Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. You are not autoconfirmed, meaning you cannot currently edit this page. Instead, use /Non-autoconfirmed posts. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

Continuation of Editing from 125.162.150.88 (Jack Merridew)

While there was an active ANI thread about the behaviour of 125.162.150.88 (talk), Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive692#Editing_from_125.162.150.88_.28Jack_Merridew.29, the IP was blocked for edit warring on Template talk:Rescue [1]. After not editing for a few days, the IP has gone back to similar behaviour:

• 4RR on Template talk:Rescue [2]
• See also: [3] [4]

This IP is apparently an editor who was previously banned by arbcom for harassing editors Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Moby_Dick and for socking Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Moby_Dick#Request_for_clarification_and_indefinite_block_of_Moby_Dick.2C_April-May_2007. The user was unbanned Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Jack_Merridew_ban_review_motion under an agreement. The IP withdrew that agreement [5]. (Under the agreement he was allowed to edit from only one account, User:Jack Merridew. See also [6].)

This editor attempts to cloud the issues by claiming everyone else is harassing him, eg Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive692#Sortable_tables_RFC and [7]. Pursuant to [8] I have not notified the IP of this particular thread; the previous thread was only recently archived [9].

Although ArbCom is discussing this User_talk:Risker#User:125.162.150.88, User_talk:John_Vandenberg#Jack_.3B.29, enough is enough. Propose community ban. Gimmetoo (talk) 04:40, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

• WP:BOOMERANG for all the insistent detractors would be the proper outcome for this. Gimme should be de-sysoped as unfit. 125.162.150.88 (talk) 11:18, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposed community ban

• Oppose community ban. From what I've seen Merridew is more hasslee than hassler. Reyk _YO! 04:42, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
• See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jack Merridew Let arbcom handle it, they unbanned Merridew, and imposed the account restriction he now seems to be disregarding. They get to clean up the mess. Chester Markel (talk) 04:52, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
• I don't claim that stuff like [10] is acceptable behavior, though. Chester Markel (talk) 04:58, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support ban. Some examples of his comments include:

as an unhelpful idiot; further rationale on my talk. Vulcans are supposed to have some sense, and SoV wadded-in on the side of teh toxic trolls infesting this site.

rv fuckwit; ya, you trolls have outted me)

His comments are not helpful toward building the encyclopedia and he appears to be trying to be semi-anonymous when acting as an IP, making inside jokes with his friends and then loudly claiming outing when anyone points out his publically known identity. Silverseren^C 04:59, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

As noted above by Chester, Jack has also willingly decided to over-rule the Arbcom restriction, by his own words. Silverseren^C 04:59, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: Without going into the specifics of this particular case, the Arbitration Committee will rarely stand in the way of a community decision to remove an editor from the project. Risker (talk) 05:12, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

  But you'll stand in the way of a cluful editor who called you on your bad block of GregJackP and make a plain allusion to privileged information while warning me off. Jack 09:02, 6 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.162.150.88 (talk)

• Regardless of the ban proposal though, what is Arbcom's response to Jack saying that he won't be following the restriction? Silverseren^C 05:15, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support, as he's evading his ban. GoodDay (talk) 05:16, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

• He can't be evading a ban, as he isn't banned. He is merely restricted to editing from one account. Silverseren^C 05:37, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh, well then, ban him for continuing disruptive behaviour. GoodDay (talk) 20:18, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support community ban per Silver seren, subject to reversal if checkuser indicates this isn't him. No need to allow Merridew to continue his attacks. Chester Markel (talk) 05:17, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
• Comment As far as I am aware, User:Jack Merridew is not banned. His main account is indeffed because it was compromised, so even if it is him it is impossible for him to comply with the arbcom restriction to edit from "Jack Merridew" only. N419BH 05:27, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

• The edit restriction is to edit from a single account, not the Jack Merridew one. So, thus far, in editing just from his static IP, he has been following the restrictions. But now he made a comment to the case section that he is refusing to follow them, which presumably means he is now making other accounts. Silverseren^C 05:35, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

• The restriction limits him to the account Jack Merridew by name, with the exception of an approved bot account. His main account was editing on March 26, so checkuser might be able to determine if it was really compromised, or just assumed to be because of extremely disruptive editing. But if a compromised account were the only issue, he could have created a new one such as "Jack Merridew II" to comply with the arbcom decision to the best of his ability, and refrained from characterising editors as "fuckwits"[11] and such. His recent contributions have been most unhelpful. Chester Markel (talk) 05:39, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

• This is a sad situation where an intelligent and potentially valuable editor with truly disruptive tendencies has managed to garner a lot of friends in high places due to his good aspects; which can be quite excellent. Those that have experienced and know his bad aspects are often at odds with his supporters: like we're talking about two different people . But there's no separating the good from the bad; and multiple editors have not been "harassing" him - that's absurd. It is ultimately ArbCom's call at this point, so I personally think a community ban proposal here is doomed. His increased negativity, game playing and marked incivility, especially over the last several months, has been unfortunate indeed. Doc talk 05:34, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

  "sad"? "unfortunate"? Bullshit, you want more than anything to get me. 125.162.150.88 (talk) 11:18, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

  • Look at the links to the off-wiki stuff. There's definite harassment and attempted, detailed outing there. N419BH 05:45, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
    • Then he should have privately contacted arbcom, if the material could have been shown to originate from present editors. There's no justification for swearing at and insulting everyone. This needs to stop. Chester Markel (talk) 05:51, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict)What off-wiki stuff? Are you referring to the link to a webpage made 6 months ago that he mentions himself [12] as a smear? He has posted on the Wikipedia the claim that his real name is "David", that part of one of the names of one of his socks even. And does anyone believe that's a real picture of him? Where would they find it at? Did he create that "smear" page himself, to then blame others for making it? Dream Focus 05:53, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
      • Agree that the IP is running afoul of WP:NPA. No comment on the rest of it. A checkuser is not going to confirm whether or not an IP and a named account are related, as that would be a form of outing. I'm having a hard time judging this whole situation. N419BH 05:57, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
        • In that case, almost every participant in this thread would have to be blocked for "outing". The policy does not support such a spurious result: Merridew does not get to edit via IP, then claim that any linkage of the IP and his account via checkuser violates his privacy. The privilege of concealing one's IP address only applies to editors who take measures to avoid public disclosure, by editing through named accounts only. Chester Markel (talk) 06:04, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
        • He has openly admitted that it's him several times: this is not an imposter. Doc talk 06:00, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
          • I cannot comment on that. Although any IP can say they're anyone; it's a frequent tactic used by trolls. N419BH 06:04, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
            • I agree. Let's block the IP now for either being Jack Merridew, and disruptively editing, or impersonating an editor. The remainder of the issue can be sorted out when the accounts are linked via checkuser, great similarity in editing styles, or some other means. Chester Markel (talk) 06:09, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
              • It is the same person. He admits it. His close friends and non-friends alike know that it's him. The IP is in freaking Bali. Mystery solved. Doc talk 06:11, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
                • I'm fairly certain it's him based on behavior pattern. Just playing devil's advocate for the rest. Nothing is confirmed here, we're still basing everything on speculation. N419BH 06:16, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
                  • I realized who he was after his 26th edit and told him so. This was inspired by this, BTW. And, as I pointed out on another page, "See also: Lord of teh Flies"[13] on the RfA reform board isn't exactly hiding in plain sight. To claim "outing" after you said that, well... Doc talk 06:32, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
                    • That one's in the checkuser policies. They won't publicly connect a specific IP to a named account. They might connect a large range, an ISP, or a geographic range. But revealing a specific IP could be used to determine the person's real life identity. N419BH 06:43, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
                      • This situation does not require CU assistance. Doc talk 07:00, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
                        • But what if it did? Is this the new way to sock Wikipedia: edit from an IP, secure in the knowledge that Checkusers will never connect it to a named account, notwithstanding that the IP is already disclosed when one is editing with it? Then such cases might have to be referred to arbcom, and the IP/accounts blocked with "please contact the Arbitration Committee" to avoid publicly associating the sock with the sockmaster. That sort of thing foists an impossible workload upon the arbitrators. If the privacy policy really is so twisted, which I doubt, then it urgently needs to be changed. Chester Markel (talk) 08:41, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Please see this recent statement from the AUSC. Risker (talk) 12:37, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

This is a whole lot more complicated than some guy editing from his IP. If you really want to get the full perspective you'd better start looking through all the arbitration proceedings and ANI threads that have affected Jack and his sock drawer over the years. You'll also need to look through the contributions of the IP. For admins, this will be a bit easier as Jack had links to them in his now deleted userpage. There is a ton of information to digest. Some of it is good, some of it is bad. The whole thing makes me believe that this particular thread is missing the boat. There's a whole lot more going on here, both good and bad, that the regular ANI reader doesn't know. This is really one for the Arbitration Committee to handle. N419BH 08:57, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support His recent actions alone are justification for his banning. Dream Focus 05:42, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
• Ban evasion isn't an issue here, as none of his accounts was banned, and the decision to limit him to one account is not really being violated in spirit, if perhaps it is in letter (per those above). It's his behaviour right now that's the real issue, with his outpouring of profanity directed at others, and this is going to eventually net him a ban if he keeps it up. I'm not in favour of a ban for the time being, since the normal results of this sort of incivility would be a short block, but I'm quite sure he will get banned if he keeps this up. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:47, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Merridew's incivility does not occur on a blank slate. It needs to be considered in the context of the prior history of disruption which required Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jack Merridew ban review motion to be decided at all. Chester Markel (talk) 05:56, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

But isn't deceiving the community via dodging scrutiny by using IPs an issue? How can WP:CLEANSTART apply here when we well know who this is? The only other question is, why is this being done? I am not going to pry, but I can see why this is irking quite a few people. –MuZemike 06:17, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

"Scuttled" is listed as the userpage for the accounts. And clean start doesn't appear to be being invoked as the IP claims to be Jack. N419BH 06:31, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

He claims to be Jack only when it suits him: otherwise it's off to the false outing/harassment claims. Who removes a SPI notification with, "rm wp:hounding"? Are editors supposed to know it's him, and not to "hound" him with standard notifications? Or what? Doc talk 08:21, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

MuZemike, I'd have the same thought except that he's self-identified as Jack Merridew, which means no deception. If he's previously been less than upfront about it, as some here have suggested (I haven't seen the whole history), then yes, that's a definite strike against him. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 10:15, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Jack's been very open about his past. N419BH 10:20, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

• Seeing as the committee is discussing this, is there an urgent need for admin action right now? Let Arbcom earn their inflated salaries. pablo 11:21, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

  See also

  {{stuck}}: teh ac doesn't usually resolve disputes, it prolongs them. The emergence of the ARS is due to the failure of the two E&C cases. The 2005-ac borked my initial case with white cat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.162.150.88 (talk) 11:35, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

• Propose a temporary prohibition on his unregistered editing to go along with the one-account restriction. Should put a dampner on all this is-he-isn't-he disruption. Pick an account and stick to it, and let it be a record of your actions that you may be held accountable by, like the rest of us. Skomorokh 12:42, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Support community ban explicitly set to terminate if ArbComm determines new conditions under which the individual involved is allowed to edit and the individual complies with all initial conditions set by ArbComm. This more or less resets the situation to where it was before he was previously unbanned by ArbComm, since his own actions to compromise his own account made the previous ruling nonfunctional. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:44, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Oppose ban. A little recent history here. Recently David applied to have the last of his Arbcom restrictions lifted Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Jack Merridew ban review motion#Further discussion and was treated rather poorly. Note in particular Coren's remarks. After this he decided to withdraw his services, a la John Galt. He quit using the Jack acct, switched to the Gold Hat account. No one blocked him for doing this. People on the arbitration committee knew that Gold Hat was David; I told Elen so myself. Fast forward a bit, to the discussion on My76Strat's talk page after his failed RFA. David makes a pointy edit that not only is RFA "borked", so is Arbcom. Elen eventually blocks him for repeatedly re-inserting this post. Apparently she thought it was just some random troll. Had she already forgotten who Gold Hat is? This was a bad block because the post was not vanalism or a personal attack. Meanwhile no decision is forthcoming as to whether David is to be permanently tied to the Jack Merridew account. Why on earth would he want to be tied to that account, when there are at least two libellous pages tying the Jack Merridew account to his real life identity elsewhere on the web? I would swear a bit too if that happened to me, trust me on this. But recent threads have proven though that swearing alone is not a blockable offense, much less reason for a ban. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 16:48, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Support ban. I don't know Jack very well but I'm well aware of who he is. If he had come to Wikipedia with the expressed intent to restart his Wikipedia activity in a civil manner, from a new registered account (and only one account) I'd support that. But he's being openly defiant, he doesn't want to abide by the terms set when his previous ban was lifted even in spirit, let alone by the letter. His present behavior does more harm to Wikipedia than good. Much of what he's doing right now just boils down to a violation of WP:POINT, specifically where he says, "The Wikimedia Foundation, which oversees all WMF projects including Wikipedia, has declared open editing to be a founding principle." While the statement is true, this kind of activism isn't going to help anything. -- Atama頭 16:55, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Support ban He is again, or is it still, thumbing his nose at everyone. He purposefully killed his two accounts and now he is playing games with everyone. This is ridiculous already, enough is enough, CrohnieGal^Talk 17:06, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose As per my usual position about draconian solutions. A "ban" is precisely the wrong sort of way to handle Merridew at best. Collect (talk) 22:02, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose and immediately overturn block. Read the Arbcom restriction again. Jack is restricted to one named account "Jack Merridew". There is no restriction regarding editing "anonymously" from IPs. He's not socking if he isn't editing from named accounts. Furthermore, Jack has no access to "Jack Merridew" as he scrambled the password to it. All this was done as a result of an Arbcom decision to keep his editing restrictions in place indefinitely. Those restrictions stem from a 2005 arbcom case which was later proven to be messed up. Jack's been fighting his way back ever since. I think in light of these circumstances the fact that the committee hasn't accepted over two years of mostly stellar editing and has kept him restricted would make one just a wee bit upset, no? Civility issues yes, but nothing to warrant an indef. block. And he isn't violating any restrictions by editing from the IP. And we don't block IPs indefinitely. And he's stated that IP is a public wifi hotspot. So he's not the only one who might try to edit from it. Unblock the IP and let arbcom handle it. N419BH 19:51, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

See below, Arbcom have dealt with it; they unbanned him under an agreement he explicitly broke. IP editing has nothing to do with it – he is community banned. Skomorokh 23:27, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose ban, per Diannaa and Arbcom's general ongoing mishandling/ignoring of this situation  pablo 00:25, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support ban - It seems as if Jack Merridew has decided that rules don't apply to him, that's the subtext not only of this particular set of incidents, but of his long editing career under previous IDs. I understand that some folks think that he is a good, or even excellent, content provider. I cannot gainsay them, since I've never looked into his contributions in that way, but I have no reason to believe that they're not correct. If so, then it's a shame that an editor who is otherwise such a benefit to the project seems to be constitutionally unable to act within the confines of the boundaries that the community has set up for itself, either directly or through their elected representatives. Jack has been given many chances to show that he wants to be a viable part of the community, and his ultimate response has been to thumb his nose at us each time. I don't believe it's any longer worthwhile to continue to give him the benefit of the doubt. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:21, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
• support ban Jack doesn't play well with others. There was an attempted deal that might have maybe had a chance to work. He's stated explicitly that he's not interested in that. This is enough already. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:17, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support ban. Enough BS already; I've read the sub-threads below as well. Tijfo098 (talk) 07:49, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Just your average WP:DIVA. He's already getting too much attention here. Tijfo098 (talk) 02:21, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
    • fyi, I was involved in the issues that were the impetus of that essay, although it wasn't directed at me ;) Barong 02:44, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose ban - and I agree with User:Diannaa's comments above. One of the terms of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jack Merridew ban review motion#Indefinite block lifted with editing restrictions was "2. User:Jack Merridew is to seek out advisers to assist him in transitioning from a formal mentorship to unrestricted editing" which he complied with, and over the course of more than a year made thousands of edits that benefited the project. Then when he sought to have his restrictions lifted, he was treated shabbily and it seemed to me that reference to the Gold Hat account was flimsy and opportunistic. If he was, at that point, such a threat to the project, there should have been something stronger to point at than Gold Hat; Gold Hat's contributions were minor and innocuous, but rather than look at the good Jack Merridew had done, Gold Hat was the focus. If Arbcom was aware of the Gold Hat account and did nothing, couldn't that be interpreted as not opposing it? It would have been fairer on Jack if Gold Hat had not been permitted to edit from the start. If I was in his situation I'd feel angry and betrayed, and if that's what he's feeling, that's what's being seen in his recent edits. Rossrs (talk) 08:19, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support ban Jack has wilfully defied what he agreed to with the Arbitration Committee. The restriction is incredibly clear- one account and one account only. No Gold Hat, no IP editing. One account, and the name of that account must be Jack Merridew. Given his knowing disregard of that restriction, there is no other option- if you agree to clear set of unban conditions with the ArbCom, you must either keep them or be rebanned. --Courcelles 08:22, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

  it is inappropriate to tie me to things such as http://www.pissitupthewall.com/2010/11/wikipedia-lock-your-kids-up.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.162.150.88 (talk) 08:38, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose ban per N419BH and Diannaa, but implore Jack to stop the outbursts before he digs himself into an even deeper hole. -- œ^™ 08:47, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support ban Just the past week's pattern of grotesque incivility and personal attacks on other users and even an admin should be enough for a ban. However based on his history of wikihounding other editors with whom he has issues with, massive sockpuppetry, and routine incivility in edit summaries and talk page comments, it's mind-boggling to me that he's getting any support whatsoever. At no point has he been apologetic about past or current actions, and he seems to believe that the rules that apply to everyone else don't apply to him. It's time to end this toxicity.Shemeska (talk) 11:51, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Shemeska (user contributions), I'm curious to know what brings you here. Aside from 2 updates to your user page, your last contribution to Wikipedia was this comment at ANI also about Jack Merridew on 7 June 2010, which was your only edit for 2010 outside of your user page. You comment about "fellow travellers (who) defend (Jack) at each step of the way". Quite hypocritical, considering that your next edit, almost a year later is this one in which you join in with "the fellow travellers" who wish to see Jack Merridew banned. You're absent for almost a year and then when Jack's in trouble, not only do you know about it, but you feel compelled to comment upon it, while your interest in Wikipedia aside from Jack, appears currently to be zero. Well, I feel compelled to comment on someone who appears to be wanting to just join a lynch mob, but otherwise have no stake in the outcome. ANI should not be about people taking sides and casting votes to make up numbers, and I can't see anything more than that in your participation. I am curious how you knew about this ANI, and why in 2 years of editing, your edits consist of only 4 edits (2 adjustments to your user page, and 2 ANI comments supporting a ban of Jack Merridew.) Why are you so interested in Jack? Rossrs (talk) 00:45, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose community ban. (@Shemeska: and you seem to believe that there's a special rule about the heinousness of being rude to admins. "Massive" sockpuppetry? Oh, get a grip.) I expect it's too late: a new Peter Damian case (and what a waste was that?) seems to be already taking shape. The "Jack Merridew" case is all about timing: with exceptionally poor timing at the ban review motion, as if expressly chosen to humiliate a proud user, Risker and Coren expressed intolerant resentment of Jack's "defiance", of "thumbing one's nose", and "horsing around with collections of accounts" (yes? so? would you like to look Bishzilla in the eye and repeat that?).[14][15] I notice Atama and ChronieGal happily adopting these expressions above — altogether, this poll reminds me of the IRC discussions amongst poorly informed users I've listened to, of all the triumphs we can easily and cheaply enjoy against Peter Damian, heh heh. Risker's point that she would have been prepared to lift Jack's remaining restrictions if only it weren't for his "defiance" is downright depressing.[16] What kind of time was the ban review "Jack" had requested to say that? It was too late, as Elen of the Roads pointed out: "Jack" was already expecting the sanctions to be lifted, he had no reason not to expect it.[17] Because those sanctions were vestigial, they seemed to have no other purpose than to humiliate an annoyingly non-humble editor. So is that what the arbcom is about: humiliation? No, I don't think that. I think they do their best. Some of them merely suffered a disastrous failure of imagination in this case. :-( "Jack"'s anger and disappointment at this point is understandable; and, sadly, having been fucked over, he went on to angrily misbehave. He's doing the digging himself, which is why I fear a continued downward spiral, but certainly it was arbcom that handed him a spade and encouraged him to use it. P.S. I would take it as a personal favour if the users who are all over this thread — you know who you are — would rein themselves in a little. Do you really have the impression that your input here is winning hearts and minds by sheer vindictive repetition? Bishonen | talk 14:14, 7 May 2011 (UTC).
• Hold/Pause until this has been clarified. (thanks Sko). I did notice that the language from 125.whatever.whatever.88 got a bit OTT rough around the edges recently, but it seems there's enough confusion here to frustrate just about anyone. It's been a while, but IIRC, "Jack" was/can be quite a valuable content contributor, even though I seem to remember that he could stir up some ka ka from time to time. However, I don't ever recall him stating that he was out to "bring down WP" a la PD.— Ched :  ?  16:59, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Looks like the Arbs aren't going to answer that [technical] question. Tijfo098 (talk) 02:23, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support ban per Courcelles and Shemeska, among others. This is an ugly mess, and I understand the opposers concerns, but from what I have read in this too-long thread, it appears that this editor is abusive and proud of it, not to mention flouting ArbCom. Long history of violations and personal attacks. Let's pull the plug here and now, as I am tired of this kind of user who pushes others away from the project. Not convinced banning an IP is bad either. Jusdafax 20:53, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support ban per above. Guaranteed in a year, Jack will try to come back yet again to game the system with sympathetic arbcoms willing to give him yet another chance. Jack gets off-wiki blowback because he has a long history of being nasty to editors. Okip 15:31, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support ban per above. I've never been able to understand why this person hasn't been banned and why they have been continually allowed to periodically show up and disrupt the project. If they really wanted a clean start and were going to play by the rules, they could have returned as an IP or new account, followed the rules and never been noticed. This has never happened, as they continually fall far short of acceptable behavior eventually. A community ban would let any editor revert unaccceptable behavior on sight. Such threads as this overlong nightmare will disappear, leaving only the occasional blip when someone acknowledges "Jack was here, blocked indef as sock of banned user, thread closed". Let him get his jollies elsewhere. Whatever he might contribute in worthwhile content is not worth his continued disruptive presence here. Heiro 02:55, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose ban if it's still being considered given Rd232's offer below and Jack's acceptance of it. As he has agreed to "register a new account, and to edit exclusively with that account" this seems like a reasonable way to meet the spirit of his ArbCom restriction (until and unless ArbCom says it isn't.) 28bytes (talk) 03:10, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose ban, largely per Bishonen above. The whole story of the lifting the old sanctions, not lifting them, re-imposing them, protesting against them, trolling against them, replacing them with new ones, etc etc ad infinitum, has only been a perpetuated drama for drama's sake, and bears no relation to the actual, productive editing that we have seen from Jack in the meantime. Fut.Perf. ☼ 04:57, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose ban Barong/Jack Merridew is an excellent contributor who definitely has a clue. We want to be retaining editors like him, not saddling them with useless restrictions. He has more than made up for past transgressions, and ArbCom's reticence in removing the sanctions makes no sense. If you muzzle anyone too long without need they're going to act out. Please don't drive off another good editor. AniMate 06:07, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose ban I fail to see the reason to ban him. He has been open about who he is and tbh his incivility isn't that bad yet. --Guerillero | My Talk 16:40, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

In violation of unbanning conditions?

The history is a little convoluted, but Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jack Merridew ban review motion seems to indicate that Jack Merridew's original ban was lifted with this condition:

User:Jack Merridew agrees to edit from one account only "Jack Merridew" on all WMF wikis and unifies that account.

The amendment to this augmented the condition as follows:

User:Jack Merridew agrees to edit from one account only "Jack Merridew" on all WMF wikis with the exception of an additional bot account approved through the regular process, and agrees to not edit using open proxies.

As his February 2011 request for amendment failed, and he subsequently withdrew agreement to the above conditions, it seems to me as if he is editing in violation of the unbanning conditions and therefore banned. Am I missing something? Skomorokh 14:03, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Exactly; that's why I was confused when I started reading this ANI. Why are these motions being tried again here when a ban is already in force? Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:29, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

He posted his password, thereby corrupting the Jack Merridew account. Nobody put a gun to his head. People don't do that by accident - it's your password. By doing that he willfully broke the binding agreement to edit only under the Jack Merridew account on March 25, well before his declaration of withdrawal as an IP. Is the AC agreement binding? Doc talk 15:31, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

It was a ArbCom motion which was passed by 9 arbitrators at the time, so yes. An indefinite block would be replaced on the main account, but obviously, that's a bit confusing given it wasn't the main account which prompted this. (Additionally, main account was blocked in March as "compromised account"). Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:18, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Request for clarification filed on this point. Skomorokh 12:18, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

• Since ArbCom couldn't make a consistent or intelligible statement regarding the Gold Hat account (first it was deemed OK then a few weeks later it was a "bad idea"), I have little faith that any "clarification" from them is going to do more than further muddy the waters. Assuming they succeed in putting together something that's not blatantly self-contradictory. Reyk _YO! 23:12, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Indefinite block

I have indefinitely blocked for several reasons - recent disruptive behavior, personal attacks [18], the likelyhood that he's now violating the prior arbcom findings, the apparent likelyhood that he's going to be community banned in the section above.

Subject to usual community review etc. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:52, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Seems like the right call. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:36, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

He has specifically stated that he will no longer be following the restriction. For all we know, he could already have another account up and running, if not more. Furthermore, it is a common fact that we generally block people when they made statements saying that they plan on making disruptive actions in the future and Jack has specifically stated that he has decided not to follow the restriction anymore, thus this, combined with his other recent actions, show that he has become overly disruptive. And an indefinite block is not forever, GWH specifically stated that it is until Arbcom makes a decision or until this community ban proposal is decided. This is to mitigate the disruption that Jack has already been showing. Silverseren^C 20:03, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

An appropriate block. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:24, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it's not appropriate. At best it's incompetent. Please read WP:IPBLENGTH. Any administrator worth their salt knows that we only indefinitely block IP addresses in extreme circumstances. Perhaps a block was warranted, but this isn't the way to do it. Even should the community decide the public hot spot IP Jack is using needs to be indefinitely blocked, there are templates that should be placed so it can be tracked because indefinitely blocking IPs is so rare. That didn't happen either. Even rookie admins know better. AniMate 02:13, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Then can you fix the block so that it's still a block, but in the proper format for IP addresses? That shouldn't be too difficult to do. Silverseren^C 02:38, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

It's not the format, it's the length (or lack thereof) that's the problem. We only indefinitely block IPs in extreme circumstances, usually because they're an open proxy. Also, I don't think I should be the admin to deal with this block. I've had too many negative experiences with most of the complainers above and agree with too many of jack's positions. If anything, I'd prefer to give him a warning or block for a month. AniMate 02:50, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

• I have unblocked the IP. Firstly civility blocks don't work and the length is way inappropriate to the offence. Secondly an indef block for a public ip is not an acceptable policy based action, thirdly I am not seeing a clear consensus to ban Jack above so blocking the ip for that reason at this stage is inappropriate. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:36, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I note that you did not, as required, discuss the unblock with the blocking admin before undoing it, rather unblocked first and then told him that you had done it. Bad form, very bad form. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:50, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

George hasn't responded to the comments on his talk so it clearly offline. We shouldn't ready do controversial blocks if we are not here to discuss them afterwards so I didn't feel that leaving a token message or waiting for him to come back was appropriate. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:53, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

So, in your opinion, no one can ever do a "controversial block" if they aren't planning on being online for the next 12 hours or so?

Further, unblocking on the basis that "Civility blocks don't work" has nothing whatsoever to do with policy, and everything to do with your own personal opinion. You are free to have that opinion, and to avoid making civility blocks because of it, but it's not policy, and it's certainly not a reason to overturn another admin's block, especially without discussing it first. Your action was neither collegial nor appropriate. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:57, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Neither was the original block but we can leave a public ip blocked while we sit around waiting for George to come on line shall we? I'd be less inclined to unblock if it was a user account block but for an indef of an ip? No that's perfectly justifiable to act without waiting. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:10, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm encouraged that you investigated and determined that others beside Jack have been using this IP lately, and so are acting to protect their access to Wikipeia.

You did do that, didn't you? Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:07, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

• Good unblock. Clearly the right thing to do. Reyk _YO! 04:00, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Is he or is he not in violation of the AC agreement? Has it expired? Is it being ignored by the AC as well as Jack? We all have to follow rules around here, despite what IAR is often misinterpreted to mean. When you're on a restriction you abide by it, you don't play pointy games and make up your own version of the rules. Doc talk 04:02, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

No, I do not agree that he is. Reyk _YO! 04:06, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Can you please elaborate? I know that you've defended Jack in the past (from a quick search I just did), so without any explanation for your current comments, it looks as if you are just repeating over and over that Jack didn't do anything wrong without actually looking at or considering exactly what he has done wrong. Silverseren^C 04:31, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

(ec)How do you figure? He deliberately corrupted the accounts after his bid for a sock cavalcade fell through. Mind you, he said just two months ago, "These accounts are my history, and I'm not seeking to walk away from them."[19] Then he found out he couldn't have his socks. This horseplop about him being ashamed of what others say about him off-wiki is just ridiculous. His ED page has been up for ages. Doc talk 04:17, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

He's stated that he's not going to comply with the unban conditions, and he's engaged in extreme uncivility. This shouldn't be that complicated. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:15, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Unblock confusion

I am somewhat confused on the unblock here.

I was online for some hours after issuing the block, contrary to Spartaz' comments. N419BH asked me to consider reversal and I did not respond to him, but that does not mean that I didn't read or consider his comment. N419BH made similar ANI comments before regarding Jack and they had been addressed in the discussion about the ban (and otherwise) above already. Nothing novel was in the unblock request other than that this was "Unblock him" rather than "Don't ban him". Admins are required to be engaged, but we're not required to respond to *everything*...

The unblock was apparently 9 hrs later. No, I wasn't online for 9 hrs after issuing it. Not a reasonable expectation.

The unblock seems to have hinged on three alleged flaws; one, that there was no consensus to ban Jack, two, that this was alledgedly a civility block, and three, that this was a permanent block on an IP. None of these was true.

This was a block for all of:

1. No personal attacks
2. Disruption
3. Violation of editing restrictions

The personal attack was clearly a personal attack - the exact phrase was "Oppose as an unhelpful idiot". This is not a civility issue, it's a personal attack. NPA is NPA.

A very large number of editors and admins have commented that his recent behavior was disruptive.

While there is still active debate about whether he's violating the editing restrictions, there is a majority opinion that he was. I don't know that it rises to the level of consensus, but it clearly has more "He's violating" than the alternative.

Regarding the unblock reasons -

1. There was an 8-2 expressed support-oppose opinion balance at the time of block, with significant additional discussion that by editor count was similiarly 75% plus supporting ban.
2. I used the phrase "personal attack" in the block message [20]. Civility was not mentioned once.
3. This was not a permanent block on an IP. It was an indefinite block, and I quote, "Until the situation is clarified with regards to a community ban, Arbcom decides to do something, or another administrator decides to override based on their review of the situation.". It was indefinite to indicate that it was not a short-term bandaid, not to violate our permanent blocks on IP addresses policy. In cases where IPs are effectively uniquely identified to a known problem user we're allowed to bend the IP block policy in any case, but in this one it was certainly acceptable to leave it "To be determined" while the rest of the above were sorted out. If you feel that it's grossly inappropriate to do so under the IP blocking policy, I ask that you explain how you think we're going to enact a ban if one is consensused-upon above? Do you think we can't ban him if he only uses IPs now?

Spartaz - The best practice here is to try to discuss with the blocking admin, or if that fails to get consensus on a noticeboard that the block was improper. We don't mandate that, but we do ask for admins to use due care and good judgement when acting otherwise. It does not appear to me that you used due care and judgement here.

I appreciate Jack's long constructive history as much as anyone else, but bending the rules to let him keep abusing people when he's clearly started doing so and indicated he has no interest in stopping was not a good call. Had the block actually clearly violated policy you could have gotten a solid consensus on that here within minutes. That the opposite happened should be an indication that this was a bad unblock. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:53, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

• It was a bad block for a start. You don't indef people while a ban discussion is in place and you should know by now that we don't indef IPs without a very good reason and calling Sarek an idiot is far from a good enough reason for that. Your whole argument presupposes that there is widespread support for a block and there wasn't. Blocking while there is an ongoing discussion is just bad manners and substitutes your opinion for a forming consensus.We already know that you are pretty much the most extreme proponent of the civility block here and that your opinion does not therefore represent a community consensus. You should have proposed the block before enacting it and then listening to consensus on it. There was no justification for acting unilaterally when there was already a discussion in place. I don't see a consensus to ban and 70-80% including a number of very involved editors is far from a consensus for a community ban. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:04, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

There's no way to avoid "very involved editors" - the closing admin is supposed to factor in prior entanglements, but that does not mean or equate to disenfranchising those with prior negative interactions with the potential banee.

Blocking while a community discussion is in place is like blocking while an arbcom case is in discussion - unusual, but not unheard of. Both happen. I have done both, without any being challenged that I can recall. Being the subject of an arbcom case or a community ban discussion is in no way a get out of jail free card that allows people to disrupt or make personal attacks or violate existing sanctions or other policy. We are obviously and carefully conscious of not keeping people from participating in discussions on their own fate, but that doesn't mean they can do anything they want and get away with it.

I do not understand how you can look at the discussion above and feel that I am adopting a particularly extreme position with regards to Jack here. There's clearly a consensus that Jack's being abusive and has violated policy in several ways. Whether that results in a ban or not is up to the community, who are still arguing over it. Many of those advocating not banning have advocated blocking for the recent events.

Again - You're making up straw man arguments that you allege are why I blocked, which are not what I blocked for, and not what I said I blocked for. You seem to be the only person disputing that the stated arguments are valid. A number of persons disagree with banning him for them, but you seem to be saying "No, they don't count at all", which does not seem at all reasonable.

I'm all for having uninvolved admins review and use their judgement, but there's something wrong here. I am not going to do any wheel-warring of any sort. Would you please disqualify yourself as well from any further action and step back, and let others handle this? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:44, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Are we indefinitely blocking IPs now?

This is an astonishing bit of overkill. We don't block IPs indefinitely, especially when they've stated they're editing from a public hot spot. AniMate 01:11, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, apparently we do. Not open editing's finest hour. pablo 01:15, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

A one year block on the IP would probably be sufficient. Chester Markel (talk) 01:16, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Some IPs are static enough in that they could be indefinitely blocked. Other reasons may be that the owner requests as such. Finally, we have some open proxies which must be indefinitely blocked. Please see Category:Indefinitely blocked IP addresses and Category:Open proxies blocked on Wikipedia for details. That is not to say that the indefinite IP block was appropriate, but I just want to point out that some IPs are indefinitely blocked and why. –MuZemike 08:00, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

On the other hand, I'd point out that most of the tens of thousands of IPs in CAT:OP are no longer open proxies and should be unblocked. Indefinite blocks for IP addresses are only OK when they are kept under review. It is often too easy for the blocks to remain unreviewed. A fixed expiry, even if it's years ahead, prevents this kind of oversight. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 08:07, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Note about this IP

I have asked a steward to check IP 125.162.150.88, and he has verified that it is an open proxy with three ports open. It is also on several blacklists. Given the discussion in this section, I will not automatically reblock this IP but will await some other thoughts; however, on this project we normally block open proxies for a year. If there are no specific, policy-based objections to my doing so in the next 3 hours, I will block it at the end of that time per our usual process for blocking open proxies. Risker (talk) 04:33, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Wasn't "and agrees to not edit using open proxies" part of the unban agreement as well? What does that mean? Doc talk 04:45, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not disputing that at all. However, the IP was already blocked once today, and then unblocked. It would be poor form for an arbitrator to wheel-war; hence the advance notice with the detailed reason why I intend to reblock this IP address. This is an IP that would normally be blocked by any administrator who identified that it was an open proxy, whether or not a troubled editor was using it. Risker (talk) 04:50, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Quite frankly, it's time to shut this door, and shut it tight. There is a clear restriction on the books that this individual can only edit using the "Jack Merridew" account. No exceptions. It's time to block this IP, and actually enforce the ArbCom's ruling. Courcelles 04:52, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Please. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:04, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree there is no problem blocking an open proxy. If this doesn't wind up being the final answer, I note that Arbcom provided a sanction provision in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jack Merridew ban review motion: "Should Jack Merridew violate the restrictions imposed upon him in this decision, he may be blocked for one year by any uninvolved administrator, with any blocks to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jack Merridew ban review motion#Log of blocks and bans". This would allow the matter to be raised at WP:Arbitration enforcement for a full discussion. If a block was issued, it would be a {{uw-aeblock}}, which would in theory give it more finality than a regular ANI block. If even this prospect is too divisive, the matter could be handed to Arbcom for them to consider a motion. EdJohnston (talk) 05:24, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

the year-block clause was lifted by the 2009 motion further down (when I was commended for a clear return, yet still saddled with a few restrictions). The ac need to pass a motion; they've been stuck on this since January. 125.162.150.88 (talk) 06:24, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh, you mean the section which says:

After reviewing User:Jack Merridew's ban at his request, the Arbitration Committee agreed to unblock his account on December 9th, 2008 with the above conditions.

Jack Merridew is to be commended for making a clean return from an indefinite ban. On review of the past year, the Arbitration Committee replaces the previous motion with the following conditions:

1. User:Jack Merridew agrees to edit from one account only "Jack Merridew" on all WMF wikis with the exception of an additional bot account approved through the regular process, and agrees to not edit using open proxies.

2. User:Jack Merridew is to seek out advisers to assist him in transitioning from a formal mentorship to unrestricted editing.

3. User:Jack Merridew agrees that the same as any other editor, he is to follow Wikipedia policy and guidelines, and follow dispute resolution processes to resolve editing conflicts with the understanding that misconduct could result in blocks or Community editing restrictions.

4. User:Jack Merridew will note his agreement with the terms of this motion on this page.

Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:43, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

...So are all publicly accessible networks open proxies now? If they are we'd better start blocking every single school, university, company, and private unsecured WiFi network in existence. We'll also have to block every cell phone network. Get busy. N419BH 05:50, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

This IP is a public hotspot offered by a restaurant to patrons. A few people even know the restaurant. The IP is the Indonesian national phone company's, one of their 'Speedy' (DSL) connections. Such connections are the norm here and the Jack account edited for years on the prior IP that was serving this restaurant (which was 125.162.164.51). I also informed John Vandenberg that I was on this IP a month ago ;) 125.162.150.88 (talk) 05:41, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I interpret Risker's comment as stating that the open proxy determination was based on a port scan, not local accessibility through a wireless network. If this is the case, then the IP can be used by anyone on the internet, from any location. It's not our fault that the computer isn't properly secured. Chester Markel (talk) 06:29, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Well if this is true, and Jack's comment that such connections are "the norm" in Indonesia, then are you saying we'll have to block the entire country from editing? N419BH 06:33, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

By "the norm", he seemed to mean wireless connections with local public access, not actual open proxies. Chester Markel (talk) 06:35, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to remind people that scanning IP addresses, and finding open or closed ports, can never confirm whether an IP is an open proxy. So many bad proxy blocks are based on finding open ports. Blacklists are even less trustworthy. If this is an open proxy, someone else should be able to prove it by using it. I think that's quite unlikely. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 07:16, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

The steward has given a wrong assessment of this IP. How about he creates an account, and it is block for a week for the various incivilities, and then he come back and resumes where he left off, given he loves us so much and couldnt quit ;-) John Vandenberg ^(chat) 06:51, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

And how exactly do you know that the steward is wrong about the IP address being an open proxy? Silverseren^C 07:08, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

doubleplus-clue. 125.162.150.88 (talk) 07:13, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Stewards are often wrong about open proxies :p There is no evidence that this is an open proxy. Please ask the steward to use it for editing, in order to be convincing. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 07:16, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Nobody has provided a shred of evidence to support the theory that it is an open proxy, and Occam told me it wasn't. Based on purely technical information, that IP is extremely unlikely to an open proxy, and the steward should be trouted. Additional information which can be obtained very easily corroborates the story given by Jack. Of course it could be an elaborate trick, .. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 07:25, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Definitely isn't an open proxy. I've used a tool which tests the IP checking if it is a proxy or just an IP, the results showed that it is in fact just an IP. Bidgee (talk) 14:22, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

No tool can be definite about that. You might get a good hit rate, but it can't be definite. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:48, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

• I read the the statement from an arb that this was a proxy and blocked it per policy so I'm slightly embarrassed to finish reading the section to see its proxy statement is in doubt so I unblocked it again.. Just to be clear as the unblocking admin I have no problems with an open proxy being blocked - if that is the consensus of what we are dealing with. I'm hardly covering myself in glory today so I'm going to bow out and take my kids shopping for the rest of the day. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:27, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Ah Spartaz. Good decision to take some time with your family. Perhaps not moving ahead on something that is still under discussion might be a good idea in the future.

As for me, I noted that I was intending to make a policy-based open proxy block, but further evidence has persuaded me that there is not universal agreement in interpreting the data I'd been provided; John Vandenberg, who is also an experienced checkuser, has more familiarity with open proxies than do I and I will defer to him. (This is the kind of policy-based reason not to block that justified my not immediately blocking.) This discussion can resume on the topic of whether or not the community has found Jack's/the IP's behaviour disruptive to the point that it feels he should be removed from the project. Risker (talk) 07:40, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

fwiw, I've glossed over this IPs contribs and believe I've made every one of the edits so far this year. The ones in 2009 are not me (some vandal at a nice restaurant, or the IP was assigned elsewhere then... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.162.150.88 (talk) 07:38, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

As this is a bit of a train wreck

Anyone got an executive summary of the situation? My understanding of the above is:

1. user:Jack Merridew is participating from 125.162.150.88.
2. Under the terms of the original ArbCom unban, he was limited to editing only under user:Jack Merridew.
3. On 25 April, he withdrew from that agreement with this edit. The purpose would seem to be to be able to adopt a new pseudonym which didn't carry the baggage (i.e. years of being used an a boogieman) of the JM account.

Furthermore, there's another tangent regarding the nature of the IP:

1. 125.162.150.88 is apparently an unsecured public wifi hotspot.
2. It has been argued that this constitutes the use of an open proxy.
3. That would violate the unban agreement even if it were accepted that JM were free to start a new pseudonymous account.

I consider this one to be a red herring given the above facts.

Is there more to it than this?

Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 08:44, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Jack cannot edit from "Jack Merridew" as the account is scrambled and compromised. There is also a question as to whether or not the restriction limits him to "one named account" or "one, named account" (the former would restrict Jack to "Jack Merridew" but possibly allow IP editing subject to compliance with the sockpuppetry policy, the latter would presumably not allow ip editing; the wording of the restriction uses the former). The "Open Proxy" question is a red herring in my opinion. Arbcom is apparently also discussing the present situation privately as noted from a couple postings by at least one of them on their talk pages. Think that's most of it...agree it's a bit of a train wreck. N419BH 08:50, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand how it's totally lost on many that he was just asking for all his accounts to be unblocked. Is that "shame" of being Jack Merridew? His last post seems to indicate that we must let him edit anonymously in order to protect him from off-wiki attacks. Am I reading this right? Doc talk 08:56, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Don't forget to add his actions over the past few days, which are also a part of the report. This includes edit warring and going over the 3RR limit (twice, I believe, or once and then going right back to exactly 3RR after his 24 hours block ended), not to mention the massive amounts of incivility and the recent personal attack made against SoV. Silverseren^C 10:24, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Chris, I think there's disagreement over your initial point 2 above; some read the condition as "he may only edit using the account Jack Merridew" and others as "the only account he may edit under is Jack Merridew". Jack seems to have adopted the loophole in the second reading in editing as an IP. Skomorokh 12:21, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the edit warring, the user formerly known as Jack repeatedly removed this post, part of which constitutes a personal attack. I removed it twice myself on that basis. I am unclear why people would edit war to keep such a post on the page when the post is offensive and derogatory (IMHO). I would like to remind people that the same folks posting here over and over again does not constitute consensus. Skomorokh has posted eight times to this discussion, Silver Seren eleven times to last week's discussion and nine times to this one, and Doc9871 has posted twelve times to the discussion. It is hardly surprising that the IP feels like he is being railroaded. Sincerely, --Diannaa ^(Talk) 13:36, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me? I have no horse in this race. Explain yourself please. Skomorokh 13:51, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

There's nothing to explain, really. I was just counting the posts. I agree you and the IP do not seem to have any prior history. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 13:59, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I apologise for listing you. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 14:04, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I notice you've counted a few editors who have over-contributed, but I think there's also a problem with an editor who magically appears to rip into Jack. User:Shemeska has only made 4 edits in the last 2 years (2 to his user page, and 2 supporting a ban for Jack Merridew). I've commented here, above. Rossrs (talk) 00:53, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

So, would you people agree if someone were to help the guy post his edits (proxy editing)? After all, he considers the whole thing toxic, and so he should not be concerned about following toxic rules. Scuttled user (talk) 15:09, 7 May 2011 (UTC)Unrelated trolling struck. TNXMan 16:32, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Digging and digging... -- œ^™ 17:32, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the person whose comment I struck wasn't Jack Merridew - it was an unrelated troll. TNXMan 17:53, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

• that one's not me, either. but I sure do bring all the trolls out of the woodwork. that's the whole pattern, here. 125.162.150.88 (talk) 02:10, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

The counting isn't really necessary, I've posted more times than those individuals have to this discussion. The bottom line is this stems from ArbCom things and Jack's interpretation of ArbCom things, and it further stems from someone storming off in a fury after being "damned" (in his words) by ArbCom for "technical breaches" (in ArbCom's words) of old restrictions, restrictions which he had every reason to believe would be lifted, and restrictions which he had technically violated with no hammer coming down from ArbCom, again reinforcing his belief that the restrictions would be lifted. With that said, was he violating our rules on civility and edit warring while contributing from this IP? Yes. Should he have been blocked for it? Yes. Is he doing these things right now? I'd argue no. I've seen and personally experienced far worse with no blocks given, let alone a full community ban. Remember that blocks are preventative, not punitive, and must serve to prevent damage to the encyclopedia. The question that must be asked is, should Jack be allowed to create an account and edit again, would he be a net positive to the project? I think for those who have seen his old talk page and looked through his contributions as "Jack Merridew", the answer to that question is obvious. N419BH 19:14, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Shemeska's vitriol is from my having battled grawp re the thousands of NN D&D articles in late 2007. teh wiki-wariors never forget anything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.162.150.88 (talk) 02:34, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Enough

As a completely uninvolved admin, having read the preceding discussion, I find something resembling a Tortured Consensus (TM) that the user in question ("David", apparently), be required to register a new account, and to edit exclusively with that account (this meets the spirit of the Arbcom requirements, given the scuttling of the Jack Merridew account they specified). The account name should be declared here (or at least to Arbcom, if the user strenuously objects to what would be helpful transparency). If the user rejects this, they have effectively banned themselves, and should be blocked from editing as an IP. Over to you, David. Rd232 ^talk 23:58, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

G'day mates, all right, here's the new account, from a secure pool of IP addresses, and not an unsecure hotspot at a restaurant. Now it's time for you haters to find a different hobby. Sinceasked0 (talk) 00:19, 8 May 2011 (UTC) impersonator, blocked. Rd232 ^talk 02:12, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Great, thank you. Hopefully this marks a "turning a new leaf" point where all concerned allow bygones to be bygones, and a new spirit of friendly collaboration in the pursuit of developing a great encyclopedia can flower. Rd232 ^talk 01:02, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Hopefully all the restrictions will be archived. Improving articles in peace is a better job than having to fight over drama here and facing constant hassling from certain toxic personalities, mate. Sinceasked0 (talk) 01:06, 8 May 2011 (UTC) impersonator, blocked. Rd232 ^talk 02:12, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Sinceasked0 (talk · contribs) is not mine. some impersonator. Rd232, this is not a matter for the community. still have to read what's gone on in the last 18 or so hours... Barong 01:57, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

(and I've disclosed this that *is* me). Barong 02:00, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Sinceasked0 is not me; Barong is. cf Barong (mythology). 125.162.150.88 (talk) 02:03, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

OK; I thought it seemed off but not enough to publicly doubt it. I extend the sentiments to you that, er, I thought I already had (above) :) Rd232 ^talk 02:12, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I already read that. Should the impersonator account be blocked? I cannot do it, I am too involved. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 02:08, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

 Done Thank you, Rd232. -Diannaa ^(Talk) 02:11, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Incidentally, I presume the impersonator is someone already permabanned... but if possibly not, such behaviour nearly merits it on its own. Rd232 ^talk 02:15, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

dunno, don't care, really. there's an old thread somewhere (email) about my role as 'flypaper'. I am irresistible to a lot of problematic editors. someone commented above about how many are involved. easily 80% of the detractors have a long history with me. Shemeska's a fine example. off-wiki there must be a lot of noise recruiting my old enemies for this. there are a few up there that I take seriously, and I'll have to work to mend those bridges. but for the most part, this whole thread is simply a typical insipid toxic trainwreck; it's what's wrong with this project. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.162.150.88 (talk) 02:43, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

It was the same troll I blocked, above. If more impersonators pop up, please let me or another checkuser know - they're all probably the same troll. TNXMan 13:58, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

cockfight

• User:Jack Merridew/Editnotice

The owner of the place I'm staying has 4 cocks entered into a cockfight up in Taman and it starts in just a few minutes. I took pictures of them just before he set out, too. Anyway, the above editnotice contains a story about the Balinese love of their cocks, and I would like it undeleted. Terima kasih. 125.162.150.88 (talk) 02:59, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, I can't see why not, so I've done it. Rd232 ^talk 03:24, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

thanks; User:Jack Merridew/Note switch 2, too (and it may pull in something...) I'll end up asking for it all to be undeleted. Barong 03:36, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Make a list when you have a minute. On your talk page --Diannaa ^(Talk) 04:03, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I may just wait until I've done the RfC-style RfA ;) Barong 04:11, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

User:UtherSRG refusing to get the point

UtherSRG (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is an administrator here on en-wiki whose primary role (according to his logs, anyway) is tagging and deleting problematic new pages. This is not a problem; it is an area where more help would always be appreciated. The problem is that in many cases these pages are not problematic, and he has repeatedly refused to get the point.

Uther's deletions are persistently incorrect, either applying policy in a self-admittedly overly stringent fashion, or more often, crossing the line between "stringent" and "extending the rules to the point of absurdity". He deleted Jason Dormon as A7 when it appeared like so, claiming there was no evidence of significance. Ignacio Valenti Lacroix was deleted as a recreation of an article previously deleted following discussion, when in actual fact the only action undertaken on the page was his prior CSD of it. Ryeland Allison was similarly CSDd as A7, when it is beyond comprehension as to how it could fulfil the CSD criteria. Glyn Lewis was noted as a widely-published psychiatry professor who leads a department, but this is apparently no evidence of significance. Neither is the release of two albums on Universal Music, while this apparently lacks enough context to be a valid article. D S Malik's six books and 45 academic papers contain no semblance of significance, which I'm sure he'd be appalled to hear.

Occasional mistakes are fine. Occasional mistakes are to be expected. But these are not occasional mistakes - these are all from within the last 2-3 days, and he has been told about the issues. multiple users and admins, including a WMF staffer, have warned him about his attitude. His response has been most unhelpful, and are normally terse, contextless replies which give no indication that he's even accepted there's a problem, much less changed his tone as a result. This is not something new - my attention was initially drawn to him when I saw some of the helpful comments he was providing new users with. Unsure as to why their articles had been (sometimes wrongfully) deleted, they were told, for example, that he was uninterested in discussing the deletion.

Quite frankly, this has gone long enough - Uther's record over the last few days alone shows that he either doesn't understand policy or has an understanding of it so warped from the norm as to be the subject of a Twilight Zone episode. Despite multiple users and administrators telling him there's a problem, he has neither held off on acting so as to avoid screwups, or improved his behaviour and application of policy. A wall of decline notices, and he doesn't think it's worth reconsidering. I would like some general commentary on whether or not his behaviour is indeed problematic and, if so, a resolution that UtherSRG be either:

1. topic-banned from deletion work until he gets a better grasp of what is required, or;
2. initially or if he fails to follow the ban, the subject of forcible tool-removal (a far less torturous procedure than it might sound).

I'd love to resolve it with talking and asking him nicely, but asking him nicely hasn't worked; it's now time to, as I told him when I asked him to improve, move it up the food chain. Ironholds (talk) 19:15, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

RfC is the usual next step for getting more and uninvolved others' input and highlighting to the editor in question the serious nature of the problem (i.e., can lead to ArbCom yanking his admin bit, per Wikipedia:Admin#Requests for comment on administrator conduct). DMacks (talk) 19:30, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

These deletions and nominations appear to be very far out of process, and a response to a query that "I am uninterested in having discussions about CSD'd items" is outrageous for any admin. Unless he reforms his behaviour, desysopping would seem the only option. Fences&Windows 20:10, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

And that wasn't the first time he gave such a response: "I'm not interested in debating or discussing." And yet "Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed." (WP:ADMINACCT). Fences&Windows 20:12, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

• After posting this thread, a user drew my attention to the DRV here - out of process actions ignoring those who complain is apparently a long-term thing for this user. Ironholds (talk) 20:29, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

  For the sake of clarity, the DRV being referred to is "Malamanteau". —Tom Morris (talk) 20:35, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

  See also Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 April 18#Redirects in Chinese. UtherSRG told Mathpianist93 (talk · contribs): "Denied, and yes, exactly. English-language wiki article titles should be in Roman characters. I'm not going to discuss this." Cunard (talk) 09:46, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Surely the single most important thing that any admin must do is be prepared to talk about why they've done what they've done? To me, that's almost more worrying than the wrong decisions stuff. People can go through phases of making grossly wrong decisions (it's part of being human), or have mental blocks about one particular area of work (also part of being human) - but to fail completely to recognise that this is what's happening, to address it, or even to discuss it, is not a standard part-of-being-human response. Something does need to be done - this is not likely to change by itself. Pesky (talk) 05:44, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Being a relatively new admin (the newest at present), I felt a little awkward leaving a note on his talk page saying I'd declined his CSD nomination, particularly since it was pointed out in my RfA that I had a less than 100% record myself. Having looked at UtherSRG's RfA to see if his knowledge of policy was checked, I note that the degree of rigour applied in RfAs was somewhat less back then (7 years ago), and suspect he might not have fared so well today. There does appear to be a fundamental lack of understanding of the purpose and scope of CSD here, for instance: [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26].

These are all in the two weeks... I'm not a fan of reconfirmation RfAs, but with the evidence above and apparent lack of interest in engaging other editors in discussion, perhaps Uther should explore this option? Catfish Jim & the soapdish 10:07, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Yup. I have been an ass. I get overzealous on some CSDs, particularly A7 bands and people. I've been around way too long, and policies have changed dramatically in the 7 years since I first became an admin. It is difficult to keep up with them, and my old understandings slip back as the correct modus operandi, erroneously. I'm taking this as a significant wake-up call. You won't see any gross mishandlings in the future. (I can't promise no mishandlings, as I'm only human...) Mea culpa. As for not talking, yeah, I've been an ass in that way, too. I get my hackles up, especially with ignorant newbies who don't want to take the time to learn anything about what they are supposed to do to make a good article, and who then whine when anyone sneezes at their mistakes. I wonder if there is a better way to inform new accounts as to what is expected in the creation of new articles. That all said, I'm sure that doesn't address all of the concerns posted here, but may give better insight into my failures. If y'all have further questions, yes, I will answer them. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:10, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and my Wikipedia use is sporadic. I'll go for a few days or a couple of weeks, and then not have the time/interest/access/etc, as has happened in the past couple of days. My apoogies for not posting sooner. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:12, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

@Uther: I've been here a long time, too -- not as long as you, but 6 years at the end of June -- and everything you have said is true: policy has changed over the years, interpretation of policy has changed, and best practices for the implmentation of policy have changed -- and it's sometimes difficult to keep track of the moving target, especially if you don't spend a lot of time editing. Given these realities, could I suggest then that you might want to stay away from activities which may become contentious or, at least, check in to see what the current status of policy & practice is before you make those edits? I think that doing so is likely to keep your name out of the noticeboards. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:51, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I am also concerned with the way UtherSRG uses his admin powers to delete articles. I became aware that an article on the band WU LYF had been deleted even though there were articles on them in several RS, so I created a new article which included citations to various RS including the NME, the Guardian, the Observer and Rolling Stone. Needless to say I was surprised to see my sourced article deleted via CSD less than an hour after I created it. When I tried to discuss the matter with UtherSRG he said "I'm not interested in debating or discussing". [27] He stated that all articles that have previously been deleted via CSD can only be recreated via the DRV process. I asked him to point me to where it says that in the Wiki rules, but he declined.

So, I followed his instructions and opened a case at DRV where the deletion was overturned with unanimous agreement. [28] I had thought that would be the end of it, but today things started getting curious. A new user called Romancandle99 joined wikipedia at 05:10 [29] and at 05:18 they started gutting the WU LYF article deleting most of the content and ALL of the references, [30] then soon after that UtherSRG came along and listed the now-unsourced article at AfD. Now, even though there were no sources at that exact moment, giving that he had seen the article before and we'd discussed it, he knew that it used to have sources, but he nominated it for deletion anyway. The reason that I'm bringing this to your attention is because his AfD nomination was listed at 14:55, 9 May 2011 (UTC) which is after he promised to amend his ways here.

I do hope that UtherSRG moves away from the NPP for a while, because I don't think he's the right person to be deleting new articles if "ignorant newbies who don't want to take the time to learn anything about what they are supposed to do to make a good article, and who then whine when anyone sneezes at their mistakes" is how he regards new editors. Robman94 (talk) 02:40, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I made my comment to Uther above after I have voted "keep" in the AfD (I also voted "restore" in the DRV), so it definitely informed what I wrote, but I hadn't realized that Uther had opened the AfD after the assurances he gave. I find that disturbing, as it implies not that Uther is simply rusty and needs to refresh himself regarding the current state of policy, but that his behavior is deliberate, and that he is willfully ignoring what he's been told here an elsewhere. That's not good. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:28, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

There's two different issues being conflated here, I believe. I've addressed my (perceived? real? doesn't matter... perception is reality) abuse of powers and tools above. However, AfD has always been a tool of the masses, the the last best place for garnering a consensus as to an article's validity. Anyone can nominate an article for AfD. When I see a conflict over an article's validity, even after other processes have worked, I feel that a run through AfD is the best course of action. I remember a time when AfD stood for Articles for Discussion, and still think that that mode of thinking is best for some AfD nominations. However, I have previously been chastised for putting articles up for AfD without a suggested course of action that isn't the status quo (keep - in some fashion). So yes, I nom'd WU LYF for deletion at AfD, so that a larger audience can put a more lasting stamp of approval on Wu LYF, something I don't feel an overturn at DRV can do. Might not be the best in perception, and I should have been more sensitive to that, but in the end it will be the best for the article. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:31, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Where was the conflict over the validity of WU LYF before you entered the picture? Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:33, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Also, while it is not unusual for people to nominate articles for deletion on procedural grounds, I've always seen those nominations labelled as such. To nominate an article for deletion which the nominator doesn't personally believe should be deleted, without labelling the nomination in some way as "procedural" or "pro forma" or whatever, is pretty much the defintion of a bad faith nomination. I suggest that you do not do that again, and also that it would be a good idea for you to review WP:BEFORE. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:38, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not one to usually ask for a sysop to hand in his bit, I've been here for over three years now and never have yet. But after reading through this thread and clicking on a few of the diffs, and then noticing the user continued with similar behavior after making assurances here(thread bare and insulting as they were), at the very least they should have to go through the RfA process again. Heiro 03:53, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Sometimes, polite requests don't work. I've warned[31] UtherSRG that if he continues to perform inappropriate speedy deletions or to request them, I will open an RFC, ultimately setting in motion the process of an arbitration case resulting in desysopping unless he mends his ways. Chester Markel (talk) 05:34, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I would appreciate comments by other editors on UtherSRG's talk page assuring him that they are also fully prepared to support this action. The fear of a forceable desysopping may be sufficient to intimidate him into backing down. Chester Markel (talk) 05:41, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

That is not needed. I have already given my apologies for my actions, and said I'd work on changing my stripes. I've also promised that you won't see perfection. It'll take some time. Since part of the problem is how the community changes over time and my disjointed understandings from not catching up with those changes, do you really think that separating me further from the community will give me a better understanding of things? No RfC, no threat, is needed. I know I need to change, and change will happen. So please, be patient and work with me instead of stomping on me. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:31, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Light current

Light current (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

LC was banned over 4 years ago. He continues to sock relentlessly to this day. On the ref desk talk page, we have editors arguing that if his ref desk edits happen to be "answerable", then they should stand, invoking IAR, claiming it overrides a ban. I say a ban overrides IAR. What say y'all? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:41, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

• Ignore All Rules is "when it's in the best interests of the wiki, ignore the rule" not "do it just for the hell of it". Pretty sure that a sockmaster socks because he wants the attention and is tired of being left on the outside. I don't think indulging him and allowing community participation constitutes the best interests of the wiki unless you're a Conservapedia mole. Ironholds (talk) 22:03, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I don't have a strong opinion on the issue, but this is not being suggested "just for the hell of it". See a thread here: Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk#Proposed_compromise, where a rationale is outlined. Staecker (talk) 23:28, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
    • He's banned; He cannot edit, if he does edit those edits must be removed on sight, and if he creates socks to edit, those socks must be blocked, period. There is only one recourse here, and that is an unbanning proposal at WP:AN. Unless the community decides to unban this user, or unless His Honorable Lord Jibmo Wales overturns the ban, the policy is clear. IAR need not apply. Sven Manguard Wha? 00:01, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

The proposal that a banned user's Reference Desk questions be somehow allowed to stand is being made by a lone editor, and for my part, I don't see any consensus developing around it. —Steve Summit (talk) 02:21, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

What complicates the issue is that other editors respond to a question, only to find their efforts reverted. Based on the argument that a question from anywhere in 1/16384 of the entire possible range of IP addresses must be this one banned user. What if the banned user is part of a school with a thousand children? Now they're all "trolls", and all answers to their questions disappear. Administrators have refused to block the range of IPs for just that reason; why should other editors be more restrictive? We've ended up with a duplicate ANI and Sockpuppet Investigations at the Refdesk talk page. Most fundamentally, the compromise I suggested is based only on the right of an editor in good standing to ask a question which happens to be the same as that asked by a banned user - something which I hope should not be controversial. Wnt (talk) 03:47, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

No one has claimed that anyone that edits from Light Current's range is Light Current. Not one person. However, Light Current has a very specific and well understood modus operandi, and the combination of his behavior with his IP address is a clear indicator that it is him. Merely because people know his behavior, and enforce his ban by removing his questions, does not mean that people have even once claimed that innocent users editing from that range should also be blocked. What has happened is that YOU, Wnt (and near as I can tell, you alone), have taken upon yourself to mischaracterize the work of others in such terms, but no one actually behaves or thinks that way, no matter how often you assert it as though it were true. Its simply not true. LC is an obvious troll, his fingerprints are distinct and recognizable, and it is unfortunate that your answers to his trolling questions get deleted along with the questions themselves. However, that doesn't mean that other people (you know, those people that are not you) cannot recognize him. --Jayron32 03:59, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'll grant that I don't know his modus operandi. Could you point me (and the rest of us) at some resources about that? The Refdesk questions were so short, I never imagined they could carry many fingerprints. Wnt (talk) 04:38, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Given that this was explained to you at WT:RD, and you chose to ignore it or discount it there, I doubt you'll listen here, but here goes. LC asks short, contextless questions about subjects which are either a) defecatory b) sexual c)bigoted or d) some combination thereof. An earlier popular subject was the planet Uranus, which can often be mistaken for the english phrase "your anus". LC has apandoned this motif, but other questions are usually easy to spot. Other recent gems have revolved around the size of someone colon, and the proper technique for masturbating a dog. Don't be ashamed, however, if you cannot easily spot him. The world is a diverse place, and we all have different skills. I, for example, am not a really good Basketball player, so I don't spend a lot of time playing basketball against better basketball players. Likewise, if you find that you lack the skills in the area of spotting LC socks, perhaps it would be best if you didn't get in the way of people who are really good at it. Its not a slight against you; like I said we are all good at different things, and that doesn't mean you are a bad person for not being good at identifying his socks. --Jayron32 04:51, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Just to be clear - was that pattern described before the most recent round of questions? (And true, I never even thought about the weight of a human colon as defecation-related) Wnt (talk) 04:57, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

People told you those posts were him, and you clearly refused to believe them. This is all over WT:RD. Lets also make this clear:

• Sometimes, people who are not LC also ask immature, offensive questions. These are easy to spot since LC edits from a known set of IP addresses. We delete other obvious trolling questions as inappropriate, even if LC has nothing to do with them.
• Sometimes, people who are not LC, but edit from the same IP range, ask legitimate questions at the ref desks. These are easy to spot as the questions are usually well thought out, have a context, and don't delve into prurient interests, and don't follow up honest questions with inappropriate trolling later on.

Again, don't be ashamed if you cannot spot these things. People don't necessarily think less of me for my poor basketball skills. --Jayron32 05:03, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Here[32] is what we're dealing with:

"The problem is that you are never going to be able to stop anyone determined (even me) from editing. 8-) People just have to live with it. If you dont like a Q, ignore it, but dont make a song and dance about it." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.25.110.50 (talk) 09:33, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

He's been at this for over 4 years. Someone needs to prove him wrong. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:24, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

The Internet seems to be here to stay, and Wikipedia has the potential to last for the long term, too. Eventually, Light current will die of old age. And Wikipedia will still be here. Until then, WP:RBI. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:05, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

What's curious is that according to this LC goes through so much trouble to be recognized. He has to come to the same place, ask almost the same questions, and never register for an account first. If he simply wanted to have trollish questions stay up and be answered, it would be no challenge at all. One reason why to me the "WP:DENY" argument seems misplaced. Wnt (talk) 06:15, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Many trolls will do that. They'll play a game that's basically "How long can I last before I'm found out?" Sometimes they'll drop little hints, especially if they're being overlooked for who they are. I recall a troll from a couple of years ago (not LC) who kept editing and talking about the subject of anagrams. He was on there about a month before anyone realized that his username was an anagram of his sockmaster's username. That's what makes LC all the more puzzling, as you say: He immediately makes his presence known. The fact that he keeps asking the same stupid questions over and over indicates he's basically playing "internet ping-pong". The dilemma for him now is that his ever-higher visibility produces an ever-longer list of editors willing to "paddle" him. There are many of those, and only one of him. So it's a battle he can't win... as other trolls have eventually figured out. LC isn't there yet. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:04, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Ironholds, I'm not saying what I agree with WNT's proposal, but it was clearly not "For the Hell of it", The effort to completely expunge light-current's questions sometimes becomes extremely disruptive, far more so than if the questions had been answered and allowed to sink quietly into the page history.

Bugs's crusade against this banned user has essentially become the most significant of component of the banned user's disruption.

(I'd also like to take a moment to mention how unusual it is to report a mere talk page proposal to ANI as if it were some oncomming horror. Ref-Desk policies are properly discussed on the ref-desk talk page. Bringing it here was simply canvassing.) APL (talk) 21:00, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I think it is more nuanced than that. The situation here is that LC has two advocates that feed his trolling behavior. Both Wnt and BaseballBugs in their own way exacerbate the situation. If Wnt was more understanding of the need not to feed the troll, and if Bugs was a little less strident in his efforts to eradicate him from Wikipedia, it would get boring for LC pretty quickly. Any one of two solutions would work equally:

1) if all of LC's posts were removed without comment or controversy by anyone, that is if they just disappeared and no one complained, objected, or even noted that it happened, LC would have no satisfaction or

2) if all of LC's posts were left alone, and answered earnestly without judgement; that is when he asks about the color of Uranus we all pretend he didn't just make an asshole joke, and instead just direct them to the parts of the relevent Wikipedia article, there's also no fun for LC.

The fun in this situation comes in making an inappropriate question and watching the shitstorm it generates between Bugs and Wnt (or whoever wishes to fight that day). It's not answers he's after, its the shitstorm that his very presense generates. Until we all get on the same page, and decide definitively how to deal with this WITHOUT a huge fight ensueing from the "What's the harm in AGF and answering his questions" and the "Banned is BANNED" camps, LC will go away. I personally couldn't give two shits about HOW we resolve this, just that the fight itself is what LC is clearly after, and as long as we keep having this fight, LC is going to continue to push our buttons. --Jayron32 21:09, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

What you've outlined is the reason I have stopped deleting his garbage. I wanted to raise the visibility of it (call it canvassing if you want) and let others do that work, as I am tired of getting yelled at for trying to enforce the rules, especially as I had no part in his original ban. That occurred before I even knew there was a ref desk. So I am not interested in being the "designated deleter". However, when some naive soul attempts to answer one of the troll's stupid questions, I'm going to point out who he is - once the latest incarnation has been blocked. Also, as it happens I am currently under an interaction ban with a particular user I won't name. I take that ban very seriously. I expect others here to take other bans equally seriously. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:28, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I would argue that 1 is impossible. Quiet removal of posts is very problematic. First the questions must be removed before they are answered, or the removal itself becomes confusing and disruptive (As often happens.). And secondly the posts must be removed without errors or potentially innocent questions will be removed as trolls (as also happens.)

Who could be trusted to be the silent-but-deadly troll enforcer? Certainly not Bugs, but who could do better than Bugs?

It's common for questions that were just sitting, answered, after taking up about a grand total of maybe four person-minutes, are deleted, and the resulting confusion costs far more person-minutes.

Causing this disruption for mindless enforcement of "BANNED USERS MUST NOT BE ALLOWED TO POST" smacks of dogmatic thinking where pragmatic thinking would be preferable. APL (talk) 22:01, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

It's not mindless. He was banned for a reason. It is the banned user who's causing the disruption. That's why he was banned. And his recent arguments, that we'll never stop him so we shouldn't even try, are thoroughly bogus. If you don't enforce the banning rule, you might as well not have a banning rule. As I see it, he wants to essentially get de facto "un-banned" without having to go through the proper process to get un-banned; which he would of course fail miserably, because he has not changed his approach since he was banned four freakin' years ago. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:17, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Recently an editor proposed writing an abuse filter. I don't know what, if anything, has come of that. Obviously, we don't want to give any details. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:21, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps "mindless" isn't the right word, but "Dogmatic" certainly is. Your approuch is anything but pragmatic.

You seem to be unable to see how completely you've been trolled by this LC fellow. APL (talk) 22:27, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Only because of certain editors aiding and abetting. If they would SHUT UP about it, and help enforce the rules instead of arguing against the rules, there would be no drama. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:32, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Simply put, this user's only purpose is the glee he gets from being "naughty" and starting arguments on the RefDesk. If you're worried about confusion due to questions disappearing... well, LC isn't confused, he knows what's happening. If the confusion is on the part of other users, Template:hat the discussion with a simple WP:DNFTT editnotice. Discussion is ended, troll gets no satisfaction. Wash our hands of him until he finally gets bored and moves on. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:48, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

That would be fine, IF you could get his enablers to agree. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:06, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

He get's his "Glee" from holding up a hoop and watching Bugs jump through it. If tomorrow Bugs were struck by a meteor, the cycle would end and he'd get bored.

Having a nemesis is fun. APL (talk) 23:52, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Wait. Instead of being mildly insulting, Allow me explain what I mean by dogmatic instead of pragmatic.

Let's assume the following facts :

1) LC enjoys sparring with you, and using you(and others, admittedly) to create disruption. This is pretty much the definition of a troll.

2) Even if you educate all current regulars, There will always be new users and readers to the ref-desk who are confused buy your removal or hiding of seemingly innocuous posts. Human nature being what it is, there will be a time-sucking discussion any time someone is confused.

Ignore the rules for the moment, and just think of what will lead logically to the best outcome. Does it make sense to continue your actions, despite the fact that (because of 1) it is a self-perpetuating cycle, and that (because of 2) it will always be likely to cause a disruption?

APL (talk) 23:58, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

If you're not willing to enforce the rules, then you should lobby for his ban to be lifted. And if you're not willing to do that, then enforce the bloody rules. You're wrong about a troll getting "bored". LC was trolling and socking long before I came along, and will continue to do so if I ignore him. If a troll doesn't get attention, it just pushes harder. But if everyone stops enabling a troll and starts reverting it every time, then eventually the troll gives up. The problem right now is that we have a couple of youse guys who argue about it every freakin' time that someone deletes one of his stupid questions. It is YOU that is enabling and encouraging the troll. And if that's the way you want to keep going, then un-ban him and be done with it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:46, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Yep. If you want to start a discussion of lifting the ban because he's especially irritating, have at it. He's far from the most irritating person amusing himself at Wikipedia, though, and he is easy enough to recognize and revert. If you don't want to lift the ban, or can't find consensus for it, then we just continue to WP:RBIrevert, block, and ignore, with as little fuss as possible, until he dies. Or gets bored. Whichever. There are thousands of us and only one of him, so it doesn't really have to be that big a deal. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:57, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

That's a ridiculous and emotional false dichotomy. There is a middle ground between unbanning a troll across an entire site, and eradicating his posts at all costs and any collateral damage. APL (talk) 01:05, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

What "collateral damage" are you talking about? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 11:55, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Next step?

What would be the procedure for getting "Light current" un-banned and un-blocked? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:57, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Hey look! It's bug's trademark sarcastic WP:POINT. APL (talk) 01:00, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

At this exact moment, I want to hit both of you with a trout. Could you stand a little closer to one another? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:01, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm deadly serious. I want the guy unbanned and unblocked. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:05, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, to be honest, it'd be a purely symbolic move. He is already capable of evading technical bans, and either way damage to article-space will continue to be repaired in the usual way. APL (talk) 01:57, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

As is any user. So why bother with bans? Why bother with blocks? Why bother with rules? Just let the trolls do whatever they want, and screw the ones who actually try to contribute. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:19, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I was going to suggest that you simply use the same trout twice, but then I realized that I we might then argue over which of us should be trout-slapped first. APL (talk) 01:57, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I call your attention to LC's block log,[33] and especially the comment from the blocking admin: "Has exhausted community's patience, per multiple AN/I discussions, and is now creating a series of sockpuppets to try to vandalize us into submission." Does that complaint sound familiar? It's from February of 2007, long before I had any dealings with that user. The "ignore it" theory does not work. And as long as guys like APL insist on arguing about it, the troll will continue to operate. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:05, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

So, basically your current course of action requires that an entire class of people "like APL" and "like Wnt" stop existing? Even if your cause is just and your will strong, will that ever happen? Will anything you're doing make it happen? APL (talk) 01:10, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Are you going to enforce the ban, or not? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:26, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

My point here is that you're fighting human nature. On two fronts. One one front you're entertaining and encouraging a troll, on the other front you're hoping that deleting or boxing seemingly innocuous posts and their replies will never be found confusing or irritating, brought up, and discussed. You may be able to out-pace the troll, but you will never-ever change human nature on the ref-desk talk page. There will always be discussions of this sort, and no amount of reporting the discussions to AN/I will change that.

I'm fully willing to admit that your actions are Right and Just. However, they are also not working. Even if it's not your fault, they still are not working. (Which I'm also willing to admit. The fundamental cause of friction is that your expertise on this particular troll cannot be effectively communicated to all on-lookers. In article-space this wouldn't be an issue, but on a talk page these anti-troll changes are more than normally visible, so they attract and confuse on-lookers. This is not your fault. It's the nature of the system you're working within.)

What I'm trying to get at, and apparently not communicating effectively, is that the current approach for dealing with this troll on the Ref Desks has failed. (Through no fault of Baseball Bugs.) In this case I define failure as the cure being more disruptive than the disease.

A new approach is needed. I'll be the first to admit that I don't have one off the top of my head, but continuing a failed approach is foolish. Especially as it's been very clearly established that this troll is especially persistent and will not likely give soon. APL (talk) 01:57, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

"...will not likely give soon." Right. Especially if you continue to take his side instead of the side of the rules. It is the continued efforts to enable the troll that keep him going. You are not willing to enforce the rules. So you've got LC now. Enjoy. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:17, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, I am now starting to pursue the question of what it will take to get LC unbanned. With the shackles off, maybe he could contribute something useful. It could be worth a try. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:29, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

• OK .. first - I wasn't even around (other than an IP and reader) back in 2007 when Light current was banned, so I honestly don't have any dog in this fight. My feeling however is this: If the guys been around trying to get back in over 4 years later, I'd say there's a chance that he honestly wants to contribute here. I'm all for giving someone a chance to edit, improve their efforts, and mend their ways. Soooo .. you can put me in the Support unban section (if we could get around to that after wading through all the TLDR stuff. I suspect it's understood (if it hasn't been said outright) that he'd be on a pretty short leash for a while, and would have to really mind his "P"s and "Q"s, but its a community consensus that counts here. One last note: Blocks are cheap, and if push comes to shove, then I'll spend one of mine if I have to. — Ched :  ?  04:51, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Lifting of ban of Light current

• Support with the understanding he follow ALL policies and guidelines, NOT sock, and attempt to contribute constructively. — Ched :  ?  04:51, 10 May 2011 (UTC) (yea, yea, yea .. I know it's not a vote - it's a !vote)
• Oppose for now, however if he strictly follows WP:STANDARDOFFER, stays away from Wikipedia for a full 6 months, then requests an unban at his main account, I would then fully support lifting the ban. If he's serious about obeying the rules, he will obey the terms of his current ban and just stay away long enough to demonstrate that. Given the level of recent sockpuppeteering and disruption, I cannot support lifting the ban today. I would support, however, lifting the ban if he abides by it long enough to know he is serious about returning in good standing. --Jayron32 05:05, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. He has not shown any interest in obeying the rules. His edits at the reference desk are still troll edits. The only reason to un-ban him is in hopes that letting him edit will bore him faster, but I just don't see letting a troll run amok on the reference desk until he decides to stop as a useful way to keep the reference desk useful for other readers. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 10:33, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I have seen countless editors have indef blocks lifted in the hope that they'll improve their behavior. Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't. You don't know until you try. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:28, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support - Obviously, as this was my idea. It's clear that he really, really wants to edit. I'm willing to give the guy a chance to show he can contribute. And in the meantime, other than this un-ban discussion, I intend to keep my distance. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:17, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Yobot and inconsequential changes yet again

Despite two recent blocks and several recent discussions in which multiple uninvolved admins have commented that it is a violation of the bot policy and the AWB rules of use, Yobot (talk · contribs) (operator Magioladitis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) is once again making inconsequential changes. Would an admin please block it and leave it blocked until the operator agrees to cease the task in question and not re-start it once the heat dies down.

For those not familiar with the matter, Yobot has repeatedly made hundreds of edits that have no effect on the output, such as changing "{{infobox actor" to "{{infobox person" (the former redirects to the latter) and now changing "birthplace" parameters to "birth place", contrary to WP:BOTPOL#Bot requirements and WP:AWB#Rules of use (point 4). On the last two occassions, the nominator has loudly argued with the blocking admin and those who dared to agree with said admin (disclaimer, I was the blocking admin on the first of these) before assuring everybody it wouldn't happen again, only to restart the task a few days later when everybody's moved on. They have also unblocked the bot several times (a violation of the blocking policy) and repeatedlty restarting it when concerns have been raised on the talk apge (which stops it, because it's an AWB bot). Meanwhile, they continue to accuse myself and Courcelles (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), who blocked the bot last time, of admin abuse, of failing to understand the blocking policy and of misinterpreting the bot policy and perform the same task on their main account using AWB (which is technically block evasion).

This has gone beyond a joke. An admin needs to block the bot so it can't be restarted and leave it blocked and Magioladitis' conduct is in need of serious community scrutiny. I hate airing my dirty laundry on the drama board, but I don't see what else I can do. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:48, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Did you read why I was unblocked? I was asked to send the matter to the WP:BOTREQ where it was judged that the task is OK to proceed. So simple. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:57, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I am almost sure that you like th drama. Yobot was unblocked by the very person who blocked it and the task was resumed only after I got a green light in BOTREQ. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:58, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Leaving your increasing incivility to one side for the minute, Courcelles' log summary for the unblock was "reblock at once if problems resume" (emph. mine). Hardly a ringing endorsement. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:03, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I'm a tad uneasy about the existence of User:Magioladitis#Comments on administrators who blocked Yobot. GiantSnowman 23:06, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

At some point I understood what Courcelles was talking about and I went to BOTREQ as I was instructed. H J Mitchell is just another story. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:09, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Bot requirements fulfilled. The task serves the purpose of infobox standardisation. Check the edits of User:WOSlinker too and probably others. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:11, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I'll get to work on that RfC/U then. Your conduct, for a bot operator and an admin, has so far been shocking and, at times, nothing less than decietful. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:13, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

You are welcome to comment there. Please take some time to read our arguments before commenting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Magioladitis (talk • contribs) 23:15, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Maybe others will see it differently, but I don't see a consensus at Wikipedia:BOTREQ#Category:Infobox_person_using_deprecated_parameters to allow the bot to make inconsequential changes, in fact I saw one person who was supporting the changes clarify that they opposed them if they were not being made in conjunction with other changes to the page. To be clear, are you saying there is a consensus somewhere to the contrary? Monty₈₄₅ 23:14, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Who is this person? -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:26, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

It's just an interested member of the editing community. Why do you ask? --Diannaa ^(Talk) 23:40, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Because I don't see this person in the discussion. Why you don't tell me? -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:43, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Are you citing Monty845's lack of involvement in the discussion as a negative? —David Levy 23:47, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I initially read it the same way, Diannaa, but Magio is asking "Who is this person [who you mention in the discussion]?". To respond, Magio, I think Monty was referring to Rd232 who said: "What's the rush?" Indicating he didn't think edits with only infobox changes should be committed. At least, I read it the same way Monty did, above. Killiondude (talk) 23:50, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Thnaks for the explanation. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 00:01, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Killiondude. Now I realise that my question could misunderstood. I think Rd232 agreed to the task. After their agreement I resumed the task. I can stop the "birthdate" to "birth_date" change and only clear the last column of the task (the uncommon cases). -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:04, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you've quite got the point. I know you think I'm having a go at you. I'm trying very hard not to, but nothing I say will change that impression. However, the point is that bots should not be making edits that don't produce any change to the page, like changing "birthdate" to "birth_date" (both of which seem to be recognised) or "{{infobox actor" to "{{infobox person" when the former is a redirect to the latter. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:18, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Here's another question. Why is it that anytime someone objects and stops the task on the Yobot account, do you immediately continue with the same edits on your main account? example. Blocking or stopping the bot does not mean "go and do this task under another name", it means stop. Courcelles 00:21, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Most of the infoboxes will be simplified or completely merged to infobox person. We first change the parameters on the articles and then the infoboxes themselves. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:23, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Courcelles, did you read the discussion in WP:BOTREQ? -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:25, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Here are my opinions of the matter at large.

1. Yobot does not have explicit consensus to make edits that are insignificant (do not change actual page output for readers). At best there is divided opinion. This is after reviewing the discussion on WP:BOTREQ and Yobot's talk page.
2. Magioladitis should not unblock their own bot, especially when it's been blocked for the same reason multiple times. The reason I'm referring to is making inconsequential edits as Courcelles and HJ have both blocked for at different times. Yobot block log
3. Magioladitis should not continue to make the edits that resulted in the bot being blocked (see #1 of this list). There are actually several hundred edits made just in today's ordeal, after Yobot was blocked. This has happened in the past as well.

I would hope that the community sees things similarly. HJ's post at the top has some links to current community policies regarding AWB usage &c. Magioladitis seems to be breaking these rules of use. Removing AWB usage might be in order. Killiondude (talk) 00:48, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Please show me 1 unblock that is related to the story above. What exactly do you want to be done with the infoboxes? Nothing? Fine. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:56, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

This edit doesn't change the visual result. Niether does this. Go ahead and stop everyone who tries to make the code readable. -- Magioladitis (talk) 01:03, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Go ahead and stop this task too: Wikipedia:BOTREQ#.22Fixing.22_about_2600_redirects. Don't try to attack only me explicitly. There are more people to stop everywhere. They all disturb your watchlists. -- Magioladitis (talk) 01:07, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Here's another editor bypassing redirects. -- Magioladitis (talk) 01:08, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You've been around long enough to know about WP:OTHERSTUFF. We're discussing you and your actions right now. Your multiple postings in attack of people who don't agree with you doesn't help your case, either.

No one is saying the infoboxes can't be fixed. That's creating a false dilemma. I'm sure your bot (or any other) can do it when it's making actual changes to a page.

I may have been wrong about the unblocks you've done in relation to Yobot making insignificant edits. That didn't happen in those cases, but it did happen in others. I'm not sure where the community stands on bot operators unblocking their bots in general.

While we're on the topic, however, it seems you have had a long history of doing what landed everywhere here on ANI. I found this large thread in your archive where several users (other than the ones found in our current situation) were complaining of something similar. Again here. And here. There is a long history of you and your bot making insignificant edits without consensus on a large scale. Killiondude (talk) 01:15, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

If you see the story 1 year later you 'll see that I was proven right if almost all of them. Lifetime is now fully deprecated by the community, DABlinks were standardised, many of them were deleted or updated, all wikiproject banners now use the same conventions and many more. Moreover, I worked more than a year in improving AWB too. This enabled AWB's genfixes to be used in large scale. Some of the "trivial edits" are now part of other bot's tasks. -- Magioladitis (talk) 01:23, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment: I participated in the Botreq discussion, and whilst I initially opposed the request, was somewhat reluctantly persuaded to support it. However it was certainly premature to declare a consensus in favour, and quite unwise to do so given the prior history. At this point the drama overshadows the actual issue, but it would be helpful if more people participated at Wikipedia:BOTREQ#Category:Infobox_person_using_deprecated_parameters. Rd232 ^talk 01:22, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Since I feel guilty to getting you into this I am OK to do the changes only if something else is happening and see how many are left. -- Magioladitis (talk) 01:25, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I am not going to make another long drawn out comment other than to say that I think that HJ is blowing this issue out of proportion. These edits are being done to clean up, consolidate and standardize the Infoboxes. Whether the edit renders a change to the page is irrelevant. The bot is removing deprecated parameters and or doing other changes that are needed. I realize that many editors don't like janitorial tasks but all this "I'm tired of my watchlist filling up" argument needs to stop. --Kumioko (talk) 04:17, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

• I'd have to say that I am with Kumioko again. If his edits are inconsequential, then why are we complaining? If they are detrimental to the project, perhaps someone could explain precisely how his edits make Wikipedia worse. I am just not understanding how the edits Yobot makes are somehow making articles worse. I am just too stupid to see it. Please explain this to me, in simple terms. What about the edits the bot is making need to be undone or fixed? --Jayron32 04:26, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

The main objection seems to be that it clogs up watchlists. Make of that what you will. --Closedmouth (talk) 11:12, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

In User:WOSlinker/Infoboxes everybody can see the status of this task. (Page created November 4, 2010 based on a prelinimary version found in my subpages and created September 7, 2010) The relevant discussion is in Template talk:Infobox person/birth death params (started March 26) and the discussion on bot's task is in Wikipedia:Bot_requests#Category:Infobox_person_using_deprecated_parameters (started May 4). The task is active for a long time now and received feedback from many editors. We already eliminated most of the most weird or disambiguous parameters and rewrote many of the infoboxes, simplifying their code, removing unneeded or unused parameters from both infoboxes and pages. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:18, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

• What's the problem here? This is useful stuff. 'Inconsequential' is trailing whitespace characters or two full-stops. This is about deprecated templates and their parameters. Give the bot free-rein to do good. Barong 10:55, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

  Most of the arguing here is two way, while the rest are mostly onlookers. I hardly see any support of either direction regarding bot policy and inconsequential edits (a few in one direction here, and a few in the other there). I think this is something that needs to be discussed by the community at large. Personally, I hardly see how standardizing a redundant template is inconsequential, regardless of whether it produces the same visual output. I just don't see how we have a rule against gnoming, simply on the basis of whether the account is automated. What really grinds my gears though, are the editors here demanding magioladitis should cease performing these activities with their regular account. Throw bot and AWB "policy" all you want, those have absolutely no bearing on manual tasks. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 10:57, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

  I think the key thing to understand here is that it's not about no-net-change to the rendered page; this is damned useful refactoring of messes under-the-hood. You see it, but HJ, wtf? It's useful work. I don't care what account does it. Barong 11:02, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

  It's not useful in any sense of the word I'm familiar with. If a template accepts both "foobar" and "foo_bar" as the same parameter, a bot changing it is not useful. Nor is it useful to change X to Y when X redirects to Y anyway. We're not talking about the odd page here and there or a few edits an hour, we're talking about hundreds, even thousands of articles in each go. Then somebody complains and stops the bot and a few days later Magioladitis starts it up again or just keeps doing it with their main account, which, contrary to your statement above, does matter—it's called sock-puppetry. And to those who say I should just hide bot edits from my watchlist, I don't want to do that, because I want to see what useful bots are doing and when policy is being violated by useless ones. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:37, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

  Soon some of the parameters won't be on the code of these infoboxes. If we first remove the parameters and then clean, for some hours the pages would be without valid parameters. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:50, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

  HJ, see who I am. The old template and parameter names are deprecated, and the idea is to phase them out. This is part of that; refactor the usages and then mebbe delete the redirects. More importantly, the real template can then be simplified to not support the old names of parameters. That sort of shite snots up a lot of templates and makes them harder to maintain, results in much transclusion overhead that burdens the servers and limits the usage of other templates. I opined on the bot-discussion page: Go-Go-Go. I've not looked at the back and forth about accounts and blocks, so no comment. But the task being performed is a good one (aside from the 2010 year thing). Barong 12:57, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

  My apologies for not reading your userpage, mate. Good to have you back. Now you know my level of clue when it comes to templates, so explain to me in simple terms what the point of this all is. If foobar and foo_bar are both accepted as the same parameter by an infobox, what is achieved by sending a bot to change them all to foobar? Surely the point of the template accepting both is precisely so that doesn't need to be done? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:40, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

  No problem; is a very new account. See thread above and in AC-land.

  Templates accepting alternate names for the same thing are "bridges". A template editor would prefer to not have to maintain that. These bridges get built as an interim step so that the old template can be redirected to the better template. This whole proces of standardizing templates is about the management of complexity. We have tens of thousands of shitty templates that are poorly made, but more recently much more robust templates have emerged. These are complex things and supporting multiple parameter names is a lot of extra code-goop, that ultimately needs to be pruned-back. This is why it's highly beneficial to refactor the codebase (the articles) to use the preferred names of things. Once that's done, less backwards comparability needs to be maintained.

  So, really this is a needful task; work with this fellow, who I don't know, to let this happen. Sincerely, Barong 13:59, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

  Floydian, the edits on his own account are done using AWB, so AWB rules of use are clearly on-topic. Fram (talk) 11:15, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Bot edits and AWB edits need checking just like any other edit. They are not errorfree. Approved bot tasks however often have had a check of a trial run, and we cam be more certain that they are a) wanted and b) generally correct. I have seen to many bot runs which were filled with errors, or tried to change articles against consensus or against WP:MOS#CONSISTENCY and WP:MOS#STABILITY. (These are general remarks, not specifically or even mainly about Yobot). The same applies to AWB. The speed and scale of such edits (bot and AWB) make it much harder to keep our normal WP:BRD model, and often create a "fait accompli". Continuing the edits that got your bot blocked on your main account with AWB is ignoring bot policy (which applies to AWB as well) and is basically avoiding a block by using another account. People are more wary of blocking an editor than blocking a bot, but editors shouldn't exploit that in such a way. And the conversion of the template and the accompanying changes aren't errorfree, e.g. Gianni Capaldi is not born in 2010.. Fram (talk) 11:15, 9 May 2011 (UTC) Magioladitis above said "Go ahead and stop this task too: Wikipedia:BOTREQ#.22Fixing.22_about_2600_redirects." Thanks for providing that example, if I had seen it in time I would have tried to stop it. Redirects that worked perfectly allright were changed to end up with the exact same result but nicer syntax. However, a redirect without more edits can be moved over by any editor, if needed: a redirect with more than one edit no longer has that possibility. So these changed helped no one or nothing, but removed some functionality for most editors. Why should we allow such bot edits? Things like interwikibots, vandal bots, copyvio bots, ... are very useful, but that doesn't mean that all things done by bot or AWB (or other script) are useful and helpful. Fram (talk) 11:32, 9 May 2011 (UTC) One also wonders if things can't be made more efficient: 4 edits in three hours time to the same article, only for cosmetic changes? Seems a bit strange...[34] Only articles only got three visits[35] Fram (talk) 11:32, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

These comments are really constructive. I noticed the "2010 births" and I was planning to fix it but I wanted first to report it as bug on AWB's bug page. The series of edits is because my find and replace isn't 100% perfect. Trying to be on the safe side I don't catch everything and improve after observations. I wish all had comments like Fram's. This would help AWB and Yobot to improve in performing more complicated tasks in the future. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:38, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Magioladitis, when you add infoboxes to articles about persons, please provide "name" as one of the standard parameters when the article has a disambiguator (since if no name is given, the article title is used instead). Recent examples: [36] and [37]. Fram (talk) 13:54, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Check my comment in your talk page. These weren't done by any automatic script or bot. Any suggestions are welcome of course. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:04, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

To HJ, I understand that you don't like your watchlist filling up, I really do. But accusing other editors of sockpuppetry for using an approved bot as well as their normal account is not cool. Especially for an admin. Further, editing articles is what we are here to do and if you choose not to hide bot edits then thats up to you, but its not up to you to stop the bot so your watchlist is more convenient to check through. If your watchlist is too big then trim it or be happy in the result that even small edits can make big affects on the articles over time (if we watch the pennies the dollars will mind themselves). Most of us don't care about a few paultry edits from Yobot hitting my watchlist. I spot check them occassionally but rarely find anything worth mentioning. Additionally, Magio always checks Yobots edits so chances are he would catch them himself anyway. I cannot say that about most the other bot operators. As for them being useful edits I even agree that occassionally there are some that have no effect. By and large though they are useful; even the Infobox ones that you think are inconsequential. We edit here by consensus and one editor saying they don't like their watchlist filling up is not a significant argument to show that there is no consensus for the bot task. There is a reason for these edits which has been explained to you repeatedly. Here are a few:

1. They make the infoboxes more efficient
2. it makes the codeing of the infobox logic easier to read and use
3. it expedites the Infobox standardization process
4. it reduces the occassions of other users copying and pasting the deprecated code from one article to another which makes the problem worse
5. It removes articles from the cleanup categories that show these articles as having deprecated parameters
6. Redirecting articles is no big deal but redirecting templates, especially complex ones, can have undesired consequences (like breaking) especially when Wikipedia data is ported, copied or used in other applications or websites outside Wikipedia or even some of the sister projects. This could include displaying incorrectly or not at all, slowing down the rendering time for the page, etc. So reducing the number of template redirects in articles is a good thing to do.

Additionally, since everyone is citing the AWB rules. The AWB rules state that if the change affects categorization (which most of these infobox template changes do) then they are allowed. Even if said changes do not render any changes to the page. Also, there are at least 20 bots that run changes either on Wikipedia or using Wikipedia resources which do not render changes to the page including all the bots that run the toolserver apps and reports (I have a list of some and some will severely impact WP if they are stopped). So the remifications of the "doesn't render any changes to the page" and that includes bots is a far reaching one. If the determination is that bots cannot run changes that don't render any changes to the page then it won't just affect Yobot, it will affect us all. The bottom line is that Yobot received bot approval for the task and one user not liking it is not an anti consensus. --Kumioko (talk) 13:45, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Kumioko, could you please provide one or two actual examples of a redirected template breaking anything? You have made the same claim in a previous discussion as well, but I don't believe that you have then replied to my request for an actual example of such event. Fram (talk) 13:51, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

As for the rest of your reasons; the majority start from the idea that there actually is a problem that needs fixing, and continue from there: HJ Mitchell wants to be convinced that there actually is a problem. Only the first two arguments, and if evidence is provided the sixth, actually address that point. And coming back to the second; the code may be easier to read when only one parameter is allowed for e.g. birthdate, but editors need to remember less when "birthdate", "birth_date", "date of birth" and "bdate" are all accepted. Ease of use for template and bot operators is less important than ease of use for editors, just like ease of use for editors is less important than ease of use for readers. This leaves us with the first argument: infoboxes become more efficient. Do you have any figures indicating the difference in efficiency? Fram (talk) 13:59, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I'll give an example of why making these "unnecessary changes" is beneficial, even though visually the page is the same.

Lets say you have a template, and it used to display images using a "picture" parameter. Now one day we go and standardize templates so that every single template that displays an image uses an "image" parameter instead. As a temporary stopgap, we would change the code to support both parameters. Lets throw some example code in here.

{{#if:{{{picture|}}}|[[File:{{{picture}}}{{!}}thumb{{!}}Image caption]]|}}

becomes

{{#if:{{{picture|}}}{{{image|}}}|[[File:{{{picture}}}{{{image}}}{{!}}thumb{{!}}Image caption]]|}}

But this won't work... What if somebody comes along, innocently, and sticks in an image parameter without noticing the picture parameter already entered (some infoboxes have an exuberant number of parameters). We'll have to fix that; lets make sure image overrides picture.

{{#if:{{{picture|}}}{{{image|}}}|[[File:{{#if:{{{image|}}}|{{{image}}}|{{{picture}}}}}{{!}}thumb{{!}}Image caption]]|}}

as opposed to:

{{#if:{{{image|}}}|[[File:{{{image}}}{{!}}thumb{{!}}Image caption]]|}}

That's 70 bytes to 119 bytes; a difference of 49 bytes. Keep in mind this is about as simple as template syntax can get. A template such as {{convert}} has several hundred possibilities to process. Each time these templates are used on a page, the entire template is processed. Templates with redundant parameters, used across several thousand (or hundred thousand) articles becomes a significant strain on the system. This is one of the reasons high-use templates are locked down from editing.

Cleaning up this code helps cut down the impact of editing the template, as well as the code that is processed on an article behind the scenes. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 21:53, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion, rather than narrowing the possible parameters to one, we should simply support "all" (within reason (e.g. any which are used more than 100 times)) of them in the templates. This could be done with a few edits to the relevant templates, rather than thousands of edits to articles. Because most of the templates use another infobox template and simply pass the parameters along the chain, it should be very simply to code in support for multiple parameter names, it's done (I believe) like this:

|image={{{image|{{{picture|}}}}}}

Your example is indeed complicated, but needlessly so, and it seems to be down to poor template coding, and is not as simple as it gets (please do correct me if I'm wrong). - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 22:11, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

A good move would be to change all templates to support bare filenames without "File:" or "200px" etc. We have some parameters that are really uncommon (uses in only 1 infobox) and they should go. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:17, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely, I agree the very uncommon parameters are unneeded and can be removed. However, when it comes to removing parameters that are used in thousands of articles, it's often simply not worth it. Especially when your bot keeps making mistakes (although I know you put a lot of effort in to perfecting it, some mistakes are inevitable). One of the reasons for the dislike of cosmetic changes is because people can not see the net benefit of making one thousand stylistic changes if it results in even two or three (but more likely ten, twenty, or more) errors which result in poor output for the reader. A couple of issues have been brought up on your talkpage about mistakes. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 22:25, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

The bug reported by Fram was fixed. The others are result of not making changes automatically but working manually in AWB's edit box. My mistakes and not bot's/programm's mistakes, which were done under the pressure of making the work done. It's my belief that if we finish fast then we 'll have less drama and less days of watchlists displaying these changes. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:29, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

The cause of the bugs are not really at issue, it's simply that there are errors being made, and the net result is that this is simply a waste of time, with (for some) no foreseeable benefit. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 22:43, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Kumioko, please don't make me out to be the villain preventing Yobot from valliantly saving Wikipedia, because I'm clealry not the only person here qwho has a problem with what this bot is doing or with its operator's conduct. I would add that using your main account to do what your secondary account (approved bot or not) was just blocked for is sock-puppetry and block evasion and Magioladitis is lucky that that (as well as numerous other policy violations) has been let go in an attempt to settle this issue. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:20, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

You have to decide first of these edits shouldn't be done at all or that shouldn't be done by a bot. If not at all I would like to know your point of view. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:37, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

• I think everyone should read Barong's explanation above about why Yobot's work is useful and needed, it bears noting. I still have seen not a single (as in, zero) person who has explained why Yobots edits might be harmful to the articles where it is applied, and we have at least on previously never-involved person (Barong) who has explained why it is useful for template maintenance and standardization. So, for the people who want to stop Yobot: What is it about the edits which harms the articles, such that that harm outweighs the benefit explained by Barong? --Jayron32 14:44, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

FWIW Cosmetic fixing of stuff is rarely without consequences. In my own organisation I discourage it unless there is another reason to fix stuff. IOW I do not allow someone to refactor code unless they are specifically working on that particular section of code for some other reason. The problems being that the refactoring may result in bugs, it may cause an edit clash with someone else working in that area, it peppers unnecessary edit history into the files. From what I can gather here the result of the refactoring bot is to fill peoples watch pages up with stuff that no one cares about watching, and in so doing may push stuff that someone does need to react to out of sight. For example of article X is vandalised by E and the bot B does some tidying up, one will see the tidying up bot listed in the watch pages and not bother checking that some other edit occurred before hand. IMO the edits by this bots should rarely result in watch page updates. John lilburne (talk) 14:54, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That's why users have the option to ignore bot edits in their watchlists; having a bot do the task actually IMPROVES the problem of watchlist-cloging, since users have the option to ignore bots. If a user were to do the same needed edits manually, rather than by bot, they could not be ignored and would instead clog up watchlists worse. --Jayron32 15:03, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

AFAIK doing that doesn't address John's point about later bot edits hiding earlier human edits from watchlists. Rd232 ^talk 15:07, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but a human doing the same task would similarly hide an earlier vandalism, as would a human fixing a spelling error, or adding a reference, or doing anything. Edits hide earlier edits from watchlists. That's an unsurprising fact of how watchlists work. I don't find it a convincing arguement to stop doing needed work because sometimes vandalism gets missed. Sometimes, I miss vandalism on articles I watch because someone comes along later and makes a good edit. The second person did nothing wrong, there isn't necessarily anyone to blame. It happens. --Jayron32 15:23, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

John pointed out a relevant problem; noting that the problem also applies in some other contexts doesn't exactly solve the problem, does it? Furthermore, humans rarely make trivial edits on a large scale - you need automation for that. Besides which, humans making trivial edits may well review the article history; that generally doesn't happen with semi/automated editing, I think. Rd232 ^talk 22:48, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

It's true but if we extend this logic we 'll should stop using bots. Trivial edits happen every day from tenths of editors. Some people forget to review and save the same page over and other without providing any edit summary. All these are part of Wikipedia's daily life. Until now I didn't have any complains for hiding vandalism. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:01, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Well this is one of the fundamental reasons for the existence of the relevant AWB rule. And the combination of factors I mentioned is unique to bots; most obviously, you will not find many editors making trivial edits on a large scale. This is why I'm generally firmly against mass trivial edits; I'm essentially persuaded that in this specific case, the change is worth doing. Rd232 ^talk 00:09, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That's the general argument against this sort of editing, and I agree with it. I'm persuaded that an exception can be made because it's a one-time change and the number of articles involved isn't that big (35k, of which a good proportion will have the edits combined with other useful stuff). Rd232 ^talk 15:07, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

One argument against them is that they need a much clearer approval, and the underlying issues (bot merger, agreed-upon parameter names) probably a lot more discussion, before being forced through by bot (or AWB). Looking at user talk:Magioladitis, the latest two sections are one disagreeing with the choice of "birth_date" as the parameter name, and one disagreeing with the merger of a specific person infobox to the general one. I haven't looked into the latter, but the reply to the former amazes me: "But this is easily fixable in the future" How I read it, this refers to "changing birth_date" to e.g. "birth date". Wouldn't it be much more logical, and efficient to first generally agree upon a single parametername, and only then implement it, instead of changing them all and then seeing whether they have been changed to the "right" one. Fram (talk) 15:00, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

To Fram: to reply to your question about proof. I have seen several. There was a problem for a while where if a site outside Wikipedia used Wikipedia data and that data contained certain invalid HTML syntax that the Wikimedia servers fix like breaks, the data wasn't displayin correctly in the mirror site. When Facebook first started using Wikipedia data they had several problems relating to template redirects not working correctly. The only one I can think of off hand were the succession boxes but I can't find that discussion at the moment. There was also a problem (and I believe it still is a problem) where certain templates like {{Start box}} didn't allow Wikibooks to print correctly so the code had to be fixed to {{S-start}} to allow the Wikibooks to print correctly. There is also a related issue with max template calls on a page. I am not sure what the number is but there is a limit on how many templates can be on a page (including redirected and embedded ones) so when you have a template like WikiProjectBannerShell that uses multiple embedded templates, then you throw in other templates on the page, then you expand that to include templates that are just redirects to other templates, before long you are telling the server to tie itself into a knot. Obviously the latter issue is fairly rare but it we only recently got it sorted out on the United States article which had so many templates it couldn't render them all. These are just a couple of examples but I have seen numerous discussions relating to template code and template redirects. Another one I just remembered was Double redirecting a template. If you double redirect an article it will still work but the Wikisoftware can't handle double redirects for templates. There is an open discussion about this here
To HJ: Frankly I had a couple concerns about a couple edits myself and I left notes as such on Magio's talk page. My intent is not to make you seem like the villian and I see some merit in some of your arguments but doing so many edits it fills your watchlist (because you don't want to ignore bots) and citing a rule about not doing changes that don't render anything on the page are not what I consider valid arguments. Removing blanks, sure, making edits that break something or cause problems with the article, absolutely, but not those 2. Especially when we run lots of bots that break that rule. It seems like we are targetting one bot and ignoring others that we happen to like. If it is a rule, then it must be applied as a rule, regardless of the consequences and not applied when it benefits us. Personally I think its a stupid rule and needs to be reworded...but thats just me. --Kumioko (talk) 16:21, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. You're the second person to point out that other bots make changes that make no effect on the output, but I don't know of any, likely because they don't edit on anything like the scale Yobot does. People have also said that I should alter my preferences to hide bot edits from my watchlist, but that's not helpful because I want to know what bots like Cluebot are doing. I'm still not convinced that this problem Yobot is trying to fix on tens of thousands of pages (if indeed it is a problem at all, of which I'm equally skeptical but not qualified to judge) is best fixed by edits to tens of thousands of articles (which surely consumes a lot of server resources) rather than by a single edit to the template in question. I mean, what happens when an editor writes a new biography and uses "birth_date" instead of "birthdate" in the infobox and it doesn't display? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:25, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

If there are actual problems with some articles or some templates, change those. Don't change everything to solve a few things. Noone has complained about fixing double redirects (in articles or templates), and if a certain article or talk page like US has problems because of the number of templates and redirected templates, no one will argue against fixing that on that page. But the vast, vast majority of pages will never have those problems, so basically these bot edits are then solving a non-existant problem. And if a template contains invalid HTML, this should be changed at the template level. If an article contains invalid HTML, this should be changed at the article level. But none of the changes discussed here or in the previous discussions about bots, AWB, ... were about fixing invalid HTML. Fram (talk) 07:08, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

For instance Infobox thriathlete was using an image parameter where the input should [[File:filename.jpg | size px|caption]]. It has been observed that this leads to easily broken images etc. This is the reason we split in image, image_size,caption in almost all infoboxes. Till we fix the problem we supported both methods in that infobox and now we deprecate the old method. -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:19, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Sarah777

This user has been chucking out her usual disgusting 'British nationalist' invective masquerading as comments about NPOV and how it's achieved here or not tonight [38][39]. She's inviting flame wars and then some with analogies of the Union Flag to the German Swastika, and calling other editors brain dead or agents of genocidal empires. It's not even over an article, but a poxy talk page banner. She's not just crossing the line with this shit, she's bulldozing it frankly. Is it really too much to ask she be indef blocked until she gets it? A query as to her behaviour from another editor was unsurprisingly removed as "trolling" in her eyes. MickMacNee (talk) 23:21, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

With a block log that long and diffs of comments as disgusting as those two, I would say not. However, she should have a chance to defend herself and promise to tone down the rhetoric (a long way) if she wants to, before any action is taken (not that I can do much about it without my mop even if we'd got to that stage). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:31, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Great_Irish_Famine#Sarah777_restricted specifies that Sarah may be banned from editing any page which she disrupts by engaging in aggressive biased editing or by making anti-British remarks. It was enforced once, for a week, [40] I noticed Sarah attempted to start a fight at British Isles and Talk:British Isles today. Whatever has caused her new lease of life for this anger, I think it best that she be banned from the relevant articles so that the question of a permanent ban for Sarah doesn't rise again (she is productive in some areas). Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:54, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I am inclined to impose an article ban but am witholding action until Sarah has a chance to respond. I have notified her on her talk page. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:04, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I suggest waiting 24 hours from your post on her talk page, which would be 02:03, 10 May 2011 (UTC), to see if she's willing to agree to tone it down of her own accord. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:43, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

• I like Sarah, but I agree those edits were out-of-line. I would be happy to offer any necessary support or mentoring, if it is any help. --John (talk) 03:31, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Which edits would they be John? Sarah777 (talk) 20:31, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

• Agree up to a point with GWH, however I am inclined topic ban Sarah777 from everything to do with Britain and Ireland, this problem is long standing and recurring far too often. The kind of interactions she's been having (for years) in this area is just not compatible with WP:5P. While I agree also with GWH and HJM that we should wait 24 hours, I have seen far too many disruptive users in this area start flame wars, see that its come to ANI, and then disappear for a week, at which point the 'storm has blown over' so to speak. Therefore I suggest that if there is no reply within 48 hours that remedial action be taken (i.e imposition of topic or article bans) to prevent further disruption of wikipedia--Cailil ^talk 15:17, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

• I would say 48 hours is long enough to wait. You have to go back to 22 April to find the last time she spent more than 1 calendar day without editing Wikipedia. Maybe that's the cause of this latest episode, a build up of wikistress. But whatever, if she is indeed prone to it, she's clearly never learned how to manage it. There's not much point banning her from just Irish topics, I;m pretty sure that's all she edits, when not making these incursions into the BI arena. MickMacNee (talk) 17:39, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, I can't see how comparing the loathsome Union Jack to the nearly as loathsome Nazi Swastika can merit a block of any sort. It was under that banner that the physical and cultural genocide of the "Great Famine" took place in Ireland. Globally, the British Empire was more genocidal and for far longer than the Third Reich. This is a simple fact. So, I object to tagging Ireland-related articles with that excrescence? You bet. I abide by all the wiki-rules; but i won't be bullied into pretending that day is night. OK? Sarah777 (talk) 20:31, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

The bottom line is there is no "rule of law" on Wiki. Just a huge majority of British editors over Irish ones. Sarah777 (talk) 20:31, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

...and the Irish ones object to her too! Might be best to put her out of her misery with an indef. DeCausa (talk) 20:44, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

You are article banned from Template:British English for one month. I will notify on your talk and the Arbcom case page. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:41, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Whatever. Sarah777 (talk) 20:45, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I must say Georgewilletc...I am forming a rather negative opinion of you. It seems you have ignored my point re Union Jack = Swastika. A fairly important point in all this. The English Queen is visiting Ireland in a week or so. But ZERO Union Jacks are on display. Why? Could it be the same reason there are no Swastika's flown in Germany these days? As for Irish editors objecting to me - just about every one who was not supine in the face of the imposition of British pov on Irish articles has been banned or left. What are left are largely the Loyalists and their allies. Not a very statistically valid sample it is that remains. Sarah777 (talk) 20:54, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

She's the British Queen. GoodDay (talk) 21:57, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

The only place British English is written and spoken is in the United Kingdom. So-called British spellings, on the other hand, may be used, in whole or in part, in other parts of the world where English is the first or a primary language. Canada speaks and writes Canadian English, Australia speaks and writes Australian English, Ireland speaks and writes Hiberno-English. and so on. Whether the Union flag is also offensive or merely irritating, it is, most importantly, wrong on any article except those related to the United Kingdom. Sarah777 is correct to insist on its removal, while those who argue otherwise are standing on quicksand, baiting her. If it had been done correctly in the first place, none of this would have arisen, and those involved are fully aware of the problems and the likely outcome. Bielle (talk) 20:49, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I must be the first Wiki-editor to be blocked from a template simply for disagreeing with the dominant contra-WP:NPOV pov! Sarah777 (talk) 21:04, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

The fact that, from this comment, you have no understanding why you were banned indicates that this sanction is not going to be enough. DeCausa (talk) 21:08, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Explain it then. Sarah777 (talk) 21:22, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Pursuing a point of view is not a problem. Expressing it as though you are a 12 year old having a tantrum is. DeCausa (talk) 21:30, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

• - It is clear that User:Sarah777 is completely disruptive in any Irish/British/UK article and I support her complete topic ban from the whole area. Her contributions are detrimental to the whole sector. - she is refusing to accept GWH administrative action against her - lets just get it over with easily and topic ban her completely from all articles connected to Ireland England or the United Kingdom forever. Off2riorob (talk) 21:08, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Hey! Great idea! Yes, why not ban all Irish editors from all articles connected to Ireland! That will really make Wiki WP:NPOV. And, pray tell, where have I refused to comply with Georgewillecetra's ban? Any diffs? Sarah777 (talk) 21:21, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

diff on your talkpage, personally I would block you for the uncivil and attacking comment alone ... "Nope. Not under any Arbcom ruling. Under your piss poor judgement. A template isn't an article, btw. Look it up." - User:Sarah777 - Your opinionated partisan contributions are a clear disruptive net loss to the project imo.Off2riorob (talk) 21:25, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

• The hate speech used here by Sarah777 is quite obviously unacceptable. I've rarely seen any other user display such a persistent battleground attitude and survive on the project for more than a few months. In additionto GWH's page ban mentioned above, I've also banned her from British Isles and from Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland, the main locations of her recent outbursts, and blocked her for a week. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:34, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Full support for that. Off2riorob (talk) 21:36, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Fully support Future Perfect's actions, and agree that her rhetoric is hate speech. I also want to note she has removed the notification of her ban from her talk page[41]. Is this logged at WP:RESTRICT or WP:AE so that others can enforce it?--Cailil ^talk 21:45, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Log is at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Great Irish Famine. If she wants to remove the notification from her page, that's her right to do. If she goes on to continue venting on her page, I usually don't tend to sanction that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:49, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Ah thanks for the link. BTW I just noticed this lovely diff[42] wherein she infers that both of us (2 sysops) are trolls (this is her second removal tonight the other being your edit). With all due respect Future Perfect you might be prepared to allow Sarah to vent on her talk-page while blocked but I'm not. Any more flame edits while blocked and I will extend that block and revoke talk page access in line with WP:BLOCK & WP:CIVIL. She's had years of warnings and lesser remedies being tried and in my view, at this point she is stretching community patience--Cailil ^talk 23:22, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Sarah777 indef-blocked

Do I get this right? Has Sarah777 just been indeffed because she was irate that some WP:POINT violators insisted on putting the Union Jack on the talk pages of Ireland-related articles? Regardless of what she did after being poked like that (the Nazi comparisons above do make me feel rather uncomfortable), this looks to me like the ever popular game of blaming the victim for the disruption. Maybe I misunderstood something, but this is how it looks to me. At this time of the night I can't do more than this superficial examination before going to bed. Hans Adler 23:51, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

We categorically do not excuse behavior if taunted or baited, if one goes way over the line in response. Sarah777 went way over the line and appears to be exhibiting behavior and opinions that are difficult to reconcile with successful ongoing Wikipedia editing. We're not a battleground and she's clearly seeking one now.

That said, it would be appropriate for a review of the incident before she went irate to be done. While we do not excuse baitees for their abuses, baiters who taunt someone across the line are treated equally harshly. I have not examined back that far and am busy for several more hours tonight. I encourage other uninvolved admins with some time now to have a look and opine what you find... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:44, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

No she was indefinitely blocked because after years of warnings to edit in accordance with WP:5 she has continued to violate an arbcom ruling and the British Isles topic probation that are in place to prevent disruption. She has breached site standards for civility and general conduct and after being blocked for a week she continued to do so. Hence HJM's indefinite (not infinite BTW) block. And for the record if he hadn't done it I would--Cailil ^talk 00:10, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

HJM specified "While in most cases inde(fi)nite does not mean infinite, in this case it does". Infinite. I am not comfortable with this. Moriori (talk) 00:39, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

That's not a decision HJM can make, reconfirmed admin or not. It is an opinion only, issued with inappropriate mockery. Bielle (talk) 00:45, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

No mockery intended. I'm simply clarifying for the benefit of later admins reviewing the block what I intend the meaning of indefinite to be, since the software doesn't distinguish between 'blocked until you're no longer a problem', the more usual meaning, and 'blocked permanently', my intended meaning in this case. It doesn't mean it's irreversable any more than a 1 week block is a guarantee that she'd be blocked for 1 week. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:58, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

The Arbcom ruling is clear that If a user banned from editing under this decision does so, they may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeat offenses. After 5 blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one year. Since Sarah77 was previously banned in 2008, and the ruling clearly states that one week is in the event of repeat offenses, can someone please readjust the block to use the correct Arbcom ruling? I'd say the original one week ban is probably the maximum in the spirit of this 4 year old Arbcom ruling. --HighKing (talk) 00:47, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

In addition, can someone point me to the anti-British comments at "British Isles"? I don't see any, and if that's the case, she should not be banned from that page either. As for the rest - clearly anti-British comments were made on those pages, and the Arbcom ruling is clear that Sarah77 may be banned from those pages as per the Arbcom restriction Sarah777 may be banned from editing any page which she disrupts by engaging in aggressive biased editing or by making anti-British remarks. --HighKing (talk) 00:54, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

My action is supplemnatary to the Arbcom ruling. I made that block in accordance with... just about every behavioural policy and guideline ever written, not because she vioalted an ArbCom ruling. Otherwise, I would have called it an AE block, which really would make my block irreversible, but this is just an 'ordinary' block. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:58, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I think you should rethink this one - and I'm not sure I'm following. Either the blocks or bans fall within the Arbcom ruling, and the sanctions therein should apply, or you are taking other comments and acting on those independently. If so, would you mind posting up which comments you have decided justify this indef block which you are recommending as being infinite. This is a very serious block. --HighKing (talk) 01:12, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

HK, a lot of us are sick to the eye teeth with the nonsense from both sides in this British Isles dispute. Sarah has had years to modify her conduct to come into line with the basics of site etiquette. Her refusal to do so is her problem just as LemonMonday's and TritonRocker's was theirs. While HJM does not have the power to permanently block anyone (no admin does) the Arbcom ruling allowed for a permanent topic ban (which was administered by GWH). Sarah777 is indefinitely blocked this is, as HJM explained suplementry to the arbcom ruling - not part of it - it's based on WP:5. Sarah777 now has the standard offer open to her, she can appeal her block directly to ArbCom, or she can have her block reviewed. She does not need any group of editors (who agree with her POV) advocating for her. That will get them into trouble, as it would involve them agreeing with hate speech (the highest, worst form of incivility possible). And understand this plainly HK if I see anyone using or endorsing (whether tacitly or openly) racist, bigoted, sectarian, or any other form of hate speech or chauvinism they will be indefinitely blocked in line with WP:CIVIL, WP:DE and WP:BATTLE--Cailil ^talk 01:29, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

No one is more sick to the back teeth of the nonsense in the British Isles dispute than me. And while I might believe that the nonsense is one-sided, concentrated from a sock farm showing strong a British-POV, I do sometimes wonder why those disruptive activities have been allowed to continue unchecked for so long, and while the editor is allowed to continue to edit and disrupt to this day. Especially given the amount of times I've been threatened with a topic ban, or block, and yet I *do* edit within the previous 5 pillars. Makes me wonder .... --HighKing (talk) 09:08, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

So anyone who expresses disagreement with this draconian block/ban exposes themselves to being blocked - as a default racist. This is getting too farcical for words. RashersTierney (talk) 01:59, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Careful Rashers - that's not what I said. And read my remarks in full - I agree with Sarah being indefinitely blocked not permanently blocked. Be careful not to misrepresent other users please--Cailil ^talk 02:04, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Careful yourself. There was no misinterpretation of your stark comment above. Less of the threats please. RashersTierney (talk) 02:14, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Rashers, I'm not going to ask you again to stop misrepresenting other's comments. Once more if I see anyone endorsing or using hate speech on WP I will (as will most other sysops in fact) block them indefinitely in line with WP:5. If you find yourself worried by that I can't help you--Cailil ^talk 02:49, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I have no worries in that regard. Thanks for the clarification. RashersTierney (talk) 03:06, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

What he wrote was "She does not need any group of editors (who agree with her POV) advocating for her. That will get them into trouble, as it would involve them agreeing with hate speech (the highest, worst form of incivility possible)." He can't get out of the fact that does not say the same thing as "Once more if I see anyone endorsing or using hate speech on WP I will (as will most other sysops in fact) block them indefinitely in line with WP:5." The first quote equates advocating for someone with active support of an act they might be accused of. Stripped down, what it explicitly says is "advocating for her" equals "agreeing with hate speech". In other words, suspension of habeus corpus and denial of right to representation are brought to mind. The second quote is not saying the same thing, Rashers. You were right to object, and what he did was not clarify but in fact obfuscate what he originally said. I am not misrepresenting anything, it is all there in plain English. Sswonk (talk) 03:56, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Sswonk this isn't a court this is an internet encyclopedia. Don't wikilawyer. You're not allowed advocate for blocked users. Disagreeing with a block is different. Advocating for her DOES mean arguing (wikilawyering) that comments like this are not in breach of site standards. She has been issued with another final warning by another sysop for this. In plain English Sswonk anyone who uses or endorses hate speech will be blocked. I would suggest backing off. Sarah777 has dug a very big hole for herself--Cailil ^talk 12:45, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

• I intend to review the behavior of all editors in the run-up to this incident. As of now, I cannot see justification for an indefinite block here. I will come back if and when I have anything further to say. --John (talk) 01:03, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

• • This is clearly an arbitrary decision made by some people who wear their nationality on their sleeves. So what if people use analogies which would in PC world (as satirised in "Getting On") be considered offensive? It seems to me that the allegations of "hate speech" are being used as a crutch to further a dispute with another editor and that there is an element of ganging up and "gotcha" going on. Silent Billy (talk) 01:46, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Silent Billy, have you bothered to check where I'm from (in case you haven't I'm Irish)? And generally be careful of bandying about accusations of bad faith - I take them seriously. I'm expecting an apology/redaction/clarification of the above remark btw--Cailil ^talk 02:01, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't referring to you. Indeed you yourself have said that the Admin did not have the power to permanently block the editor. I see that you have said you were contemplating a similar action. Had you done so I would have had to consider your reasoning. But you didn't take the action someone else did and my comments are based on that action. I think the action taken does smack of "bad faith" and that's clearly not your bad faith but that's just my opinion. Do I have to keep quiet or do I have the right to say what I think? I'd be prepared to change my opinion if I saw evidence to the contrary. However it seems to me that the tone of your note is somewhat threatening in its tone and unjustified but I ain't crying about it. I can't what in the editor's posts constitutes "hate speech". "Robust" perhaps. Silent Billy (talk) 03:03, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

• How about this for hate speech which she posted on her Talk page this morning: "British" is not a race - it is an institution with a history of genocide. Robust my arse. DeCausa (talk) 09:39, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

That doesn't qualify as hate speech in any definition. Sarah777's anger over the injustices against Ireland is of course misplaced, but the text you link to is 100% correct. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:49, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Hate speech or not, it is obviously meant to inflame and is completely unacceptable. Its correctness or incorrectness is beside the point. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 09:55, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Possibly it's meant to inflame, but poking and making others angry is something loads of editors do without getting even a caution here, so calling it "hate speech" is at least as inflammatory as the original quote. AN/I is not a free-for-all where you are allowed to say anything about others. The comment may be inflammatory, but it is essentially correct. --OpenFuture (talk) 11:20, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Heimstern, the post from OpenFuture is beyond crass and is best ignored. DeCausa (talk) 09:59, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd welcome an explanation of what you mean here. There is nothing crass at all. --OpenFuture (talk) 11:20, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I have issued her with a final warning. If she makes one more racist, defamatory or otherwise uncivil remark then her talk page access should be revoked. She will remain free to appeal to the Arbitration Committee if she wants her ban reviewed. Thryduulf (talk) 10:02, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

As an uninvolved administrator, I endorse the indefinte block of Sarah777 for continued gross incivility and refusal to abide by the principles of WP:5P. I do not support an infinite block and would be happy to see her back under the terms of the WP:Standard offer, which specifically in this case would include a commitment to abide by all policies regarding civility and neutral point of view. I would not support an automatic release from the topic ban upon such a return. Should she accept the standard offer, and subsequently edit in the manner that lead to the current block then I would support a further block of at least 2 years with only a single warning. Thryduulf (talk) 08:56, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Sarah777 has shown herself to be one of the most singularly battleground-minded editors on Wikipedia. If she is allowed to continue editing here (i.e., if her block is lifted), she should be given no more opportunity to turn Wikipedia into a battleground, which is to say that she should be topic banned from the Britain-Ireland disputes, broadly interpreted.

I share Hans Adler's concern about British editors trampling Irish ones; I've seen it done all too often (the time a vote was used to decide the title Republic of Ireland was a particularly farcical example. How could the vote come out any differently when one side had a clear numerical advantage? There's a reason Wikipedia is not a democracy.) None of this can possibly excuse Sarah777's inflammatory nationalist rantings. Lock the door and throw away the key, whether through blocking or topic banning. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 10:04, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

• I, too, endorse the indef-block. Of course not as a never-to-be-overturned "infinite" block (some of the blocking admin's rhetoric was unfortunate there), but as a normal indefinite block for disruption. As such it was well within the bounds of legitimate admin descretion in dealing with obvious disruption. To be unblocked, Sarah777 will need to demonstrate how she is prepared to mend her conduct, and right now I'm not seeing that she is prepared to acknowledge there's been anything wrong with it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:00, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Sarah777's edits to British Isles

• It turns out she's also been altering the contents of reference quotes in articles, even before she started flaming over flags in templates. Whatever happens on that score, this sort of disruption also needs to be addressed head on, or one day one of these attempted "corrections" of hers is going to go unnoticed, and that's concerning given how often some editors cite Wikipedia itself in these POV disputes. MickMacNee (talk) 02:19, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Intent and knowledge (awareness of whether that was in fact a reference quote, or having thought it was normal article text) is important. I have inquired on her talk page. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:31, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I checked the reference that Sarah777 altered. Her edit (removing "the Republic of Ireland") does misrepresent the source--Cailil ^talk 02:58, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

So how does one deal with the use of references that might or might not add to the article's usefulness if they contain offensive content. I mean someone might include material from Der Stürmer in order to sneak in offensive material. Silent Billy (talk) 03:13, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Don't follow, how is that "offensive content" ? Mtking (talk) 04:09, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

@GW. In terms of intent, I would look over the edits she made immediately after that one. And in terms of knowledge, I cannot come up with a single scenario as to how such an edit would make sense as a good faith edit if the intended target was plain text. She wasn't reacting to a prior change, she didn't mention a talk page outcome, she never added a new ref, and the only plain text nearby that she could have confused it with, if corrected in the manner she did, would mean it then did not agree with the reference she changed mistakenly instead. Even assuming she was just a mile away from where she wanted to be because she had merely used 'find', then it's pertinent that the phrase "and the Republic of Ireland" appears nowhere else in the article. And the 16 times where just "Republic of Ireland" is mentioned, the proposed correction either makes no sense, or in just one other case, would encounter the same issue as above. Sure, she can confirm it was a mistake now, but unless she can outline the realistic scenario that fits the above, I'm not buying it. MickMacNee (talk) 03:14, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Mick - I understand that you're frustrated here, but you are also involved. You need to let uninvolved admins review and Sarah speak for herself, please. Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:41, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd assume good faith and count it as a mistake, a rather egregious one, but we don't indefinitely block for a mistake. Sarah's combative tone and nationalistic hyperbole are incompatible with her editing articles related even peripherally to the Troubles, but I feel there are avenues we should try before enacting a ban. A topic ban with the possibility of mentoring? --John (talk) 06:43, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, even if Sarah was not aware it was a quote, and thought she was editing Wikipedia's own definition of "British Isles", this would still count as a bad-faith edit. Sarah knows, of course, that the term B.I., in common usage, includes Ireland. The edit she made was attempting to conform the article not to what she knew the world was actually like, but what she felt the world ought to be like. It was a deliberate falsification. This was POV vandalism. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:15, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree. However, I want to point out that ever since I started some form of informal mediation related to the naming of the Republic of Ireland article and a number of pertinent pages ended up on my watchlist, I have been observing a pattern of English/British nationalists looking for every odd excuse to put references to "British" on articles that are specifically about the Republic. As England has 11.5 times the population of the Republic of Ireland and most neutral editors are sick and tired of these conflicts, the English/British nationalists generally win by their sheer number, even if their arguments are poor. Sometimes they even 'win' discussions in which most of their arguments are transparently deliberate provocations.

As a quick Google search for something like "use of flags for language choice" shows, using flags to indicate languages is not a generally accepted idea at all. This is problematic even for country pairs with no violent history, such as Germany and Austria. [43] The discussion at Template talk:British English followed the usual pattern in which justified Irish sensibilities are painted as eccentric, disruptive and against common sense. Both extreme sides are at fault, but the situation is unlikely to improve while we don't take serious measures to ensure that the concerns of the side that is numerically much weaker get adequate attention. Hans Adler 09:27, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, I agree that using flags is sometimes not very useful. However, in the present case it appears pretty clear that the "British English" tag was added to the talkpage as a mere routine maintenance thing, by an editor who had otherwise no involvement in related ideological conflict as far as I can see, without any ideological motiviation, and most likely – and understandably – without any thought at any possible hypersensitivities. It was factually correct, because the article is in fact written in that variety, just as it should be. And the flag had been on the tag since age immemorial [44], without any objections ever being raised. So, your initial description of the case, that "some WP:POINT violators insisted on putting the Union Jack on the talk pages of Ireland-related articles", seems not very apt to me. Call the use of the flag an unthinking bad old habit if you like, but if Sarah objected against it, she could have easily raised that point in a constructive manner and at the location where it belonged. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:59, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I was not referring to the tagging of the British Isles talk page. That just caused an overdue discussion to start. I was referring to the discussion at Template talk:British English, where removing the flag was opposed on the following grounds:

• The editor who proposed it was probably influenced by Sarah777, so the proposal was motivated by "hatred of anything British". (Second comment in the thread, immediately took it into an unconstructive direction. Notice how WizOfOz then parries Asarlaí to steer it back into a constructive direction.)
• Then Sarah777 joined the discussion and made a perfectly constructive proposal. (Double-tagging of articles such as British Isles so that an Irish flag appears there as well.)
• Sswonk goes to the trouble of creating and uploading a graphic that can serve as a substitute for the Union Jack.
• WizOfOz: "The flag should not be removed. This is clearly a politically motivated move arising from an apparent dislike of things British." And another attempt to make this personal: "Out of interest, Asarlaí, why do say people Ireland 'unfortunately' use British English?" This is in response to the concrete proposal by Sswonk, apparently in an attempt to quickly steer the discussion away before it gets any results.
• Sswonk steers back on topic.
• WizOfOz: "It's not a political symbol, it's a flag. It is clearly disliked by some people for no good reason and they are being allowed to introduce a political POV by having it removed. Whilst it's multinational the language is referred to as "British" English, and that's too bad if you're anti British. The flag isn't really the issue, it's the tip of the iceberg. Notice the attmept to have a Hiberno English template - that's really what it's all about, so it seems to me. An attmept to offload any mention of British and any related symbols."
• Then Mabuska comes in: "Some editors want to see any reference to British in regards to Ireland in any form removed." (Indeed. More to the point, some editors on leaving as many "British" odour marks on Ireland-related articles as possible.)
• Mabuska then admits: "The flag is inconsiderate in regards to Republic if Ireland related articles [...]."
• WizOfOz: "a number of editors involved here seem to be campaigning [...] agasint flags in general and it has been stated elsewhere [that this is] a smokescreen to get rid of the Ulster Banner and other British-related flags."
• and so on.

"At some point Mabuska proposed:It should be possible to code the template so that you can add an 'RoI' condition to it that would omit the the flag from RoI related articles wheere it is added to articles with an 'RoI' parameter declared." In this context see User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 73#NPOV and navigation templates, which is about a related incident and shows extreme wikilawyering in order to get the term "British Isles" on the Republic of Ireland article. Maybe Mabuska wasn't aware of that, but this proposal was just a reminder of earlier attempts to humiliate Irish editors. Hans Adler 12:01, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Whatever you might think about that debate, Sara777's disruption rampage had begun prior to it, so I'm not sure in what sense it's relevant here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:30, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Your both right. Hans is correct there is extreme blatant WP:NOR and 'neutering' of sources going on on both sides. But this does not excuse Sarah's disruption (it's just bad for others who are involved in similar disruption). A lot of the stuff going on in this topic area is incompatible with wikipedia (look above by the remark by Silent Billy - "So how does one deal with the use of references that might [...] contain offensive content"). and everyone involved in altering sources to fit their POV has to stop or has to go. The crowd at WP:BISE got repeat lectures on this very issue at Christmas. Again I will point out the topic of British Isles is under probation specifically the addition/removal of it is sanctionable under WP:GS/BI--Cailil ^talk 12:38, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

The probation is for specifically the tendentious and repeated addition/removal of British Isles without references or citations, which is already pretty much enshrined in the existing policies or WP in any case. I don't see how Sarah777's recent behaviour comes under that Arbcom ruling. On the other hand, I can see how the previous "Famine" Arbcom ruling is relevant. --HighKing (talk) 12:49, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

In the linked diff (at the head of this section) she removed the Republic of Ireland from a definition of the British Isles contrary to its inclusion in a source. Sarah made a number of different statements on that page some about the British Isles topic dispute (showng that her attitudes spilled over or crossed over to it). BTW the WP:GS/BI is a community probation not an ArbCom one--Cailil ^talk 12:53, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

• By the way, this bizarre edit of Sarah's, made at around the same time as her anti-Union-Jack polemics, has not been commented on yet. Should we regard it as a mere error or accident? If it was intentional, it really crossed the line into pure vandalism. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:59, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

  Well certainly she marked a revert as a minor edit - which is bad on its own, but the content changes are well ... bizzare. The more I look at this the more it seems she kinda pressed the 'self-destruct button' all of a sudden in the last few days.
  If she wants to come back or those arguing for her want to encourage her to come back she is going to need to recognize all of this as incorrect behaviour and stay away from everything (discussions, xfds, aricles, talk pages, editors) to do with Britain, Britain and Ireland, Irish history, British history and the British Isles--Cailil ^talk 15:00, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

• Well GW, she unsurprisingly confirmed it was a mistake. There was no other plausible explanation as to how it made sense though, if editting the reference quote was not her intent. Her explanation was precisely too words - "my bad". The rest of that time she saved for flinging more arrows at HJM. MickMacNee (talk) 14:53, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring at Template:British Isles

Not related to Sarah, but in the whole dispute area and in part sparked by this report. I've requested protection at RFPP but raising it here will probably be quicker - please can someone protect this template so that the claims that it conforms to NPOV by morphing it's state depending on what article it is on, on the flawed assumption that Irish articles are for Irish readers and vice versa, can be (re-)exmined, yet again. I don't know what more I'm supposed to do than what's already been done in terms of showing good faith over this - it's been discussed repeatedly on the talk page, and on the NPOVN noticeboard, and ultimately I even took the issue all the way to Jimbo to get it settled, who unsurprisingly confirmed that no, that's not how we do NPOV and never will be. And that was that, it remained stable in that state, until it was raised as a side issue in here by Hans. Now we have him, aided by User:Mo ainm (Infact, his first and only edit today thus far) who is a very prodigous meat puppet in this conflict area (and a CLEANSTART account with a long history of the same on his old name), continually reverting the template as having 'no consensus', while not hearing a peep out of either of them on the talk page. MickMacNee (talk) 14:47, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Blanking on the Oswestry School page

An annonymous IP editor keeps blanking setions on the Oswestry School page. On their last edit they stated "Extensive revisions made on behalf of the current wishes of Oswestry School"

Even if this editor is action on behalf of Oswestry Schoool am I correct in thinking that individuals and organisations do not have editorial control over their Wikipedia pages? Unknown Unknowns (talk) 09:53, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

You are indeed correct. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 09:58, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

However that article currently appears to have some extensive copyright problems and the user would probably be right to blank most of it; consider carefully what you wouldst restore. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:04, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Or even remove it ourselves. :) I have done. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 10:47, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

For Unknown Unknowns' benefit, you should see WP:LUC to answer your question and for your own reference. It's specifically talking about articles created by someone with a conflict of interest, but its language about not having the right to control content should apply in any situation. -- Atama頭 16:44, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

SarekOfVulcan and repeated unwanted talkpage messages

I first asked SarekOfVulcan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) not to post on my talkpage on October, but it doesn't seem to have sunk in yet, so would someone please remind them that unwanted advice is unwelcome, as are pointless needling comments which have no intention other than to irritate me [45]

I am aware that I do not own my talkpage, but I have been repeatedly advised [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] that repeated unwanted talkpage contact is disruptive and potential harassment. ╟─TreasuryTag►ballotbox─╢ 15:12, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Given that TreasuryTag is simultaneously posting to SarekOfVulcan's talk page, and given that SarekOfVulcan's initial comment doesn't appear to be be intended to be disruptive, I'm not seeing a whole lot of merit here. There is something to be looked in to regarding civility here and here. Prodego ^talk 15:16, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

He's posting to my RFA as well.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:21, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) So you're allowed to post crap on my talkpage but I'm now allowed to post relevant links to behavioural concerns on your RfA? That sounds reasonable. ╟─TreasuryTag►Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster─╢ 15:27, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

What did you expect. Posting to his page and then prodding him further after irritating him is tantamount to trolling giving your recent history -- trolling in the sense that they serve no purpose but to provoke a response from him. Can I ask what you were thinking there? I suggest an interaction ban between these two.Griswaldo (talk) 15:25, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) So, Prodego, what do you suggest I do to prevent disruptive messages with no possible purpose other than to annoy me? Are they allowed as per policy? Or was my request that Sarek stop a fair one? ╟─TreasuryTag►Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster─╢ 15:27, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

And this one. By crystal clear about this Treasury Tag. I don't care if you were baited or if you felt annoyed. These kind of edit summaries are utterly inappropriate. Incivility in an edit summary is a very serious matter. Take this as a final warning further incivility anywhere will result in your account being blocked to prevent further disruption of this project.
For future reference don't use edit summaries to address others and don't insert incivilities into them--Cailil ^talk 15:26, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

The follow up comments weren't particularly productive Sarek, though I can understand your annoyance. Prodego ^talk 15:27, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

• If anyone violates policies and guidelines, then they must expect messages of notification/warning to the effect from anyone. That they just happen to be from Sarek this time isn't all that relevant. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 15:58, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Propose interaction ban

I propose and interaction ban between User:TreasuryTag and User:SarekOfVulcan. I can't see any interactions between the two that won't lead to more unnecessary drama. They should be explicitly commanded not to poke each other in the future.Griswaldo (talk)

Proposal: User:TreasuryTag and User:SarekOfVulcan are banned from interacting with or commenting about each other, directly or indirectly, anywhere on Wikipedia. This means you are not to discuss, either explicitly nor by allusion, the actions, behaviours, editing, or existence of each other.Griswaldo (talk) 15:57, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose because we frequently work in the same area (Doctor Who) and comment in the same discussions etc. I don't see any problems here that can't be solved by us voluntarily keeping a distance from each other where possible: today's conflict only came about because Sarek (for some reason) decided to butt into a thread on my talkpage and escalate things from there. ╟─TreasuryTag►ballotbox─╢ 15:32, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

  If you and Sarek want to play nice then prove that you can play nice. When people don't play nice the only solution is to keep them away from each other. What do you plan to do on your end to ensure that such a ban is not needed? The community needs to be spared the drama so please start considering what you can do to reconcile with Sarek or at least to prevent these types of situations. Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 15:34, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) I first asked Sarek to try and keep away from me in October. It's not my fault that they declined. It's not my fault that they inserted themselves into an irrelevant topic on my talkpage today. It's not my fault that they followed this up with two needling and useless comments. If you can point to any aspects of my behaviour which has been picking fights with Sarek, I'd be glad to receive the feedback. ╟─TreasuryTag►CANUKUS─╢ 15:36, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

  Your reaction to his comment was certainly under your control and it didn't exactly deescalate the situation. The resulting drama in these situations are rarely caused by only one party, though often preventable if only one of the parties choses to take the high road. Will you consider handling these types of situations differently?Griswaldo (talk) 15:40, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

  What is your specific suggestion? ╟─TreasuryTag►Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster─╢ 15:42, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

  All of your replies to SoV (particularly the two linked above), and [51] all seem to be attempts to bait him. While I agree that his subsequent edits to your talk page appear to have been attempts to bait you, I don't think either of you can claim to be a victim here. If you cannot leave each other alone, then an interaction ban may be needed. But hopefully you both can simply disengage here. I'd also note that it was you who "escalated" this to ANI. Prodego ^talk 15:41, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

  I did indeed escalate this to ANI, since I felt it was the best way of stopping the needling and un-necessary comments from Sarek on my talkpage. That has, indeed, worked, at least for the present. ╟─TreasuryTag►duumvirate─╢ 15:47, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

  (edit conflict)TreasuryTag told Casliber "If you're...so bizarre as to think that linking the word 'Europe' to Europe is a bad idea, then you'll excuse me for not valuing your feedback and asking you to keep it to yourself in future." I pointed TreasuryTag to WP:OVERLINK, which explicitly says "Avoid linking the names of major geographic features and locations". TreasuryTag reverted my comment, leaving his attack on Casliber in place, and trotted over to my talkpage to complain about the "unwanted input". Politely pointing out an error is not usually considered "butting in". --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:39, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

  There is no polite way to poke a bear.Griswaldo (talk) 15:43, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

  When someone says something really silly, pointing it out is not normally poking a bear. Otherwise we can close this shop right away. Hans Adler 15:51, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

  While I agree in most cases, bear poking includes posting to talk pages of individuals who have asked one not to (see example #4 on the linked essay). Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 15:53, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support; if these two find that being banned from associating with each other is detrimental to their editing, maybe that'll encourage the users in question to try and play nicely. Ironholds (talk) 15:39, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support - if someone wont take reposnibility for their own actions then we have to hold them responsible--Cailil ^talk 15:46, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
• Confirming support after addition of the wording--Cailil ^talk 16:07, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

  Without commenting on the merits of the proposed ban, could we get some wording in the thread so people know what they're voting on? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:48, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

  If the wording were something as mild as, "TT and SarekOfWhatsit are barred from editing each other's talkpages save for required notifications," then I would be content to support. ╟─TreasuryTag►secretariat─╢ 15:50, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

  An interaction ban is (taken from WP:ER) "Banned from interacting with or commenting about each other, directly or indirectly, anywhere on Wikipedia. This means you are not to discuss, either explicitly nor by allusion, the actions, behaviours, editing, or existence of each other". Prodego ^talk 15:57, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

  Prodego, that doesn't include AN/I, WQA, and other such noticeboards does it?Griswaldo (talk) 16:03, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

  It does. And based on this thread that would be a good thing. Reporting the other user violating the ban would be allowed though. Prodego ^talk 16:03, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

  You're probably right about that. I assume this also precludes Sarek from taking any administrative action against TT?Griswaldo (talk) 16:06, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

  I don't think that is going to be a problem, but yes, it would. Prodego ^talk 16:08, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

  Already done -- I agreed not to use the tools against TreasuryTag a while back.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:13, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support a ban along the lines of each posting nothing on the other's talk page, apart from mandated messages such as the "There is a discussion about you at AN/I" type. I would hope to the Gods that they could avoid even the latter, though that might be a triumph of hope over expectation.... Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 15:54, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - If users are having behavioral problems then deal with them as necessary with our current guidelines and policies, there's no need to add a bureaucratic layer of "I'm not sure if I can post here because he already did" nonsense. Tarc (talk) 16:11, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

  I generally prefer to avoid interaction bans as well - if a user is disruptive we can block them. But this does make things a bit more clear, and looking at the history here that wouldn't be a bad thing. I am neutral in this case. Prodego ^talk 16:13, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose, because this kicked off by pointing TT to WP:OVERLINK. Hardly the sort of thing that calls for an interaction ban.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:15, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support - Distressing, childish stuff. That SoV is standing for a reconfirmation Rfa while commenting on TT's talk page when asked not to do so by TT makes it grotesque as well. Jusdafax 16:17, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
• (EC)Trouts For All: As evidenced at various sections all over Wikipedia TreasuryTag and SoV do not get along at all. Can both editors agree not to involve themselves in the others talkpage with the exception of process mandated notices? Hasteur (talk) 16:13, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

  I'm also concerned because TT has 5 edits to the RfA of a user whom he doesn't wish to interact with. If TT doesn't want to interact with SoV, why is that? Additionally this and this. Talk page comments are not the only issue here. Prodego ^talk 16:23, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

  Hmm. I wonder why I opposed in the RfA of a person who I consider to be thoroughly unsuitable to adminship. That was a pretty strange thing for me to do, eh? ╟─TreasuryTag►constabulary─╢ 16:31, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

  I also have support this position. Sarek has likely learnt it is not a good thing to post advice on the talkpages of users you are in dispute with but the worst thing I find in this report is the rudeness and swearing in TT's edit summaries. These two strike me as unnecessarily gratuitously rude - here and hereOff2riorob (talk) 16:26, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

  Just out of curiosity, does TreasuryTag have any other interaction bans in force at this point?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:33, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

  No he doesn't. ╟─TreasuryTag►quaestor─╢ 16:33, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

  I have to agree with Prodego that it's crass hypocrisy on the part of Treasury Tag. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 16:35, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

• Go chill out I think TreasuryTag and SarekofVulcan should both be mature enough to realize that antagonizing each other does no good. Just avoid each other, I think you could both handle that without interaction banning. If you can't, there are bigger problems. — Moe ε 16:47, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose: I don't think this is the appropriate time. If anything, TreasuryTag deserves a big whack for bringing this to ANI and then reporting his own ANI report on Sarek's RfA in the third person (adding a 'regretfully' for good measure). Must say I admire the chutzpah though!--rgpk (comment) 16:57, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

  Presumably Sarek doesn't deserve a "whack" for this helpful and constructive comment then? ╟─TreasuryTag►duumvirate─╢ 16:59, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

  No comment since I don't know the context. But I was impressed by your chutzpah with the third person report! A "I have reported ..." would have been a lot more informative. --rgpk (comment) 17:07, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

  I know you were impressed by the chutzpah. You mentioned that above, and you know I read that comment, because I replied to it. I notice that you have (still) avoided criticising Sarek in any way whatsoever, which is also a chutzpah in itself. ╟─TreasuryTag►international waters─╢ 17:08, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

1. I regret to have to note that Sarek has just been reported at ANI for repeatedly leaving pointless and unwanted messages on an editor's talkpage after being asked to stop multiple times. ....translates as...
2. After a spat on my talkpage I have reported Sarek to ANI.

• Off2riorob (talk) 17:12, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

• Ah, and Sarek's still tracking my edits and reporting me at every opportunity. Splendid. ╟─TreasuryTag►high seas─╢ 20:32, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

  ...and clutching at straws in a seemingly desperate attempt to implicate me in wrongdoing now? ╟─TreasuryTag►Speaker─╢ 20:49, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose Both can work through this without need for more drama. If anything TT needs a trout for making mountains out of molehills. -- ۩ Mask 07:53, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh for Heaven's sake

I really don't know why I start ANI threads. Every damned time, it's turned into a stupid free-for-all in which every editor I've ever had a conflict with turns up to disparage me, nobody focuses on the original issue at all (which was Sarek harassing me on my talkpage – though since that came about through my alleged "crass hypocrisy" I guess it's completely justified?) and nothing get's done. For fuck's sake. Interaction ban, no interaction ban, do what you want. I would say, "Try to resolve the issue as best you can," but I know that would be an unrealistic expectation on my part. ╟─TreasuryTag►ballotbox─╢ 16:38, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I am not in conflict with you (at least not from my side) I comment on some of the issues as I see from a NPOV position - only yesterday I supported your position at the interaction ban another user was requesting from you, see my one comment in this thread Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Interaction ban.3F - I also don't think Sarek was particularly harassing you (better if he had allowed other users to comment)- you were in the wrong and overlinking. Calisber had pointed it out to you but you had refused to accept his/her advice. - Off2riorob (talk) 16:42, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

And what's your opinion on this then? Useful? Constructive? Appropriate? A good idea? ╟─TreasuryTag►senator─╢ 16:51, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Sarak should have taken the hint and left you to it. However I do think you should have still held your tongue and that your rudeness wasn't called for. I don't think this report was called for and I don't think your comment regarding your own report at Sarek's RFA was called for either. Off2riorob (talk) 16:55, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

While some of it was baiting for a reply, you don't need to make the situation any more useless, nonconstructive and inappropriate. By the looks of it though, it's heading that way. — Moe ε 17:06, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

• For the record, I don't recall ever having had any beef with TreasuryTag, but if you are in breach of policies or guidelines, I'd say you were fair game for comments on your talk page. Then you complain someone is hounding you when you just as happily hound him back – if that's not hypocrisy, I don't know what is. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 16:44, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

• It's because you are the common problem TT, nobody else. If you disagree, you could try looking for some actual support for this idea that you aren't - I suggest you open an editor review, and you can have free reign to remove or compartment any post from a user you can show might have a reason to have a grudge against you. If the majority of remaining editors agree you're generally an all round collaborative & cluefull editor, then you can cite that link in future cases like this, where you clearly feel you are the victim in the inevitable drama. But in my view, you are the common cause of the drama, and you truly don't appear to see what your problem is, or worse, are fully aware and just working within the letter rather than the spirit. Your only hope if you can't prove this victimisation theory is if someone here will agree to mentor you who you can run your decisions and draft comments/replies past first, before you force the inevitable, and the next interaction ban focusses on protecting everybody else from you. MickMacNee (talk) 17:25, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

  ^ What Mick said. When you constantly throw out snide, smart-ass remarks and edit summaries, there's gonna be few people anxious to assist you when it comes right back at you. You reap what you sow TT. Actually, WP:KETTLE comes to mind here as far as a link goes. just sayin. — Ched :  ?  17:53, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

  er, yes. Really, stunning lack of self-awareness. "Every damned time...every editor I've ever had a conflict with turns up to disparage me... nobody focuses on the original issue at all". TT, maybe, just maybe it's got something to with how you conduct yourself. Ever thought of that? DeCausa (talk) 20:20, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

• Why a free-for-all? WP:MMORPG. Tarc (talk) 19:19, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Looking at TreasuryTag's talk page, I do not see any comments from SarekOfVulcan that would constitute harassment. In fact, SarekOfVulcan rarely posts to TreasuryTag's talk page to begin with. There is simply no defined pattern of offensive behavior intended to intimidate or otherwise make TreasuryTag editing unpleasant. —Farix (t | c) 21:14, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I hope you are looking at the edit history because it seems that TT is deleting all of Sarek's comments so "looking at TreasuryTag's talk page," would not enable you to see the edits TT is complaining about. I'm not saying that you will agree with TT if you do look at the history, only that doing so is required to see the actual edits in question. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 21:19, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I have looked at the talk page history. In the last 500 edits going back as far as September 2010, SarekOfVulcan has only posted 11 comments, two of which were block notices and a third was a talkback notice. This is not counting removing an imposter's comment to TreasuryTag and removing a warning that TreasuryTag had removed ealier, but restored by an IP. —Farix (t | c) 21:49, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Let's stop this now.

I think the consensus is an interaction ban as proposed above, and if another admin agrees, will they please close this, If anyone thinks there wasn't enough reason before this now, this an/i certain gives enough. The two good editors clearly need some help in returning to more useful things than this, and the time to help them is right now, before things get even worse. DGG ( talk ) 05:08, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Do you think that the number of editors !voting oppose above are significantly outweighed by the number of editors !voting support – because I'm not convinced I see it that way. ╟─TreasuryTag►CANUKUS─╢ 08:05, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree -- on straight votes, it's 6 support, 7 oppose.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 11:38, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree that there's no consensus, but it should be pointed out that 2 of the "oppose" !votes you counted are the two subjects of the proposed ban, yourself and TT. Without those, it's 6 support, 5 oppose, still no consensus for a ban. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:26, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I, for one, would like to trout both editors, but I don't see consensus for an interaction ban here. Rd232 ^talk 13:12, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Something strange going on

As I've been monitoring the new user log, in the last several minutes three new users have appeared editing under what appear to be real names; however, their userpages are advertisements for businesses. Specifically, the users are User:MelParson, User:JonHardy, and User:MartyWalen. I find it very hard to believe that this is mere coincidence, especially given they're all badly formatted in the exact same way; could someone look into this? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:07, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Can't assume a relation just through camelCase spelling of usernames. I've seen this before, all you have to do is tag their user pages for deletion (or blank them as inappropriate) and give them a message welcoming them to Wikipedia and tell them not to use their user page for advertising. Whether the users are related in some way doesn't necessarily matter right now (unless they start abusing WP:SOCK). — Moe ε 18:27, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Tnxman307 appears to have blocked all three accounts. — Moe ε 18:29, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Yup, they're all the same person. Blocked and spam baleeted. TNXMan 18:31, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

@MoeEpsilon; that was my concern. I deal with userpage spam all the time, but seeing three accounts with real names in CamelCase names and promoting businesses in the exact same format raised my suspicions. It was way too obvious for SPI, so I figured I'd bring it here so someone could block the quacking ducks and head off any more of it at the pass. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:00, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, seeing as Tnxman307 is a checkuser, I would assume he knows that the accounts were related and blocked them. There have been times were the accounts were created in a similar manner and there was no major disruptions in terms of WP:SOCK, but if they want to get an unblock, there's a message which tells them how. No outstanding issue with it. :) — Moe ε 20:04, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

User Maheshkumaryadav creating a slew of poor articles

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

User:Maheshkumaryadav was recently the subject of a discussion here regarding a slew of articles he created about corruption in Pakistan - Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive693#User:Maheshkumaryadav. User:Rob commented in that discussion at 11:55 6 May that part of the "problem" was the sheer number of articles being created.

Today, Maheshkumaryadav has created another slew of poorly sourced, incorrect and mostly cloned articles regarding certain villages and police forces - Special:Contributions/Maheshkumaryadav. Some people, including myself, raised concerns about this on his talk page. In my case, the concerns got no response and some further articles were created after I had raised the issue.

As an example of the problem, Manipur Police contains a statement that the force has nine departments ... and then lists them as being three. This is elementary stuff and can probably be fixed if someone can find their way around the relevant police force's website. However, the sheer number - as Rob noted a couple of days ago - makes for more work than it should be. That statement about departments appears to have been applied to all of the police force articles, as have the inclusion of sections on officer ranks and insignia which may or may not be applicable to each force.

I have nothing against stub creation but the scale of these is a little intimidating. Is it acceptable practice? I sought the opinion of an admin, who referred me back to here because of the previous instance. - Sitush (talk) 19:29, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

That's not stub creation, it's creating loads of pages with the same content, all of which is irrelevant. We should not list the insignia of Indian or Pakistani police of the page for every police station, that's self-evident. Maheshkumaryadav doesn't seem to listen to the advice he is repeatedly given. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:00, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I know that villages - however obscure - are deemed to be notable. Are police forces? - Sitush (talk) 20:45, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I suggest a timed article creation ban. The editor has been warned before but doesn't appear to get it. --rgpk (comment) 20:42, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

If this is the case, please no more then a week, Sadads (talk) 20:50, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

-

(edit conflict)I strongly advise against blocking Mahesh. Though his contributions are sometimes a little rash, he has been slowly learning the values of the community and, I think today after weeks of hints, we have gotten partially through to him, and unlike his previous offenses, is not pushing pov rampantly anymore. I suggest instead that we continue to monitor his edits heavily and try to keep an eye on what he is doing. I am currently checking in on his contributions almost every day, and there are several more people watching his talk page, and increasingly his contributions are becoming more useful. Even thought the police department articles are not ideal, the lack of coverage of Wikipedia on these subjects is again pushing forward the issues of the WP:Systematic bias and undoubtedly, as the Indian internet population becomes more and more active (as we have already observed) these articles will get many more careful eyes looking over them. He is being rash, but at this point I don't think administrator action is necessary, and he is not being too disruptive, Sadads (talk) 20:49, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

A block is not necessary. An article creation ban will take care of this problem. He/she can always create articles in user space and asked for them to be moved to article space when they are ready. --rgpk (comment) 21:16, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

The village articles are also a problem. While human settlements are considered inherently notable, the stubs contain literally no information other than the village name along with the state and district its in. No coordinates, no census data, no details. Most importantly, they contain no references. Without at least geo-coordinates, we have neither verification nor any easy way to gain verification that these settlements exist. We don't know where Mahesh was getting these names from, if they're current, nor were we given any way to verify that event the name is correct. Technically speaking, they're all immediately deletable as being unverified. Still, I'm not sure there's anything an admin can actually do here; I guess what we need to decide is whether Mahesh must stop creating unverified sub-stubs, and, if so, whether someone should write xem a very clear warning to this effect. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:28, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I am grateful for Qwyrxian's contribution here as I am aware from the history that xe has been involved with this editor previously. While I do understand the intent of Sadads' comments, I feel that there is a limit of tolerance. My gut feeling is that the suggestion proposed by RegentsPark should in theory achieve something but am aware that Maheshkumaradav has previously put forward the argument that WP stifles new article creators. So, it is possible that by stifling Mahesh we could actually alienate him completely. Would that be a loss in the circumstances? Well, I'd like to hope that it doesn't actually push him over the edge but if it does then, frankly, that is just tough. The situation at present seems not to be working too well and if the "hints" are having any effect then the rate of improvement engendered by them appears to be dismally slow. Something (somebody) has got to give way. I am not experienced enough to make a judgement as to where, when or how but the situation at present seems to me to favour quantity over quality. If that is acceptable then so be it. - Sitush (talk) 23:05, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

There is an element of disruption in creating lots of new stub articles at one time and Maheshkumaryadav needs to see that. A timed article creation ban will give him/her the chance to work on creating articles in their user space, so their new article creation tendencies won't be stifled, only channeled more appropriately. We don't want to stifle new article creators but neither do we want to have to put up with the work of cleaning up when an editor creates too many meaningless ones. (I don't question the good faith of the editor but, just because he/she is acting in good faith doesn't mean that the end result is not disruptive.) --rgpk (comment) 23:13, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

That makes sense to me. If we make it clear that continued creation in userspace, with appropriate review prior to moving into mainspace, is still ok then hopefully we are all beneficiaries from the situation. If someone throws a hissy fit about this proposal then I would be astonished. - Sitush (talk) 23:31, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable, several of us are monitoring his talk page now, so I think we could handle inquiries/thoughts he is having right now. Again, I would like to reiterate a moderate time of banning though placed on him. He is extremely high energy in editing, and I fear anything longer then a week or two might be a little oppressive, Sadads (talk) 01:37, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I also think a weeks article creation block is a good idea. We shouldn't have to hint and explain for weeks and months to get somebody to listen. --OpenFuture (talk) 04:42, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

• I see nothing to seriously take issue with concerning his recent contributions in the last few days. The police articles are not about local police forces such as the US small town police forces articles we keep properly deleting, but regional police forces, such as are considered notable for the various US states & are therefore notable in India also. The content in them is basic , but I see nothing wrong in starting with basic content. The articles on towns are highly appropriate though they need at least the demographics and location, not just the jurisdictional material, and he should be encouraged to add the content, not discouraged from making the articles. There is more to be said in each case, but we are better having the articles than not having them. I'm aware of earlier problems with NPOV, but this is another matter. I see no reason not to make them directly in mainspace--stubs are permitted. They are not meaningless, just not as meaningful as they should be. It is just as good an option to start many articles to be finished later as to write a smaller number of more finished ones. This is an area of the world where we badly beed content. Sirtush says "the situation at present seems to me to favour quantity over quality." -- actually, the situation at present favors both ways of making articles. Let those who want to do them in a particular way do so, and not try to inhibit the ones who prefer the others. It would be very highly inappropriate to ban anyone from creating valid articles in whatever manner they care to do so. In some previous cases involving other editors, it was alleged that a large proportion of the articles were incorrect--which, if proven, is indeed a problem (it never was proven, just a few selected errors given which might or might not have been pervasive) . I don't see this is being even claimed here. Qwyrxian, as there is documentation that the places can be shown to exist, why not help trying to find the geolocations instead of objecting that someone else has not done so? (Above unsigned comment by User:DGG) Sorry, transmission error. DGG ( talk ) 05:12, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

My comment about the "situation" was with regard to Mahesh's work, not the project's policies and guidelines. I also do not think we are better having unreferenced articles which, by WP definition, are actually invalid, despite your apparent belief to the contrary. - Sitush (talk) 14:21, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I think the above comment is Sadads'. I have a problem with the final statement--as far as I can see, there is no documentation that the places can be shown to exist. Since no sources were provided, how can I, as someone not from those provinces, have any faith that they exist? I suppose there's some element of WP:AGF, but I know from having worked on other articles by this editor that they have made basic errors or intentional misinterpretations of sources. But Mahesh has given us literally nothing to work from, besides the name. I am not joking when I say that I have no way of knowing where these names of villages came from, and, for all I know, could be entirely fictitious. Again, if he had provided even a single source, like a vaguely recent almanac to verify location or somewhat current census data to verify government recognition, then I would accept the existence of these articles, and actually think them great--I have no problem with the creation of sub-stubs on human settlements, so long as there is at least a little bit of current, accurate, verification.

To me, these articles are essentially a type of reflection of the problem of the other article's Mahesh created that were impossibly NPOV flawed. It's fine to create articles that are incomplete. It is not fine to create articles that are fundamentally in conflict with one of the core pillars. These settlement articles do not yet meet WP:V, and I don't see why they should exist until they do. The Indian Corruption articles didn't meet NPOV, and in many cases couldn't because they were fundamentally mis-structures, mis-named, or undue. At this point, I'm coming to believe that an article creation ban is necessary until Mahesh can show that xe will create articles that meet the key tests of being neutral and have at least a minimum of verification. At the same time, xe either needs to go back and fix the ones already created, or accept that they may be deleted for lack of verification/neutrality. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:53, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I only checked one or two, and they did have refs in newspaper articles. If there's not even that, yes, the thing do is to to remind the user to get a ref first before writing, as is universally agreed to be good practice, and to make a priority of finding something for the ones without. (with, I continue,to suggest some help. I think some of the people here have more experience with sourcing geographical data than I, which is my only excuse for not helping directly. If someone who knows how tries and cannot find, then AfD is the way to get gemore general specific attention to material that appears impossible to verify.) And yes, I had realized how this evolved out of the earlier editing--when over general unrepresentative material was appropriately challenged, an attempt was made to provide some hopefully solid and non-controversial background. I think that was probably a good choice. Qwyrxian, I apologize for anything unintended or misattributed--i think you and I have the same goal--our only difference is that I would continue to try to keep everything positive, and a matter of continued encouragement to do it right. Forbidding someone to contribute articles would only be appropriate if they were shown to be not just unverified, but unverifiable. Encouraging them to be more careful can be done without the threat. DGG ( talk ) 05:20, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't completely agree with you on this. I do agree that Indian villages are probably poorly served on wikipedia and we do need articles, even mere stubs, on them. However, we do have a responsibility to at least minimally fact check the existence of these villages before we create these articles. Mass creation of village stubs makes this sort of fact checking difficult, if not impossible. Maheshkumaryadav is not a new editor and he has a history of creating article stubs on all sorts of non-notable topics as attested by his talk page history and I believe that a user-space only restriction would help him create better articles and will stave of a lot of unnecessary leg work on the part of other editors. --rgpk (comment) 13:33, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

The articles in question about the Indian police contains no references, just duplicated content. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:51, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I need help to geo tag the villages. Each village is having approx. population more than 1000 people. Help in expanding the village topics can be taken from google. eg. for village Parwala google returns a good info that can be used for that particular article. http://www.google.co.in/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=Parwala+is+a+village+in+Barwala+block+of+Panchkula+district+in+state+of+Haryana%2C+India.#sclient=psy&hl=en&source=hp&q=Parwala&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&pbx=1&fp=e84c85f56d8c905a&biw=1366&bih=677 . I am not having enough time to add content to each village article. The persons belonging to those villages are not internet savy and cannot create the quality of stub i have created for those villages (aprox 250 something), but they can improve the stubs i have provided. If the stubs are removed, it might take 5 years form most of articles to come again of wikipeida, but if they are left and improved with geotags and other data, within 12 months they can start growing. Mahesh Kumar Yadav (talk) 06:05, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Regarding police articles, these are nearly 10 -12 articles, each state police article is for police force that serves nearly 5 crore citizens (50 million people), there are only 20 something states in India an each have there police state police, these articles are for those state polices. There are approx. 10,000 to 50,000 employees in each state police force. A Google result for individual article will say a lot for the articles like http://www.google.co.in/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=Chandigarh+Police Most of the police articles have link to official organization website and with Google search others are welcome to improve the articles.Mahesh Kumar Yadav (talk) 06:05, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Regarding discussing of my blocking, that won't serve any purpose, at this point of learning curve and with style of creating articles, i am doing my best. Regarding my being active for last few days, i had time thats why i gave it to wikipedia, but maybe i won't be able to give that much time in future. Like each individual i have may own unique way of working. Because of low internet penetration in India and less computer literacy in rural areas, most of the stubs for the region are being removed compared to developed nations. Mahesh Kumar Yadav (talk) 06:05, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Would you perhaps agree to not making any more articles without references? That would solve the WP:V half of people's concern, at least. Alternatively/additionally, would you be willing to be mentored, as has been suggested before? Qwyrxian (talk) 06:29, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, Mahesh added 21 police force articles yesterday, all of them containing huge chunks of (to me) cloned unnecessary detail. I accept the issues raised regarding literacy, internet access etc but feel that the project should not be moving its standards to suit a geographical area. Inclusion is A Good Thing, but surely not at the expense of standards? Mahesh has been asked before to do some minor expansions of his content rather than "hell for leather" creation and I thought he had accepted that this would go a long way to placating the situation, but it seemed not to happen and there was no response to my messages. FWIW, I have spent a lot of time fettling subcontinent articles, so you can count me among the inclusionists on that score. - Sitush (talk) 09:56, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I really don't want to endorse an article creation ban. And, I dont' want to chase away such an enthusiastic newcomer. But this is all falling on deaf ears. He is saying that he doesn't have time to fix up the village articles, yet he has time to keep creating these products. He is leaving a lot of work for others, producing articles that should have consensus first, is moving content out of articles unnecessarily, is asking for our help, while not accepting any guidance. If he has the energy to produce these articles, he should have the energy to stop and fix them up. Some sort of solution is quite urgently required. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:41, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Note that the editor in question is not a newcomer and also has a history of apparently improper article creation (see the editor's talk page history). Discouraging editors from creating articles is not something we want to do but neither do we want to be in the position of forcing other editors to do the busy work of cleaning up after over enthusiastic editors. --rgpk (comment) 13:25, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I'm, sorry but this is now getting silly. Mahesh is steamrollering splits of school lists without discussion on the main article, without much regard for the content and without much care. Several people have weighed in on his talk page this morning but I sense that AGF may be wearing thin. He has time to do this but not enough time to fettle the existing articles he has created? - Sitush (talk) 11:45, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Don't demolish the house while it's still being built can give some of us the perspective to help grow the stubs. Mahesh Kumar Yadav (talk) 14:27, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

That article you quote is an essay. The policies and guidelines say that content must be notable and verifiable by reference to reliable sources. Furthermore, you should seek [[WP:|Consensus]], use edit summaries, maintain the licensing when splitting articles ... and umpteen other things that you have either not done or (which is great) sometimes have started doing after being prompted. You are not a new contributor here and you are not dealing with new contributors in this discussion. I think that I can safely say we are all familiar with how stubs can grow. - Sitush (talk) 15:15, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Persistent OR and lack of discussion/edit warring by Platinumshore

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

Platinumshore first appeared in January of 2011 to insert a paragraph into Peak oil. The many attempts to acquire adequate references for the new material (including difs) are documented in to (mostly ignored) complaints to 3RRN: [52] [53] On May 4, after the second 3RR request was not acted upon, Platinumshore again removed tags, and made minor cosmetic changes to the material (changing one discussion thread source for another), again with no discussion.

Assistance was also requested on wp:ea and ORn, though no comment was given. Given that this user refuses to discuss any changes, insists on removing tags such as CN and SYN giving no explanation, and only uses poor sources (such as discussion boards and youtube) for new material in a GA article, and given that this has been the pattern for 5 months, I request that some administrative action be taken.

This user only logs on every week or two to make the same changes, therefore a 3-day block will have no effect on their behavior. 173.10.73.233 (talk) 20:51, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

You forgot to notify him 173. I've just done that now. Fainites ^barleyscribs 21:13, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

List of Walker Texas Ranger Episodes

Praise2jesus4ever has been vandalizing this page by rewriting information and episode titles. -67.171.250.39 (talk) 21:20, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

• Well meaning edits are not vandalism
• You have not attempted to talk to Praise2jesus4ever
• You have not tried to discuss these changes on the article Talk page
• You have not informed Praise2jesus4ever of this report here - I will do that

-- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:42, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

They are not well meaning edits and that right now the mess is too big for me to revert right now. -67.171.250.39 (talk) 21:58, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the edits individually, they appear innocent in nature. He doesn't look like he is trying to harm anything, he is new to Wikipedia. I left him a message telling him not to experiment with the wiki syntax in the mainspace and to try in the sandbox first. — Moe ε 22:27, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Offwiki canvassing specifically targeting my contribs.

Martinoei (talk · contribs) claimed on my talk page that his blog readers insisted he do something about me - meaning he was canvassed to be a meatpuppet. He then posted on his blog two entries: 1 2 - asking readers to engage in revert warring. His blog is repeated by other blogs, so this has some traction. Along came a series of IP addresses and stale (had not edited in years) user accounts that began revert warring.

Recommended action for an admin:

• Educate Martinoei to appropriate on-wiki behaviors.
• Protect (try semi-pp first) for a few weeks the following articles: Shenzhen Bay Control Point, Lotus Bridge, Lok Ma Chau Station, Lo Wu Control Point, Lok Ma Chau Control Point, Man Kam To Control Point, Sha Tau Kok Control Point. These articles seem to be the focus of the current disruption.

Sign: SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 22:00, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I believe your complain only is the personal attack on me. Please read his article in User:SchumckyTheCat/Mainland_China before examine the complain, his editing work only impose his political point of view in Wikipedia English. I don't want to change the Schumcky political faith, but he is changing the wording of Wikipedia to fit his political standpoint, this is vandalism. Before you complain me as meatpuppet, please think about your edits in the article.

Administrator, please drop the complain from this guy.

On the other hand, his Chinese nickname 猶太陰莖貓 is insulting Jewish and indecent in Chinese. The exact translation of his Chinese nickname is Jewish penis cat, why Wikipedia English can allow this kind of user to be editor? His nickname is a racism nickname. Please think it carefully. Martinoei (talk) 22:31, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Can someone offer an english translation of those blog posts and is Martinoei willing to confirm or deny those are their posts? Google translate is making a hash of the text. Protonk (talk) 22:45, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Er, yeah, is there a valid reason for having a racial slur in Chinese on SchmuckyTheCat's userpage? Fences&Windows 22:56, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

And "rice boy" is another blatant racial slur. Schmucky, please edit to remove racial slurs from your userpage. Fences&Windows 22:59, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

He actually can't, the page has been protected since 2008. Prodego ^talk 23:00, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Actual link that is red linked above is User:SchmuckyTheCat/Mainland China, which is kind of troublesome.. — Moe ε 23:08, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, good point. I've removed them. Cue hanging and flogging from the peanut gallery for being the "civility police"? Fences&Windows 23:12, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Whoa, did somebody call the morals police? Rice boy is a term in the street car scene relating to cars that are done up aesthetically but not better at performance. This morality nonsense is clearly unnecessary IMO. Plus, how would "rice anything" be "racist" if the user himself is Chinese (from what I can put together)? I own a riced-up car too, and that makes me a "rice boy" as well. That's what people are called when they own a riced-up car. I don't get the controversy. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 23:44, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

"how would "rice anything" be "racist" if the user himself is Chinese" While I agree "rice boy" wasn't necessarily the worst name I've ever heard, let's not open the "it's not racist if they themselves use it" can of beans. — Moe ε 23:56, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I was confused by this too- where I live, 'ricer' is pointed at a person who drives Japanese cars of unimpressive quality but enhanced spiffiness. It's a car-related insult, unrelated to the race of the driver. I guess it might be racist against the people who manufactured the cars. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:06, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

@Moe_Epsilon: And still, I've no idea how "rice XYZ" is considered racist in the first place. Rice is a grain seed that grows from a plant in the ground, and is cultivated in Asia, where it is eaten as a staple food. Is there any reason why anyone should find "rice boy" demeaning? If we call newspaper delivery people "paper boys" and young monks that pray in temples "altar boys", why can't we call people "rice boys" in the same manner, regardless of the context of food or automobiles? If this is because of affirmative action or political correctness, then why not make Wikipedia more doubleplusgood by removing all crimethink? Removing things based on assumptions alone seems pretty Orwellian to me. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 02:15, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't have an idea, you'd have to ask the people who thought it was a racist term to begin with, I never said it was. I know what rice is, I'm also familiar with the slang "rice boy" in terms of automobiles. :p — Moe ε 02:22, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Can we come back to the original topic of this? I can't view the blog posts listed above, but if indeed Martinoei is using his blog to canvass off-wiki, that's got to stop. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:55, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Systematic vandalism from SchmuckyTheCat on Hong Kong related article

Please check the editing history from SchmuckyTheCat

Extended content

22:00, 9 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents ‎ (→Offwiki canvassing specifically targeting my contribs.) 21:59, 9 May 2011 (diff | hist) User talk:Martinoei ‎ (top) 21:58, 9 May 2011 (diff | hist) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents ‎ (→Offwiki canvassing specifically targeting my contribs.: new section) 21:34, 9 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Tai Po Kau Station ‎ (tighter stub cat) 14:07, 9 May 2011 (diff | hist) Category:Hong Kong rapid transit stubs ‎ (already in child categories.) (top) 14:06, 9 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Shenzhen Bay Control Point ‎ (Reverted edits by Martinoei (talk) to last version by SchmuckyTheCat) 14:06, 9 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Lotus Bridge ‎ (Reverted edits by Martinoei (talk) to last version by SchmuckyTheCat) 14:05, 9 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Lok Ma Chau Station ‎ (Reverted edits by 139.80.123.36 (talk) to last version by Alexlaw19) 14:04, 9 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Lo Wu Control Point ‎ (Reverted edits by 139.80.123.36 (talk) to last version by Qwyrxian) 14:04, 9 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Lok Ma Chau Control Point ‎ (Reverted edits by 139.80.123.36 (talk) to last version by SchmuckyTheCat) 14:04, 9 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Man Kam To Control Point ‎ (Reverted edits by 139.80.123.36 (talk) to last version by Alexlaw19) 14:04, 9 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Sha Tau Kok Control Point ‎ (Reverted edits by 139.80.123.36 (talk) to last version by SchmuckyTheCat) 14:03, 9 May 2011 (diff | hist) User talk:SchmuckyTheCat ‎ (→Please respect Hong Kong own identity and culture) 06:16, 9 May 2011 (diff | hist) User talk:SchmuckyTheCat ‎ (→Please respect Hong Kong own identity and culture) 06:11, 9 May 2011 (diff | hist) Shenzhen Bay Control Point ‎ (Reverted to revision 428169546 by SchmuckyTheCat; curious resurrection of idle user in order to engage in edit war as proxy for banned user.. (TW)) 06:10, 9 May 2011 (diff | hist) Lotus Bridge ‎ (Reverted to revision 428169424 by SchmuckyTheCat; curious resurrection of idle user in order to engage in POV edit war as proxy for banned user.. (TW)) 04:38, 9 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link Hong Kong Section ‎ (grammar.) (top) 02:48, 9 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Samsung SCH-U450 ‎ (top) 02:29, 9 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Chinese Canadian ‎ (→References) (top) 02:29, 9 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Chinese Canadian ‎ (→See also) 02:26, 9 May 2011 (diff | hist) Wikipedia talk:WikiProject The Twilight Zone ‎ (→Vandals?) (top) 02:18, 9 May 2011 (diff | hist) Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 May 2 ‎ (→Shinese) (top) 02:10, 9 May 2011 (diff | hist) Chinese Canadian ‎ (→Language: why is this in blockquotes?) 02:06, 9 May 2011 (diff | hist) List of Canadian cities with large Chinese populations ‎ (adding unsourced tag. the title says it is from the 2001 census, but we have no concurrence.) 02:04, 9 May 2011 (diff | hist) List of Canadian cities with large Chinese populations ‎ (→List: the ethnic group column was unsourced and subject to an edit war. as contested unsourced material it should be removed.) 01:31, 9 May 2011 (diff | hist) Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 May 8 ‎ (→Nudity in The Simpsons) 01:00, 9 May 2011 (diff | hist) Sha Tau Kok Control Point ‎ (Reverted to revision 427940055 by SchmuckyTheCat; curious resurrection of idle user in order to engage in edit war as proxy for banned user.. (TW)) 00:56, 9 May 2011 (diff | hist) Shenzhen Bay Control Point ‎ (Reverted to revision 427940363 by SchmuckyTheCat; curious resurrection of idle user in order to engage in edit war as proxy for banned user. (TW)) 00:56, 9 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Shenzhen Bay Port ‎ (Reverted edits by Hillgentleman (talk) to last version by SchmuckyTheCat) (top) 00:56, 9 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Posto Fronteiriço das Portas do Cerco ‎ (Reverted edits by Hillgentleman (talk) to last version by SchmuckyTheCat) (top) 00:56, 9 May 2011 (diff | hist) Portas do Cerco ‎ (Reverted to revision 427944529 by SchmuckyTheCat; curious resurrection of idle user in order to engage in edit war as proxy for banned user. (TW)) (top) 00:55, 9 May 2011 (diff | hist) Lotus Bridge ‎ (Reverted to revision 428090370 by SchmuckyTheCat; curious resurrection of idle user in order to engage in edit war as proxy for banned user. (TW)) 00:54, 9 May 2011 (diff | hist) Talk:Comparison of Internet Relay Chat clients ‎ (→Article blanking and "sources") 00:46, 9 May 2011 (diff | hist) Huanggang Port Control Point ‎ (Reverted to revision 427944795 by SchmuckyTheCat; curious resurrection of long idle user account to engage in edit war as proxy for banned user.. (TW)) (top) 00:46, 9 May 2011 (diff | hist) Futian Port Control Point ‎ (Reverted to revision 427941594 by Mato; curious resurrection of dead user account to engage in edit war for banned user. (TW)) (top) 21:28, 8 May 2011 (diff | hist) Talk:Comparison of Internet Relay Chat clients ‎ (→Article blanking and "sources") 21:27, 8 May 2011 (diff | hist) Talk:Comparison of Internet Relay Chat clients ‎ (→Article blanking and "sources") 20:57, 8 May 2011 (diff | hist) Talk:Lotus Bridge ‎ (Reverted to revision 334874403 by WPArkansas Bot; this is in China, and belongs in the China Wikiproject.. (TW)) 20:56, 8 May 2011 (diff | hist) User talk:SchmuckyTheCat ‎ (→Please respect Hong Kong own identity and culture) 15:39, 8 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Lotus Bridge ‎ (Reverted edits by 202.140.105.136 (talk) to last version by SchmuckyTheCat) 10:06, 8 May 2011 (diff | hist) Lotus Bridge ‎ (fix template.) 10:00, 8 May 2011 (diff | hist) Lotus Bridge ‎ (Reverted 1 edit by Martinoei (talk); Really curious a user idle for three years will siddenly participate in an edit war. (TW)) 10:00, 8 May 2011 (diff | hist) Lok Ma Chau Station ‎ (Reverted 1 edit by Martinoei (talk); Really curious that a user idle for three years will siddenly participate in an edit war. (TW)) 09:59, 8 May 2011 (diff | hist) List of Canadian cities with large Chinese populations ‎ (Reverted 1 edit by Martinoei (talk); Really curious that a user idle for three years will siddenly participate in an edit war. (TW)) 04:34, 8 May 2011 (diff | hist) m List of Canadian cities with large Chinese populations ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.142.19 (talk) to last version by SchmuckyTheCat) 04:34, 8 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Lok Ma Chau Station ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.142.19 (talk) to last version by SchmuckyTheCat) 03:40, 8 May 2011 (diff | hist) User talk:SchmuckyTheCat ‎ (→May 2011) 18:56, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) Template talk:Guangdong – Hong Kong border crossings ‎ (→Requested moved) 18:50, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) User talk:218.250.142.19 ‎ 18:49, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) User talk:218.250.143.151 ‎ (top) 17:46, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) Template:Guangdong – Hong Kong border crossings ‎ (Reverted to revision 427941531 by Mato; revert past banned user. (TW)) (top) 17:44, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) Huanggang Port Control Point ‎ (Reverted to revision 427928354 by Qwyrxian; make it easier, just revert past the banned user. (TW)) 17:42, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Lotus Bridge ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.142.19 (talk) to last version by SchmuckyTheCat) 17:42, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Portas do Cerco ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.142.19 (talk) to last version by Mato) 17:41, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Posto Fronteiriço das Portas do Cerco ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.142.19 (talk) to last version by Freakmighty) 17:30, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) User talk:SchmuckyTheCat ‎ (→WP:3RR) 17:29, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) Lok Ma Chau Control Point ‎ (Reverted 1 edit by 218.250.142.19 (talk); Removing edits by banned user. (TW)) 17:28, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Macanese people (Macanese-born Portuguese people) ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.142.19 (talk) to last version by 219.77.91.12) (top) 17:28, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Macanese people ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.142.19 (talk) to last version by SchmuckyTheCat) (top) 17:21, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) User talk:SchmuckyTheCat ‎ (→WP:3RR) 17:15, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) User talk:SchmuckyTheCat ‎ (→WP:3RR) 17:14, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Shenzhen Bay Port ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.143.151 (talk) to last version by SchmuckyTheCat) 17:14, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Shenzhen Bay Control Point ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.143.151 (talk) to last version by SchmuckyTheCat) 17:14, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Futian Port Control Point ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.143.151 (talk) to last version by SchmuckyTheCat) 17:14, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Category:Immigration Control Stations in Hong Kong ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.143.151 (talk) to last version by SchmuckyTheCat) 17:14, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Hail and ride ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.143.151 (talk) to last version by SchmuckyTheCat) (top) 17:14, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Request stop ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.143.151 (talk) to last version by SchmuckyTheCat) 17:13, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Man Kam To Control Point ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.143.151 (talk) to last version by SchmuckyTheCat) 17:13, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Lok Ma Chau Station ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.143.151 (talk) to last version by SchmuckyTheCat) 17:12, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m List of Canadian cities with large Chinese populations ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.142.19 (talk) to last version by 184.144.163.181) 17:12, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Template:Guangdong – Hong Kong border crossings ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.142.19 (talk) to last version by SchmuckyTheCat) 17:12, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Lotus Bridge ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.142.19 (talk) to last version by SchmuckyTheCat) 17:12, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Portas do Cerco ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.142.19 (talk) to last version by SchmuckyTheCat) 17:12, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Posto Fronteiriço das Portas do Cerco ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.142.19 (talk) to last version by SchmuckyTheCat) 17:12, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Category:China–Macau border crossings ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.142.19 (talk) to last version by SchmuckyTheCat) (top) 17:12, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Category:China – Hong Kong border crossings ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.142.19 (talk) to last version by SchmuckyTheCat) (top) 17:12, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Gongbei Port of Entry ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.142.19 (talk) to last version by SchmuckyTheCat) (top) 17:12, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Sha Tau Kok Control Point ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.142.19 (talk) to last version by SchmuckyTheCat) 17:12, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Lok Ma Chau Spur Line Control Point ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.142.19 (talk) to last version by SchmuckyTheCat) (top) 17:12, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Hong Kong-Shenzhen Western Corridor ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.142.19 (talk) to last version by SchmuckyTheCat) 17:12, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Category:Guangdong – Macau border crossings ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.142.19 (talk) to last version by SchmuckyTheCat) 17:12, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Category:Guangdong – Hong Kong border crossings ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.142.19 (talk) to last version by SchmuckyTheCat) 17:12, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Macanese people ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.142.19 (talk) to last version by SchmuckyTheCat) 17:11, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents ‎ (→Need a sock block) 16:36, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents ‎ (→Need a sock block: 218.250.143.151 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), incarnation of User:Instantnood) 16:29, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Canadian cities with large Chinese populations ‎ (top) 16:28, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) Template talk:Guangdong – Hong Kong border crossings ‎ (→Recent move) 16:21, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Category:Guangdong – Macau border crossings ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.143.151 (talk) to last version by SchmuckyTheCat) 16:21, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Template:Guangdong – Hong Kong border crossings ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.143.151 (talk) to last version by SchmuckyTheCat) 16:21, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Lotus Bridge ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.143.151 (talk) to last version by SchmuckyTheCat) 16:21, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Portas do Cerco ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.143.151 (talk) to last version by SchmuckyTheCat) 16:21, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Macanese people ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.143.151 (talk) to last version by SchmuckyTheCat) 16:21, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Posto Fronteiriço das Portas do Cerco ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.143.151 (talk) to last version by SchmuckyTheCat) 16:21, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Category:China–Macau border crossings ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.143.151 (talk) to last version by Qwyrxian) 16:21, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Category:China – Hong Kong border crossings ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.143.151 (talk) to last version by Qwyrxian) 16:21, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Gongbei Port of Entry ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.143.151 (talk) to last version by Qwyrxian) 16:21, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Sha Tau Kok Control Point ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.143.151 (talk) to last version by SchmuckyTheCat) 16:21, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Category:Guangdong – Hong Kong border crossings ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.143.151 (talk) to last version by SchmuckyTheCat) 16:21, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Lok Ma Chau Spur Line Control Point ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.143.151 (talk) to last version by SchmuckyTheCat) 16:20, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Hong Kong-Shenzhen Western Corridor ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.143.151 (talk) to last version by SchmuckyTheCat) 16:20, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Lok Ma Chau Control Point ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.143.151 (talk) to last version by SchmuckyTheCat) 16:20, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Category talk:China – Hong Kong border crossings ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.143.151 (talk) to last version by SchmuckyTheCat) (top) 16:19, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) Template talk:Guangdong – Hong Kong border crossings ‎ (→Recent move) 16:14, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) User talk:SchmuckyTheCat ‎ (→HK / Macao renaming) 15:37, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Category:China–Macau border crossings ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.143.151 (talk) to last version by SchmuckyTheCat) 15:37, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Lotus Bridge ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.143.151 (talk) to last version by SchmuckyTheCat) 15:37, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Template:Guangdong – Hong Kong border crossings ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.143.151 (talk) to last version by SchmuckyTheCat) 15:37, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Portas do Cerco ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.143.151 (talk) to last version by SchmuckyTheCat) 15:30, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) Macanese people ‎ (Reverted to revision 418787963 by 82.110.91.242; citation is reference number 1. (TW)) 15:28, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Posto Fronteiriço das Portas do Cerco ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.143.151 (talk) to last version by SchmuckyTheCat) 15:28, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) User talk:Vmenkov ‎ (Macau) (top) 15:23, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Lo Wu Control Point ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.143.151 (talk) to last version by SchmuckyTheCat) 15:23, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Template:Guangdong – Hong Kong border crossings ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.143.151 (talk) to last version by SchmuckyTheCat) 15:23, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Huanggang Port Control Point ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.143.151 (talk) to last version by SchmuckyTheCat) 15:23, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Sha Tau Kok Control Point ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.143.151 (talk) to last version by SchmuckyTheCat) 15:23, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Category talk:China – Hong Kong border crossings ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.143.151 (talk) to last version by SchmuckyTheCat) 15:23, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Lok Ma Chau Control Point ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.143.151 (talk) to last version by SchmuckyTheCat) 15:23, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Category:Guangdong – Hong Kong border crossings ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.143.151 (talk) to last version by SchmuckyTheCat) 15:23, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Lok Ma Chau Spur Line Control Point ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.143.151 (talk) to last version by SchmuckyTheCat) 15:23, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Hong Kong-Shenzhen Western Corridor ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.143.151 (talk) to last version by SchmuckyTheCat) 15:23, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Shenzhen Bay Port ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.143.151 (talk) to last version by SchmuckyTheCat) 15:23, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Shenzhen Bay Control Point ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.143.151 (talk) to last version by SchmuckyTheCat) 15:21, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) Posto Fronteiriço das Portas do Cerco ‎ (the category was moved. this is all internal to China) 15:21, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) Lotus Bridge ‎ (the category was moved. this is all internal to China) 15:16, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Template:Guangdong - Macau border crossings ‎ 15:15, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) Template:Guangdong - Macau border crossings ‎ (consistent with move.) 15:13, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) N Category:Guangdong – Macau border crossings ‎←Created page with ' 15:11, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) Category:China–Macau border crossings ‎ (db-catempty) 15:10, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Category:China – Hong Kong border crossings ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.143.151 (talk) to last version by Qwyrxian) 15:10, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Gongbei Port of Entry ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.143.151 (talk) to last version by SchmuckyTheCat) 15:09, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) Hengqin New Area ‎ (city, not a cross in itself.) (top) 15:08, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) User talk:SchmuckyTheCat ‎ (→The massive cross wiki war going on right now) 15:08, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) User talk:SchmuckyTheCat ‎ (→The massive cross wiki war going on right now) 15:06, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) Zhuhai ‎ (→External links: rm cat) (top) 15:05, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) Posto Fronteiriço das Portas do Cerco ‎ (this is all in China.) 15:04, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Portas do Cerco ‎ 15:02, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Portas do Cerco ‎ 15:02, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) Portas do Cerco ‎ (It is not like China is a different "side", this is all internal to China.) 15:00, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) Lotus Bridge ‎ (this is all in China.) 14:58, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) Template:Guangdong - Macau border crossings ‎ (consistent with move.) 14:58, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Template:Guangdong - Macau border crossings ‎ (moved Template:Macau border crossings to Template:Guangdong - Macau border crossings: consistent with HK template) 14:58, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Template talk:Guangdong - Macau border crossings ‎ (moved Template talk:Macau border crossings to Template talk:Guangdong - Macau border crossings: consistent with HK template) (top) 14:58, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) N Template talk:Macau border crossings ‎ (moved Template talk:Macau border crossings to Template talk:Guangdong - Macau border crossings: consistent with HK template) (top) 14:58, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) N Template:Macau border crossings ‎ (moved Template:Macau border crossings to Template:Guangdong - Macau border crossings: consistent with HK template) (top) 14:55, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) Template:Guangdong - Macau border crossings ‎ (consistent with presenting this as intra-country internal border) 14:54, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Template talk:Guangdong - Macau border crossings ‎ (moved Template talk:China–Macau border crossings to Template talk:Macau border crossings: There are not two countries here, it is internal to China) 14:54, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) N Template talk:China–Macau border crossings ‎ (moved Template talk:China–Macau border crossings to Template talk:Macau border crossings: There are not two countries here, it is internal to China) 14:54, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Template:Guangdong - Macau border crossings ‎ (moved Template:China–Macau border crossings to Template:Macau border crossings: There are not two countries here, it is internal to China) 14:54, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) N Template:China–Macau border crossings ‎ (moved Template:China–Macau border crossings to Template:Macau border crossings: There are not two countries here, it is internal to China) 14:53, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) Gongbei Port of Entry ‎ (this is all in China.) st version by Ricky@36) 13:30, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Lok Ma Chau Station ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.143.151 (talk) to last version by Sma 13:30, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Huanggang Port Control Point ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.143.151 (talk) to last version by SchmuckyTheCat) 13:30, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Lo Wu Control Point ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.143.151 (talk) to last version by SchmuckyTheCat) 13:30, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Template:Guangdong – Hong Kong border crossings ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.143.151 (talk) to last version by SchmuckyTheCat) 13:30, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Category:China – Hong Kong border crossings ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.143.151 (talk) to last version by After Midnight) 13:30, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Sha Tau Kok Control Point ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.143.151 (talk) to last version by SchmuckyTheCat) 13:30, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macau Bridge ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.143.151 (talk) to last version by SchmuckyTheCat) 13:30, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Lok Ma Chau Control Point ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.143.151 (talk) to last version by SchmuckyTheCat) 13:30, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Category talk:China – Hong Kong border crossings ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.143.151 (talk) to last version by Cydebot) 13:30, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Tidal island ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.143.151 (talk) to last version by SchmuckyTheCat) (top) 13:30, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m British Airways destinations ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.143.151 (talk) to last version by 120.63.155.29) (top) 13:29, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Category:Orbital roads in Hong Kong ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.143.151 (talk) to last version by SchmuckyTheCat) (top) 13:29, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Rail transport in Hong Kong ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.143.151 (talk) to last version by Yobot) (top) 13:29, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Category:Hong Kong rapid transit stubs ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.143.151 (talk) to last version by SchmuckyTheCat) 13:29, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Template:KCR-stub ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.143.151 (talk) to last version by 58.153.96.209) (top) 13:29, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Template:HongKong-rapidtransit-stub ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.143.151 (talk) to last version by Colonies Chris) (top) 13:29, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2011/April/27 ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.143.151 (talk) to last version by Dawynn) 13:29, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Template:MTR-stub ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.143.151 (talk) to last version by Dawynn) (top) 13:29, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Template:XRL ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.143.151 (talk) to last version by Hammersoft) (top) 13:29, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Garden Road (Peak Tram) ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.143.151 (talk) to last version by Wongm) (top) 13:29, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m MacDonnell Road (Peak Tram) ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.143.151 (talk) to last version by SmackBot) (top) 13:29, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Kennedy Road (Peak Tram) ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.143.151 (talk) to last version by Heimstern) (top) 13:29, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m May Road (Peak Tram) ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.143.151 (talk) to last version by SmackBot) (top) 13:29, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m List of largest cable-stayed bridges ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.143.151 (talk) to last version by 12.108.78.146) (top) 13:29, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m List of ring roads ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.143.151 (talk) to last version by SchmuckyTheCat) (top) 13:28, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Break-of-gauge ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.143.151 (talk) to last version by Max Laguna) 13:27, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m List of flags by color ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.143.151 (talk) to last version by SchmuckyTheCat) (top) 05:18, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) Comparison of Internet Relay Chat clients ‎ (rm ii as without sources, as per talk page notice.) 05:13, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) Category:China – Hong Kong border crossings ‎ (Requesting speedy deletion (CSD C1). (TW)) 05:12, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) Template:Guangdong – Hong Kong border crossings ‎ (Guangdong and HK are peers within China.) 05:07, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Hong Kong China Ferry Terminal ‎ (top) 05:07, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) Shenzhen Bay Control Point ‎ (Guangdong and HK are peers within China.) 05:06, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) Sha Tau Kok Control Point ‎ (Guangdong and HK are peers within China.) 05:06, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) Sha Tau Kok ‎ (Guangdong and HK are peers within China.) 05:04, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) Man Kam To Control Point ‎ (Guangdong and HK are peers within China.) 05:04, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) Lok Ma Chau Station ‎ (Guangdong and HK are peers within China.) 05:03, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) Rock-paper-scissors ‎ (→External links: rm annoying ws.) 05:02, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) Lok Ma Chau Control Point ‎ (Guangdong and HK are peers within China.) 05:01, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) Lo Wu Control Point ‎ (Guangdong and HK are peers within China.) 05:00, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) Huanggang Port Control Point ‎ (Guandong and HK are peers within China.) 05:00, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) N Category:Guangdong – Hong Kong border crossings ‎ (←Created page with 'This category contains pages on border crossings between Guangdong and Hong Kong. [[Category:Border crossi...') 04:59, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) Futian Port Control Point ‎ (it is all in China) 04:58, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) Category:Shenzhen ‎ (not a subcat of that.) (top) 04:57, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) Category:China – Hong Kong border crossings ‎ 04:55, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Man Kam To Control Point ‎ (my bad, fix it.) 04:54, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Hong Kong China Ferry Terminal ‎ (my bad.) 04:51, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) Template:Guangdong – Hong Kong border crossings ‎ (retitle, to go with rename) 04:50, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Template talk:Guangdong – Hong Kong border crossings ‎ (moved Template talk:China – Hong Kong border crossings to Template talk:Guangdong – Hong Kong border crossings: Hong Kong is part of China, the border is between 1st order political divisions.) 04:50, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) N Template talk:China – Hong Kong border crossings ‎ (moved Template talk:China – Hong Kong border crossings to Template talk:Guangdong – Hong Kong border crossings: Hong Kong is part of China, the border is between 1st order political divisions.) (top) 04:50, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Template:Guangdong – Hong Kong border crossings ‎ (moved Template:China – Hong Kong border crossings to Template:Guangdong – Hong Kong border crossings: Hong Kong is part of China, the border is between 1st order political divisions.) 04:50, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) N Template:China – Hong Kong border crossings ‎ (moved Template:China – Hong Kong border crossings to Template:Guangdong – Hong Kong border crossings: Hong Kong is part of China, the border is between 1st order political divisions.) (top) 04:48, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) Sha Tau Kok Control Point ‎ 04:48, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Lok Ma Chau Station ‎ (GuanGdong,) 04:45, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) Guandong province ‎ (←Redirected page to Guangdong) 04:44, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) N Guandong province ‎ (←Redirected page to Guandong) 03:44, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) Lok Ma Chau Station ‎ (this is all in China. The border is between first order divisions that require immigration controls.) 03:40, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) Sha Tau Kok Control Point ‎ (Reverted to revision 427677116 by SchmuckyTheCat; this is all in Chian. (TW)) 03:39, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Escape Clause ‎ (Reverted edits by 64.132.104.226 (talk) to last version by Thecheesykid) (top) 05:39, 6 May 2011 (diff | hist) Hong Kong-Shenzhen Western Corridor ‎ (It is not like China is a different "side", this is all internal to China.) 05:33, 6 May 2011 (diff | hist) Shenzhen Bay Control Point ‎ (it is all in China) 05:32, 6 May 2011 (diff | hist) Hong Kong China Ferry Terminal ‎ (this is all in China.)

He wastes most of his time to change all Hong Kong related articles as "within China" article, because he thinks Hong kong is just an ordinary city of China. In Chinese constitution, Hong Kong and Macau both are not treated as the part of China due to international treaties and special article of Chinese constitution. Hong Kong resident cannot enter mainland without the visa (Home Entrance permit is required for Chinese Citizen in Hong Kong, Visa is required for non Chinese Citizen in Hong Kong like me. His contribution history clearly shows his systematic vandalisms on Hong Kong and Macau related articles. I really beg the administrator to prompt action against this kind vandalism. I do not have enough evidence to prove his political intention, but so many Hong Kong users will think he is insulting them.

Please check his editing history carefully.

I have idled in Wikipedia English does not means I am meatpuppet. The real meatpuppet will not file this kind of complain and defend the Wikipedia. I vote in metawiki due to my activities in Chinese and Cantonese Wikipedia. Martinoei (talk) 22:44, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

You don't need to list his entire editing history, a link to here will suffice. Regards, Bob House 884 (talk) 22:58, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

It's already been quite clearly addressed on Martinoei's talk page that this is not vandalism. There's nothing here for administrators to do unless there are instances of blockable edit warring, which might lead to blocks on both sides (and keep in mind that many of Schmucky's reverts on this type of article have been of a banned user and would not count as edit warring). Heimstern Läufer (talk) 23:31, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

You keep using the word "vandalism", but I'm sure you don't know what it means - this is not "vandalism". Additionally, your claim that "Hong Kong is not China" is your own POV, and it would take some persuasive arguing to prove that it is indeed factual. The Flag of the People's Republic of China flies full-mast above the local legislature of Hong Kong, so how is Hong Kong not China? Your claim about international treaties and the Chinese constitution makes no sense, as the Basic Law of Hong Kong clearly states Hong Kong as a Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China, and although autonomy is guaranteed via the one country, two systems policy, there are no foreign countries or international organizations at all that recognise Hong Kong as a separate sovereign state. Claiming that HKers "will think he is insulting them" is also a gross generalization; can you speak on behalf of all 8 million of them? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 02:21, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Back to the blogs

I'm using Google Chrome, which has a built in translation service. Obviously, the service is not very good at translating Chinese, but it's enough to get the gist of it. Reading through both entries, I can say that the second one is far more concerning than the first.

A rough translation of the first paragraph gets, "I would not interfere with another's political beliefs, but if this person is planning on applying his northern beliefs across the English Wikipedia, then there is only one choice, to give him a head blow." That's probably some sort of colloquialism. Anyways, it goes on to say in the second paragraph, "It has been impossible to get any meaningful dialogue with this user and how he is dwarfing Hong Kong in his own way. So, I suggest to all of you, brothers, to cancel all of his political views on all the articles he edits. I believe he will not surrender and some of your accounts will be banned, so be prepared. But if he has intended to offend the people of Hong Kong, he will know the price for doing so."

....so, yeah. I think we have a problem here and it's not with Schmucky, but with Martinoei. Silverseren^C 04:45, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Ickyuck. Hong Kong's such a sensible place, too; I really wouldn't have thought it have such nationalistic (err, special administrative regionalistic?) battleground mentality coming from it. Before suggesting action, could a Chinese-reading user possibly verify this translation? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 09:43, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

It's something like "to revert all edits in which he applied his political view", but otherwise the translation is fairly accurate. T. Canens (talk) 13:23, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Well then, blatantly unacceptable canvassing, I'd say. What should be done? Is this just something where he needs to warned to stop, or is something stronger required? (I'm actually asking; I really don't have all that much experience with canvassing issues.) Heimstern Läufer (talk) 15:52, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Shuvuhikovsky was planning to approve every article in this project (or disapprove them, I guess) for reading by people from his country (Belarus)

Resolved

 – Wannabe censor (or prankster) indef'd.

He claimed to have Jimbo's permission to add "approved" text in Belarussian at the end of any articles he found satisfactory here! I reverted and blocked him. Please comment, folks. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:11, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I would not have blocked him so quickly (although he'd already been warned by another editor) were it not for the arrogant "I have agreement with Jim Wales for permission stamp of Belaurus government approved. 'Step Away' and let me confront my work." on my talk page. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:15, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Considering that he said, " This behaviour of mine is one to be not argued. The people of Republic of Belaurus need approval for English speakers for articles. I work for Belaurus government so therefore agreement is to be tabled shortly with Wikipedia and Republic of Belaurus for permission. So please SIR, let me carry on my business and this sort of legislation will be not null and devoid," I hope for the sake of the citizens of that country that he is speaking nonsense. Good block. DGG ( talk ) 01:21, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I hope for the sake of the English language he's speaking nonsense. The above makes very little sense, and I don't think context will save it. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 01:27, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

From the sound of it, that might well have been something Alexander Lukashenko himself would say; his speeches usually make about that much sense. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:55, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

¯\(°_o)/¯ could have been worse I guess, at least it was "Belarus viewership" and not for the approval of the PRC. Good block. — Moe ε 01:40, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

eh he turned up on IRC but eventualy gave up the pretense.©Geni 01:31, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Why are you guys so worried? He approves of Miss Universe Ireland 2009. Tijfo098 (talk) 07:00, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, again

Hey admins, time to get busy; there's a bit of a backlog. I need one of you who's willing to Revdel some nasty stuff to pull the trigger. Drmies (talk) 03:04, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

207.170.247.22

Moved to User talk:Jayron32 § 07.170.247.22

 – Seems to be a conversation between just the two of us. – AJL^talk 06:07, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Death of Osama bin Laden conspiracy theories

Resolved

 – Closed as keep. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 06:58, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Does any uninvolved admin want to take a crack at closing this, or shall we let it runs for another week or few days? – AJL^talk 06:50, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Multiple accounts and more

Bill Huffman appears, from his own admission to be operating multiple accounts. He appears to be using the Bill Huffman account to collect what he feels to be negative information about yours truly. In doing so, he appears to watch conversations that take place on my talk page, then goes to the other editors and tries to recruit them into collecting negative information [54] [55] [56] [57]. I was responsible for highlighting to ArbCom that Huffman, who operates an off-wiki attack site on Derek Smart was trying to get negative information on Smart placed in the Wikipedia article by making suggestions on the article talk page as well as operating multiple accounts see here. After being asked to leave the Smart article alone, Huffman announced that he was abandoning the Huffman account. As his contributions show, he has not done so. This diff appears to indicate that this user may be maintaining this account simply to focus on me. Since admin Atama was also involved in this last year, I'll also ask him if he has any comment. Admins, please resolve the situation. Cla68 (talk) 07:51, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Notified. Cla68 (talk) 07:53, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Mtking

I need administrative attention concerning an editor User:Mtking who has been trying to prevent me from completing two articles that I created. I just started and 5 minutes later he is tagging the page with no regard to policy for explanation, attempts to edit war with me, and has been distracting me for hours over issues concerning an article that is listed as under-construction. You can read the whole thing on his talk page [58] This guy's biting is out of control! --Rainman64 (talk) 08:14, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Also pretty sure this guy just did something to my internet... Is this Wikipedia or a battlefield???--Rainman64 (talk) 08:30, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Also appears that he has help from other editors... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rainman64 (talk • contribs) 08:35, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

It should also be noted that a editor by the name of GoodVac is acting along with MtKing [what reason they are trying their best to have me blocked just for editing a simple article]. Is there something here that I don't know?--Rainman64 (talk) 09:05, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Mtking has continued in constant disruptive editing in order to prevent me from make these articles stable. I've been trying to work with the guy but he is doing everything in his power to get the pages down before they were technically up for one reason or another. I really don't know what going on here but I need some serious help here.--Rainman64 (talk) 08:48, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

• Mtking (talk · contribs) isn't the problem. Although he has made numerous CSD errors resulting from hasty tagging, I see nothing untoward with his edits at UIS (company), Paul Dorian, the AfD, and the talk page discussion (besides the COI thing).
  On the other hand, Rainman64 (talk · contribs) has a suspicious history. He made his first edit in February, creating this odd template. User returned this month to create UIS (company) and Paul Dorian. Engaging in the discussion with Mtking, Rainman64 spouted several policies, guidelines, and other Wikipedia terms and acronyms, such as WP:NPP, WP:BITE, WP:THREATEN, WP:OVERTAGGING, etc. It is highly unlikely that a new user would have such an unusual knack for these terms. Goodvac (talk) 09:41, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

That wrong Goodvac. First from the links I posted before on you and Mtking its safe to say you don't exactly have a unbias opinion here. Second, Mtking did everything wrong for start... He shouldn't have tag these articles that quickly... he did both in 1 minute. You can't read both in a minute or check the sources! He shouldn't have overtagged the page... plus, he should have said something in detail about what actually in the article was the problems... you know for example... this paragraph here sounds like or word there makes this look like. That way I could at least correct exact what the problem was. But had me doing guess work on things that might be giving off those impressions. I asked him repeatedly to explain and never added to the talk page or gave any detail of his view. In addition, every time I added or made changes to the article to improve it I assume that would do the job for the tags but he kept posting it back on the page without explanation... he was clearly baiting me into somekind of edit-war, but he didn't know I was reading the previous post from his talk page. They mentioned bitey and the link and I went from there.--Rainman64 (talk) 10:03, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Come on Goodvac, I did most of these pages in the preview edit option I post it to save and start doing the rest of the research and writing, but while I was 5 minutes later I'm debates with him over issues that I was still working on. So I post the under-construction sign to let him know to give time and patience but he obviously couldn't handle that. Look at this guy's history he goes around deleting article after article. He's doing so right now... so when he came upon the ones I was doing he wanted the same thing for them. I tried to do things like Wikipedia states so I asked him help me improve the articles and he just wasn't interested in helping, only deleting. Right now I have information that verifies the notability of Paul Dorian linked to the article. I also pointed this out to Mtking, but he went for delete anyway without completing the discussion with me. I'm sorry but what he did was very wrong. The least he could have do was withdraw the deletion on the grounds of the new evidence and help gather more but like I said before that's not his goal.Rainman64 (talk) 10:22, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

As for the articles let's talk Notability policy. I'm not finished with these articles, I was interrupted very early in its development. However, there is at least one obviously notable fact on both. That Dorian and the company are currently listed among Silicon Valley's Top 40 under 40 according to the Business Journal. That is an honor and achievement of which they were nominated and received credit for from a nationally respected business publication.

So my question is... If policy on Wikipedia states that "the person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times." is considered notable then shouldn't their honor above prove a level of notability enough to stop or delay deletion?Rainman64 (talk) 10:42, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Without commenting on the merits of the particular article here, a lesson I learned long ago is generally not to develop an article in mainspace. Set up a sandbox or create it first as a subpage of your user page. Work on it there in relative peace, polish it up until it is ready for release into mainspace, then release it. The better an article you can write, the less likely it is to get tagged. Mjroots (talk) 13:02, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I kinda wish someone would answer my question... Also I noticed something untrue on this deletion page that Mtking is try to claim as fact.... So let's set the record straight, I'm not Paul Dorian and this account isn't one purpose.... these articles just happened to be my first edits that User:Mtking is trying to use to in his own favor. I have no conflicts of interest besides the fact that I want to close Mtking's account. After all he seems to be trying everything possible to close mine. Plus, he recklessly ignored WP:NPP that says that "Tagging anything other than attack pages, copyvios, vandalism or complete nonsense only a few minutes after creation is not likely to be constructive and may only serve to annoy the page author." Check out his User talk:Mtking; he ignored every attempt to work with me... and all this happened in just a few hours... starting 5 minutes after I started writing these articles. At this point I'm interested in making sure this guy gets justice on him for toxic behavior. Rainman64 (talk) 13:51, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UIS (company) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• comment - this just seems like a overspill content issue. I don't see as Rainman has done anything wrong and as a newish user creating content he requires more assistance than anything else. The articles have been nominated for deletion so lets see how it goes. Should the two AFD discussions be merged into one like that? Please ease up on the WP:BITE and WP:COI stuff, many users come and write stuff they are closely connected to - its not a wiki-crime and actually is the way a large part of the wikipedia got written. I suggest ya all take a step back and focus on the content. Off2riorob (talk) 14:15, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

BelloWello soapboxing

Bello added a nomination for collaboration on WikiProject Conservatism where he equated conservatives and racists here. I reverted and on his talk page warned him against using Wikipedia as a soapbox here. He ignored the warning, reverted and put the offending remark back on the project page here. I assumed good faith when I warned him for WP:SOAP, but IMO this is vandalism. I request admin intervention to remove Bello's bigoted comment from the project page. Lionel (talk) 08:43, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Zombie433 (again!)

Yep, he's back and evading both his community ban and rangeblock, having moved from IPs 79.213 to 79.215 - but it's definitely him, quacking away. For background please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive680#Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Zombie433 and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive687#Zombie433 and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive688#Zombie433 evading ban...admin intervention greatly appreciated. GiantSnowman 12:32, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Primetech's personal attacks

Primetech (talk · contribs) has resulted to personal attacks on other editors, including myself, over a disagreement about the image illustrating Hentai, a sexually explicit topic. He has previsions called other editors he disagrees with "fappers"[59] and "strong obsession with hentai"[60], receiving a warning both times.[61][62] and has now resulted to referring to me as a "scoundrel"[63] and a "troll"[64] after the warning was issued. —Farix (t | c) 14:55, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

To complement it: He uploaded this image. Reading the name and description should make it clear why it was uploaded. --Niabot (talk) 15:03, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

To rebut it: Farix called me a troll too, actually he called me one first. Simply because I created "artwork," which may be of low quality but exhibits more effort than ejaculation of bodily fluids in forms that seem to resemble the Statue of Liberty. --Primetech 15:46, 10 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Primetech (talk • contribs)

Farix is shitting out fucking Wikipedia

I mean, of course it's lousy but this cunthead won't fucking budge. Ban the motherfucker before he rapes the Internet.