Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by FisherQueen (talk | contribs) at 20:10, 27 May 2009 (I was not satisfied with the response to my previous thread.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

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

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

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

    Start a new discussion


    Report from ThuranX re: Joker "threat" emails

    [1]

    Section deleted. Given the nature of this problem, there is nothing that anyone who is not a checkuser can do about it, so there's no point fuelling the fire by discussing it and keeping him interested. WP:DENY, please. If you have concerns or questions of any kind about this, please e-mail the functionaries mailing list, functionaries-en@lists.wikimedia.org. We are looking at ways to solve this problem. --Deskana, Champion of the Frozen Wastes 15:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Threat by User:Petri Krohn

    Petri Krohn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) made a fairly unambiguous threat against User:Digwuren here. I urged him to remove it; he has edited since then and not done so. I think he should be blocked, and I move for an immediate and permanent community ban. He's been given enough chances. //roux   09:41, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User notified. //roux   09:46, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    (edit conflict) To be fair, it doesn't look like an actual threat, more like "MY DADZ A POLICEMAN AND HE'L GET U" — extremely childish, but not a genuine menace (though I'm not familiar with the case, and might have misunderstood it). Therefore, I think that a permanent ban is a bit of an overreaction, and "horrifying" a bit of an exagguration. However, allowing such abuse, absurd as it is, shouldn't happen, so I suggest a block of a week, to be added to any block that might come separately out of the discussion in which the thread was made. ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 09:49, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    See further comment below. ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 09:59, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This may provide some needed background to this apparently intractable problem. //roux   09:53, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, OK, horse of a different colour. Permaban seems much more palatable now, sorry for the ignorance... ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 09:59, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Personally, I really did not read the statement as a threat, but (as he himself said) as a friendly piece of advice. I don't know what he was talking about, but perhaps he meant this "agency." At least give him a change to explain himself before jumping into conclusions. Offliner (talk) 10:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Given Krohn's past on Wikipedia, I read it more like "Nice place you got here, shame if anything happened to it, know what I mean?" than actual friendly advice. //roux   10:20, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    "You may get yourself into trouble because of agency X, you should be careful" is taken for "Nice place you got here, shame if anything happened to it"–with the threat of a permanent ban for the user? (What?) PasswordUsername (talk) 11:55, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The absurdity of thinking that someone would intitiate a threat against another user at ANI is beyond me. PasswordUsername (talk) 14:44, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Looking at the actual edit, it doesn't read like a threat. Petri Krohn is not threatening to take or initiate or cause any action. Warning editors of possible real-world consequences that could follow independently, from the warned editor's actions, isn't a threat. It's wasn't "my Dad's a policeman," which would be a threat to tell Dad. Whether or not it was advisable to say would depend on many factors, but PK's post is primarily a recounting of his history with Digwuren, and to sanction such reports would be chilling. And to propose it here disruptive. That post, to AN, would probably have been seen by many administrators, and if it called for immediate action, surely they would have noticed it. Complaining here is spreading discussion. --Abd (talk) 13:53, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I see no request to User talk:Petri Krohn to remove the comment. The request cited above is to AN. AN is very difficult to follow and I often remove it from my watchlist even when I've posted there. No presumption can be made that an editor has read it. Some of the editors commenting here seem highly involved in disputes with PK, that should be considered as well. --Abd (talk) 14:08, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    No request? How about my diff posted above? //roux   18:48, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "If he continues his edits, he should make sure his true identity remains secret", plus telling that a Russian Agency will take care of him. Not a threat? Of course he did not tell: "you will be killed for making too much noise" as was said by another user in my case [2], but this is very close.Biophys (talk) 14:52, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a threat, yes, but not coming from Petri Krohn, if he is correct. If he's not correct, then, of course, blow it off. I see no sign that Petri Krohn himself is threatening. Now, if it could be shown that he's connected with this "agency," then, of course, he should be out of here in a flash. But that's not the story here, at least not yet. More below. --Abd (talk) 16:02, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I am sorry if I have offend someone. I did not intend to threaten anyone. I have removed my offending comment.
    As for the "Russian Agency", the story is true – and it will have profound effects on Wikipedia. It remains to be seen what those are. Looks like the time of free speech is over. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 15:43, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No, Petri, it has always been true, and remains true, that if you exercise your rights to free speech, in a way that offends someone with power, you can be harassed, prosecuted, murdered. Wikipedia hasn't changed the world in this respect. In fact, sometimes you can offend someone with apparently no power, and the end is the same. Basically, human beings have power and sometimes use it, make them angry enough. Some of us will do anything given sufficient provocation, and there are a few who will be provoked simply by their own imaginations. The world is a dangerous place, still. Welcome to it, it's also quite a nice place and usually safe if you don't go around pissing people off. Unfortunately, some of us find it necessary to speak up, on occasion. I'd probably be high on a list if certain people or organizations were to gain more power, or if I were considered more of a danger, and one of my old friends is seriously dead, for exactly the crime of speaking what he believed, there is an article here about him, you could probably figure it out from my edit history. He lived in Tucson, Arizona. Safe place? Not if you become well-known for something that some really don't want to hear. {He was wrong, by the way, but that doesn't make a difference here, he's still dead.) --Abd (talk) 16:02, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not seeing any activity at Joseph Stalin which seems related to this. If the "Russian Agency" was getting involved in Wikipedia, we'd probably see some efforts to rehabilitate Stalin's image. So far, no. --John Nagle (talk) 16:05, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I have clarified my statement in the original thread. What I have now said explicitly is that activity similar to what we have seen on Wikipedia may become a criminal offense in Russia, and by extension in Estonia. I was too vague originally. I took efforts to avoid linking anyone to criminal activity, especially as this activity is not criminalized in the United States. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 17:03, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    P.S. I now see that User:Digwuren had already started an article on the newly created Russian Historical Truth Commission. The associated Law on countermeasures against the rehabilitation of Nazism, Nazi criminals and their associates in former republics of the Soviet Union threatens imprisoned for up to five years. I too find this threatening. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 00:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    P.P.S. Please note that whatever I wrote on ANI was not addressed to Digwuren but to administrators in general and User:Offliner in particular. I have presested my {{WikiThanks}} to Digwuren here. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 04:58, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, you also implied that Digwuren has apparently been singled out for special attention by this committee, hence your original "friendly warning" when you said: "If he continues his edits, he should make sure his true identity remains secret. Things said on Wikipedia do have effects in the real world. If I am not totally mistaken, Digwuren's edits on Wikipedia may have had a small role to play in the creation of the Agency" The question remains who singled Digwuren out and how do you know that Digwuren's activities figure so prominently in the formation of this committee that you felt compelled to give him this additional "friendly thankyou" on his talk page? --Martintg (talk) 05:20, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Permban, I am not sure, but a few month may be helpful. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:41, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Support a permaban. Krohn was already banned for a year for this kind of anti-estonian polemic. Krohn's remarks read as a threat that this Russian agency would be notified of Digwuren's identity should it ever be revealed, implying that Krohn would report Digwuren to the agency if he continued participating in editing Wikipedia. This is intimidatory. Wikipedia doesn't need editors with extremist agendas threatening people for the sole reason of belonging to a particular ethnic group. There should be zero tolerance for this kind of intimidation. --Martintg (talk) 22:28, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    What you are in fact reading from my comment, is that I would be willing to provide evidence to law enforcement agencies investigating and prosecuting criminal offenses. This is not what I am saying. Even if I did, I do not think this could be considered a threat. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 00:47, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Support permaban or very long block. Petri Krohn 's warnings are directed only to people who disagree with him, especially user:Digwuren. Someone who says that dire things will happen to people who dare to disagree with him is not giving "friendly advice"; he is using intimidation to attempt to give himself an advantage. This is an utterly unacceptable debating tactic on Wikipedia. Abd's argument that no-one has actually proved that Petri Kohn is "connected with this ‘agency’ " is utterly irrelevant; we don't have a rule that people get a free pass on making threats until someone proves that they are able to carry them out.

    Petri has made two "clarifications". They are oddly different from each other, and neither of them is very clear. One is that “As for the "Russian Agency", the story is true – and it will have profound effects on Wikipedia. It remains to be seen what those are. Looks like the time of free speech is over.” The other clarification possibly means that, when Russian law extends to Estonia, Estonians who have disagreed with him are likely to face criminal prosecution. So, possibly this second clarification is "only" a legal threat. Whatever these statements may mean (and I expect there will be more clarifications to these clarifications), in both of them the threatening tone comes through loud and clear. Also, that the threat has now been repeated, and in more than one version, proves that it was not a fluke. Petri Krohn has already served a 1 year block for misbehavior related to his disagreements with Estonian editors; apparently it was not enough. Cardamon (talk) 04:39, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • I support permaban. This user's list of misdeeds is enormous. He is known for advocating inflammatory 'points of view' that he apparently is fighting for in real life, too. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, nor should it be battlefield. Petri Krohn's hint that his 'opponent' Digwuren might get Russian secret service's attention in real life был последней каплей for me. --Miacek (t) 08:52, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose permaban > 6 months? I've actually just had quite a civil chat with this user on their talkpage, and they don't seem to be the complete crank that they come over to be here. I think that they deserve a long cooling-off period, and then another chance, so I'm suggesting 6 months. Sorry to keep chopping and changing my opinion on this subject, but I hope this will be my final word! ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 08:54, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Except that what Krohn regards as Digwuren's POV on Estonian history corresponds to the view of eminent historians such as David J. Smith (who is a Reader in Baltic Studies at the Department of Central and East European Studies, University of Glasgow, and Editor of the Journal of Baltic Studies). This is what Smith writes in his book "Estonia: Independence and European integration". Krohn on the other hand is an apparent member of SAFKA (This has been previously reported to the COI), an activist group that believes the Soviet occupation of the Baltic states is a myth. The activities of the SAFKA have been investigated by the Estonian security police who have discovered some members have links with certain elements within Russia and this has widely reported in the Estonian press. Hence Krohn's "friendly warning" to Digwuren had a chilling effect that was certainly intimidatory. --Martintg (talk) 12:40, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support permaban - Digwuren and Petri Krohn were both banned for a year, in part for clashing with each other. Since their return, Digwuren has shown good conduct, but Petri Krohn has proven unable to do so. Implying that the Russian government is going to go after you if you don't change your ways is bound to have a chilling effect, especially on someone from tiny next-door Estonia. We don't want that kind of editing environment, and so I propose Petri Krohn should be excluded from the project. - Biruitorul Talk 15:20, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Note to admins–As said before, I find it ridiculous that a particular number of editors who have written above, largely the same group of user who always seek to justify Digwuren's latest pattern of behavior by slinging mud at his opponents, is now seeking to make the claim that Petri Krohn's warning to Digwuren about the latest development on a contested historical issue from the perspective of the Russian government's commission, which he has already amply clarified, is taken for a threat when he posted it on ANI–publicly and under his own name!
    Laughable is the assertion of the editor above, claiming that "since their return, Digwuren has shown good conduct, but Petri Krohn has proven unable to do so." As Offliner has clearly demonstrated here (I strongly recommend reading this thread in full detail–Offliner's post, among other things, features a whole compendium of personal attacks and crass incivility against a number of users, including myself), Digwuren has not shown good faith–rather, the bulk of his edits have been constituted by disrupting and making personal attacks against other editors, including against myself. (This new diversion from Digwuren's behavior–a transformation of the issue into an attack on Petri Krohn for supposed "threats" is interesting of itself.) Digwuren is now proceeding to stalk my edits: compare the good work done by Digwuren as far as these unmistakable instances–plainly obvious from the most recent histories of articles such as 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.
    Moreover, as Digwuren himself wrote on May 11, the day on which within 24 hours of encountering me he laughably accused me of being a sockpuppet of Anonimu or Jacob Peters (he never actually made up his mind as to which editor I was)

    "Today, PasswordUsername asking Petri Krohn for help regarding the Neo-Stalinism categories. It is unlikely to help him -- Mr. Krohn has been behaving rather well in the recent months -- but since this is his very first edit on Krohn's talkpage, and they do not seem to have had previous contacts regarding Stalinism -- neo or otherwise -- it raises a question of why he'd pick Petri Krohn out of the thousands of editors." 7.

    My explanation for "picking Petri Krohn out of the thousands of editors," of course, is explained fully at the same link provided. What is funny is that even Digwuren himelf (in fact, a SPA, unlike Petri Krohn) has publicly acknowledged the good nature of Petri's contributions (again, oddly enough, this being in the context of an obscene attack against myself), but, having now given a history of his rather difficult co-existence with Digwuren's belligerent editing patterns, Petri is accused of some great malice by Digwuren's loyal crew. Frankly, I interpret this as nothing but the bad-faith insults of a lynch-mob threatening to conduct "punishment" against a user whose productive, if not exactly quite passive, editing history stands in sharp juxtaposition against their own. Between Digwuren and Petri Krohn, I can say in all good conscience that if anybody deserves to be permabanned, it is not Petri Krohn–although given the administrators' reluctance to intervene in the dispute against Digwuren by taking measures more stringent than simply asking both Offliner and Digwuren to "walk away and behave," I strongly suggest that the accusations here simply be dismissed as equally frivolous. (And what has been said about Petri is much more frivolous than the substantial cases made against Digwuren many a time in the past.) I encourage all administrators to examine this issue seriously–claims against Petri Krohn are partisan and blatant character assasssinations which should be observed and analyzed just for what they are. PasswordUsername (talk) 19:52, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Krohn has just issued another "friendly warning" on Digwuren's talk page, implying that this commission will take particular interest in Digwuren and ominously talks of Digwuren in the past tense [3]. --Martintg (talk) 00:45, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • That isn't a "friendly warning" in quotation marks–what Petri says is clearly a commendation for the article he himself had wanted to start and the tense is the grammatical feature of language known as the "future perfect"–but thank you for noting it. I should also note that Petri Krohn opposes the commission, if you're still fond of equivocally speaking of the subject. PasswordUsername (talk) 01:12, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Simply not true. SAFKA endorses the law and hails it as "a victory for Safka". The connection between SAFKA members and one of the committee members Alexander Dyukov is well known. There are many editors involved in editing articles about the former Soviet Union, yet Digwuren has apparently been singled out for special attention by this committee, or so Krohn claims. The question remains who singled Digwuren out and how does Krohn know that Digwuren's activities figure so prominently in the formation of this committee? --Martintg (talk) 01:46, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Sorry, you obviously haven't bothered to read what Petri Krohn has written here at ANI/Incidents, at the main administrators' noticeboard, or on other pages. Whatever organization he may or may not happen to be part of, the opinions he holds as an individual are his own personal thoughts–and he has clearly written online that he, too, "find[s] the law threatening." (See here.) I think you should stop throwing in people's real-life identities in these disputes–regardless of one's ideology, opinions, occupation, or activities in real life, the benchmark for judging the conduct of online contributors is simply their online conduct. PasswordUsername (talk) 01:56, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Your initial claim was "Petri Krohn opposes the commission", this is a long way from "find[s] the law threatening". Evidently he was hoping Digwuren would find this law threatening too, enough to intimidate him from further contribution to Wikipedia. However this law has absolutely no jurisdiction anywhere outside Russia, except perhaps to those Russian citizens living abroad who may contribute to Wikipedia. Yet this "friendly warning" was not offered to any of these Russian editors, only to Digwuren. --Martintg (talk) 02:14, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • The commission is "the law" being referred to here–I think you're attacking the imprecise semantics, yet doing injustice to the concrete meaning (the proposition) being brought up here. (Perhaps the best way of gleaning this is to consult the informal fallacy trivial objections.) The application of the law is coordinated in conjunction with the work done by the Historical Truth Commission–and Petri's already clarified that his concern related to the law's not being limited in scope to Russia's territory. PasswordUsername (talk) 02:31, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    P.S.: I even misquoted Petri Krohn's remarks–rather than speaking of "the law," he specifically made clear:

    "P.S. I now see that User:Digwuren had already started an article on the newly created Russian Historical Truth Commission. The associated Law on countermeasures against the rehabilitation of Nazism, Nazi criminals and their associates in former republics of the Soviet Union threatens imprisoned for up to five years. I too find this threatening. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 00:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)" (1)

    Whatever else was said by Petri Krohn, it was all in the same vein: nowhere does he endorse the commission (you might want to try asking his own opinion of the commission or gleaning it from what he's written about it before you jump to conclusions). Here's to hoping that this has now clarified everything up for you, Martintg. PasswordUsername (talk) 05:33, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not commenting on the specifics here, because they may come before the Arbitration Committee, but I strongly urge everyone interested in this situation to carefully review and abide by the principles outlined in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jim62sch. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:00, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    This hardly should come before the ArbCom because this user was already banned by ArbCom, and a consensus about his behavior was reached at AE noticeboard [4]. Telling another user "If he continues his edits, he should make sure his true identity remains secret" and reminding about an "Agency" was clearly an attempt of intimidation, as noted by DGG at another board [5]. Biophys (talk) 17:33, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    What I get from the ArbCom case NewYorkBrad refers to are principles in that case concerning harassment and threats, which states: "The making of express or implied threats against another editor is a form of harassment and is prohibited. In particular, any suggestion of seeking to disrupt or harm an editor's off-Wikipedia life (including his or her employment) in retaliation for his or her editing on Wikipedia is unacceptable.", which links to Wikipedia:Harassment#Threats, stating "Legal threats are a special case of threat, with their own settled policy. Users who make legal threats will typically be blocked from editing indefinitely.". --Martintg (talk) 05:57, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not a case of legal threat but of legal risk. The relevant section is Raising good-faith concerns:


    The text goes on to say: However, the sender should be sure that the communication serves a legitimate purpose and should take great care to ensure that it will not be perceived as threatening by the recipient. If I had felt a need to send communication to Digwuren, I am sure I would have taken great care to ensure that it would not have been perceived as threatening. However my communication at WP:AN mainly served the legitimate purpose of informing the administrators and User Offliner. On the issue of Russian law enforcement we have been in friendly communication. In fact we have collaborated on the article, without a hint of conflict. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 07:04, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support permaban From the evidence presented it is clear that this user has exhausted the community's patience. He has been banned before and still has not changed his ways. It is high time to eliminate his disruption from the editorial process. I also support removal of Arbcom review. Geoff Plourde (talk) 15:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Chronic WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA violations by User:Otto4711

    Resolved
     – 72 hour block

    User:Otto4711 is an individual who has made a number of productive edits in a variety of subjects. He has participated actively at WP:CFD, where he has far too often crossed the line in using bullying, profanity and other abuse of individuals who have disagreed with his positions, in clear violation of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Most recently, this manifested itself at a CFD where an individual argued for the retention of categories Otto wanted deleted, only to be told that as "an apparent newcomer to CFD you may be ignorant of the history here" see here, and then told that this individual should "know better than to bust out shit like 'deletionist kick', noob" see here.

    This is not a new problem. Otto has had chronic problems with incivility, profanity, abuse and personal attacks, a small sampling of which is provided below, and I would be able to provide dozens more if space permitted:

    And again, the notability of the people buried in the cemetery and even the number of them is not relevant, because the notability of those buried there is in no way connected to the cemetery. Otto4711 (talk) 21:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
    And again, Otto, your opinion carries no more weight than other opinions, no matter how many times you repeat it. Believe it or not, Wikipedians are smart enough to understand what you said the first time you said it, and smart enough to know that your saying it over and over doesn't make it true. Ward3001 (talk) 22:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
    Well, I can think of at least one Wikpidean who isn't smart enough to understand, despite the repeats. Your "argument" in favor of this category basically amounts to nuh uh, which is about the level of a four year-old. Shock the world, offer up some substantial support of your opinion. Otto4711 (talk) 02:04, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
    You're skating on thin ice, Otto. Read WP:NPA. Consider this a warning. Ward3001 (talk) 03:07, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
    Oooh, a warning. If I were wearing boots, I'd be shaking in them. Otto4711 (talk) 08:28, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
    I responded on your Talk page. Please leave any future personal comments on user talk pages rather than this discussion page. Ward3001 (talk) 15:30, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

    Insisting that others who disagree with his positions are ignorant is also not new: A frequent theme is a repeated accusation that those who disagree with him have some fundamental misunderstanding of Wikipedia policy. No documentation is provided to support the claim, but the accusation is made regardless:

    • This diff "Except of course that without independent reliable sources the items on this list are not notable, something that you are either unable to understand or that you understand but in your zeal to keep everything you choose to ignore"
    • This diff "Talk about having no grasp of basic understanding of WP policies and guidelines. WP:CLN in no way obviates WP:NOT and a collection of every beverage that exists within every fictional setting that lacks reliable sources that discuss the concept of fictional beverages is trivial garbage."

    Otto insists that he is entitled to spew profanity-laden abuse based on the fact that Wikipedia is not censored. Unfortunately that policy only applies where necessary and in direct quotations in articles. One need only look at his utterly failed attempt at adminship provides multiple examples of profanity, used as part of his uncivil behavior.

    While this may be viewed as an isolated incident, there have been many prior issues raised regarding Otto's behavior, including several issues of incivility, profanity and personal attacks:

    Otto is clearly capable of productive work, especially when interaction with other editors is minimized. A brief block, with warnings that further violations of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA will result in blocks of increasing severity may have the effect of eliminating this rather unfortunate and abusive behavior. Eliminating Otto's participation at CfD through a content ban, where he has demonstrated the lion's share of his abuse, may also be an effective means to allow Otto to focus on where he can be productive without being disruptive. Alansohn (talk) 20:23, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    After reviewing the diffs and prior discussions provided, I agree with Alansohn's assessment and would support either or both of the remedies he proposes, except maybe if Otto4711 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) chooses to react to this thread, of which he has been notified, in a particularly constructive manner. His block log is also worth taking into account.  Sandstein  21:13, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Alansohn has proven that Otto's been rude on a continuing basis right up until just recently, with clear violations of WP:CIVIL; 2. Otto just has a nasty attitude, and I think many, many editors who participate in deletion discussions have seen many, many examples of it -- this isn't even the tip of the tip of the iceberg. 3. Otto shows no signs of stopping, and his attitude is on display in his comment here, now. Sandstein just left a pretty broad hint suggestion as to what Otto's proper response should be, and it's been ignored. That's telling. 4. I still remember being stung by Otto's comments in '06 or '07 -- he really makes an impression on editors and sets a terrible example for new ones, or editors who are new to deletion discussions, as I was then. If this were just old news, it'd be something to forget about, but it appears that it's just continuing. 5. Unless the block or topic ban is done now, or admins decide to watch him carefully, this behavior will just continue -- disturbing more editors and just kicking the can forward until it stops on another day at AN/I. 6. WP:KETTLE is no defense. 7. I'd support either both of Alansohn's suggested remedies. Really, it's hard not to. Editors who participate in deletion discussions shouldn't have to put up with this. -- Noroton (talk) 01:56, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    72 hour block for Otto4711, agree with Noroton. Also noting Alansohn really needs to avoid terms like "foolish" and "nonsensical". — Rlevse • Talk • 02:21, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "people"?? Please elaborate and provide diffs. What did the "other side" do, and who are these people? Otto's history, recent actions and current attitude are clear, so the reason for a block is clear. Please clarify your own proposal. -- Noroton (talk) 01:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Alansohn has been blocked twice recently (probably due to disputes in cfd with Otto) whereas Otto4711 has not. I did protest about the blocking of A (to no avail) and shall now protest about the blocking of O. Both editors have strong views and express themselves trenchantly at times. (Otto has delivered fruit-related barbs in my direction, eg in this cfd discussion a banana wagon is introduced into cfd, possibly for the first time; so I am not 'on his side'.) Occuli (talk) 02:03, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse block due to extensive history of incivility. Otto has indeed done some comendable work on GAs, but there has been much more incivility in his edit history than even his block log would suggest. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 00:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:United Statesman

    Resolved
     – User blocked and email disabled. Law type! snype? 07:37, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Little problem here. Someone has been sending e-mail messages to other Wikipedia members (whom they do not know) using my former username. Not only that, the e-mails are repulsive. A member sent me the contents of the message he got:

    You wanna know how I got these scars? My father was a drinker and a fiend. And one night, he goes off craaazier than usual. Mommy gets the kitchen knife to defend herself. He doesn't like that. Not. One. Bit. So, me watching, he takes the knife to her, laughing while he does it. He turns to me, and he says, "Why so serious?" He comes at me with the knife: "Why so serious?" Sticks the blade in my mouth: "Let's put a smile on that face." Aaand.why so serious? - The Joker

    My username was United Statesman until a couple of weeks ago, when I changed it to Brunswickian. And now, someone is playing a sick joke, as the current United Statesman has no edits and re-directs to my userpage. B R U N S W I C K I A N[talk] 07:56, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Looks like the Joker vandal. This issue has been raised at WP:BN under the section heading "Renames and the Joker" --t'shael mindmeld 08:38, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The account has been blocked by another admin and the user can no longer send emails. The remarks in the email stem from the movie the Dark Knight, so maybe that makes it less creepy, and certainly unoriginal. If the joker decides to quote The Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants, then I'd be very concerned. Law type! snype? 11:02, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, I got that too and deleted it as a random stupid joke. Probably worth mentioning to people that they should recreate their old account after a rename. Stifle (talk) 08:23, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    More out of process category renames

    Rich Farmbrough (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is still at it, changing categories out-of-process without consensus. He not only should know better, he's already participated in the earlier complaints. What can be done?

    Probably missing some, where he fails to provide an edit summary:

    1. 2009-05-24T00:03:00 Template:Failed verification (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (top)
    2. 2009-05-24T00:08:47 Template:Original research (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (since=>from and simplify) (top)
    3. 2009-05-24T00:13:13 Template:Or (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (top)
    4. 2009-05-24T20:44:21 Template:Expand-section (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    5. 2009-05-24T21:09:55 Template:Article issues (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (since => from)
    6. 2009-05-24T22:15:51 Template:Mergefrom (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (since=> from) (top)
    7. 2009-05-24T22:18:34 Template:Mergeto (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (since=> from : rmeover the category parameter: not likely to be used in article space.) (top)
    8. 2009-05-24T22:24:33 Template:Mergefrom-multiple (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (clean up using AWB) (top)
    9. 2009-05-24T22:25:04 Template:Merge JRRT (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (Since => from using AWB) (top)
    10. 2009-05-24T22:25:42 Template:Merge FJC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (Since => from, Replaced: since → from, using AWB) (top)
    11. 2009-05-24T22:26:38 Template:Merge-school (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (Since => from or other cleanup using AWB) (top)
    12. 2009-05-24T22:27:07 Template:Portalmerge (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (Since => from or other cleanup using AWB) (top)
    13. 2009-05-24T22:27:23 Template:NorthAmMergeto (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (Since => from or other cleanup using AWB) (top)
    14. 2009-05-24T22:27:40 Template:Multiplemergefrom (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (Since => from or other cleanup using AWB) (top)
    15. 2009-05-24T22:28:56 Template:Merging (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (Since => from or other cleanup using AWB) (top)
    16. 2009-05-24T22:29:15 Template:Mergetomultiple-with (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (Since => from or other cleanup using AWB) (top)
    17. 2009-05-24T22:30:32 Template:Mergeto2 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (Since => from or other cleanup using AWB) (top)
    18. 2009-05-24T22:30:41 Template:Mergeto-multiple (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (Since => from or other cleanup, Replaced: since → from, using AWB) (top)
    19. 2009-05-24T22:30:55 Template:Mergesections (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (Since => from or other cleanup, Replaced: since → from, using AWB) (top)
    20. 2009-05-24T22:31:05 Template:Mergesection (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (Since => from or other cleanup, Replaced: since → from, using AWB) (top)
    21. 2009-05-24T22:32:35 Template:Mergefrom-category (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (Since => from or other cleanup, Replaced: since → from, using AWB) (top)
    22. 2009-05-24T22:32:55 Template:Merge-multiple-to (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (Since => from or other cleanup, Replaced: since → from, using AWB) (top)
    23. 2009-05-24T22:33:00 Template:Merge-multiple (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (Since => from or other cleanup, Replaced: since → from, using AWB) (top)
    24. 2009-05-24T22:33:06 Template:Merge (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (Since => from or other cleanup, Replaced: since → from, using AWB) (top)
    25. 2009-05-24T22:33:19 Template:Afd-mergeto (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (Since => from or other cleanup, Replaced: since → from, using AWB) (top)
    26. 2009-05-24T22:33:25 Template:Afd-mergefrom (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (Since => from or other cleanup, Replaced: since → from, using AWB) (top)
    27. 2009-05-24T22:34:57 Template:Expert-verify (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    28. 2009-05-24T22:35:22 Template:Expert-verify (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (top)
    29. 2009-05-24T22:36:25 Template:Expert-subject (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (top)
    30. 2009-05-24T22:48:35 Template:Tdeprecated (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (since=> from. Stop self include.)
    31. 2009-05-24T22:49:52 Template:Tdeprecated (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (top)
    --William Allen Simpson (talk) 08:56, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I reverted all of those edits (and probably a few more related edits in sequence, which may have been sensible.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:03, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    These were trivial edits, changing only "since" to "from", standardising all 42 Wikipedia maintenance categories involving dated categories. Making changes is not sensible. Why are you undoing another admins actions for no good reason? Debresser (talk) 11:37, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Arthur Rubin wrote Rich to his talk page here. But didn't await his reply or actions. And see my reply there that Arthur Rubin was non-specific and did not take the most logical course of action. Debresser (talk) 12:06, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    See also above and this diff, where Arthur Rubin admits he might have reverted some sensible changes. Debresser (talk) 12:24, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    People should know better than to respond to these sort of trollings. The reversion breaks maybe a zillion articles, maybe two zillion. Rich Farmbrough, 13:36 25 May 2009 (UTC).

    People should know better than to change a template/category pattern without discussing it in the relevant WikiProject or on TfD or CfD. As I pointed on in a smaller rename (about 38 decade names), we need to make sure that all the links are done correctly. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:42, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Since either "since" needed to be changed to "from" or "from" to "since", both causing a significant disruption, you should have discussed which it was to be before making the changes. I don't think I have the tools you constructed to reduce the auxilliary errors caused by the process. I suppose, at this point, the good of Wikipedia suggests I allow to continue as you wish, as I don't know how else to mitigate the damage you caused.
    For the most part, From is just wrong. I suppose I had better revert my corrections, as I can't figure out else to repair the damage. May I suggest that you rename all the generated categories to "since YYYY-MM", as that makes automated processing easier? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:48, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    See Wikipedia_talk:Categories_for_discussion#More_out_of_process_category_renames for linguistic arguments to choose "from" rather than "since". But that can be discussed and taken care of later. When we had 32 categories at "from" and only 9 at "since" (and 1 at "as of") the obvious choice was to go to "from". Debresser (talk) 15:21, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, changing all categories to another format will be a lot easier after Rich finishes. His edits are well though through and take care of all loose ends. See Category:Articles with invalid date parameter in template which started geting crowded right after Arthur Rubin's actions and is now again depopulated. Debresser (talk) 15:33, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Points to Rich Farmbrough for being bold on this one, but since it's obvious that these changes have encountered opposition, he should stop his unilateral changes and submit them to CFD, which is the process established for exactly this purpose. I have no opinion on whether any of his changes are actually a good idea, but wholesale changes of this sort generally set somebody's nose out of joint. Best to send it through the process created for the purpose.--Aervanath (talk) 16:45, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Not convinced of the need of process as the 32 vs 9 argument goes well with WP:IAR in particular as the discussion is under discussion and a final resting place can easier be dug with those changes already in place. Agathoclea (talk) 17:27, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The above demonstrate at least 30 changes in 1 day — "since" to "from" — your count must be inaccurate. WP:IAR is inapplicable, as Farmbrough's edits were not improving or maintaining anything. Indeed, as Arthur Rubin learned, Farmbrough actually made it difficult to revert, an essential maintenance function.
      --William Allen Simpson (talk) 19:38, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    1. I said 32 categories, not templates.
    2. As I said before, it will be easy to make changes after you let Rich finish. Debresser (talk) 19:52, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Who are "the folks at WT:CFD#CfD categories renamed"? Is that some Wikipedia subgroup with special rights somewhere? Trying to own part of Wikipedia? Or is that you and me and Rich and anybody else who wants to contribute to Wikipedia in good faith? Debresser (talk) 19:55, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course it means "everybody who wants to contribute to Wikipedia in good faith"...which means consulting other editors and being willing to seek consensus for your actions once objections have become known.--Aervanath (talk) 07:19, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You and me know that, but do all editors involved in this discussion know that? I have a reasonable doubt as to that. Debresser (talk) 09:50, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    So if we agree on this, why don't we agree that Rich should stop and let his changes be discussed more thoroughly with all interested parties before he continues with the wholesale changes?--Aervanath (talk) 16:55, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    See e.g. Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_May_26#Category:Pages_for_deletion where William Allen Simpson uses language such as "Obviously, we decided by consensus" (without any reference to that discussion, btw). Debresser (talk) 13:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, in that discussion he does reference a discussion from 2006 in the nomination.--Aervanath (talk) 16:55, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. My fault completely. You might be interested in Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#User:William_Allen_Simpson. Debresser (talk) 19:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:DreamGuy

    Resolved
     – moved to WP:AE
    Extended content

    User:DreamGuy is out of control and must be stopped for the sake of the Wikipedia project. He has been sanctioned (see Wikipedia:Editing restrictions), but to no effect. He continues to be uncivil, makes personal attacks, and makes assumptions of bad faith of all who do not share his POV. This longtime editor has a very long and documented history as a bully editor who harasses and demeans anyone who has a different point of view from his own. He stalks the edits of users, edit wars, refuses to accept AfD consensus if it does not meet his own POV, is argumentative in discussions and on talk pages, assumes bad faith in all who disagree with him, and trolls to bait otherwise well-intentioned editors to violate policy by retaliating to his uncivil behavior. He is a known abuser of multiple accounts. He has frequently been blocked from editing, but somehow he has been able to weasel his way to having the block rescinded or shortened. Why he has not been blocked for life I do not know (some admins look at his positive contributions, but his negative contributions are too numerous and severe to continue to ignore). Other editors are afraid of him because of his aggressive revenge tactics of complaints, trolling, staling, edit warring, ect. He has been allowed to continue his tactics for much too long. It is an understatement to assert that dozens of well intentioned editors have been hounded and bullied by User:DreamGuy to the point that they have abandoned the Wikipedia project because they do not want to continue to experience DreamGuy's negative confrontations; or worse, they have been so dismayed by their wiki-experience that they participate in a non-constructive way. The following are just some examples of his negativity from just the past few days. It is time to stop DreamGuy. he is out of control, and it is negatively affecting how other editors contribute in editing and discussions.

    Uncivil comments directed at User:Colonel Warden

    Uncivil comments concerning User:Varbas:

    Uncivil comments directed at User:MichaelQSchmidt

    Uncivil comments directed at User:DGG

    Uncivil comments directed at User:Nacl11

    General Uncivil comments and trolling in various AfD's and discusion pages:

    Examples of DreamGuy not accepting consensus of AfD and continuing to edit war on articles:

    Examples of Uncivil edit comments:

    • 16:17, 25 May 2009 Richard von Krafft-Ebing ? (removed bad edit that interrupted flow of sentence (leaving a fragment) and falsely claims that another edition that clearly had the main name of Psychopathia Sexualis supposedly had a different name)
    • 16:14, 25 May 2009 Vampire ? (remove massive POV pushing with editor choosing cources that fundamentally change definition of vampire to cover unrelated creatures due to sloppy research by unreliable sources, per WP:UNDUE)
    • 01:46, 24 May 2009 Talk:Vince Orlando ? (Undid revision 291810342 by Ron Ritzman (talk) nonadmin trying to do a close but violated policy and can't count votes)
    • 15:19, 23 May 2009 Moll Dyer ? (some of the worst edits on Wikipedia are dedicated AFD Keep voters putting garbage info and unreliable sources/link on pages -- cleaning up)
    • 22:06, 22 May 2009 Steven Van Slyke ? (?Highly Cited Publications: really stupid to have a subsection called this)
    • 21:52, 22 May 2009 Pazuzu ? (Reverted 1 edit by 76.113.39.176; Who? and who cares?. (TW))
    • 16:13, 22 May 2009 Elizabeth Báthory in popular culture ? (this is about pop culture, don't need a WP:FORK of the main article discussing history -- and removing amazingly bad POV-pushing, point linkspam)
    • 15:55, 22 May 2009 Ivanhoe ? (?Plot Summary: plot tag - wayyyyyyy too long)
    • 19:11, 20 May 2009 User talk:DreamGuy ? (Undid revision 291129609 by Colonel Warden (talk) rv wikilawyering nonsense by problem editor) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.0.39.30 (talk)
    • Note: The same thing was posted twice, so I just removed the duplicate. Killiondude (talk) 02:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC) [reply]
    This looks like an issue for the Wikiquette board. - 2/0 (cont.) 03:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: I changed the section header and notified DreamGuy. - 2/0 (cont.) 03:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    This was the IP's first edit. Again, there is something not right here. MuZemike 05:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree that this simple cannot be the user's first edit in Wikipedia. Whether it is a indef blocked/banned user should be determined before assuming the worst seems a good route to go. Looking at the evidence provided, it would appear that DG has indeed failed to follow his civility parole as dictated by ArbCom Enforcement. Of course, I'm not neutral in this, as I've been subjected to DG's colorful behavior on a few occasions. I do note that his old chestnut "blind reverting" pops up here and there,which implies, like the rest of the diffs, that he is smarter than the rest of us. The identity of the anon aside, this might bear examination. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 15:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You aren't neutral on this by any means as you have a long and documented history of filing false accusations against me. I see that even when I try to steer way clear of you that you still show up to make such accusations and are now engaged in the same behavior I pointed out years back with other editors. DreamGuy (talk) 16:30, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I actually said that I wasn't neutral, DG. perhaps you missed that in your rush to post. I am not making any false accusations. At all. I never have. I am simply saying that the diffs listed above seem more than a little familiar to someone who has had to interact with you before. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 16:57, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I saw you that you said that, but I was just pointing out the actual reason why you aren't neutral. DreamGuy (talk)
    Sigh. Anyhoo, John will address it as he sees fit. I just pointed out that the tone seemed familiar. Thanks for reinforcing my point, though. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    After reading through some of the above diffs, it looks like there are several multi-party edit wars in progress. From the diffs alone, it's hard to tell what the issues are. It doesn't seem to be a big enough issue for ArbCom. It will probably take an hour or so of work for someone (not me) to sort out the issues before taking action. --John Nagle (talk) 15:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    This anon IP account (who obviously is a regular user signed out) seems to want to portray catching bad edits to improve the articles in question as somehow a bad thing. Looks like yet the latest revenge filing by some disgruntled editor who can't get consensus to do what he/she wants to do and therefore lashes out at a target perceived as an enemy. Saying that I find an edit to be, for example, POV pushing is an explanation for my edit, nothing more. Certainly we can explain our reasons and that an edit violates policy. For example, this anon user compains about an edit I made to Elizabeth Báthory in popular culture where I said there was linkfarming and POV pushing via a FORK file, but any neutral admin who looks into it will see that that's exactly true. The main Bathory article has sources showing that, for example, the legends of Bathory bathing in blood of virgins in unsupported, whereas this FORK article was outright saying it was real and calling Bathory vile and other unencyclopedic language and side-taking; and there were many highly improper external links in the body. Why this anon user thinks there is anything wrong with that edit I don't know, but it's probably just that he thinks he can toss off a ton of supposed examples and get people to take ation without looking into anything.

    Similarly, I certainly have disagreements with editors, but I go above and beyond by following 1RR and back off in any case where a For a real consensus is established (instead of just some individual person or small minority edit warring to try get their way)and let consensus stand despite my beliefs. As always, I'm an editor who's not afraid to take on bad edits and clean things up, and of course the people who aren't following policies are going to be upset about it... it just gets tiring to see them running off and complaining and edit warring to try to force their way instead of actually following normal standards of consensus. Frankly, examination of the above edits in context (which reports of this kind never want anyone to do) will show a wide range of problem editor that I am doing my best to remain civil while trying to clean up after, including someone who is in all likelihood a sockpuppet of recently blocked editor User:Esasus/User:Azviz/etc. who was banned after using sockpuppets to harass me and disrupt AFDs (the sockpuppet report caught the user in question using multiple account but could only get a possible reading on the previously banned editor via checkuser, though the edits methods/wikihounding/AFD disruption/serial deprodding for no reason are EXACTLY the same). DreamGuy (talk) 16:30, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I notice that you are defending the edits you make, which are sometimes appropriate, but not the edit summaries and comments on edits which are the matter of complaint here. NPA applies to even the best editor. (I am reluctant to comment, as I admit I am not neutral about the general tendency of some of what you do here at AfD, but that is not the present issue either.) I do not like anonymous accusations, but the material posted makes clear why some people would be reluctant use their regular IDs in commenting on your contributions, and the edit summaries do sort of speak for themselves. DGG (talk) 00:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll make this short, I am annoyed that DreamGuy continually makes arbitrary changes to the outcomes of AFDs as seen above despite my message warning him that doing so is WP:DISRUPTION and will lead to blocks or worse, so he has been warned. I find it nothing but a slap in the face that he not only removed the warning with an editsummary to match his attitude [39] but also changed that AFD without leaving a note on my TP as I requested so we could discuss what he was thinking and why I would be prepared to topic ban him from AFD. His actions are not acceptable for a community project of any sort.   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 03:04, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) I think its unfortunate that it is getting to this point. I think the editor can be sharp and make some pretty concise edits, but his behavior is turning into a net negative for the project. There are a lot of otherwise easy-going editors who DG has accused of one thing or another, which has undoubtedly soured some on the Project. I realize the at the world is full of rude people who still have a part to play, but we should be able to limit this sort of negative personality trait in here. Being an encyclopedia anyone can edit means that they shouldn't be hit with a shovel for making a mistake or disagreeing. There must be a better way of interacting. I don't know if DG ever asks this of himself.
    Anyway, I support any and all limits on DG; we cannot parent DG; we can keep him from disrupting the editing of others, and we should, - Arcayne (cast a spell) 03:22, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Is the identity of the IP editor really a big deal? He provided proof positive of personal attacks towards multiple other users. Whether this is a banned editor or not, we need to take these diffs at face value, and not question the person bringing them to light.Drew Smith What I've done 03:26, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it is, because if this is the same person that has been out harassing DG (who is not banned yet, by the way) for the past six months or so, then that needs to be known that an apparent agenda of one person against DG is continuing even after being indef-blocked for sockpuppetry. MuZemike 04:00, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This thread is about DG, not the IP. If your concerned about who the IP is then that doesn't really belong here, take it to SPI. What we know for certain is that DG's actions need review hence this thread. Making adhomenium arguments that the IP may be a banned user (or something to that effect) does not weaken or address the actual issue of DG's actions, period.   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 04:09, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Azviz. I am starting to believe that this is a deliberate attempt to bait DreamGuy into another block. MuZemike 06:19, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If the SPI comes out negative, then I'll shut up and let the community have carte blanche on what to do. MuZemike 06:21, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, seriously, this isn't the place for it. Whether he's a sock or not, he has provided plenty of diffs to prove DreamGuys incivility, and we need to look at the evidence, not the person who presented it. Take your sock concerns and click the link you provided.Drew Smith What I've done 06:28, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, this is certainly relevant. If it is shown that the same blocked user has complained twice in those three times you mentioned to ANI, then that basis for this complaint (nearly the same made a week ago, which ended up digging two other socks) holds a lot less. MuZemike 06:56, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    How so? There are still diffs proving that DreamGuy was uncivil towards multiple other users. Whether the person who makes the complaint is a sock or not, doesnt diminish the fact that DreamGuy is uncivil.Drew Smith What I've done 07:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • User:Dream Guy has made some terrific contributions to the project, and I wanted very much to stay away from this ANI this month (I cannot find the third one right now), as I am listed above as someone to whom User:Dream Guy has been uncivil. But even after being notified of this ANI (03:37, 26 May 2009) concerning his behavior, he continues to involve himself in incivility and personal attack.
      1. Claims that I "rallied a bunch of people who vote Keep on every article they see" in order to "tagteam to show a false consensus", and that I "work with a team of sock accounts" to get my way.diff
      2. Demands I do not encourage User:Varbas to lie diff, when I had specifically done no such thing and actually counseled Varbas to remain cool under continued attack.diff
      3. Denigrates Varbas [40]
      4. Denigrates Varbas (boilerplate comment)diff
      5. Denigrates Varbas [41]
      6. Denegrates ME diff
      7. Denigrates Varbas (boilerplate comment) diff
      8. Repeted assumption of bad faith diff
      9. Removed reliable sources diff
      10. Accused me in his summary of "Clear Deception" diff
      11. Stating in a summary that I "know" I'm not supposed to post on his talk page and that I have been "harrassing him" diff
      12. Calls me abusive and states that I "never made a good edit" diff and tells another editor that in a posting on my talk page he told me not to post on his. He did not tell me that (see discussion), but claims it.
      All these after he was made aware of an ongoing ANI dicussion concerning his lack of civility. I acknowledge that User:Dream Guy has made excelent contributions to the project, but this a community built on and surviving through courtesy, civility, and good faith. He must please stop being so acerbic. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:52, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe this is the third complaint about DreamGuy this month. Something needs to be done.Drew Smith What I've done 05:45, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I just ran across 68.147.253.39 (talk · contribs) when they edited an article on my watch list -- new, virtually every edit has reverted an edit by DreamGuy, and not for the better. Another sock? Dougweller (talk) 06:44, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Probably. Totally inappropriate behavior, but this ANI thread is about Dreamguys behavior, not an IP.Drew Smith What I've done 06:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    @ MuZemike: Your not helping here, Making un-proven claims about the IP that has lodged a perfectly valid complaint (with diffs I might add) is not what this thread is about. I'll ask once, Back off. I see the IP is not the only person complaining about this user, so your ill conceived theory that discrediting the IP may help DG is wrong and reflects poorly on you and DG   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 07:57, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Am I the only one here who thinks there is some baiting going on here? This is ridiculous! MuZemike 08:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Your the only one trying to defend him by attempting to discredit the reporter, a cowardly thing to do without even attempting to address what the reporter has said. This is my report (and the other handful of users here) just as much as it is the IP who started it. Again, Back off   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 08:18, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Banned User:Pioneercourthouse resurfaces

    Resolved
     – for now, anyway. Admin has protected the pages.

    As noted in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pioneercourthouse/Archive, that guy has found three more articles connected with Pioneer Courthouse Square to attack, the main article having been protected for some time now. Why we need 3 articles on essentially one subject, I don't know. But I just wonder if it would be wise to also have the other two articles protected, or more to the point, whether anyone would object to it. The three latest targets of this abuser are Pioneer Courthouse, Pioneer Place, and Pioneer Square, Seattle. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 04:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    An admin has now protected Pioneer Courthouse, and meanwhile there is another sock currently attacking the still-unprotected Pioneer Place and Pioneer Square, Seattle. I'm assuming the admin will protect those too, so I'm just kind of getting this on the record for possible future reference. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 04:57, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Other pages now protected also. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 05:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess that message he sent us through the possible meat puppet that said he did not want to continue the pattern of disruptive editing was a fabrication. Even though that possible meatpuppet was blocked on sight, this report here will just give us more reason in the future to wave off such claims.— Dædαlus Contribs 06:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I raised this here because of the page protection question, which was quickly answered in the affirmative. The socks themselves can be turned in to WP:AIV for on-sight indef-blocking, as was that obvious sock from the other day who claimed to be a "friend" of the puppetmaster. It is grossly unfair for one jerk to be holding those pages hostage, but that's show biz. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 06:25, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a comment that I hope others will be adding these new targets to their watch lists. The vandal has demonstrated a willingness in the past to create multiple sleeper accounts and to make enough minor edits to get auto-confirmed in order to get around the semi-protection on the Pioneer Courthouse Square article, which has resulted in long-term full protection on that page. I see no reason to suspect he won't use similar strategies on these three new targets. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 14:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep, I don't expect this will be the end. To that effect, I'll be experimenting with a filter targeting the behavior itself so the articles can be unprotected. —EncMstr (talk) 14:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Those pages are now on my watchlist. I won't be online much in the next ten days, but I'll be happy to take out any ducks I happen to see pop out of the pond. OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Just a thought: It doesn't seem this blocking strategy is working. He is becoming more effective with each passing day. Perhaps if we sat down and talked to him, this could be worked out. Most people are not completely irrational and from what I've seen, there has been a wholesale assumption that this guy is a malicious vandal and has no ulterior motive except vandalism. Maybe this is so, but maybe a little discussion could do wonders - maybe he honestly believes in the homeless issue, for instance. And from what I've seen, he may want to reform, but his demands have just been deleted. Again, just a random thought from someone who has been observing from afar and decided to chime in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davisomalley (talk • contribs) 19:49, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    See talk:Pioneer Courthouse Square and the archive pages for it. Discussion has been attempted. Reasoning has been attempted. All have failed. The sock/vandal has a specific agenda they choose to push - and when others oppose that agenda, their standard practice is to either claim that they are being abused; or to claim to be a third party wanting to help negotiate a resolution, while actually manipulating the Wikipedia community, until such time that their true colors are shown and the additional sock is blocked. Both strategies have been used many times by the sock/vandal. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:19, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I understand this way of reasoning. However, if you read the archives carefully, it appears the vandal attempted to "reform" himself once but perhaps sincerely felt abused by others when he did so. I think we should offer him one more pathway to reforming and if he rejects it, it should be assumed he is truly a vandal. I disagree that he has attemptefd to manipulate the community "many times." In fact, it doesn't appear he has ever been given a good faith opportunity to reform. Rather than always assume the worst about vandals, perhaps we should, as a community, try and take a softer approach sometimes. Just banning, banning, banning, blocking, blocking, blocking really doesn't seem to be working very well. Again, just a point of view from afar. Take it or leave it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davisomalley (talk • contribs) 20:25, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, many times. See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Pioneercourthouse and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pioneercourthouse/Archive. Yesterday's edit warring is direct evidence that he has no interest in changing his ways, his one and only interrest is to press his agenda any way he can. His tools are to edit-war, or to pretend to be engaging in reasonable discussion which has always fallen appart due to his non-willingness to accept overwhelming community concensus, or pretend to be a third party pretending to want to find a resolution - while actually only attempting a different means to waste the community's time in an alternate strategy to force his unsourced soapboxing into Wikipedia. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    You may be correct. However yesterday's edit war may also be a sign that he is seeking attention. Perhaps give him attention in a positive way. My point is our current strategy is not working at all. We need to find alternative strategies. What good is this current blocking strategy doing? None at all! I don't believe the soft approach has been adequately explored. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davisomalley (talk • contribs) 20:56, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The continuous block of the page is actually working quite well, in the sense that it's keeping your 3 1/2 year old nonsense edit out of the article. The downside is that by your behavior, you continue to hold the article hostage from legitimate editors. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 21:39, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Oops, already indef'd. Never mind. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 21:49, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If it is a sign that he's seeking attention, then R-B-I is the best approach. No attention is the proven only viable solution for these situations - not to feed his temper-tantrum request for attention. The soft approach has been more than adequately explored, multiple times and with the same repeated soapboxing being forced upon Wikipedia articles each time it has been attempted. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    He's accumulated a lot of R-B-I's already this year. He strikes out a lot, but he keeps trying to get a homeless run. Maybe you think I'm just being funny, but that's on the square. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 00:31, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I've started a page to try to explain this situation so we don't have to repeat it every month: Wikipedia:WikiProject Oregon/Pioneercourthouse sockpuppet saga. tedder (talk) 22:15, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    FYI: I spotted a fourth target for the sockpuppet's vandalism: Pioneer Court in Chicago, by Obleaop (talk · contribs). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    And another sock on this article: Dinkiebrains (talk · contribs) ... me thinks this article also requires protection. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:51, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    These are both blocked and a nice abuse filter has been made - by EncMstr (talk · contribs) - and turned on. We can wrap this up here and handle as things progress. Wknight94 talk 18:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Malcolm Schosha

    Malcolm Schosha (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    I have lengthened Malcom's block to indefinite for ongoing personal attacks whilst already blocked for edit warring and personal attacks. Posted here for input and review. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:27, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Good block. Attacking large numbers of volunteer editors who sacrifice their time to maintaining Wikipedia should never be tolerated and if someone continues to do so even while being blocked for exactly those reasons, they should be shown the door. I'd even suggest disabling talk page editing for this editor because it's unlikely to become better... Regards SoWhy 12:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is the previous section Talk:Self-hating_Jew#The problem with Finlay where he totally misrepresents Mick Finlay's record of published writings and calls that academic an apologist for Islam that got to me. I was on the verge of posting in another place something asking what Malcolm brings to Wikipedia apart from niggling comments that waste other editor's time. So that's a Support block from me. --Peter cohen (talk) 13:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Long overdue. Has a knack for juvenile condescension against users of different POVs...don't have diffs handy, but he got a kick out of addressing me as Tark for some reason. Plus he has been calling other editors antisemitic for quite awhile now, and was even tossed off an ArbCom case because of it. Tarc (talk) 12:45, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Pretty nasty ongoing commentary, and obvious from his last few months of article space edits that he's only here to push what appears to be a pretty fringey POV, which is never helpful. Has been pretty much on a rampage of nastiness since people on the same political wavelength as himself were topic-banned from the Palestinian-Israeli topics in the recent RFAR. rootology/equality 13:30, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support It might have been less inflammatory to have requested another previously uninvolved admin review and act as appropriate - but I am certain the end result would have been the same/ LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:24, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Malcom's way was to strongly attack admins trying to deal with him, then claim they were "involved" and "harassing" or "out to get" him. Hence Malcom said I was involved, but I never was. I always hoped he'd settle down. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, which is why having yet another admin do the review and likely block does not feed into that culture of being accused of having prior bias - but ultimately, it was a good block for the right reasons. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:25, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • No objections, I generally support incivility blocks. It's somewhat amusing that he's blocked for displaying poor social skills by ranting about the supposed poor social skills of others.  Sandstein  19:27, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, it looks like he's amused with us. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Maury Markowitz and redirect deletions

    I'm taking this here because this will likely need administrators to undelete pages. Maury Markowitz (talk · contribs) has for some time been deleting redirects for being unused or "polluting Google". He doesn't seem to understand that he's wrong, even after a successful deletion review; relevant threads are User talk:Maury Markowitz#VIA redirects and User talk:Maury Markowitz#Redirects. The next step would be to go through all the redirects he deleted and undelete those that should not have been deleted. I can help create the list, but for obvious reasons cannot help with the undeletions. --NE2 13:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh my god, this is still going on?! Undelete them all, with my blessings! I don't care one way or the other. But I do care about NE2's constant complaints and casting aspersions. So if undeleting all of these makes him leave me alone, great, full speed ahead! Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough; if someone sends me a list I'll work through it. Stifle (talk) 15:25, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    User:NE2/redirects includes all of them. There are likely a few non-redirects and a few valid redirect deletions in there. --NE2 17:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I've checked through #39 (PostScipt). --Carnildo (talk) 01:47, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Poor judgment and questionable timing on a speedy deletion

    I am posting this note because I believe that there was poor judgment shown in the speedy deletion of Stanislav Menshikov. Here is the chronology:

    • May 16: a dispute begins over whether commentary by Menshikov that is favorable to Lyndon LaRouche is sufficiently notable for inclusion in the lead of that article.
    • May 22: Will Beback posts a comment in which he says Menshikov is "not impartial."
    • May 22: Will speedy deletes Menshikov's bio.
    • May 23: TallNapoleon notes that Menshikov is "redlinked."
    • May 23: Cs32en deletes Menshikov quote on the grounds that Menshikov is redlinked.
    • May 24: Cs32en posts this: "If Menshikov is not notable enough to have his own article, why would his opinion about another person be so important that it would be in the lede?"
    • May 24: Will responds, "That's a good point."

    The reason given for speedy deletion was that the article was created by a banned user. Assuming that this is true, Will had several options:

    • He could have deleted the article over a year ago (he chose to edit the article instead)
    • He could have posted a notice on a relevant board, asking an uninvolved admin to take action
    • He could have invited community participation through a conventional AfD process

    Instead, Will chose the one course of action that was most likely to create the impression that he was using admin tools to shape the outcome of an article content dispute. --Leatherstocking (talk) 14:55, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    He edited the article only once and deleted it as having been created by a banned user. Any user in good standing can recreate it. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm with Leatherstocking on this one. Recreated. Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:49, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That's ok! Gwen Gale (talk) 17:02, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, since the article creator MaplePorter (talk · contribs) does appear to be a sock of a banned user, Will Beback was technically correct (which is, as my idol Hermes Conrad would say, the best kind of "correct") to speedy delete it, prior edits notwithstanding, although the circumstances of the deletion as related by Leatherstocking do seem a bit odd. Worse, the recreation by Maury Markowitz might (also technically) be considered both proxying for a banned editor and the beginning of a wheel war. To avoid any unproductive nastiness, I suggest that we just submit the article to AfD to find out whether this (probably borderline notable) guy should have an article or not.  Sandstein  17:06, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Maury Markowitz didn't use the admin bit to recreate the article so I don't see much of a wheel war there (as I said, any editor in good standing could have done that). However, I do agree AfD would be the way to go if anyone is wondering about the notability of this topic. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:22, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, going by the Google cache, it looks like Maury recreated it without undeleting the history, a big no-no for reasons of attribution. --NE2 17:34, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) Well, I assume he used admin privileges to retrieve the deleted content (but, as I said, technically).  Sandstein  17:35, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The user in question was banned six months after the article was created. The policy is very clear that you SD material in violation of the ban, and only if there are no other major editors. Neither case applies. Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:29, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Given the very long and sad block log of the sockmaster before and after the time when the article was begun, I can't get too stirred up about the deletion of an article created by one of its socks. I think we can agree AfD is the way to deal with this now. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:38, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    However, Maury, it does look like you rs'd the text by copying from an edit window only an admin could have. This was not what I meant by "recreate." I think both of you have made a muddle of this and I have restored the article history, given the need for attribution under GFDL. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Now listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stanislav Menshikov.  Sandstein  21:50, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • To correct an error by Leatherstocking: when I edited the article (only a minor edit), Mapleporter had not yet been identified as a sock of a banned user. Leatherstocking has a history of complaining about enforcement activities regarding HK's socks. Regarding Maury Markowitz's issue about whether Mapleporter was banned at the time: we ban people, not accounts. The person behind Mapleporter was the banned editor Herschelkrustofsky, who has used dozens of sock accounts. HK also has a history of creating articles solely to improve the reputation of Lyndon LaRouche, of whom he is a follower. In the year since it was created it was not linked to any other article.   Will Beback  talk  19:36, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Trotskyism bias

    The pages on Trotskyism read as if written by Trotskyists. They make scores of statements about the USSR and its history, usually without any verification, sometimes only with references to Trotsky or Trotskyist writers. When these are challenged, as by the present writer, threats of blocking are made (e.g by Roland - who says on his page that he is a supporter of Trotsky's 4th International.) Stevenjp (talk) 15:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi Stevenjp, I suggest you have a look at the dispute resolution page. PhilKnight (talk) 15:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I made no "threats of blocking"; but I warned this editor several times that if he persisted in adding unsourced factual claims, personal commentary and derogatory remarks, then he risked being blocked. My editing of the page is no less acceptable than is that of Stevenjp himself, since he is a supporter of the hostile CPB (M-L). RolandR 17:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Which, says CPB (M-L) "should not be confused with the Communist Party of Britain (941 members), the Revolutionary Communist Party of Britain (Marxist-Leninist) (30 members), nor with the Communist Party of Great Britain (Marxist-Leninist). ("one of the smaller remaining fragments") " See also Monty Python's Life of Brian re "Judean People's Front". There's still someone alive who wants to edit war over this? --John Nagle (talk) 21:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I remember "Leon the Lip", as they called the old twirler. He was a lefty, with plenty of heat but no control, and eventually the other team went gunning for him. His cousin Hal was far more successful. He was a first baseman and a heavy hitter. Being an Indian, he stayed neutral on political matters. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 00:24, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, Trotsky. IIRC he once addressed a political meeting in the US with the immortal line, "Workers and peasants of the Bronx!" Always had his finger on the pulse that one. --Folantin (talk) 08:14, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Was that the one at Yankee Stadium? With his cousin playing first base for the visitors? After Leon the Lip was given the Bronx cheer, he sadly remarked that on that day, he considered himself the unluckiest man on the face of the earth. For one thing, they refused to retire his number. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 08:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Anticipating Mike Dukakis by several decades, Leon posed in a military vehicle, and sang the Bob Hope song, "Tanks for de memories." At that point they awarded him a prize - a free vacation trip to Mexico. Turned out to be a one-way ticket. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 08:45, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Prem Rawat enforcement action

    I'd like to draw the community's attention to my arbitration enforcement action at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Teachings of Prem Rawat. Because that action involves the block of an administrator (as well as a non-administrator editor), and because blocks of administrators have the potential to become controversial, I am bringing the matter here preemptively. I consent to any change to my enforcement action that might be necessary to bring it into accordance with community consensus (if any).  Sandstein  16:49, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Well done. These edits by User:Will_Beback so soon after the Arbcom decision show very poor judgement, unworthy of an administrator. Under these circumstances I would say a topic ban was in order. (Off2riorob (talk) 17:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]
    Concur with block - if ArbCom Enforcement is to mean anything then it needs applying swiftly and without favour. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Will Beback made a case that he wasn't in violation, in the 24 May portion of Talk:Teachings of Prem Rawat#FORMER FOLLOWERS section. When Newyorkbrad becomes available after holiday, I request that he examine Will's defense and offer an opinion as to its merit along with noting any gray areas. Newyorkbrad has the professional skills to parse a defense by detail of rules, and is widely considered fair in making such judgments. Milo 20:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I would like to thank Milo for his confidence in me. However, traditionally, sitting arbitrators generally do not participate in enforcement of decisions, because the cases may come back again them before a later date and they would then have an involvement in the actions being reviewed. Therefore, it would probably be best if discussion here continues for a consensus of uninvolved non-arb admins. (I also have three truly massive arb cases that I need to work through in the next 24 hours.) Thanks again for thinking of me, though. :) Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Will Beback is substantially in violation of the section provided at ArbCom Enforcement, in that he reverted to his earlier version within the 7 day period. If he wishes to argue that there may be other findings or directions that permitted him to do so then he should take that up with ArbCom in the Clarifications section - until then he was found to be in violation and thus blocked. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:35, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    Will Beback has posted the following request for block review on his talk page, copied below:
    "I believe that Sandstein has miscounted the reverts. I first added text in following a discussion on the talk page.[42] That was not a revert. Several days later another editor, Pergamino, made significant changes to the text without discussion. I reverted the changes.[43] That was the only revert. The RFAR editing restriction prohibits more than one revert per week. No user may revert any given changes to a subject article more than once within a seven day period...[44] Since I only reverted once I did not violate the prohibition. Further, I acted in good faith to avoid violating the prohibition, and if I did violate it then I did so unintentionally and with a misunderstanding of how the revert(s) are counted. I received no warning that I'd violated the prohibition, and I would have self-reverted if I had been warned. One revert per week is an unusual standard and I think that either Sandastein or I is not calculating it correctly. Will Beback " [22:28, 26 May 2009 courtesy repost from [45] by Milo 00:24, 27 May 2009 (UTC)][reply]

    That looks like legitimate grounds for lifting the block if it's true. DurovaCharge! 00:49, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was having a look at that first edit, and I couldn't find any consensus to add it on the talk page, there was some discussion and then willbeback added it.

    Added by cirt,

    Reports obtained by Ted Patrick and several scholars after deprogramming of several of Rawat's former worshippers refer to the experience of Rawat's "meditation" techniques as self-hypnosis, and as diminishing the ability to think both during the practice and for an extended period of time after cessation. name=Patrick>Patrick, Ted with Tom Dulack, Let Our Children Go!: By the man who rescues brainwashed American youth from sinister 'religious' cults pp. 214-215 (1976) E.P. Dutton & Company, ISBN 0-525-14450-1 name=Conway>Conway, Flo and Siegelman, Jim, "Snapping: America's Epidemic of Sudden Personality Change Second Edition, Second printing: pp 159 f (2005) Stillpoint Press, ISBN 0-38528928-6</

    this was removed by Zanthorp

    then this was added by willbeback, it's basically a reinsertion of the same material with a small rewrite.

    Former premie (follower of Rawat) Marcia Carroll was deprogrammedfrom Rawat's cult in 1973 by Ted Patrick. Carroll describes each of the four techniques in detail within the context of her experience. She concludes: "the more meditation you do, the less able you are to reason. It becomes painful to think at all. So whatever they tell you, you do.... With more and more meditation, you experience a sort of ... self-hypnosis. It keeps you there." name=Patrick>Patrick, Ted with Tom Dulack, Let Our Children Go!: By the man who rescues brainwashed American youth from sinister 'religious' cults pp. 214-215 (1976)E.P. Dutton & Company, ISBN 0-525-14450-1. (Off2riorob (talk) 02:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]

    Clause

    I think Will is misreading which clause of Remedy 3.1 of the RFAR applies...

    To quote the whole thing:

    Revert limitations
    3.1) The Prem Rawat article and all related articles are subject to an editing restriction for one year. No user may revert any given changes to a subject article more than once within a seven day period, except for undisputable vandalism and BLP violations. Furthermore, if a user makes any changes to a subject article, and those changes are reverted, they may not repeat the change again within a seven day period.
    Passed 11 to 1 to 1, 02:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

    I believe that the issue is the last sentence ( "Furthermore, if a user makes any changes to a subject article, and those changes are reverted, they may not repeat the change again within a seven day period." ). Will made a change, and it was reverted, he wasn't supposed to change it back until 8 days later (and did so in 5 days). I'm not sure I agree with this provision, but that's what they entered into the rule as it stands. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Agree. Because of this clause (and quite independently of this discussion) I reached the conclusion to deny the unblock request. I'm not truly aware of the depth of disruption on this article, and this may have been a good-faith misunderstanding by Will about the restrictions, but I felt that unblocking him would be somewhat disrespectful of the RFAR ruling, and also give an appearance of unfairness unless Pergamino is also unblocked. Mangojuicetalk 02:37, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Good point. Since this is a newly closed case and neither editor has been warned, perhaps unblocking both and extending a warning would be appropriate? It's an unusual clause in the case, and the wording isn't easy to parse. Had me confused too until I read it three times. DurovaCharge! 04:54, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it is the second element of the restriction that Will Beback violated in this case. I would normally be reluctant to block a user for the violation of that unusual a remedy without a prior warning, but since he was a party to the RfAr and indeed was specifically admonished at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat 2#Users admonished for his conduct in articles related to Prem Rawat, I think he must be deemed adequately warned in this case.  Sandstein  05:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I have declined the unblock request by Will Beback on the grounds that it appeared he did violate the letter and spirit of the ArbCom decision as I have read it; however I also support Durova's proposed solution. Will Beback's comments since my decline have indicated that he made a good-faith mistake based on his reading of the sanctions, and he has clearly indicated that he will tread lighter in the future. Durova generally keeps a very clear head in tough times, and I trust her judgement on these issues. I think a provisional unblock, with perhaps a request to ArbCom for clarification and the understanding that these blocks serve as clear warnings to tread lightly in the affected articles. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I would be uneasy in commencing the practice of allowing one mistake over interpretation of ArbCom decisions; I saw immediately how Will Beback had violated the word of the restriction as provided at AE. As well as being the responsibility of the restricted party to understand and abide by the sanctions imposed at ArbCom, it is likely to severely discourage the few admins that work the AE page if properly arrived at blocks, topic bans are then lifted because it was the first time. The ArbCom case should have provided sufficient warning and notice that sanctions for violations would be enforced - otherwise would be to diminish this avenue of final resolution also. If Will Beback and the other editor (who I note is not being discussed) are to receive a warning, let it be in the form of this 24 hour block. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If an editor (Rumiton) can be banned for a year over Prem Rawat issues without a warning and with only one previous block, any diminishing of WillBeback or Pergamino's tiny 24 hour block would seem like gross hypocrisy. Mind you, ArbCom's decision to enshrine "up to one week in the event of repeated violations and After 5 blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one year" sends a clear message that bad editing at PR articles are now to be considered trivial. Sandstein, as usual, is right, WillBeback has had adequate warning.Momento (talk) 06:17, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    We could go either way with this: Pergamino was not named at the case. But consensus leans in the other direction and is internally consistent, so deferring. DurovaCharge! 17:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Mytestid1980 is damaging an article

    See [46] and all contribs. He is putting hoaxes on 2008 attacks on North Indians in Maharashtra even when we warned him. All warnings are gone from his talk. Some more bad eits also ocurred. See history

    i hope its the right place (WP:AIV asks for recent disruption and I don't smell a 3RR violation.) Hometech (talk) 18:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Looking at Mytestid's edits, this is a political/ethnic issue, and that user is clearly pushing an agenda. This is best served at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Geopolitical ethnic and religious conflicts, which is set up specifically for this type of situation. Be sure to read the intro at the top of that page and provide diffs so you receive the proper attention. Mytestid should probably be blocked if s/he makes one more such edit (after being warned, of course). --64.85.214.21 (talk) 14:22, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Sam Blacketer resignation article at The Register

    I just saw that an article was published today on The Register about Sam Blacketer, and wanted to give you guys a heads-up. TotientDragooned (talk) 18:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Correct link ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 18:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a rather good article, actually, thanks for sharing. I particularly like the quote in the final paragraph! ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 18:14, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Heh! That might explain this (reverted) edit, which had me scratching my head. Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 18:19, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Its rather a bummer. Sam is a pretty good editor, but the aforementioned edit was clearly pov. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 03:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you are misreading the situation. All that Sam Blacketer did was revert vandalism in Cameron's article: New Canadian (talk · contribs) inserts a picture designed to mock Cameron: [47]. It is a picture that shows Cameron, making a stupid face, in front of something in the background that makes him look as though he has a halo. Sam Blacketer then reverted that edit, restoring the normal picture, showing Cameron smiling in his suit: [48], with the edit summary "(Undid revision 290191421 by New Canadian (talk): Revert choice of picture to one not carrying saintly overtones.)" His crime was to have a sense of humour. Two days later, Sam Blacketer reverted another vandal: [49]. Metz makes it sound as though Sam Blacketer had inserted a less flattering picture of Cameron, to score a popularity point against Cameron. The exact opposite is the truth. Thus I conclude Cade Metz is a journalist whose writings should not be given much credence, and that is putting it politely. ;) JN466 11:31, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I get that, Jayen466 - I do - but there is a reason we avoid those articles with which we have conflict of interest issues. It's incredibly poor judgment. It isn't like editing Hitler and Ghandi's page to keep junk out (when you hate one and love the other); the editor had a real connection to the subject. Hmm, we should have a policy or guideline about this... - Arcayne (cast a spell) 12:54, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    David Boothroyd article

    Someone may want to take a closer look at this article and the drama quickly emerging behind this. I think this is going to get ugly. MuZemike 08:04, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    That is, it has been rapidly recreated, and another user has a copy of the article on his userpage, which is now up for MFD. MuZemike 08:06, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Never mind. Deleted again and salted. MuZemike 08:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    See WP:DRV. No need for drama. Jehochman Talk 08:42, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The article is now posted on the user page of TAway (talk · contribs). Mathsci (talk) 08:45, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I've resolved that. Jehochman Talk 09:02, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Advice please

    See this editor, El-Pabloski (talk · contribs), along with this, Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Barnstar copied from another editor and this strange edit which could be good or bad, [50]. Advice and thoughts would be helpful, thanks--Jac16888Talk 20:16, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    It seems that the 'good or bad' edit was bad. [51]. I had a look through this editor's contributions earlier and couldn't spot a good one. pablohablo. 22:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Pablomismo. Last time I went through the users contribs, I couldn't spot a solidly constructive one. Killiondude (talk) 23:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I've tried pretty hard to get this person into good habits and useful contribs, but without success thus far. *sigh*  Chzz  ►  00:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    My impression is that this is a keen, but young editor, who wants to run before he can walk. Some of his edits seem to be well-intentioned, but naive. If he can be focussed into some area of interest, and accept mentorship (assuming anyone is prepared to take the time and effort to do that), his enthusiasm could be usefully channelled; meanwhile, he is unaware of this discussion, and I'll drop an {{ANI-notice}} for him. Rodhullandemu 00:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Vandalism of File:WPAbortion-logo.svg

    Resolved
     – fixed and protected.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:45, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm sorry, I don't know how to fix this, but I think it needs urgent attention - the Abortion "logo" that appears on all abortion related topics has been changed to read "Murder" by CGrapes429 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Thanks, Dawn Bard (talk) 20:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Hmm... I tried to fix it, but something seems to be working wrong. Any suggestions? –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 20:42, 26 May 2009 (UTC) Seems to be fixed. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 20:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Drilnoth uploaded a new version of it. What is weird for me is that the Murder still appears in the image at the top of the image page, but the update to read "Abortion" at the bottom by Drilnoth looks ok, and I clicked on the Abortion article to see that the sidebar does indeed say Abortion. I figure it's a thing with my computer. I refreshed the page 4 times but it still read as Murder...anyway, I fully protected the image page for 3 days. --Moni3 (talk) 20:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Huh. I protected it indef, and refreshed until the image cache caught up with Drilnoth's fix. In any case, one or more of us took care of it. :-)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:45, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, y'all. I warned the user who made the change; I hope that was appropriate. Dawn Bard (talk) 20:50, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Most probably. :-) I extended the protection to indef again, and deleted all the "Murder" versions so that someone couldn't just revert to an earlier version.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Only one edit since January, and it's a vandalism? Sounds like a compromised account. If it were me deciding, I would indef it and see if the user even notices. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 21:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Bugs, treating these folk with your fluffy kindness and indolent patience is surely going to backfire on you one of these days. Sometimes love and maple syrup isn't enough! LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:39, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    And that's why I'm not the one deciding, don'cha know. But as merely a lowly peon; just a simple farmer; one of the people of the land; part of the common clay of the new west; I can always make recommendations. 0:) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 23:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Just be glad I didn't refer to that drive-by vandalism as the CGrapes429 of Wrath. Oops, too late. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 23:45, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Love and maple syrup are useless without pancakes and sex. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:20, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Mmmmmm maple syrup and sex... damn I wish I was young again! --WebHamster 23:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't recommend mixing lovin' and syrup. Things can get stuck together, and then you'll be subjected to the ridicule of the Rescue Squad. Or so I've heard. 0:) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 23:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you misheard, that is super glue and sex. Not that I have first hand knowledge.... The Seeker 4 Talk 00:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, what they need is some kind of syrup with the consistency of K-Y. That would be ideal for keeping those pancakes lubricated. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 00:26, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Was that from that summer at band camp? Oh... MuZemike 03:54, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Good grief I go to Disney World for a week and THIS happens in AN/I? Wildthing61476 (talk) 12:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Standards keep heading down the ladder as we try to wring the last ounce of humor. By now we must be down to the last wrung. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 13:14, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Brianna Tatiana

    Resolved
     – Article deleted. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:13, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Would this[52] be a legal threat? --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Yeah, I say so. Block away. MuZemike 22:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, done. Article prodded two days ago in any case. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Sounds like "The Name Game":

    Brianna Tatiana, bo-biana
    Banana-fana fo-fiana
    Fee-fi-mo-miana
    Brianna Tatiana!
    :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 23:06, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    There some talk on the talk page about this not being about a real person. I was unable to find a single reliable source which is very strange given the article claims she was on MTV and has released an album. If this isn't an article about a fake person, it almost certainly fails to reach notability guidelines. The article should be deleted. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, as I was constructing that Name Game thing, it occurred to me that it would also work for Hannah Montana - which is maybe what inspired this apparent bit of fiction. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 23:10, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, sorted. User talk:Indie-lauper has rescinded the legal threat (it wasn't a serious one apparently but nonetheless) and I have unblocked him. I checked the article out a couple of days ago when it came up on the BLP noticeboard and decided to prod it as I couldn't find reliable sources for it but there seems to be a wider problem than Wikipedia here, of someone's name and photo being taken and used elsewhere to create a fake identity. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:33, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I've found the problem. There was a press release on PR Newswire regarding Brianna Tatiana being signed by Global Village Records.[53]. According to an 2006 SEC litigation release [54], "Global Village Records" was part of a Ponzi scheme and had no actual business activities. "According to the complaint, even after the original defendants were enjoined from continuing to violate the federal securities laws, they continued their fraud by soliciting additional money into this scam. To circumvent the asset freeze, certain defendants created a new company, Global Village Records, and then used the bank accounts of companies owned by Daniel J. Merriman to forward money from investors." On April 15, 2009, a court ruled against the people behind the scam, with a $51 million final judgement.[55] A criminal prosecution is pending. One can see why someone might not wish to be in Wikipedia associated with Global Village Records. --John Nagle (talk) 03:58, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Crosscheck. Yes, it's the same "Global Village Records". The press release cited above was from a Dr. Henry Jones. The DOJ press release on the criminal case says "A third defendant involved in the plot, Henry Jones, 53, a record company executive, formerly of Marina Del Rey, is expected to be sentenced in early 2009. Jones has been incarcerated since being extradited from Hong Kong last December."[56] Brianna Tatiana is not mentioned in any of the Government press releases on the scam. --John Nagle (talk) 05:49, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Dr. Henry Jones, lol. Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 06:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Great. Times must be tough in the archeaology business. One link says, "Brianna has performed for thousands of fans at sporting events." Is there actually a Brianna? I was thinking I could make this claim myself, for every time I sing the national anthem at a ballpark. I guess I draw attention, because everyone's singing off-key except me. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 08:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I am being hounded

    An IP has been following around Wikipedia for about a month now and shows no sign of stopping. QuackGuru (talk) 03:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked a month for disruptive editing based on a previous block that appears to not have been effective. Nakon 03:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If I may add a note here, there is another user, SqueakBox (talk · contribs), who may be worth investigating as well. Looking at his contrib history shows a similar pattern to the now-blocked IP's of reverting QuackGuru's edits. In a 7-minute spree on 26 May, 2009, he reverted QG 15 times, all of which were soon reverted by admin, Jennavecia. Tarc (talk) 16:36, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    What do you all make of this removed edit? Seen on RFPP here. rootology/equality 03:13, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Seems like they're violating the "court order" as well. Nakon 03:23, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Lol. Does anyone actually understand what Wikipedia is outside of Wikipedia? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 03:25, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Not really. That's why they all think it's unreliable. My wife thought it was a blog until I sat her down and showed her everything that goes on behind the scenes. Now she just thinks it's "White and Nerdy"Drew Smith What I've done 05:57, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No, that's why they think it's reliable, which it isn't. --NE2 07:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think it's a legal threat, I think it's just that someone with the newspaper seems to think that they can include specific information about their newspaper here. The IP needs to be pointed to some guidelines regarding encyclopedic information. (I thought my copyedit of that article wasn't so bad when I removed that bit earlier...) Tony Fox (arf!) 04:26, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree. It's not intended to be a legal threat. Mishlai (talk) 04:34, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    They reinserted it. I've gotten politely snippy with the IP. Tony Fox (arf!) 15:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Edit War

    Resolved. indefinitely blocked by User:William M. Connolley -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:38, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    One user seems to be involved in some serious edit warring. [57]--The Legendary Sky Attacker 06:51, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    With a name like User:Justthefacts 101, how could there be a problem with his edits? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:38, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    They've been indef'd as a sock. Thanks for catching the last revert. Pinkadelica Say it... 09:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    A rogue bot

    I am concerned by what I consider a rogue bot. It is working its way through the biographical articles, adding a {{DEFAULTSORT}} parameter to each one.

    Various other people have told the bot owner that they have concerns over this bot. Maybe the bot owner paused their bot. But, if they did they didn't leave a note informing those with a concern that the bot was stopped.

    What this bot was doing was an enormous mistake, for every individual who does not have a name that fits into the European naming scheme of inheritable surnames as the last component of the name. Chinese people use inherited surnames -- but it is the first component of their name. People with Arabic names don't use inherited surnames at all. That is billions of individuals.

    This bot has generated a considerable burden of extra work to clean up after it.

    If it has not been disabled, could an administrator stop it? If it has been stopped could someone leave a note to that effect on the bot's talk page?

    For what it is worth I think there is no mechanical way that a bot can determine whether an individual's name should be put into a defaultsort template, and this bot, nor its brothers, should not be restarted. Geo Swan (talk) 07:26, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I believe the bot being refered to is DefaultsortBot. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 07:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    DefaultuserBot's owner, Mikaey, has been notified of this thread. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 07:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    <sigh>. I don't know how many times I try to explain this to everyone. The bot isn't deciding on its own how to arrange the name, it's pulling the listas parameter of the {{WPBiography}} on the talk page. I agree that it's extra work to clean up mistakes, but a) I think it's doing more good than harm in the long run, and b) we need to focus more on editors who are getting the listas wrong in the first place. Anywho, I've turned the bot off for the time being so that hopefully we can get this cleared up. P.S. -- the bot's RfA is here. Matt (talk) 07:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    To err is human, to really screw things up requires a computer.

    Well meaning, but ill-advised volunteers have assumed the European style of inherited surnames was applicable to all names -- when it demonstrably does not apply. Over the last N years they have added ill-advised, unreliable, templates and parameters, to an enormous number of articles where they do not belong. Bots written by well-meaning but ill-advised bot-authors, which rely on the already unreliable data, are compounding an already serious problem.
    At this point more than half of our articles about individuals with Arabic names have had someone add an ill-advised, unreliable guess at what their inherited surname would be. This data is so unreliable no bot should rely on it. Geo Swan (talk) 08:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Why don't we come up with a good way of fixing the problem? Geo Swan, what should the defaultsort/listas be? I or other can try to generate a list, then go through purging/just plain removing the offending defaultsorts/listas. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 08:49, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    It's really unfair to call it a "rogue bot", when it was approved by the Bot Approvals Group after positive input from the community. The bot takes sorting information from WPBio and puts it into DEFAULTSORT. The vast majority of the time, the sorting information is correct. When it's not correct, the bot can't know that, and it puts it into DEFAULTSORT anyway. The incorrect information would be there with or without this bot. The correct response is to fix it when it's incorrect, not blame the bot operator. This is similar to a bot that changes malformed links like [[http://www.example.com/]] to [http://www.example.com/], but isn't aware that occasionally http://www.example.com/ is an irrelevant link. I don't think this is an issue for the Admin Noticeboard.

    So as a solution, it would be great if we could find editors familiar with the Arabic and Persian naming conventions, who can say with a good degree of certainty whether Mohammed Mosaddeq should be sorted under Mohammed or Mosaddeq. Does anyone here have to expertise, and where can I ask? Is there, perhaps, a reference work that lists this? – Quadell (talk) 13:31, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Threat

    Resolved
     – Scottydog77 indefinitely blocked by User:SarekOfVulcan and sockpuppet report filed.

    I'd appreciate it if an admin would deal with this user in regards to the threat to post my picture "somewhere". And a checkuser who isn't busy may want to also deal with the same user at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Scottydog77. Nice defense there by the user. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here @ 10:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    *tap tap* Is this thing on? i can haz admnz? - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here @ 11:06, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked indef. Someone who's more awake can review.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 11:29, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here @ 11:35, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    So, you've got your own picture, on a publicly-visible and high-traffic website, and he's threatening to "post it somewhere"? Next thing, he'll be threatening to "out" you. He'll stop at nothing to expose what you've already exposed. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 13:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Regardless, threats of off-wiki harassment are unacceptable. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here @ 13:57, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Why, exactly was the user blocked? WP:OUTING says "Posting another person's personal information (legal name, date of birth, identification numbers, home or workplace address, job title and work organisation, telephone number, email address, or other contact information, regardless of whether or not the information is actually correct) is harassment, unless that editor voluntarily posts this information, or links to this information, on Wikipedia themselvesItalic text. " NoCal100 (talk) 13:52, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Regardless, threats of off-wiki harassment are unacceptable. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here @ 13:57, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    What threats are you referring to? WP:outing is clear that reposting your picture is not harassment, if you voluntarily posted it yourself to Wikipedia. NoCal100 (talk) 14:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:OUTING refers to outing on Wikipedia. It doesn't address harassment off wiki. Maybe he shouldn't have been blocked because of WP:OUTING but he should have been blocked period. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here @ 14:06, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    what should he have been blocked for? He threatened to do something you've agreed to, which is to republish a file you uploaded to Wikipedia undder Creative Commons ShareAlike. NoCal100 (talk) 14:16, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not just the picture itself necessarily, it could be invasive. For example, it might get posted on the RNC bulletin board: "For a good time, call..." plus his home phone. Then he would start getting calls at all hours, begging for donations. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 14:22, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Where would the home phone # come from? If it was also made public, then again, WP:OUTING excludes this from being harrassment. NoCal100 (talk) 14:27, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    From thorough detective work. For example, anyone who knows me really, really well and were to happen to read all my posts could possibly connect the dots and figure out who's writing it. If they post it, that would be outing, since I haven't explicitly given out my real life identity, they've just inferred it, which could happen to anyone here, in theory. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 14:44, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User talk:Allstarecho has given Scottydog77 (and anyone else) the irrevocable right to publish his pictures anywhere for any purpose. His only condition was that derivative works (i.e.: photoshoppings) should be equally licensed. What's the matter here? Scottydog77 hasn't threatened to do anything wrong. And if you disagree with me, I promise I'll make all your articles in a book and sell it! Mwahahaha.... --Damiens.rf 14:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The threat to post an already-publicly-visible photo somewhere, reminds me of the time a plane bound for Warsaw was hijacked, and the hijacker demanded the plane be taken to Poland. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 14:12, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Apparently you all have missed the issue here. I have not once questioned the licensing or how my photo is used. What I did question is the threat of off-wiki harassment. Thanks for playing. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here @ 14:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The block was appropriate. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 14:24, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    How so? Which policy ? NoCal100 (talk) 14:27, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem is that we don't know what else he might do. If all he does is post the picture and say "here's a picture of this guy from wikipedia", that's one thing. But he might have done some research and figured out his real identity. As with legal threats, maybe we can't stop them from doing things off-wiki, but that automatically disqualifies them from editing on-wiki. If the guy were to rescind the threat/promise/whatever, then maybe he could be reinstated. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 14:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Aside from the off-wiki harassment threat, they've all been blocked now for socking. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here @ 14:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Bingo. The trump card, as it were. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 14:51, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I was going to post earlier to say "perhaps the correct course would be to unblock this editor for threatening to out another editor, then re-block them for threatening to harass another editor (then if they appealed we could unblock them, then if the SPI comes back they could be re-blocked as a sock), but I can't be bothered" but I couldn't be bothered. I think this now really is resolved. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 15:41, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    90.202.151.82

    Resolved
     – Under observation/warnings issued.

    A user seems to have posted a comment at Wikipedia:Abuse reports/90.202.151.82 rather than a more suitable location, copy/pasted from the page, and I shall delete the original shortly. Not really too sure where to put this discussion though...

    90.202.151.82 (talk · contribs)

    Requester Comments Hi - this IP is continually reverting edits that are not being agreed in discussion on a UK town article. Despite several attempts to engage them I have not managed to resolve the situation which has left them undoing any good faith edits I make. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Regshaw (talk • contribs)

    Notes

    Ian¹³/t 12:46, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    This looks like a content dispute that's got a couple of temperatures raised. No warnings have been given out yet, so I've remedied that (IP and Bennyrand have been informed of 3RR+NPA & NPA respectively); I'll keep the page on my watchlist; if the disruption continues in any shape or form and I don't appear to have noticed, feel free to give me a nudge (or post back here). EyeSerenetalk 14:36, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That's cool thanks, tagged as resolved. Ian¹³/t 16:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:194x144x90x118

    Recently, I asked for some feedback on this user's pattern of uncivil behavior, and what response to it might be appropriate. Only a few people responded, and no one directly replied to the question of whether his behavior rose to the level of needing administrative attention or not. The archived discussion is here. The user has replied to the archiving of the discussion in this section of his talk page, entitled "Still here haters." He says there that he very much wants to open an ANI thread regarding myself and User:SarekOfVulcan, in order to ask that we be disciplined for our 'immature behavior,' and presumably to address the problem that we are both incompetent and insane, but he is unable to open the thread himself because he doesn't feel his English skills are strong enough. I therefore open the discussion on his behalf; if anyone feels that I should be reprimanded, or Sarek should, for my behavior to this user, I welcome your comments. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=292734013"