible human being like the rest of us. We all have blind spots and naturally see things from our perspective. Therefore we should be careful in our judgments of others since we often suffer the same failings and are in need of helpful criticism from others. -- Fyslee / talk 03:12, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Fyslee: I appreciate your attempts to be fair, and respect that. Regarding Levine2112, we share the same POV on the inclusion of some criticism of Quackwatch. Generally I believe QW has done a good job of uncovering health scams, but is not always balance in its coverage. I think the article should reflect that. If there was an attempt to include excessive amounts of criticism into QW I would be arguing from the other side. Anthon01 (talk) 12:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Quackwatch doesn't try to be "balanced" since it doesn't attempt to give equal coverage on subjects that don't deserve it. It is very open about this very proper and respectable policy. It isn't an encyclopedia, but a website with an openly declared POV. That fact irritates those it criticizes, but that is not a legitimate criticism of Quackwatch. It is what it is, and it has a right to be that, just like most other sites on the internet that also write from one POV. It should be accepted on its own merits. The Quackwatch and Barrett articles have been notorious dumping grounds for large amounts of criticism, including the worst and most illegitimate types. The worst have promptly been dumped since they violated so many of our policies here, and the struggle since then has been to find criticisms that can be included without violating policies. I do not agree with some of my would be allies in some of their arguments regarding what to include or exclude, but have chosen to stay out of many of those arguments and have let them battle on their own. Some criticisms should be included, and I have always supported that effort. If some people didn't improperly believe that I have a COI, I would no doubt have made my views known. I don't like too much conflict and sometimes it is more interesting to just be a spectator....;-)

The articles have indeed included "excessive amounts of criticism of QW" before you came here, but a balance needs to be reached. Unfortunately the editors who hate (yes, they really do) Barrett and Quackwatch are still active there and will no doubt continue to attempt to use the articles and talk pages as soapboxes for getting illegitimate attacks included at Wikipedia, IOW they want to use Wikipedia as an attack site. Therefore eternal vigilance is called for until fringe editors are better controlled and regulated by improved policies. But this is all getting into other subject matter than the current matter here. See below. We need closure. -- Fyslee / talk 18:24, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

• I move that this matter be closed. Anthon01 needs to be let off the hook on this one, and I'm sure he has learned from this experience. -- Fyslee / talk 18:24, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Unblocking of User:QU109999

Please unblock this user, or at the very least, allow this user to state the case as to why they can be unblocked.

THe user only blanked one page that was not their own. This user received a warning, then it was deleted by the user. I (sorry about that, people) and others then proceeded to unblank the page. Others started to add more and more warnings, only to have the page blanked. THis then resulted with the user being blocked indefinitely. I do not know if a notice was put on the page about the blocking. There isn't one there now, so the user cannot appeal. PLease can someone intervene? StephenBuxton (talk) 22:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Note:This is already being discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:QU109999. Davewild (talk) 22:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

{{CertifiedbyanExpert}}

Resolved

 – template deleted. henrik•talk 00:20, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

This sets a new record for number of CSD categories I've ever nominated a page for at once (I managed four at its TfD). Someone might want to have a look at this one - I'm certain it's not something we want lying around the encyclopedia. Happy‑melon 23:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

BigHaz

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

There doesn't appear to be a problem here, other than that of a Single-purpose account being a bit disruptive, making a complaint without merit. Any admins who feel this isn't resolved are welcome to revert this, but I doubt that will happen. - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:03, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

---

BigHaz is being uncivil (see his talk page, contributions, and activity logs). He is telling a user very rudely that they have been blocked. I know it's OK to tell someone that they have been blocked, but isn't this going a bit too far? He was even giving a threat - see here: [112]. Please block him. 58.168.147.119 (talk) 01:46, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

the lack of merit of this block request is, indeed, obvious from the talk page of the user being complained of. DGG (talk) 02:14, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Eh? 58.168.147.119 (talk) 02:31, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Submitter must be joking. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:55, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

This ain't no joke. 58.168.147.119 (talk) 03:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Please block him - I don't want him to get away with those nasty comments. 58.168.147.119 (talk) 10:32, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

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

Resolved?

Am I the only one who finds the new lime-green {{resolved}} hideous? — Coren ^(talk) 05:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

 – that we change the color of this template!

 :) —Kurykh 05:35, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

You're kinda not the only one, I went by AN today and found this to be (insert ??? here.) —BoL 05:40, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

No, the old was was ugly. I've went ahead and removed the explicit solid background, keeping the new (admitedly nicer) icon and spacing. — Coren ^(talk) 05:48, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

An, now that looks better. But I think you should have created a sub-template with that. I think I kinda liked the lime green better, but, eh, —BoL 05:56, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Can I tweak it a bit further? I can make it green without making it obstusive (It's now transparent). Also sizing could do with a little tweaking. — Edokter • Talk • 15:16, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

It does not matter to me as long as we use it often and wisely. 1 != 2 16:48, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't own it — all I wanted was to remove the horrid lime-green background. I'm partial to transparent (because it will then take the light tinge of non-article namespace), but not attached to it. — Coren ^(talk) 16:51, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

There, tweaked the (font) sizes and softened the colors a bit. Can you see it's green...ish? — Edokter • Talk • 19:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

You'll love my userpage then! </sarcasm> James086^{Talk | Email} 07:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment Backlog

For about the past ten days, people have been complaining about apparent inaction of the RfC bot at the RfC talk page, and no one has been responding to complaints/queries. Can someone knowledgable about the bot review these comments and respond? Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 13:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

as the author of the RfC bot Ill get my copy running. β^_command 21:44, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Never mind that backlog was caused by improper template usage. β^_command 02:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

RFA

[113] Cross post, Mercury 20:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Backlog at Category:Copy to Wikimedia Commons

... just in case anyone is, like, really bored :) - Alison ^❤ 20:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Ive been slacking, Ill get BCBot working on WP:MTC β^_command —Preceding comment was added at 21:40, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

BigHaz (again)

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

User being disruptive, again; Making complaints with no merit. IP temporarily blocked. Rjd0060 (talk) 23:53, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

---

Could someone please block BigHaz - I don't want him to get away with those nasty comments that he made on his talk page, contributions, and activity logs. 58.168.147.119 (talk) 20:48, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

You mean like you asked above? Where it was comepletely rejected? If you continue to post in this manner, you'll likely find yourself blocked. — Scientizzle 20:57, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

60.230.37.94 (talk · contribs) and 58.168.147.119 (talk · contribs) both resolve to the same set of IPs...I'm blocking 58.168.147.119 based on continued disruption. Go play elsewhere. — Scientizzle 21:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/RodentofDeath

The above Arbitration case has closed and the full decision can be viewed at the link above. RodentofDeath is banned from Wikipedia for one year, and Susanbryce is reminded of the prohibition on using Wikipedia as a platform for advocacy.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Anthøny 00:37, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

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

This user was blocked because he/she continued to blank Street Fighter III but it looked like he was simply trying to let editors know that the article contained false information and didn't know how else to contact us. I think we jumped the gun a little bit with this one by simply giving the typical warnings and then issuing a block.--Urban Rose (talk) 02:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

You have asked them to detail what their concerns with the article are on their talkpage, which is an excellent approach. When they supply an answer then post the diff here so people can see if the complaint has validity. I would note, however, that there were already messages on the ip's talkpage requesting that they not blank the page and to detail the problem - so perhaps a block was required to get the editors attention. Once there is a response then the question of unblocking (and guiding the editor to the correct manner of editing an article) can be addressed. LessHeard vanU (talk) 02:16, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

1000 featured pictures

The 1000th featured picture - A Tau Emerald, Hemicordulia tau, in flight over a creek

The English Wikipedia now has 1000 featured pictures. The 1000th FP is of a dragonfly in flight, see its nomination. Congratulations to Fir0002, who took this image and all those who have contributed to the featured picture process here on Wikipedia! MER-C 03:07, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Help Please

Resolved

 – John Reaves sorted it :) - Alison ^❤ 05:28, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I need an admin. Please see my talk page / Discusion Thanks Gth629jHelp (talk) 04:49, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

This person is requesting Right to Vanish on their already blocked other account. From their talk page, it looks like it's being taken care of - Alison ^❤ 05:16, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Now the user wants the talk page of this account deleted as well.--Urban Rose (talk) 05:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Waterboarding

Could some experienced users please watchlist Waterboarding. It has become a major target for POV pushing due to political events in the United States and possibly the 2008 presidential election. Our page ranks first in Google. We've had a wave of single purpose accounts that appear to be pushing the idea that waterboarding isn't torture. There is an ongoing Requests for Comment. The reliable sources thus far overwhelmingly state that waterboarding is a form of torture. Jehochman ^Talk 05:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll add it to my watchlist.--Urban Rose (talk) 05:34, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

This made #6 of a top ten list of Bush Administration legal fictions; see Lithwick, Dahlia (2007-12-28). "Legal Fictions: The Bush administration's dumbest legal arguments of the year". Slate. I've poked my head in at Waterboarding periodically and was surprised the article was in the right state each time. -- Kendrick7^talk 05:43, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree, more eyes there would be helpful - there seems to be a very concerted effort to question the status of waterboarding as torture. I first came to the article after seeing the RfC, and have made a few comments over there, but I'm not a long term editor of it and I don't know all the dynamics.

I'm a bit concerned by one SPA, Neutral Good (talk · contribs), in particular. This user has seem to be most active of the SPAs: He has already make several unhelpful comments (for example like [114],[115]) , which doesn't help to work towards establishing a consensus and assuming bad faith against other users ([116], [117]). I would not be surprised if he turned out to be a sock, given his apparent knowledge of the site, but of whom I have no idea. A checkuser was run against Haizum, but came back unrelated. This user has also created this very strange RFA which he canvassed support for at [118], and [119]. And he has accomplished all this within his first 100 edits. Frankly, I'm not sure his presence is helping the encyclopedia. henrik•talk 14:52, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Not an administrator, but more eyes (and fingers) would indeed be good, especially eyes that think a good article about waterboarding could be written without the POV phrase "waterboarding is torture" as or in the opening sentence of the lead. There is indeed a POV being pushed there, and that's what it is. A popular POV, supported by many, but still a POV. htom (talk) 17:25, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I have warned User:Neutral Good to stop the disruption and encouragement of vote stacking. I have also started a request for checkuser regarding all the SPAs. Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/GooseCreek. Jehochman ^Talk 17:29, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I have now blocked User:Neutral Good 24 hours for continued harassment after these comments [120] and [121] after being warned in quite clear terms here. Review is of course appreciated. henrik•talk 23:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

In regards to his comments about my liberally giving everyone who "dares to disagree" with me "body cavity searches at checkuser", I asked for checks on two apparent socks. this one, turned out to be the blocked sockpuppetry here. My guess was right but about a day or two early. There a few people I disagree with on that talk page for waterboarding, but I haven't tried to body cavity search anyone else, and have been discussing things out rationally. Neutral Good sounded (to me, anyway) like Haizum, who had gotten to the point of harassing me before. On the other, the 209 IP in question I saw had been heavily used by some notorious banned user that pushed extreme Right-wing POV and ended up blocked, for socking from that very IP address, among other things. Lawrence Cohen 23:24, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Stung

Resolved

 – Move reversed; discussion at Talk:Sting.Gimmetrow 06:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Could an admin sort out the mess of double redirects and dubious page moves (some of the redirects now have a proper history so I can't do it myself) at the following pages:

• Sting
• Sting (disambiguation)
• Sting (wrestler)
• Sting (musician)
• Gordon Sumner
• Gordon Matthew Thomas Sumner

There seems to be some disagreement over what Sting should contain/redirect to and that can be discussed later at WP:RM but at the moment the pages are not even navigable. Thanks. CIreland (talk) 05:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the main issue is that Sting was moved to Gordon Matthew Thomas Sumner. If that were to be reversed, all the above will work again properly. I've made the move request at WP:RM. (John User:Jwy talk) 05:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Should be fixed now. One redirect had already been "corrected". Please discuss what should be done somewhere, but there are a lot of redirects pointing at Sting assuming it's the musician, including Gordon Summer, Sting (music), Sting (singer), Gordon Matthew Sumner, and Sting (artist). Gimmetrow 06:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I think things are fine as they are now. Any discussions should take place at Talk:Sting, correct? Someone should contact the editor that made the move and explain how such things work. I'm not sure I'm feeling that articulate about that at the moment. (John User:Jwy talk) 06:19, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll leave a note for the user. Gimmetrow 06:28, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Any rules allowing swapping pages?

Resolved

It has been borught to my attention (through CAT:CSD), that the content of Alina should be moved to Alina Smith, but that page already exists. I was thinking of the following solution to the probelm:

1. Move Alina Smith to a temporary name
2. Move Alina to Alina Smith
3. Move the temporary page to Alina, to preserve the history. The resulting redirect can then be speedied under G6.
4. Change Alina into a redirect/disambig page.

Is that okay? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

That's incorrect. This is what I was intending:

1. Delete Alina Smith; since it's a copy
2. Move Alina to Alina Smith; since Alina Smith is the proper name and Alina has the history.
3. Redirect Alina to Alina Smith.

--Dan Leveille^TALK 11:50, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

This would meen loosing the history of Alina Smith - unless it is just a copy of Alina, I don't think this is appropriate. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:52, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Fixed everything up, hopefully. east.718 at 11:53, December 30, 2007

Like I said before it IS a copy, so my way would be completely fine. There was no history that needed to be kept. But anyway, East718 already did it the way you were intending --Dan Leveille^TALK 11:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Review discussions regarding naming of UK Skyscrapers.

There has been ongoing debate and an independent administrator need to review the arguments regarding the articles. As wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy the number of support and oppose "votes" are irrelevant. Also the discussions have not concluded and changes to the articles have been made before the articles the discussions have concluded. Please review 201 Bishopsgate, 110 Bishopsgate, 25-33 Canada Square, 301/3 Deansgate, and 1 Blackfriars. Some of the articles did not even have discussions regarding the name on the pages and were moved unilaterally, with the full knowledge that discussions on the names of other buildings were being conducted. I believe that the naming convention needs changing and a proposal has been made Here.--Lucy-marie (talk) 14:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

You again! That's twice in a couple of days I've seen you cause disruption on wikipedia by stubbornly going against concensus. When you have no support among the people who actually edit these pages what do you hope to gain by asking an admin to overide the concensus? Sorry if I sound irritated but really you have to learn to work with people. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 15:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Lucy-marie, as per the warning on your talkpage, I am fed up with your permanent edit-warring, sockpuppetry and forum shopping. WP:BOLD gives you the right to make changes; it does not give you the right to forum-shop and disrupt when every other user who's expressed an opinion on the matter disagrees with you. As per my warning, you are well past your final warning - if you weren't an established user, you'd have been indefblocked long ago - and if you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, sockpuppeteer and make WP:POINTy changes, I won't hesitate to not only re-block you but hardblock your IP. — iridescent 15:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Question/help on reporting a sockpuppet...

I am actually posting this because I suspect that Doc aga (talk · contribs) is a sockpuppet of blocked user Mike rodrin (talk · contribs), who does vanity edits. I also know that this case will be stale because Doc aga hasn't edited for a while. But can this still be reported? - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 15:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:SSP? Hut 8.5 15:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I've already been there and read this:

The problem is current; if the suspected sock puppets have not edited recently, the case will likely be closed as stale. If the problem is not ongoing, just watch the user and report when you see a new instance of abuse.

— WP:SSP

That's why I said that this case will be stale. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 15:36, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

3RR Subset of this board

The 3RR board is the most uselessly bureaucratic noticeboard I've seen here yet. Because the reporting requirements are such a pain in the ass, the board is a waste of time unless you like fooling with templates and doing a half hour of cut and paste to get someone to even take a look - which doesn't happen often, because it looks like 80% are dinged as 'Malformed' and ignored anyway. Avruchtalk 16:24, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree, the bureocratic procedure there is tedious, and its all for reporting a offense that can usually be resolved by just informing a admin. - Caribbean~H.Q. 16:29, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Hear, hear. I avoid the 3RR board because of its ridiculous reporting rules. Corvus cornix_talk 21:07, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Offensive and disruptive userbox

Resolved

This is serious mother (talk · contribs) has a userbox on his/her page that is inflammatory, offensive, highly disruptive, and I believe a violation of WP:SOAP. [122] It says that the user sympathizes with Nazis. Userpages are not meant to be personal bullhorns for degenerate political agendas, and this particular userbox might as well say "I believe that the deliberate genocide of 6 million Jews and other people was a good thing." I asked the person on their talk page to please consider removing the userbox, however they refuse to do so. [123] This racist garbage has no place here. Would someone please tell this person to remove this drivel? Nobody of Consequence (talk) 16:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I left him a note on his talk page. In the meantime, he seems not to have been here for almost 8 hours - lets wait and see what happens. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 16:41, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I see your point but I'm not particulary sure what action to take here, its obvious that Nazis represent a lot of negative things to most of the world (racism and genocide to mention just two) but the userbox only says that he "sympsthizes" with them, not directly stating that he supports the genocide of millions of Jewish people, now the problem is that we allow all other kinds of politically based userboxes, some that may seem irrelevant to the encyclopedia itself including those that state "I support X candidate for president" and we probably not want people to think that there is discrimination against a certain believe in Wikipedia, I would remove it but after seeing if other admins agree with me. - Caribbean~H.Q. 16:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC) It seems that trying to ask for approval of fellow admins can result in one being accused of being a "Nazi apologist" in here so I must as well remove that before this BS gets spreaded further, guess all my arguments against racism motivated edits in the past don't matter after all when the time to call somebody a "Nazi" comes, people with strong POVs of a subject should try to avoid making baseless accussations that may upset users before doing them, its quite obvious after all my anti-racism, anti-Nazi support edits during the course of my stay that I don't and never will support them, but as I can't remove the comment to avoid further misunderstanding I just tought that that I would let it clear. - Caribbean~H.Q. 21:12, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I didn't call you a "Nazi apologist", CaribbeanHQ. I said you dithered in the face of Naziism on this site. Please read my remarks more carefully. I also said not standing up to this sort of crap not only discredits this project, but helps those who espouse this POV get stronger. you seem to be offended that I commented on your not enforcing policy and guidelines here. Jeffpw (talk) 21:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I have removed it, per WP:USER. I see no need for debate on something so offensive and polemical. Policy clearly prevents the editor from having it on their page. Jeffpw (talk) 16:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

A glance at the contribs of This is serious mother (talk · contribs) suggest they're not here to be that productive anyway... and that this is not their first time around. Worth keeping a discreet eye on them. ➔ REDVEЯS says: at the third stroke the time will be 16:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok scratch waiting for him to respond, this user is obviously a blantant vandal, just check his contributions [124]. - Caribbean~H.Q. 16:53, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Block and forget. Avruchtalk 16:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for the quick response. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 17:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Um, he hasn't been blocked yet. Corvus cornix_talk 21:13, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Funny, I was just checking it too. Jeffpw (talk) 21:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

And now he is :P — Save_Us_229 22:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Rewriting History

Could someone have a look at Dual Irish international footballers, and review the appropriateness of this article's use of flags with reference to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (flags)#Do_not_rewrite_history, thankyou Fasach Nua (talk) 18:29, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Non administrator rollback

We are now in a position where the developers have made it possible for administrators to grant and remove the rollback permission for non administrators. Over the last month, we have been discussing the ways in which it can be given, and we're now at the point to try and get a consensus for it's implementation. Please could I ask as many people as possible to review the proposal and come to a conclusion to support or oppose the proposal. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Bishzilla

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

---

It appears that User:Bishonen has left us, having deleted her user and talk pages. Should her alias User:Bishzilla be deleted too now? Would WP:MfD be the correct process to follow in this case? Martintg (talk) 23:16, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Why delete it? Lawrence Cohen 23:16, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Leave it. God. Bishonen is welcome to return at any time. There's no reason to go around salting her subpages. Marskell (talk) 23:19, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Well perhaps I got the wrong impression, but the manner in which she left seemed like a slap in the face of the Wikipedia project and community in general. Martintg (talk) 23:38, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Even if it were, which I'm definitely not saying I think it was, why delete her pages? Lawrence Cohen 23:39, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

What he said. If anything, Bishonen has taken slaps in the face from certain users and deserves better. SirFozzie (talk) 23:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

No action required and suggest that this thread be closed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:43, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree, btw, she edited yesterday Addhoc (talk) 23:44, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Well correct me if I am wrong, as I understand it this account does not comply with Wikipedia:SOCK#Legitimate_uses_of_alternate_accounts, but because we all love and admire User:Bishonen it's been tolerated. But now she appears to have left, there is even less reason to retain this alternate account. Martintg (talk) 23:50, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

No Avruchtalk 23:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete 'Zilla? Not fair, what harm she do? Admit little 'shonen pretty useless admin. 'Zilla take over admin bit, be better admin! Little Martintg confused. 'Zilla the loved and admired one ! bishzilla _ROARR!! 00:21, 31 December 2007 (UTC).

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

User:Kiki Harbster

Is returned. See here. Please protect both of her pages and add the block-image to her userpage. Thanks. Fightmo1 (talk) 23:20, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Fasach Nua

Hi, I am not sure if this is the right place to raise this issue. I am concerned about the behaviour of User:Fasach Nua. I have contributed to Ireland national football team (IFA) and believe this article should be maintained. However Fasnach wants this article merged with Northern Ireland national football team. I have also contributed to Dual Irish international footballers. Fasnach is now re-editing this page in an inappropriate manner. This seems to me to be bullying and harassment. Is their someone here willing to mediate in this situation. Fasnach actions are seriously spoiling my enjoyment of Wiki. Djln --Djln (talk) 23:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)