Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive526

Vandalism and sockuppetry at Daniel Westling‎

Resolved

 – ukexpat (talk) 00:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Daniel Westling‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Folks, a few of us seem to be fighting a losing battle to deal with vandalism on this one. RFPP has been filed, but speedy action is required. Thank you. – ukexpat (talk) 21:58, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I semiprotected it for a few days, and added it to my watchlist in case the problem persists. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:05, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Excellent, thank you. – ukexpat (talk) 00:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Loss of an editor

Resolved

 – Account indefed and user page fully-protected. Thank you for your contributions here; I'm sure you will be missed. MuZemike 01:24, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I apologize if I am not following proper procedure. bibliomaniac15 can confirm that I at least asked him first. We've lost editor User:Nitelinger from our ranks, and I have placed a memorial star to the best of my ability on the talk page. I just thought I'd drop a note here in case anyone would like to sign. The official notice is here, and the visitor's book is here I've done my best to avoid any wording that would offend anyone of any particular belief, and if someone feels something different would be better, please fix it for me — Ched ~ ^(yes?)/_© 01:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

An admin needs to indef block the account and full-protect the user page out of respect for the person (unless someone in relation to the former user would like it deleted for any reason). Make sure everything in the corresponding entry in WP:RIP is verifiable. My condolences go to his family. MuZemike 01:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Bilblio did protect the user page, that's why I asked him, I didn't know who else to ask really. — Ched ~ ^(yes?)/_© 01:24, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I just saw that. Thanks. MuZemike 01:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Francesco Carotta

Would an uninvolved Admin please take a look at this page? I've removed some comments [1] but they keep being made (and I missed some). I've warned Populares (talk · contribs) twice, but that's had no effect, and another editor has warned 92.225.57.158 (talk · contribs). Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 04:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Long Term Abuse by the User:Anwar_saadat

I feel that this User: Anwar saadat has been a nuisance to Wikipedia and his civil behaviour, edits and conduct is very inappropriate.

You may check his recent edit history, where he has altered GAs and long-term stable articles causing edit wars involving several users. Furthermore what comes as a shock, is that he is going against Wikiproject:Indian cinema and deleting whole sections of GA articles, claiming they "are unneccessary to him".[2] More recently, he has been stalking my edits and has been trying to frame me out in every single way possible through images.(check my user talk page - all that I've removed within the last 24 hours) I find it shocking, how this can continue!

In a personal claim, I find it quite shocking to see why he is still editing, looking at his edit history - he has been blocked twenty one times and has been allowed to continue to stay on and edit inconstructively. [3]

Moreover in his time, he has been blocked for : disruption, stalking, WP:3RR, gross violations, racist abuse, trolling, anti-Hindu remarks in extremist favour of Islam, [4] straight reverting and sockpuppetry. I cannot believe, why he is still editing.' I'm sure that racism alone is enough to get one permanently blocked, and with over 20 blocks, I'm very shocked.

Moreover, I think this edit sums this character up. Here, try not to laugh!!!

His behaviour has to be halted. Thanks, a permanant ban must be issued. Universal Hero (talk) 20:51, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Um, not to comment on the rest of your post, but the edit above where you say "try not to laugh" was from 2005...The Seeker 4 Talk 21:18, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

In the two recent diffs you provide, I can't see any prima facie blockable disruption. If you don't back up all these accusations with convincing diffs, this section will be closed as not actionable.  Sandstein  21:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Huh, isn't twenty counts of being blocked and then returning and causing similiar trouble bad enough? Universal Hero (talk) 21:26, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

It is, if you can provide convincing diffs of such trouble, which to date you have not.  Sandstein  22:02, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh sure, I just didn't understand what diffs meant. Sorry. Well here.

• Changing an article established as a GA, by introducing his own ways: [5]
• Blatant Abusive Vandalism declaring his support for his fav. actor Ajith Kumar over the opposition actor Vijay: [6]
• Removal of Image licenses [7]
• Goes against the Wikiproject by introducing dollar signs: [8]
• Adds money details to filmography details, despite being warned not to: [9]
• Edit warring and subsequent block: [10]
• Adds his own opinions: [11]
• Threatening chants in Tamil: [12] and [13] and here when he means you should shut your mouth (informal) [14]
• Bad enough to get blocked: racism [15]
• Personal attack on an Admin: [16]
• Hundred of his edits, defend Islam and criticise Hinduism: Two here [17] and [18]

A not so extensive list! =D

Deal with it please, Cheers Universal Hero (talk)

It should be noted these two are involved in an ongoing SPI, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Universal Hero. KnightLago (talk) 02:33, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll review this later.  Sandstein  13:44, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Many of these edits are years old, others appear to be content disputes rather than disruption. As to the Tamil, I can't read it. On the whole, not something that seems to be immediately actionable. In the event of ongoing new disruption, please report it to the appropriate noticeboard.  Sandstein  20:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Bambifan101 is back again

Resolved

All accounts blocked J.delanoy :  Chat  00:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

He's up to his usual crap, vandalizing various Disney articles, then appears to have deliberately checking my contribs to vandalize an anime talk page just to get my attention.[19][20] Can we get some new range blocks as I'm guessing the last set expired?

Some recent IPs and user names used (within just the last week on Lilo and Stitch; didn't check other pages):

• 68.220.174.27 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 68.220.180.164 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• Bambifan102 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Bambifan103 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Bambifan104 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Bambifan105 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (has implied these are now autoblocked[21])
• Disneyhater (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Bambifan101 history there for those unfamiliar with it. (from his comments above, it appears his school blocked Wikipedia...can't imagine why) -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:35, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Most of these were already blocked, and I blocked the remaining one. J.delanoy :  Chat  00:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

He changes IPs daily, though, which is why I wondered if a range block could be reimplemented? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I've suggested at Wikipedia talk:Abuse filter‎ that it may be possible to block edits from Bambifan's IP ranges that attempt to edit articles on Disney/Teletubbies related topics. -- The Anome (talk) 14:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

That would be great, especially since semi-protecting his favourite targets is not working out so well for us (what with the gazillions of Disney-related articles). — Kralizec! (talk) 14:12, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed...he just changes targets when they are locked and there are just way too many to catch them all. Here's hoping on those filters :) -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

IP user 12.110.131.82 adding same content to article after block

12.110.131.82 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) was blocked less than 48 hours ago for edit warring on the DeKalb High School (Illinois) page (block log). These are the edits for which he/she was blocked: [22], [23], [24], [25], [26]. I reverted two of these edits myself and the second time advised him or her to use a blog ([27]). After the block the user came up with this ridicuous explanation: [28].

Now that the block has expired the anon has made the same edit to the page: [29]. Please place a longer block and/or semi-protect the page. KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:06, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for a week, posting phone numbers of other people on their talk page and continuing to edit war. I'm not sure whether the talk page history needs Oversight or not, so not marking resolved (and another Admin might want to adjust the block, I will not dispute any change in the block). This is a company address, by the way. Dougweller (talk) 15:18, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Kirlikovali

Resolved

Someone might want to take a look at the massive WP:BLP violation on User talk:Kirlikovali. Taner Akcam is a Turkish scholar who recognizes the Armenian Genocide and is a frequent target of ultra-nationalist Turks. Few years back he was arrested by Canadian border patrol who used a printout from a vandalized wikipedia article as evidence that he was a terrorist. VartanM (talk) 06:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Pretty clear case of disruptive tendentious editing. Talk page blanked, short block (48h), warned of possible topic ban. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:31, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Support topic ban, if there's any further BLP violation. I'd already warned that user about their edits to the article. I honestly don't know why I failed to do anything about what was on their Talk page. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 15:54, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I warned the user too, and I probably should have blanked their talk page, since it contained BLP violations up the wazoo, with POV violations and an unambiguous legal threat to boot. I think the account is probably a throwaway, but if the user returns and makes similar edits, I think I would just go for an indef block (although I suppose with tendentious editors such as this, a topic ban is effectively an indef block anyway). --Akhilleus (talk) 19:39, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

As a further preventative, I have deleted the problematic versions and restored only the version with the block announcement. I think this is resolved, now, so marking it. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:29, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Edit-Warring by Edokter

I originally posted a similar topic on AN regarding some bad behavior by Edokter, and have decided that the situation has grown more urgent and in need of immediate attention (by definition, AN is differentiated from this one in that this one is for more emergent problems). Thus, I am posting here.

To recap, in Daybreak (Battlestar Galactica), Edokter kept adding/reverting back into the article two different subsections of material entirely devoid of citations. When this was pointed out a number of times, Edokter refused to discuss the matter towards a consensus. When he saw he wasn't getting his way, Edokter nominated the entire article for deletion, an action that was seen by everyone, including Tony Fox, Sheffield Steel, JulesH and LinguistAtLarge, as utterly POINTY and own-y; even Edokter admitted that he had done so out of frustration to make a point. Tony speedily-closed the AfD.

However, Edokter is still edit-warring his preferred, uncited sections into the article, and is completely dismissive of using the article discussion to build a consensus. As this user is an admin, I think that Pointy, Ownerish, edit-warring behavior needs some addressing by his fellow admins.

In the interest of full disclosure, Edokter inappropriately blocked me back in July of last year, a block that he reversed after being lambasted for it at AN. As noted by that prior complaint, if a patten were to display itself, the behavior of Edokter would have to be treated more seriously. We cannot have admins openly edit-warring, gaming the system and generally using the mop to roger articles. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

And yet, two editors have reverted you. Obviously, you have a problem with consensus. I also see full well what your intention is. You keep hammering on RS policy, even thought the information is verifiable. It is clear you do NOT do this to improve the article, but to butt heads just for the fun of it, as is a clear pattern in your behaviour. It is VERY clear this is not a content dispute, but a pure disruption on your part. I have managed not to block you myself this time, but you are none-the-less hoping for it. It won't work...

This game he playes is based on an argument *I* held with another editor over the inclusion of unreferenced information about a ficitonal ship. Now Arcayne is doing the *exact* same thing to me... with the difference that the information I added back referes to real-world items and literary works, making it inherently verifiable. It is also clear that Arcayne's plea to discuss is futile, as he keeps warring to remove the information and pays no attention to arguments brought forth by other editors. I have lost every grain of good faith in Arcayne, and my only recourse is to ask that Arcayne be blocked indefenitely. — Edokter • Talk • 15:42, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Edokter's pointy AFD was disappointing, especially for an admin, and I highly suggest he not do it again. I don't see a need for an indefinite block of Arcayne; if you feel there's a behavioural problem there, I'd suggest starting an RfC. (That suggestion might go both ways, if there are further issues with Edokter's admin actions, as well.) I've dropped some potential cites for the information that Edokter wants to include in the article onto its talk page, so hopefully that helps to reduce the emerging drama; I usually hate to get involved with the mighty wars of the television episodes arena, but I'll keep an eye on the ongoing discussion there and encourage others to do the same. Tony Fox (arf!) 15:58, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

This does indeed looks a lot like an edit war. I'm not going to take sides in it, or sanction only one involved party. I will say that both parties need to stop reverting. Whether you want to discuss on the Talk page or not is up to you, but either way, this isn't a good way to pursue dispute resolution. Having said that, I support Tony Fox's position. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 16:06, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I am glad that Tony added some sources for the uncited material, but this wasn't a content dispute, nor an edit-war. I am a little frustrated that the same behavior is coming from Edokter again, and that I was told when this last occurred to give it a pass unless it happens again. Edokter is not even bothering to use the discussion page, and his threats to block me are pretty much telling of an admin who has not picked up the jumbo-sized clue to not use the admin tools on other editors you are involved in a dispute with.

I am not convinced that giving Edokter a pass here is the best course of action. He hasn't apologized for his Pointy, own-y behavior/tantrum (and it bears pointing out that he has never apologized when he's screwed up before) when he didn't get his way. Granted, I am not anything close to perfect, but I am not in the wrong here in the slightest. I kept out uncited info that another editor - and admin - refused to cite, and I did not even approach 3RR when doing so. Additionally, I took the time to discuss the matter, and Edokter has pointedly said that he will not discuss his edits.

When I complain about it, the admin calls for my indef block? Now, I have heard that the best defense is a good offense, but Edokter is clearly trying to save his ass by attempting to deflect attention away from his own established pattern of bad behavior and abuse. I am not calling for Edokter to be de-sysopped, or blocked (even though I feel that one or both options should be seriously considered, given his history of bad faith behavior) but I do feel that he needs to clean up his act and pronto; admins are not supposed to act like this. Being an admin is a position of trust, and when we have admins who act as poorly as this, it reflects poorly on all admins.

I am willing to give this a pass again, but I think we need to be clear that this sort of behavior by an admin will not be tolerated in the future. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not advocating "giving it a pass;" I've expressed my disappointment in his actions, and would encourage other admins to review how he's been acting. Let's let some other admins into the conversation and see how it goes here for a while. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:42, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, Tony. I think it also bears mentioning that Edokter's further attempts to game the system included seeking to lock the uncited info into the article via RfPP. I mean, what the heck ever happened to just discussing the dispute, rather than edit-warring or seeking to end-run our policies/guidelines? I don't get his behavior. I don't oppose the info being used eventually - I just think we need to have citations for the statements. I am unsure why Edokter is so reticent to provide what the wiki requires for inclusion. The bad faith being directed at me by him was expected (which is what prompted my call for assistance in AN) but not hoped for.

That said, I will also wait to see what other admins say about the situation. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:08, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Your behaviour is pissing people off, it's that simple. You should not have reverted a second time per WP:BRD. Every time you do, you will piss someone off. An edit war takes two. Your problem is that you hold policy way too tight. There are circumstances where an immediate cite is simply not necessary, yet you continue to demand that RS be followed to the letter. You are not helping improving any articles that way. You pissed me off, and I am not going to apologize for that. Until you see the errors of your way, there will be nothing to discuss. It is your time to apologize this time. — Edokter • Talk • 17:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I've not looked into this specific dispute, but as someone who knows both editors well, I have to say that Edokter has been unfailingly well-mannered and polite, with good working knowledge and use of IAR, for the several years we've been involved on the Doctor Who WikiProject. Arcayne can also be, and at times has been, a very good editor; however, he has been disruptive, has engaged in edit-warring (which does require two, and though it's always easy to blame the adversary, both must share the responsibility, really), and has been repeatedly incivil. I picked him up on one instance last week, though this sadly didn't seem to have any effect.

Obviously none of this gives anyone carte-blanche to revert war, and an indef block of Arcayne does seem excessive (though yes, Edokter, I can see that he's pissed you off, and do recommend him to apologise - even if the pissing off wasn't intentional, it's still happened, and he should just make a civil apology about it) - however, I suggest that an uninvolved admin watches Arcayne's civility and editing-habits particularly closely, they've caused me concern for some while now. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 17:14, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

As requested, i am awaiting other input by admins, but I would like to point out that TT isn't a "neutral view" here, having been on the losing side of a discussion in a Doctor Who article months ago. TT was quite...vociferous in his lack of neutrality towards me, my edits, etc. and came within a monkey's eyebrow of being blocked for their behavior. I am not going to go on about TT's prior conduct (the comments in the second failing RfA's supply most of the more-informed commentary about that), but I thought it should be made clear that (s)he isn't the neutral party they are playing at. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:56, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

You can wait until you weigh an ounce... No admin is going to come here and take action when the instigator is just as wrong. Anyone can see what went wrong, and who is the diruptive party here. You do what you do best, dredge up every nasty detail on anyone who dares to comment on you. Content is not an issue here, behaviour is. And I do hope that this time something will be done about it. I am resolved to see this to the end. — Edokter • Talk • 21:55, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Until we get some further discussion in here, I'd appreciate both of you backing away from each other and going to neutral corners. The back-and-forth sniping does nothing for either of you, so kindly leave it and let uninvolved parties look over the situation for the moment. Please. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:49, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

...anyone? Bueller? Bueller? C'mon, folks, I'm on multiple deadlines, I don't have the time for a full mediation case myself... =P Tony Fox (arf!) 15:27, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Having looked at the disputed edits, all I can say is... "What a stupid waste of time." I didn't really look at either Edokter's conduct or Arcayne's, but the "disputed" material is exactly the sort of obvious stuff that should be cited to the primary sources--the fact that a line matches up with a particular song lyric should be V'ed by citing both primary sources and allowing readers to use their own brains, and I commented to that effect at the article talk page. Thus, I'd say the root cause for the dispute was an overly-restrictive view of WP:V that defies common sense. Jclemens (talk) 21:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Georgeperez

Resolved

 – Blocked 24h. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 19:18, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Georgeperez (talk · contribs) either doesn't get it or is celebrating today's holiday. He has repeatedly created Magnet Renewable Energy (which advertizes a perpetual motion device), even renaming it other things when it got speedy deleted (multiple times, resulting in salting). He also repeatedly copy pasted the same text to the talk pages of several articles, only to repeat the same text and SPAM links when asked for an RS[30]. My favorite part is "Oh, and if you connect it to a photonic lazer thruster in space and let magnet renewable energy continue to power it you can reach a lovely speed." Well beyond final warning on his talk page for tendentionsly repasting the "information". Can he have a "vacation" until April 2 so we can see if this guy is actually unable to follow WP policy, or just faking it? NJGW (talk) 05:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC) It looks like he made a replied to his 24 hour edit ban on his talk page.

He said this,

"This is not vandalism, sir. I posted this information on pages that are relevant and in pages that are the different names of this technology. There are new sources available on each page. Can you not delete this page? This is real information" - Quote by Georgeperez RandomGuy666 (talk) 17:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)RandomGuy666

|}:Blocked 24 hours. Kimchi.sg (talk) 06:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Extensive tagging of images

72.88.33.234 (talk · contribs) has been tagging several images with the no-permission tag [31] for four days now. I find the pattern suspicious since in each session, the time between each tagging is 1 - 3 minutes, hardly enough time to determine whether there is permission or not. Please review. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 05:49, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I checked a half dozen or so of his edits, and every one of them was correct. That IP is doing very useful work. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

He must be a bot because justifiably tagging more than 40 images in an hour is just not humanly possible. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 06:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

It's easily possible if you know what you are doing and what you are looking at and looking for, especially with the right tools at your disposal. Mfield (Oi!) 06:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking about the patience one must have to repeat a tedious action for 2 hours straight at a rate of every 2 minutes. That is crazy --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 06:48, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

That is of course another issue entirely. Sorting lots of images can be quite cathartic though, but only in the same way as washing the dishes can be. Mfield (Oi!) 06:50, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Circumvention is trivial with this setup, and it was only a matter of time until deliberate vandals learned to game it. Durova^Charge! 18:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

User:BotKung

Resolved

 – Bot blocked pending fix. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 19:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Can an administrator look at possibly blocking this bot. It is apparently malfunctioning, reverting articles to weeks, even months old versions while adding the th interwiki links.[32][33][34][35] Its owner, User:Jutiphan is rarely online here, so not sure the report on his talk page will be addressed in a timely fashion. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:36, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

✓ Done. Looking at its contribution history, it's clearly malfunctioning.Iridescent :  Chat  18:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Speedy tag edit warring at Emotop

Resolved

 – Deleted, sockmaster blocked 1wk. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 21:17, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

The above-linked article appears to me to be a decent candidate for either an A7, G3 or a G10 speedy deletion. It's been tagged as one or the other at least five separate times, and an enormous amount of edit-warring by brand new user accounts keep removing the tag over the past few hours [36], with many users re-adding it. I have suspicions that these new users are simply the article creator; but either way I'd appreciate it if an admin would make a decision on this and possibly deal with the article creator. Thanks! ~ mazca ^t|c 20:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree IMO they are all socks of the creator. BigDunc^Talk 20:56, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Deleted under G10 by Sandstein. Thanks. ~ mazca ^t|c 20:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Processing the socks.  Sandstein  20:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Socks blocked indef, sockmaster Verbinsky (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 1 week.  Sandstein  21:02, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick resolution. ~ mazca ^t|c 21:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes good work Sandstein. BigDunc^Talk 21:06, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Continued personal attacks by User:Populares

Could someone please have at least a word with Populares (talk · contribs) about his behaviour on Talk:Francesco Carotta? I removed some [37] and warned him, but he continues to be abusive. As I've been involved in the article and talk page (and had abuse thrown at me), I can't do anything. Thanks. I'll notify him of this. Dougweller (talk) 21:31, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

This probably would've been better at WQA....but then again, that is a lot in just one talk page. As I'm short on time, I'll abstain for now. Ncmvocalist (talk) 21:36, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

April showers

Last week I manually archived one thread from this board, and three more today, per WP:BEANS. Mainly that was because last year's fun turned sour when several people went overboard. Received one complaint at user talk about one of the archivings.[38] It's mostly been a smooth holiday, thank goodness, so posting here proactively to gauge whether the community sees merit to the complaint. If so, please state so and I will restore the thread. Best regards, Durova^Charge! 22:14, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I read the thread in question. I honestly cannot see how anyone ever thought it deserved to be on this page in the first place. John Carter (talk) 22:17, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Martinphi requesting unblock

Resolved

 – The consensus of the community is to retain the ban at this time. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:40, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

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

---

User talk:Martinphi - Don't know the backstory on this in full but I do know it's a long, drawn out, and unpleasant one, so I send the unblock request to the only place suited to dramafests of this nature for community review. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:03, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

For convenience here is the ANI thread in which the ban was imposed. Looie496 (talk) 03:19, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

For further convenience; the ArbCom to which Martinphi alludes and which made a decision upon his actions specifically can be found here; it should be noted that the Arbs decided to return to the community any decision of what restrictions might be applied should the indef block be lifted. LessHeard vanU (talk) 03:25, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

If we are going to unblock him, I would ONLY support doing so if we he is placed under editing restrictions such that he is banned from editing any articles and talk pages related to "Fringe Science" topics (homeopathy, chiropractic, astrology, witch doctory, and snake oil sales, etc. etc.) as broadly contrued as possible. Seriously, I (and I think many others) are well tired of all of the bullshit that has gone on around this topic, and I think if we let Martinphi back into the fold, he should prove that he can be a contructive editor in some other topic than this one. As long as he doesn't edit the articles, talk pages, or attempts to discuss or in any way reference these topics I would support an unblock. However, any unblock which does not place strict restrictions on him against editing in this field will only lead to more of the same crap we just got rid of. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:00, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

• Unblock From what I could see MartinPhi managed collaborate well with OrangeMarlin who is not the most fringe friendly editor around. MartinPhi seems to be genuinely contrite regarding the 'outings'. From what I have seen MartinPhi has been a valuable and sane contributor to wikipedia as a whole before becoming embroiled in the SA drama. See this for an example. I honestly do not see any problem with him being involved with fringe or pseudoscience articles, I think the underlying problem is that some other editors think that there should be flashing lights, loud sirens and 2 layers of 'are you sure you want to read about non-mainstream topics yes/no ' along with disclaimers declaring that reading such material may rot your brain. There is nothing keeping us from blocking him again should he prove to be genuinely disruptive in the future. Unomi (talk) 05:14, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Dispute that veered off-topic
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
As a relatively new user with far more knowledge about the inner workings than a new user should have (hence previous RfCU on you), you can be partially excused based on lack of knowledge of the history, but you share Martin's fringe POV and tendencies to edit war, and that waters down your input here. Even Martin knows better than to make statements like yours. They say alot about your tendencies, which have been apparent in your persistent and slow edit warring. It's simply exhausting. SPA accounts should be prohibited. -- Fyslee (talk) 08:21, 29 March 2009 (UTC) To the best of my knowledge I have not had an RfCU raised against me I have however had an ANI here and a SPI here. The recurrent allegations of 'fringe POV' are unfortunate and I thought we had discussed that sufficiently here. I also don't think that eidt warring is an appropriate way to characterize my actions. If anything I was the victim of disruptive editing, not the instigator of it. As for 'knowing too much' I think the blame has to fall on having to constantly counter those that 'know too little'. The allusions to 'slow edit warring' are baseless, slanderous and I would recommend that you back them up or strike the comment. Unomi (talk) 08:59, 29 March 2009 (UTC) You were User_talk:Unomi#Indefinitely_blocked_-_apparent_sockpuppet_of_User:Immortale and a CU was indeed performed, which you did slip through. See case again. Your SPA editwarring style and vast knowledge for a supposed "newbie" was the reason why the charges were filed against you. Those problems are still very much an issue. You're a classic tendentious edit warrior. -- Fyslee (talk) 14:38, 29 March 2009 (UTC) @Fyslee, it appears that you are very nearly a SPA and one that has been cautioned about your questionable use of sources in health related articles. Finally, admins, please have a good thorough read of all of Blocking policy. Consider that this is not a vote, but a forum for establishing consensus regarding policy interpretations. Unomi (talk) 12:56, 29 March 2009 (UTC) You apparently don't know what SPA means. You have been a classic SPA on the Aspartame controversy issue, even refusing to follow the advice of several editors and admins to edit other articles for awhile. I edit many different articles and therefore have well over three thousand articles (excluding talk pages), on my watchlist. I just happen to edit primarily on alternative medicine subjects, which is a huge area. As to the "caution" (to do exactly what I had been doing, since no evidence to the contrary was provided), that case has been amended and I have been vindicated. It's not everyday that an ArbCom case gets modified. Quackwatch is no longer deprecated (it was never forbidden as a source), and I was absolved of a false accusation, so using that old ArbCom against me isn't proper. Keep in mind that my accuser was banned by the ArbCom (for a year) and indef banned by the community. You're choosing the wrong side on the issue of my ArbCom, as well as on this issue (birds of a feather do flock together and sometimes get banned together). Keep in mind the expression "look who's talking". Participants here do take into account the source, and when an SPA and defender of fringe POV like yourself defends Martinphi, you weaken his case and alert admins to start looking at you as well. Since this matter is getting good coverage, I'm out of here. -- Fyslee (talk) 14:38, 29 March 2009 (UTC) Interesting interpretation. Arbcom agreed that they wouldn't rule on content; a quick search on RS/N shows that quackwatch is considered an RS, but only for the opinions of the authors. The caution to you regarding proper sourcing and complying to NPOV still stood but seeing as how you are able to parlay their subsequent amendment into a 'vindication' I fear it is for naught. This is not the place for it but hit me up on my talk page if you want to discuss further. Unomi (talk) 16:57, 29 March 2009 (UTC) Hi, please keep discussion focused. The Barrett v. Rosenthal arbitration closed two years ago and Martinphi played no role in it. As ScienceApologist's mentor, I recuse from comment on the proposal to restore Martinphi's editing privileges. DurovaCharge! 17:32, 29 March 2009 (UTC) Fyslee's attacks against Unomi amount to a character assassination and cannot remain here uncontradicted. An SPI against Unomi was opened on very flimsy evidence (he was told he was "approaching tendentious editing", which prompted him to quote an old Arbcom case that is linked from WP:TEND#Characteristics of problem editors) and came out with a strong negative result. Fyslee: If you retract your attacks, please remove this comment as well, to reduce the noise. Thanks. --Hans Adler (talk) 23:38, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

• Keep him banned. The trouble he caused far outweighs his useful contributions. Raul654 (talk) 05:16, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

• Keep banned or at least a topic ban from anything fringe It will only end in tears if we don't. And if we topic ban him that should include related policy and guideline pages. Dougweller (talk) 05:55, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

• @Raul654, @Dougweller, For those that have not followed the entire drama, could you point to what 'trouble he caused'? From what I understand the arbcom rulings already point to him being restricted from editing policy pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unomi (talk • contribs) 06:33, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

• The vast majority of Martinphi's edits are to pseudoscience topics, especially to paranormal topics (he's very nearly a single-purpose account). His edits are biased, and he frequently edit wars with other contributors in this area. The other people who have to clean up these articles are tired of dealing with him. In short, he's a crank, and he shouldn't be editing Wikipedia. After his bad editing got him hauled before the arbcom - I admit here that my understanding is less than perfect - he started "outing" others who edit on paranormal topics. Raul654 (talk) 06:40, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

• Keep banned or topic banned. Not worth it if there isn't some form of control. Who wants to be part of a 24-hr babysitter posse who won't be able to do anything else constructive? Any volunteers? -- Fyslee (talk) 08:21, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

• We are all babysitters anyway, that is the result if not the point of community editing. Doesn't matter if it is MartinPhi or any other editor, we are free to bring them here should trouble arise. Unomi (talk) 09:05, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

• Keep banned: Unless the issues that lead to the indefing have magically gone away, then it's only a matter of time before another indef is applied. Does the Community want this? Shot info (talk) 08:43, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

• Keep banned, Martinphi has wasted enough editors' time, and has made enough of their wikipedia experience unpleasant. Bishonen | talk 08:47, 29 March 2009 (UTC).

• Keep banned or topic banned. He has wasted many people's time (even during the Fringe science ArbCom) and there is no indication that this will change. Mathsci (talk) 09:27, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

• Sustain ban. Even a cursory examination of Martinphi's history shows he uses Wikipedia as a platform to further his fringe beliefs. Wikipedia can roll downhill on its own; it doesn't need any help on that path. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 09:31, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

• Keep banned Per all the above. He's had his chances. --Folantin (talk) 11:17, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I strongly oppose any unblock. Mr. Phi edit warred, repeatedly attempted to change policy to support him in these edit wars, claimed Arbcom decisions vindicated him when they clearly did not, and affected an obnoxious martyr complex in order to paint himself as the innocent victim after being restricted by Arbcom. He sockpuppeted during an arbitration in order to character assassinate his opponents while evading scrutiny. Finally, he outed several editors on his talk page post-ban, which required oversight and page protection. Really, Jayron, if you're tired of the bullshit, do not allow this editor back. Skinwalker (talk) 12:37, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

• Interesting [link] regarding what he used the 'sockpuppet' for. The link also shows the extent of community patience that is normally extended to errant editors. Unomi (talk) 14:10, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

• Keep banned: Drew up far too much drama. The pseudoscience articles are actually manageable, for the most part, because we aren't playing tit-for-tat games anymore. seicer | talk | contribs 13:08, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
• Keep banned - I think Skinwalker says all that I'd want to say about it. Maybe after rather longer, with a topic ban to start, but it's too soon. Frankly, I think the only reason he wasn't banned long ago is that he "retired" any time anything looked to be going against him, then unretired once things had blown over - for instance, he said he was retired all through the events that led up to his ban. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 13:17, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
• Keep banned for now - a ban commuted to two months? That's not enough time. Maybe, at some point in the future it could be considered, but from his statement on his talk page, he doesn't seem to think he did anything wrong. I'd consider (and probably endorse) unbanning after a year provided that there is a willingness to admit that he was wrong and to change, but two months is not enough. --B (talk) 14:53, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
• Comment Thanks to Skinwalker for notifying me of this discussion, and a finger wag at the rest of you lot for not informing me. As the blocking admin, I'll note that I blocked Martinphi essentially because he was treating Wikipedia as a battleground - and will be disinclined to unblock him myself unless I am convinced he will actively create a productive, collegiate and safe editing environment. I would be inclined to unblock if he has a proven track record of such collaboration on another wiki.--Tznkai (talk) 15:42, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
• Support unblock. He was blocked for disruption stemming from the view that he was treating Wikipedia as a battleground in a personal dispute with ScienceApologist and showing a battlefield mindset with opposing editors. I am satisfied with Martin’s statements, his recognition of what the issues were that led to his block, and his positive affirmation that he will be seeking true consensus in a very civil and non-battlefield way. Dreadstar † 16:21, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Maybe I'm missing something, but I've read his statement on his talk page and it sounds like a defense, not an apology. So long as he is interested in defending his behavior, I don't know how he could be said to have demonstrated recognition of the issues that led to his block. --B (talk) 17:17, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
    • I think where you see defense, I see explanation. He said he's going to be doing things differently from here on out - which I think is clear indication that he sees his former pattern of behavior was wrong and he is going to change. He also explains how he's going to change; and I don't see any belligerence or statements along the lines of “I’m right and all of you are wrong”, I see a genuinely contrite statement and a willingness to change to become more of a consensus-building editor, and instead of engaging in “long winded” disputes, making more use of the appropriate processes. I say we extend him a little good faith and give him another chance. If he pursues a course that is the same that led to his banning, then we can just simply ban him again. Dreadstar † 00:13, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
• Keep banned too much drama in the past with the guy, so how could we convince a similar degree of dramas not happen in future.--Caspian blue 16:34, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
• Wait another month or two and bring it up again. Keep banned, didn't know about the outings. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:37, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
• Keep banned -- his edits were extraordinarily disruptive, and he has a long, long history of uch behavior he was also a party to an arbitration case that kind of punted on him once the community ban came down, so unbanning him would mean he dodged the potential consequences of the arbitration. He's never shown any remorse for this agenda-advancing edits and coordinated WP:Civil POV pushing. He's gamed the system for years, and this looks like another attempt to do so. If he does come back he will need to be under some severe editing restrictions. DreamGuy (talk) 17:51, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
• Unblock. This edit seems genuinely remorseful for the actions which lead to his/her block and has pledged not to do such actions again. I'd say that the indef block has worked to correct behavior. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:10, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

• Support Unban A truly collaborative community of editors is meant to guide and help other editors. A knowledgeable, experienced editor who acknowledges the concerns that led to his ban, and makes a strong comment and commitment to correct those concerns as MartinPhi has done should be given a chance to become part of the community again, to contribute. As per WP:AGF, we don't assume future behaviours. To unban and allow an editor to have another chance is in the spirit of Wikipedia. To not unban runs counter to that spirit.(olive (talk) 21:20, 29 March 2009 (UTC))
• Keep banned. People with such a clear agenda, and who have caused this amount of disruption, should not be editing, no matter whether they make promises to try and be nice or not. If you perceive of Wikipedia as a battlefield, it makes little difference whether you promise to be fair in battle or not, it's the battling that matters. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:26, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
• Nyet. Old Russian saying, "Fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again." Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:36, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
• Keep banned and this disruptive, unrepentant POV pusher from causing more trouble.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:50, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
• Keep banned - why are we wasting our time? He was permanently banned and people think he has magically changed in two months? Come back in a year. And as SBHB was saying: fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Fool us several dozen times and use a sockpuppet while doing so? Shame on everyone. //roux   22:05, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
• CommentUnban - whatever the outcome of this, it ought to be shared equally by MartinPhi and ScienceApologist. MP was not worse than SA in this war (in many ways he was more civilized about it, IMO), but as it stands he's getting a dramatically worse punishment. What I would personally like to see is both SA and MP come back under appropriate restrictions, with a very clear impression that neither of them won. if SA comes back to edit while MP gets banned (or if the tables were turned, and MP came back while SA got banned), it would send the message that this is a useful and effective way of ridding wikipedia of opposing points-of-view, and we'd set a precedent for editors taking kamikaze runs at each other. not good, that. --Ludwigs2 02:16, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Please reread the findings of the recent Fringe Science arbcom, which apply here, like it or not. It was MΦ, not SA, who was attempting to create a place for unencyclopedic content on WP, not SA. SA was subsequently blocked for violating the terms of the arbcom findings; that was not the case for MΦ, who, during the arbcom case, was blocked by Tznkai for long-term disruption. Mathsci (talk) 12:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Sure, and SA has demonstrated a loooong history of sockpuppetry and markedly uncivil, aggressive tactics to push his own POV (tactics he used on MΦ in excess, which is a big part of the foundation of this debacle). we're not talking about an old-style western here, Mathsci, where there's a guy in a white hat who you know is noble, good, and kind. This is more like a 70's western, where everyone's hat is dusty gray, and both sides are obsessively, arrogantly bent on violence. MΦ's biggest problem here is not that he's pushing a POV (at least not more than SA is), but rather that he's pushing the wrong POV (where SA is pushing the right POV).

I mean, let me be frank about my concern here (I'll provide diffs for all this if you like). a good while ago (when I was just starting out editing here), SA and I had been having a really mindless content dispute over something. He decided to log out and log in as an IP in order to make some very contentious edits and some rude comments towards me (I'm guessing to try to bait me into a 3rr violation). when Elonka left a note on my talk page pointing out that the IP was SA, he laid into her at ANI for 'outing' him. so here's a guy who thinks that he can break the rules about sockpuppetry because it's an effective way to break the rules about baiting, and feels so entitled about it that he bitchslaps the admin who catches him at it. now I'm more than willing to give SA his due - he's apparently done enough good stuff on wikipedia to generate some loyal supporters - but it would be just plain stupid to encourage him in this kind of behavior. If you treat him like the white hat in this conflict, that's what you're doing, and wikipedia is going to suffer for it. --Ludwigs2 19:18, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

More off-topic stuff
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Here's a radical idea: consider MartinPhi's case on its own, according to its merits, and consider SA's case on its own, according to its merits. If you want to start a separate thread on SA's current status by all means go ahead but the present topic is whether to unban MartinPhi. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:11, 30 March 2009 (UTC) here's a better idea: see this as a dispute between two editors - each of whom has his own problematic issues - and reach for a fair and balanced resolution. I commend your loyalty to SA, but I respectfully suggest you look at the bigger picture here. --Ludwigs2 21:13, 30 March 2009 (UTC) P.s. before the other members of the ScienceApologist fan club chime in here (and we all know who you are...), please note that I've made my comment, and I think it's reasonable, and I'm not inclined to be swayed by partisan logic. I mean, I'm more than happy to keep addressing the same point as different editors bring it up, but that's going to get boring for everyone else, very fast. so... --Ludwigs2 21:29, 30 March 2009 (UTC) Two things - 1. Who are these "ScienceApologist fan club"? 2. Who are the "we" in "we all know who you are"? Shot info (talk) 22:42, 30 March 2009 (UTC) I knew you couldn't resist that. consider it an early April Fools'. --Ludwigs2 22:52, 30 March 2009 (UTC) And I knew you couldn't answer a straight question. So care to have another crack at evading it? Shot info (talk) 01:40, 31 March 2009 (UTC) sure! --Ludwigs2 01:44, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Coming from a completely disinterested spectator to this morass but I tend to agree with the above observation by User:Ludwigs2. Both protagonists seem to have used Wikipedia as a battlefield and have caused more distress than it's worth. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:53, 30 March 2009 (UTC).
• Maintain Ban or, at minimum, ban from all fringe topics and all policy pages. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 13:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
• Sustain ban per SheffieldSteel. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:31, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
• Keep banned as we should for most long-term nettlesome editors who have been community banned. Protonk (talk) 22:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
• Unban and sysop - as Ludwig above alludes, MartinPhi has behaved much more in line with what an encyclopedia is all about (an encyclopedia being a place where people go to make friends and feel welcomed) than the unapologetic tyrant of the scientific method with whom he locked horns. To put it most bluntly, MartinPhi has been unjustly attacked by those who would bludgeon our delicate whimsy with oppressive fact and appeals to the scientific method - in a nutshell, "verifiable and objective truth" (in an encyclopedia, of all the fucking places!). He should be commended, not lambasted, for his noble actions in furthering the goals of this project, and his detractors should be strong admonished - make that speedy admonished and salted - for their aura-damaging mean-spiritedness. Badger Drink (talk) 05:18, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Wow, and they call me sarcastic. Let's just appoint him King while we're at it. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 06:20, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
• Maintain Ban Too much wikilawyering, too much drama. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
• only with topic ban covering policy pages and anything to do with fringe/paranormal. As an opportunity to show that he is not here just to argue endlessly about fringe stuff. Last thing we need in those pages is another editor arguing that mainstream is wrong and that it's unfair to call fringe stuff for its name. (sorry, Martin, but I'm just tired of circular arguments over SPOV, I want to get some real work done at those pages. If I wanted to argue to argue endlessly over interpretations and not get anything done then I would go the Spanish and Catalans wikipedias to edit History of Catalonia articles) --Enric Naval (talk) 15:18, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: Seems we are blaming one editor for all of the "cares" on the fringe articles. Is that an accurate view? How many does it take to Tango? I wonder what would happen if Martinphi was given a probationary period of time to edit a fringe article with one or two very neutral admins to oversee the article and looking on. Science Apologist was given one last opportunity to redeem himself. Why not this editor? Why would we not extend the same the same good faith to Martinphi. I can understand the frustration that comes up with long discussion but that's Wikipedia, and is hardly the fault of one editor. If you have an knowledgeable editor who would like to try again, why is WP:AGF being ignored. There is no WP:SPOV as far as I know.(olive (talk) 16:16, 31 March 2009 (UTC))

• Maintain full ban - I am not aware of any undertaking by Martinphi to change the underlying behavior that necessitated the ban. All the usual pro-fringe accounts are lining up to support unbanning. Nothing to see here other than garden variety disruptive editing. Everyone, go edit an article. Jehochman ^Talk 16:19, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
  • and all the regular skeptic-cruft accounts are lined up to support the ban. let's not belabor the obvious, Jehochman; this is an entirely partisan dispute, with few people displaying anything remotely like common sense. that's the main reason I support unbanning - it's just a disgusting and obnoxious double-standard, otherwise. --Ludwigs2 21:49, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

ROFL - the irony! Shot info (talk) 23:14, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

• Maintain ban not a benifit to the project. Edits with an agenda that is contrary to our aims, causes drama, and repeatedly outs other editors. Should be made a permanent block. I endorse Jehochman's analysis (with the exception of BD). Verbal chat 16:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

• Keep banned -- Sorry, but I see no reason to undo the ban. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 20:40, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

One thing that I suppose is part amusing and part distressing in equal measure is the fantasy world that lies behind much of the nonsense stated above. This is most clearly demonstrated in Jehochman's post where he says "all the usual pro-fringe accounts are lining up to support unbanning". What? All three of them! And yet this 'stout lone science candle in the dark editor stands against marauding horde of rabid fringe lunatics' fiction seems actually to be believed by many above as in some way representative of wiki, when a cursory glance at what is written above reveals a very different reality. What the above actually shows is a large group whose shrill and sniping posts betray a hatred for anyone who does not share a fanatical anti-fringe view that goes well beyond a simple desire to have articles fairly cover fringe topics. This is hardly suprising when the high priests of the fanatical scientism that many above appear to subscribe to openly espouse bizarre conspiracy theories where watching a few episodes of Buffy can lead to the collapse of civilization as we know it. When the leadership of the movement embraces such nonsense openly it is hardly suprising when the followers follow suit. However, given that the actual situation is so badly misjudged by those opposing the unban, and that their arguments rest on an obvious bogeyman style fiction, it is clear that martin should probably be welcomed back on this basis alone.Landed little marsdon (talk) 23:59, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Who exactly are you calling shrill? Skinwalker (talk) 01:14, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I wonder who the "All three of them" exactly are? Shot info (talk) 01:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Probably best to remain focused on whether or not the ban stays or doesn't. Shot info (talk) 01:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

• I propose that this thread be closed. There's strong support for continuing the ban, and keeping this open isn't going to generate useful discussion. Skinwalker (talk) 01:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

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

Could an administrator kindly notify MartinPhi of the disposition of this discussion?--Tznkai (talk) 22:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I've sent him an e-mail informing him of the decision and providing a link to the discussion. I tend to think that he'll probably get that first, but I will also leave a message on his talk page regarding this discussion. John Carter (talk) 22:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Instances of circumventing semi-protection

I've been seeing this more and more often lately. A new account is created. The new editor subsequently makes 10 minor edits to somebody's talk pages, inserting and then deleting a single character. At that point, the editor can edit semi-protected articles — and invariably the purpose is for vandalism.

See the contributions of contributions, for example, whose first act after circumventing semi-protection was to vandalize the Virgin Killer article.

I've seen this on other semi-protected articles too. Perhaps the semi-protection rules should be changed, enforcing a waiting period rather than just a minimum number of edits.

I suggest that these editors do not come to Wikipedia with good-faith intent, and should be blocked on sight. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:51, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Support - obviously these editors know exactly what they're doing and should be treated as a 100% vandalism account. Rklawton (talk) 23:54, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I see this editor just got indef-blocked. Thanks! ~Amatulić (talk) 00:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Semi protection does require a time delay - the account must be more than four days old. Daniel (talk) 00:20, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

In this case, the account was actually created on the 24th [39] and was not used until today, hence he could edit semi-protected articles. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 01:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

His 10 test edits were to a similarly straight-laced used named Quintessent. Could be a sockpuppet or someone pretending to be. "Quint" = "V", right? I don't know what "kau" means, though. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:05, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

His user name style is also similar to the username of a previous vandal who committed an identical pattern on the Virgin Killer article. I think we have a case of somebody creating a bunch of throwaway sockpuppet accounts, to save them up for vandalism when needed. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:47, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Possibly German? The German verb "to eat" is "essen", the German verb "to chew" is "kauen". Tonywalton ^Talk 15:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

It looks like you've got a Tile join infestation: same semi-protection circumvention technique, same short meaningless usernames, same habit of repeating the same action ad nauseum. Persistent type who has not grown bored or felt a sense of futility in over two years of attacking Evolution, Northwich Victoria F.C., Witton Albion F.C., and Winshill. J. Spencer (talk) 02:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to ask for an abuse filter concerning this behavior.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 21:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

It has been requested, please see here.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 21:55, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Block review, sockpuppet?

Resolved

 – Blocked indef. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 21:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I have just blocked User: EchoofReason for 24 hours for repeated incivility. He now appears to be admitting to sockpuppetry, but as a sock of whom, I have no idea. Could someone else please take a look at this, review my block, and see what, if anything, else should be done at this point. The threads he has started off-wiki (with links on his talk page) seem rather threatening to me and another administrator. Aleta ^Sing 19:16, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Endorse, suggest extend to indef - I am removing attack/outing links, too. Suggest deletion of revisions. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 19:37, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I'd appreciate someone else perhaps taking the lead on those suggestions if folks agree with them. Aleta ^Sing 19:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

This is almost certainly Don Murphy back again, from the looks of those links. Be advised, anyone taking action will likely get the same treatment. You'd think he'd be too busy making movies to do this kind of thing. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Nice guy. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 20:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Not to repeat myself or anything, but I would still suggest an indef based on the user's behaviour. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 20:33, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. His methods (as well as those who apparently jump when he says "jump") are disturbing, to say the least. Aleta ^Sing 20:40, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Aaaaand indef. No point spending any longer dealing with that account. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment, agree with SheffieldSteel's indef block of EchoofReason. Should the talk page be deleted/protected? R. Baley (talk) 21:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I blocked the user from editing it. That should do for now. No objection if anyone wants to tag it as {{indef}} or just delete it. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Tagging. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 21:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Make sure its the right tag! Some editors get them confused. :) Synergy 21:23, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Clearly Don Murphy. His MO is to use a swarm of sockpuppets; I'd strongly recommend doing a checkuser on User: EchoofReason to root out any more that might be lurking. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:26, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

(slight return) After an email communication from a checkuser, I've also indefinitely blocked User:LivieInIndiana. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 02:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

disruption via mass unsourced categories in BLP

could someone look into http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Special:Contributions/OmegaXmutantX? He's been adding 'People of Basque descent' and 'Basque People' categories to random people without any sourcing or explanation as to how he came to the conclusion that they are of Basque descent. He refuses discussion and I count at least 7 warnings, and multiple final warnings on his talk page from various editors asking him to stop adding unsourced categories: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User_talk:OmegaXmutantX . here are some of his unsourced additions: [[40]] [[41]] [[42]] [[43]] [[44]]. There are literally hundreds more. Some of the random people he's adding might actually be Basque, but without evidence and refusing to discuss it, it's just disruption. Theserialcomma (talk) 01:48, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, taking his multiple prior warnings/requests to stop into account, I have blocked him for 24 hours. Hopefully this will alert him to the fact that he's doing something wrong. I notice that he's been doing the same sort of thing with vocal ranges for singers too (there seems to be an abundance of WP editors who appear to thrive on this sort of thing and never, ever stop to discuss their edits - no idea why). We definitely need to review this user's previous edits and remove anything that's not adequately sourced. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 02:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Ashley Kennedy's recent edits

Recently the user Ashley kennedy3 (talk · contribs) created an article that was a clear WP:POVFORK, and promptly AfD'd and deleted. At the time, I considered it a regular content dispute (very common in this field) and ignored it, but it appears that Ashley is now making a series of improper WP:DRIVEBY page moves and taggings:

• Violence in 2000—notice the incorrect capitalization
• Violence in 2001
• Violence in 2003
• Violence in 2004
• Violence in 2006
• Violence in 2007

After I reverted these inappropriate moves, as all those lists included Palestinian deaths at the hands of Israelis as well, Ashley saw fit to revert (with the incorrect capitalization) and remove the Palestinian deaths from one of the articles, which I believe is a clear violation of WP:POINT (not using edit summaries is not helpful either). If any administrator is unsure of how to proceed here, please take the time to read the AfD and what most editors said there, as well as the relevant WP:ARBPIA. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 15:38, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Here's another two edits, which are clearly incorrect because the articles have in these versions numerous cases of Palestinian casualties, including deaths. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 15:40, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

P.P.S. Note to administrators: After trying to explain to Ashley why exactly I filed an ANI report, I was answered with personal attacks and insults. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 21:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

The titles were inappropriate..the whole string of articles needs dePOVing....It is not drive by it is putting the articles in the correct category of factually inaccurate...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 16:02, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment:

I randomly clicked one of the articles and found the following text pretty close to the start:

moved to Violence against Israelis in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict 2007 - Ashley kennedy3, 14:36, 31 March 2009:

February 26 - 1 Palestinian civilian, Anan al-Tibi (41), is killed by shots fired by from a passing Israeli army jeep while attempting to escape a surrounded house. Dozens of Palestinians are injured as they clashed with troops.[9]
IDF bombs two houses, including the home of a senior al-Aqsa commander.
February 28
* Residents of Nablus are confined to their homes as Israeli troops move house to house in search of wanted militants.[10]
* Ten people are wounded as youths throwing stones clash with troops. Fifty people were detained, although most were released, and troops surrounded hospitals to check people going in and out.
* Israeli army arrests five wanter militants suspects and uncovers three explosives labs.
* Undercover troops in a black car shoot and kill 3 militants in a Jenin parking lot, including the chief spokesman for the Islamic Jihad.[11]
* A total of 26 Palestinians are arrested during the operation.[12]

There's clearly content about Palestinian casualties so title changes seem to be a bad move.

Cordially, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:41, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but only writing up Israelis killed and alleged Palestinian terrorists killed when Betselem is available is making wiki somewhat of a Israeli mouthpiece. In your random wandering did it never occur to you to place POV tags or inaccurate facts tags on said articles??? compounding POV by displaying inaccurate details purporting itself as reliable...But you are correct I should have moved 1 them to Israeli version of History with a note warning of extremist propaganda...or alternatively gone for delete article as they are to far gone for recovery...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 19:58, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

All those pages are a disgrace to the project. Extreme selective editing to produce a one-sided account of violent incidents to the advantage of one party. Ashley is right, and wrong. He should have just posted a request for deletion. Perhaps this is an incident, but is he up on charges for snipping at wiki trash? Illustration, in just the first, which AK renamed Violence against Israelis in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict 2000, check September. Israeli soldiers being shot at, 2 of them, and a few Palestinian casualties on the temple Mount. In that late September week, in 5 days, 47 Palestinians were killed and roughly 1,850 shot and wounded. You'd never guess it. Sergeant Biri's murder gets a mention, but nothing about the slaughter as the IDF ran amok. Nishidani (talk) 20:17, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Nishidani, let us please discuss the merits of the content of these pages elsewhere; this is not the forum for it. I see these page moves as disruption of Wikipedia to make a point, and am of a mind to impose sanctions under WP:ARBPIA. Could anyone tell me whether Ashley kennedy3 has already been warned as provided for by Wikipedia:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions?  Sandstein  21:31, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah, yes, according to Wikipedia:ARBPIA#Log of notifications, he has been. I would appreciate input by other uninvolved administrators. A topic ban of moderate duration might be appropriate, given the level of emotion displayed in Ashley kennedy3's comment above, so as to allow him to cool down for a while.  Sandstein  21:36, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I have looked this over and Ashley Kennedy3 seems to me as well to be editing disruptively. Their response on Ynhockey's talkpage is upsetting and doesn't help make a collegial editing environment. I support a topic ban if Sandstein wants to implement it. I have to admit that I voted delete on the AfD which may have sparked this though. DVD 23:20, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

A months vacation for Ashley? PhilKnight (talk) 23:33, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I've restored the two articles to their original names, and removed the obviously false "Note" inserted by Ashley. If people want to edit them, NPOV them, whatever, that's fine, but putting false statements into articles is completely inappropriate. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Ashley has overstretched himself covering quite a few number of articles and finding(and rightfully so) the state of most of those articles unacceptable. Ashley perhaps thinks that the articles are going somewhere and that attention should be poured upon them. Just a simple warning that there is sufficient time to work on these matters will suffice. If these articles(which are his concern) have stood up for quite some time at their current state, surely they could last some more time. It was a case of WP:BOLD on his part and perhaps emotions from a academic head that he is. A month ban might prevent him from coming back and let us use him and his knowledge. Thank you board. Cryptonio (talk) 05:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Could someone perhaps describe the process Ashley should have followed ? Sean.hoyland - talk 10:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

The procedure should have been AfD and userfy the article until appropriate action could lead to the articles being reinstated at a standard that was useable...but as the wiki project has left those articles on line for some time, I would not know who the article could reasonably be userfied to...

an alternative is to remove them completely....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 11:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, Ashley, there are two possible motions. One for deletion of the article, another for the temporary (?) deletion of AK. Now, you're a military man, dislike going AWOL, preferring to make a public infraction or two when square-bashing's boredom gets the better of you and you start dreaming of a term in solitary. But the scenario reminds me of Mishima Yukio, wonderful writer, who decided to go out in a flaming act of self-immolation, by recourse to traditional suicide. In the art of seppuku, the technical problem is how to cark it efficiently by disembowelment, which otherwise is quite slow. A short deep thrust just left of the left-side of the six-pack musculature of the abdomen, then a twist in the bodkin as you draw it through the thews and sinews down to the visceral peritoneum, so the gut pokes out (the early maestri clutched the bowels in their hands and threw it at their enemies), then a quick vertical cut up to the appendix. Being somewhat groupish and empathetic, the Japanese technicians thought it would be a good idea to get some of your mates in on the job, so they developed the 'kaishakunin', the office of decapitator. A chosen friend would stand by, wait for you to operate self-surgically, and then with a rapid snip, slice your head off.

There are very efficient kaishaku services available for the suicidal editor in wiki. So it's unlikely you'll have people like Masakatsu Morita rolling up for the final thwack. (Masakatsu was inept: Mishima, perfectly self-disembowelled had to keep holding his neck at an angle while the joker hacked away, hitting bone instead of slicing between the vertebrae). The problem is, you don't really disembowel yourself efficiently: you dither with a penknife, jabbing at yourself (making noisy minor infractions that are bound to tickle the ear of the many kaishaku in the neighbourhood), and it's death by a thousand blows. So chum, if you really do want out, do it with elegance, in harmony with the ready help. No frigging around with minor dabs: go for the huge infraction, something like the famous Elelandic commendation, and admin will put you out of your misery with a neat guillotining. I will of course, weep at the tumbril, and write the epitaph. But surely the smart things just to take a break, or challenge Phil Knight's suggested sentence as too light, and ask for 6 weeks sentence. I know it's intensely arduous, painful, trying to insist on intelligent editing and sensible articles in the I/P area, but, son, a minor tragedy, multiplied in the aftermath, risks becoming a soapoperatic series of major farces, what Signalman Freud called a 'repetitive compulsion' and while the game is enjoyed by those happy to assist you in your tormented exists, repeated complicity does look somewhat masochistic. After all, what you or I think is trivial: what you or I may do, to stay on and get articles fair and balanced, with a steady eye on the silent Palestinians, isn't. (Or of course, you could apologize, and promise to pull your finger out, which is rather difficult for seppuku aficionados, since a preliminary requires the moriturus to stuff his rectum with a ball of cottonwool in order not to soil the scene) Regards to a fine, studious, and dedicated, but fucking irresponsibly irascible fellow editor.Nishidani (talk) 13:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I have blocked Nishidani one week for making the above post. Jehochman ^Talk 13:54, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

• I am blocking Ashley kennedy3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for one year for disruptive editing as an enforcement action under WP:ARBPIA. The account was previously blocked one week for arbitration enforcement, and then one month for sock puppetry in the same locus of dispute. A one year block is the next logical step in escalation. Should the editor wish to edit again, they can first explain how things will be different. Do not unblock without my approval, or following the appeal process described at WP:ARBPIA. Jehochman ^Talk 13:37, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

• (Edit conflict with Jehochman:) In view of the discussion above, I have made Ashley kennedy3 subject to a one month topic ban with respect to Arab-Israeli conflict-related articles.  Sandstein  13:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

• There were two previous topic bans. The most recent was 60 days, placed by Shell Kinney in January 2009. Topic bans have not been effective deterrence. I am sticking with the one year block. Jehochman ^Talk 13:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

• No objection to your block, but my topic ban will remain technically in force and may become relevant if your block is lifted for any reason.  Sandstein  13:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

• Perfect. Jehochman ^Talk 14:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I don´t think anyone will call me an "uninvolved" user here, but I hope I can still give my 2 cents: Ashley kennedy3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is one of the more knowledgeable users in the Israel/Palestine area; one of the relatively few who actually read and use academic sources. Unfortunately, he has a very low tolerance for rubbish. And he express this lack of tolerance in no uncertain, and often, in rather undiplomatic ways. (In a conflict between A and B: if A has 90% of the fatalities, what do say about an article on WP which makes it look as if B had 90% of the fatalities, and A 10%?). User:Sandstein has placed a one month topic ban on Ashley. I agree with this. (Yes, Ashley: if you read this: you need cooling-off time). It might even be extended to double that. However, to deprive WP off one of its more knowledgeable editors for one whole year seems to me draconian, compared to "crime" committed. Would someone please reconsider this block? Thank you. Regards, Huldra (talk) 22:32, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I am willing to reconsider the block, but I'd like to discuss it with the user directly, rather than with agents third parties. They can reach me by email. In particular I'd like to understand why a topic ban would work this time, when the last two topic bans were followed by an immediate return to disruptive behavior. Jehochman ^Talk 22:38, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

What means agents ? Is this some irony as the one you considered that is deserved 1 week block to Nishidani ? Maybe a 12h holiday will help you to read back wp:civil and wp:agf ? I suggest you take some distance with this topic.

Basis of conflict resolution is to discuss with some intermediaries to conciliate points of views and explain with some neutrality the issues.

Ceedjee (talk) 06:55, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. Just for the record: I am nobodys agent, and nobody has asked me to come here and ask for a shortening of Ashley´s block. Also; Ashley has had some 2500-3000 edits in the Palestine/Israel area since he came back from his last block, and that includes writing, basically on his own, the much needed 1834 Arab revolt in Palestine. Just for the record. Regards, Huldra (talk) 22:52, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

As I will only be online briefly over the next few days, any uninvolved administrator is welcome to handle unblock discussions with Ashley kennedy3. My advice is to determine whether they will return to disruption, or not, if the block is lifted but the topic ban remains in place. Thanks. Jehochman ^Talk 22:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I think I'm an uninvolved editor as far as this incident goes, but I have worked with Ashley numerous times (sometimes we collaborate and other times we argue, but my discussions with her are always cordial). I've noticed plenty of times, however, that Ashley, like many if not most of the core editors in the I-P subject area, tends to get combative and forgets the rules (pillars, guidelines, rules of thumb) of Wikipedia such as NPOV and civility when a conflict of some sort erupts. His behavior is unacceptable here and he must understand to keep cool or suffer the consequences, like this block for instance. However, Ashley is by far, one of the only editors in the subject area, that contributes tons of quality info backed with reliable sources. His recent edits at Palestinian nationalism and the 1834 Arab revolt in Palestine are particularly impressive. He's also been useful in adding coordinates to hundreds of WP Palestine articles and is responsible for starting hundreds or articles on Palestinian localities. All in all, Ashley kennedy3 is a very valuable editor to the project who, unfortunately, has indeed violated topic bans and previous blocks by continuing inflammatory edits and/or becoming uncivil in discussions with fellow users. Another topic ban is an obvious choice, but I think the year-long block is too harsh. I will not unblock him myself because of our generally friendly relationship here on Wikipedia. Instead, I'll explain to him (as I've seen Huldra do) the strict rules of NPOV and civility among other guidelines. Hopefully, he will get the picture and how things work on Wikipedia, and another administrator will unblock him after a definite assurance from him that he will not return to disruption. --Al Ameer son (talk) 05:16, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughtful comments. The key phrase is "not return to disruption". No matter what the length of the block, a return to disruption will only result in another block. I would prefer to remove the block as soon as possible, but I do not want to return here tomorrow, next week, or next month. With that goal in mind, a long block may convince the editor of a need to change, rather than allowing them to sit it out and go right back to what they were doing before (as has happened with multiple previous blocks up to 30 days and bans up to 60 days). Ashley kennedy3 needs to provide a reason why things will be different if they are to resume editing. Jehochman ^Talk 06:12, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion

AshleyKennedy is a good contributor concerning content matters in the articles related to the I-P conflict. But his behaviour vis-à-vis other contributors who do not share his standards or his views is not acceptable. And he has already been warned several times for that. Nishidani wants him to apologize. I personally did the same by emails and warned him about the consequences.
I would personnally suggest an undefinite block until he admits he was wrong, gives his point of view, and agrees he will take the highest care not attack so harshly other contributors anymore, for any reason. That is a suggestion to be discussed. I don't measure all the positive and negative consequences yet. Ceedjee (talk) 07:00, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I second Ceedjee's suggestion. He disagrees with both Ashley and myself on overall interpretation (but that's not, as we all recoghnize, our job) but we three and a few others have had a very productive working rapport ('across borders'). Admins judge first by the behavioural record (in AK's case, two suspensions were cases of stupidly allowing himself to be gamed), not by the editing record for substantive work. AK has always replied with speed and precision for any request, from whoever, on things like coordinates (where he has strong talents) to details (he has accumulated at his own expense a large library on the area. He is, like Ceedjee, basically an article builder from academic sources in an area where most seem to edit, from page to page, just on words, or phrasing, or a sentence or source, in terms of their pereceptions of POV, and without much regard to the whole subject of the page. He's clearly to blame for allowing a good record to be stained by infractions: he should learn to ignore provocation, be more patient even if antipathy closes in, not personalize his conflicts, etc.

Perhaps he should take a month's break, and figure out while reading whether he's committed enough to wiki, as opposed to understanding the history of the area, to curb his views (which I happen to share) and just stick to the technical labour of ensuring good material gets on page. If he decides 'yes', he should then ask for a reconsideration of a reduction from one year. If I recall, Sandstein's 1 month was too lenient. Phil Knight's 2 months fair, but, as Jehochman noted, he'd already copped (I think unjustly) a two month suspension, and therefore, within the wiki system (which we must accept however weird it works out instance from instance), you should be looking at something from 2 to 3 months. As any lawyer will tell you, law has nothing to do with justice. It's just how the paper evidence lines up, within a system of rules. Personally, I don't think Ynhockey should ever have even troubled to note the so-called Drive-by edit infraction, which occasioned his suspension, and his improper outburst against Ynhockey. Those pages are a POV disaster, and rightly elicit contempt. A good many in the I/P area should learn to use reporting technical infractions only as a last recourse, when there is a real stalemate on a page.Nishidani (talk) 11:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)I have initiated a discussion on Ashley on his talk page regarding this matter, as Jehochman suggested an uninvolved admin might do. I also sent him? an email informing him of the new thread there. I welcome anyone interested to observe the discussion, and take part as they see fit. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 14:16, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

User:DawnisuponUS

DawnisuponUS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This editor has been borderline disruptive at Talk:September 11 attacks for a little while. They've been warned of the arbcom sanctions by several editors. Recently they decided to argue the toss with myself and User:Tom harrison about whether they'de been edit-warring on the article itself. I decided I'd had enough and gave them a final warning against any form of disruption or personal attack. Their response has been to accuse us of "Defamation", "slander" etc etc. This is all very well, and I'm quite enjoying the chance to run amok in a berserk manner and feel the wind in my hair, but I'm wondering when it will end.

Review and considered action by uninvolved admins would be appreciated at this point. Most of the history is plainly viewable at User Talk:DawnisuponUS - I don't think there's been any blanking. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:23, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate this call for action by uninvolved admins, I've already made a call for informal mediation, and if it yields no result, I will pursue other venues.

SheffieldSteel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) cannot hold his restraint. He has a history of such conduct and he is trigger happy when it comes to blocks and ban's. I'm not sure if he is suited to carry the "badge" of administrator. I would kindly ask the administrators to take their time and review case closely and thoroughly as well as history of the party which brought this forward. My page was blanked once, I've removed welcoming message. DawnisuponUS (talk) 22:06, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) I concur with the assessment that DawnisuponUS has been edit-warring and is, to put it mildly, unapologetic about it. It's a new account, and the actual disruption is too old to be blockable now, but if he continues, a block at WP:AIV with reference to this thread should be forthcoming, if you don't want to block him yourself.  Sandstein  22:09, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

My opinion is that this recent edit is point-of-view pushing and also ungrammatical, introducing both anti-Israel bias and a run-on sentence into the article. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:15, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm certain it would had been far better if this ANI didn't come to play. DawnisuponUS (talk) 22:23, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

"Would have been" is correct, for what it's worth. Better would be to say "Well, I'm certain it would have been far better if ANI hadn't come into play." As far as trying to deal with English grammar, you have my sympathy. For the conspiracy theories I have no sympathy at all. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:32, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Why is this important, Tom? Grammar? Explain yourself. I wonder what's on your mind. DawnisuponUS (talk) 22:39, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

You brought it up [45]. If you aren't interested, don't let me detain you. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:46, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

No, FisherQueen brought it up, and I want to know why. Must admit, extremely amusing summary too. DawnisuponUS (talk) 22:49, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

My primary objection was not to the grammar error, but to the pushing of a specific point of view, which, I think, is the subject of this discussion. I brought it up as an example of a recent edit that I thought showed you pushing a specific point of view. The other subject of this discussion, your aggressively unhelpful reaction to correction, I do not think I need to find examples of, as you have helpfully added several examples to this discussion already. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:53, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'd say you've made your point too, as for my mood, or aggressiveness, if you prefer. I'm really not in the good mood and you parachuting in and throwing judgment which you've based on single edit, in spite the fact I've kindly asked adminship for more careful review, well, it surly didn't improve it – the mood. DawnisuponUS (talk) 23:01, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, what is the purpose of this exam? Is it over now? If it is, here's a remark. So far we have one uninvolved editor here. I remember you FisherQueen, one look at your talkpage was enough. I'll invite you to stand in front of the ArbCom. This is the stage in which you always come to play. DawnisuponUS (talk) 22:38, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I am not certain what you saw on my talk page that made you think I'm in violation of any rules, but, like any Wikipedia editor, I am subject to the will of the community and perfectly willing to submit to the decisions of ArbCom. Remember to be specific about the rule I've broken, and include links and diffs, when you submit your complaint about me. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:50, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Put up or shut up. Provide evidence of FisherQueen having violated any rule or guideline which would cause her to be brought up before the ArbCom, or retract your accusation. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:57, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Can you be less uncivil? --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 23:01, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I can, but I see no point in this case. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:31, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

It is kind of scary when a admin tries to justify a ban because a person added a fact about Israel that doesn't show the Israelis in a good light. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 22:59, 31 March 2009 (UTC) Also, the admins picking on the person for his grammar demonstrates the lack of professionalism here. It is bad enough for a person to be reported, but with admins mocking the person's editing, well that is just bullying. Excuse the bad grammar, I am not writing a paper.--Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 23:08, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

The subject of this discussion is the question of whether User:DawnisuponUS has been pushing a specific point of view and interacting uncivilly with other editors; do you have an opinion about that subject? If you'd like to start a thread about User:FisherQueen and the specific rule she has broken, you should create a new subject header, so the two discussions don't become tangled with each other and difficult to follow. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you broke a rule and I don't have an opinion on DawnisuponUS. But I have an opinion on the lack of professionalism by administrators like the unnecessary nitpicking on grammar. I just wanted to say something on the peanut gallery, that's all. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 23:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

DawnisuponUS is certainly not a new user. I have not interacted with DawnisuponUS, having been mostly on a wikibreak for the past 1-2 months. Yet, DawnisuponUS is following my talk page and trolling. [46] It's very clear to me that DawnisuponUS is a sockpuppet of a banned user. Previously, we had User:Tachyonbursts (~May 2008) and User:Quantumentanglement (~December 2007), who were both banned. There are striking similarities in the behaviour of all three of these users. And, I'm 99.9% sure Quantumentanglement and Tachyonbursts were not new accounts either. I suspect that these users are User:Lovelight, who was banned in May 2007 and has continued to edit off and on with sock accounts and as an IP editor. Of course, the accounts are too old for checkuser to help, but take a look at the behaviour and language used by these accounts to see the similarities.

DawnisuponUS is simply wasting people's time. Please stop allowing this. Someone, please block the account. --Aude (talk) 01:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Lovely, see how they surface? This is one of the editors I've named in my request for mediation, wonder who will surface next? Mongo? DawnisuponUS (talk) 01:23, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

This proved the point I'm making today long, long time ago, so you had to delete it? Gone, is it? Where can I find these ol' pieces, I'll need those. What's the word? It is cover up. DawnisuponUS (talk) 02:14, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I think this recent edit should be excluded from this discussion as being irrelevant. It's a fairly typical edit made in IP articles by new contributors. It's neither point-of-view pushing nor does it introduce an anti-Israel bias into the article because it's consistent with the BRD workflow, was reverted and is now being discussed. It raised an important issue that perhaps isn't being given due weight in the article. New contributers often start like this but move on to discussing changes on the talk page. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:29, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Aude that DawnisuponUS is almost certain to be somebody's sockpuppet as well as trolling this discussion, and have blocked it indefinitely. Review welcome.  Sandstein  05:56, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Bravo. Thank you once again. --Tarage (talk) 06:03, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

You're a sensible admin, why would you block a user simply because someone is suspicious that he is a sockpuppet? Doesn't a checkuser have to be performed first? Trolling is not an issue here. I hope this is some sort of an April Fool's joke, even the skinhead axmann received more leniency than this. Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 06:07, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

A checkuser isn't required when the duck test applies. Dayewalker (talk) 06:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I will not pretend that I understand half of things you folks said here, but I know a foul play when I see it. I’ve been watching discussions of editors and DawnisuponUS with interest and I have to say that this sort of manhunt is disturbing and in line with what that person was saying at 9/11 attacks page. I’m not sure what is going on behind curtains here, but I’m sure that after following all this I will never be able to read wikipedia with ease. Shame on you folks. Thingsrelatedornot (talk) 06:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, isn't it curious that Thingsrelatedornot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) found this noticeboard with its fourth edit, and spent its other three edits agreeing with DawnisuponUS on the 9/11 talk page?  Sandstein  07:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

wouldn't it be better just to do a checkuser and then take the appropriate action otherwise it's just speculation. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:31, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Thingsrelatedornot, I don't think there's a problem. Existing sanctions should be sufficient to ban or block them in their own right (i.e. without any need for a sock check), if they are disruptive, and currently they just aren't that big of a problem.

Regarding DawnisuponUS, this is hardly a "foul play". Those who have voiced an opinion on the subject have said that DawnisuponUS is disruptive, aggressive, or tendentious, has engaged in edit-warring, continues to argue that they have done no wrong in the face of policy and diffs, or some combination thereof. The edit warring at 9/11 was sufficient for a block, and it could be argued that the soapboaxing on the Talk page was sufficient for a ban. The fact that I issued neither, I can only put down to a lack of trigger-happiness on my part (I can't speak for Tom harrison, but I think he engages problematic editors with commendable patience). Initial approaches to this editor were polite and informative. As for exactly why and how that went downhill so markedly - that is something that we can all reflect upon, but none of us should be under the impression that this was a productive, collaborative, respectful, polite editor who was here to help build the encyclopaedia but who just somehow slipped through the cracks and is now lost to us - nor indeed a lone voice of sanity in the Kafkaesque wilderness, speaking up for those who have no voice, challenging the Orwellian thought police and... uh... something about Nazis and Godwin. Sorry, lost my train of thought ;-( SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 13:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I am not wikipedia editor, I’m simply an editor. So have you done the checking? There is no way to misinterpret what happened here. Shame on you. Thingsrelatedornot (talk) 05:27, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

You are making edits on wikipedia, so by definition you are a wikipedia editor. So how is that you, a supposedly brand new user, and whose grammar mistakes match those of the now-blocked user, happened to zoom in on all of this? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 10:34, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I ran into an edit conflict before I could raise the same issue. An SPA suddenly appearing here, clearly now a new user... a thing related, quite possibly. Dougweller (talk) 10:46, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Acts like a sock, but aside from incivility on ANI and here ([47]), it hasn't really done anything yet. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 10:55, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it must be conspiracy. Oops, look! One of your editors just made a mistake, it’s very suspicious, hitting now instead of not. Did you know that you can reach this place via 911 talkpage in just three clicks? Incivility? Thingsrelatedornot (talk) 11:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, User:Thingsrelatedornot is an obvious sockpuppet of User:DawnisuponUS. Does anyone object to my blocking her? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:23, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I thought you'd never ask. :) Gopher it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 11:27, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Obvious, what is obvious?! Thingsrelatedornot (talk) 11:25, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Her?! Thingsrelatedornot (talk) 11:27, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

"Her" being "Dawn". From "Dawn" to "Dusk", as it were. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Georgeringojohnpaul

Resolved

 – Report to WP:AIV if another disruptive edit is made beyond the "final warning". —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 09:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

New editor Georgeringojohnpaul has made repeated nonsense edits to George Harrison. They have been warned once, but repeated the nonsense edit after the warning. I suggest a short block to show him/her we're serious.... — John Cardinal (talk) 02:53, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

If the user vandalizes again after the level-4 warning, report it to WP:AIV. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 03:05, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Agenda/POV pushing re: User:Ejnogarb

I think it's time an admin or 20 look into Ejnogarb (talk · contribs)'s edit history and have a word with him/her about ownership and such. I think a topic ban is in order. The user appears to be agenda driven in removing valid, sourced content dealing with gay rights issues or adding POV content against the subjects. The latest edits to American Family Association where the editor is trying to strip the article of valid, sourced content that points out how the AFA is against all things "gay" is the last straw so to speak. His/her edits to that article alone have been reverted by several users but he/she continues to edit war. We don't whitewash articles on Wikipedia and this should be stopped across the full medium of topics this editor is doing this to. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 03:39, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

The article in question had a source from Southern Poverty Law Center, which first of all isn't appropriate for a controversy section given its bias. Second, the primary sentence in question asserted that the AFA was implicated in hate crimes against gays. Given that this is such a licentious assertion, and that the article doesn't mention any such action by the AFA, I repeatedly tried to delete. A content-ban is entirely out of order, considering that I've never even been temporarily blocked. I see this move as an attempt to prevent neutrality in Wikipedia. Ejnogarb (talk) 04:29, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Just because you haven't yet been blocked doesn't mean your work is above reproach. In general people post here because a user is persistently disruptive in some way and therefore using up the community resources which are generally better saved for improving articles. -- Banjeboi 07:09, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. Every article I would have interacted with this user the edits have already been reverted by a number of editors but all their work is apparently for naught and very little of it hasn't been quickly reverted which does seem to add credibility of concerns about draining the resources of the project. ASE, for a valid ANI report you, or someone will need to do a bit of legwork to provide diffs on at least a few salient points. POV edit-warring examples, BLP violations, etc. and a pattern of disruption on a set of articles to show any bans or blocks are warranted. They have less than 500 edits so far but IMHO there is a pattern more aligned with social conservatism culture warring than just anti-LGBT rights per se. To me, a more appropriate route might be an editing watch as there have been at least some constructive edits in the past but also some extremely POV-pushy ones. I suggest a concise overview of diffs to move this forward. -- Banjeboi 07:09, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
  • @Benjiboi: I don't know if you realized you even did this, but how appropriate is it to acknowledge the user is a social conservative, possible anti-LGBT, and then you slap File:Drawing-Gay flag.png on his talk page in your "welcome" message? Seems subtly inflammatory, extremely rude or just plain insensitive to me. Not commenting on the topic at hand, but please remember to be considerate of other user's personal beliefs, especially if you are trying to quell a possible conflict. --64.85.214.246 (talk) 12:27, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Did you forget to log in Ejnogarb? It's a template he uses on everyone's page when welcoming them to Wikipedia so it certainly wasn't done on purpose, at least not to antagonize anyone. Of course Ejnogarb continues his own provocation with posts like this on Benji's talk page. If I didn't know any better, I'd think Ejnogarb and Axmann8 were brothers, if not the same person. The tendentious editing of all things "anti-conservatism" by both make it hard to believe otherwise. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 15:36, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
      • I don't know if Ejnogarb forgot to log in or not, but implying that my IP (64.85.xxx.xxx) is Ejnogarb is overly presumptuous. So if it is a template he uses on everyone's page, then it is just plain insensitive. Please remember that all sorts of editors use WP and one should not make assumptions of other's views when leaving welcome templates. That assumption can put a new user in an awkward situation. Not commenting on the issue at hand, only inquiring as to the nature of the template on the editor-in-question's talk page. --64.85.215.213 (talk) 15:56, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
        • I've never used a different account or IP address, and I'm always automatically logged on. This whole process is nothing but a personal attack, which is additionally evident in the snarky templates and insults on various talkpages. Ejnogarb (talk) 18:18, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
          • Here you removed POV and Refs needed tags from Men who have sex with men with the edit summary No section contains more citations (and there are no "citations needed"), and there are no positive health side affects for homosexulaity (but if there are, please add them). This is unhelpful and antagonistic. The whole section needs clean-up and several editors are working to sort out what needs to be done. -- Banjeboi 19:44, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I can't say about past versions, but the current version of Benji's "welcome" is the usual stuff, just decorated a bit (I'll leave out the obvious stereotype joke there) and the flag in question is very small, in the upper left corner. If a new user gets upset about something like that, then they must be coming here looking for a fight - hence the tendency to compare the new user with someone like Axmann8, who came in with guns blazing and went out hanging by his socks. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 18:54, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I should quickly add that any comparison between Axmann8 and Ejnogarb should not be intended to suggest they're actually the same user, as it's obvious they're NOT. Also, the IP in question is obviously not a new user, so it probably has a floating IP address. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 18:59, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

It's the only version of my own welcome template I have ever used. And yes the flag is as small as imaginably could be so I see this rather as a red herring. Ejnogarb has brought the concern to my talkpage and I have now apologized twice for welcoming them. Can't say I've ever even heard of someone being upset for being welcomed but I hope we can back to the more substantiative issues of edit-warring and POV-pushing that brought this thread into existence. -- Banjeboi 19:26, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm trying to understand why someone would find it offensive to be greeted with an image of a rainbow, in which all the colours peacefully co-exist despite the fact that they're different. The appropriateness of that image to an online community such as Wikipedia ought to be self-evident. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 13:59, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm inclined to think Bugs has already provided the answer - he came here looking for a fight. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:07, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Is that what that tiny little thing is -- a flag? Sheesh, if I hadn't gone looking to see what all the drahmaz was about, had I otherwise seen Benjiboi's welcome template, I'm not sure I would have even noticed the thing. -- llywrch (talk) 17:40, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I was simply stunned myself but others can judge for themselves User:Benjiboi/welcome. -- Banjeboi 20:05, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

This whole allegation is obviously frivolous if the only thing that is being discussed is a flag that I never complained about. Ejnogarb (talk) 00:17, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Other than calling it a "snark": [48] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 01:03, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I called the whole template a snark when I deleted it from my talk page. I found it mildly insulting considering that a user with whom I had already spoken a few times was sending me a "welcome" template as if I was confused about what Wikipedia is. Ejnogarb (talk) 01:14, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Given thier editing interaction, the template was obviously subtle baiting. CENSEI (talk) 01:18, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

You been on vacation? Axmann8 could have used your help the other day. He stood up for you before. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 01:24, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

What does that have to do with this thread? I have something called a "job" ... requires a bit of my time now and then. CENSEI (talk) 01:37, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

My welcoming them wasn't baiting, subtle or otherwise. In fact, it is meant to blunt perceived angst as reverts weren't done to be spiteful but to adhere to policies. Policies which are nicely linked to on ... welcome templates. -- Banjeboi 15:39, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. This thread may have been a tad premature but all that would change is more pointy edits and disruption, IMHO. At least in this way it was brought to wider attention whether any sock activity is going on or not. If Ejnogarb simply avoids overtly POV edits and on culture war related articles works to find consensus then I think we can all move on. The alternative is digging through their 200+ mainspace edits to build a walk of shame which no one has stepped up to do. And likely would just waste more community energy. Shall we close this and move on? -- Banjeboi 03:50, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

This is not pointless, in fact the very point of it seems to be to harass an editor that has been deemed less “LGBT friendly” than some editors think he should be and that’s not only a real shame but should also be the focus of this thread. CENSEI (talk) 23:56, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Weighing in as someone who has only recently become aware of Ejnogarb and the concerns that have been raised about his editing patterns, I want to add my two cents. I have Promiscuity on my watchlist (as it is a vandalism-prone article), and so have seen his recent edits there. He first editwarred for the inclusion of a 30+ year old study on promiscuity in homosexual men, and is now editwarring to remove a far more recent study on the same subject. While on principle I don't like to assume motivation, it's rather telling that the seriously outdated study supports his personal beliefs, while the recent research does not, and that he only started to care about "balance" when the outdated study was replaced with the modern one and not before when only the outdated one was being presented. Taken along with his overall editing history, this is indicative of a POV-pushing agenda and editwarring modus operandi. I certainly hope that Ejnogarb will choose to edit in a productive manner to provide genuine balance to articles, but I must endorse the claim that his current editing patterns are highly problematic. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 16:44, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Your statements are incorrect. I added the statistics from another Wikipedia page, which were deleted because one of the studies was from the 70s. I agreed that the study was out of date, but the other editor deleted two other sources from <10 years (which I restored). When the same editor insisted that all the statistics that negatively portrayed LGBT groups be deleted, but those that were positive remain, I deleted all of the added statistics because the editor obviously wasn't interested in neutrality. Since then, that editor has been blocked for edit-warring and not me, because I stopped making reverts. I think it's quite telling of this whole attempt to block me that the person who originally tried, Allstarecho, is the one ended up being blocked. I appreciate your attempts to police that particular article, but my edits have been entirely in line with Wikipedia guidelines.  EJNOGARB  01:12, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

If you hadn't ended with "entirely in line with Wikipedia guidelines", i would have been silent. But that was over the top. Do you really want the Walk Of Shame to spew out here? Shall i get it started by pointing to your edit summary when you deleted the 2007 statistics? You said, "It is incredibly POV to disallow statistics which are unfavorable to LGBT groups, but insist that positive statistics be included." Just what do you mean by "favorable" or "unfavorable"? Do you not see how you just thrust your POV (favor/disfavor toward gays, toward promiscuity) out for all of us-- so POINTy, it's poking some eyes!-- and yet you claim "in line with Wikipedia guidelines"?! Just what exactly are you trying to achieve for the benefit of the readers of those articles about promiscuity, gay sex, and your other recent fascinations therein? Because all i see for an achievement is a placement of your Pointy POV into the Article spaces, when it would be best confined to the Talk Page spaces. That's what i've been told is in line with Wikipedia guidelines. Please, oh please, do not give me a project today, because Shame Walking just feels spiteful and hurtful and nobody wants to go there. Can you please give us some respect according to the Golden Rule? You wouldn't want some promiscuous queer editor to become religiously devoted to the-- ahem-- insertion of his queer viewPoint into your favorite articles about churches by insisting upon favoring a secular viewpoint at the expense of a neutral article, for example? Wouldn't that bother you? Do you see the analogy? Mutual respect, i give it to you, please let us ask it in return. Thanks ~_{Teledildonix314}~^Talk~_4-1-1~ 01:57, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

If the <10 year old sources you refer to are the ones relating to blood donation, they weren't deleted for being "unfavorable" to any particular viewpoint. They were deleted for being so tangentially and tenuously related as to be off-topic. Specific discussion as to whether or not they are indeed off-topic belongs on the article's talk page, not here, but suffice to say, your allegations that they were removed for POV reasons is not supported by the actual edit history. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 05:55, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

WP can neither guarantee, require, nor expect perfectly balanced articles. Any writer can be biased, even if they're not aware of it. It often comes down to a simple problem during research. One is more likely to pursue information that supports their opinion, however subconsciously. I do agree, however, that if there's a possibility of subjective opinion, it should be noted, or at least stated in a manner that is as neutral as possible. After all, this is an encyclopedia; the primary goal should be to deliver facts to it's readers. That said, I don't believe the current state of the article in question violates this principle to and meaningful degree. Comments that seem to shine negatively on the AFA and it's stance on homosexuality are quotes taken from well-known sources. If the article still seems an affront to the AFA, perhaps one should consider the possibility that AFA policy is, in fact, irrational to the point of self-injury.--OpusAtrum (talk) 19:01, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Montanabw allegedly bites Buttermilk1950

On Talk:Rodeo I have twice asked Montanabw (talk · contribs) to stop making ad hominem remarks.[49][50] However, she has continued, making ad hominem remarks to me[51][52] and to Buttermilk1950 (talk · contribs)[53] that I feel are disruptive. Would an admin please look at this? --Una Smith (talk) 04:10, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

There is a huge issue in the rodeo articles over a POV fork created by the user Buttermilk1950, which has already resulted in her being blocked once, in part because she is being mentored and encouraged by User:Una Smith. See Rodeo in the United States and Animal treatment in rodeo. To the extent my frustration boiled over, I apologize. (And have apologized on the relevant article talk page where I made the "go play" comment.) However, before anyone takes further action, please also note that this editor who has filed this AN/I and I have a long and contentious history. She has previously filed an AN/I on me here, resolved in my favor, a WQA here, resolved in my favor, and, completely unrelated to me, herself has been the subject of at least three previous AN/I reports herself that basically died because of the total exhaustion of all involved: here and here and a related incident here, plus earlier a set of related incidents here and here

In short, this is a long game of "gotcha," and I for one am sick of it. To close, my real life is extraordinarily busy at the moment, which has prevented me from accessing wiki on a daily basis. If there is a need for me to respond within 24 hours, please send me email. Thanks. Montanabw^(talk) 04:47, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Una has got this rather the wrong way around, I'm afraid. Montanabw is not the issue here, and her description of the background is accurate. Apparently new editor starts POV forking, and is being egged on by Una. Characterizing Montanabw's comments in this matter as ad hominem attacks is very wide of the mark. ++Lar: t/c 06:36, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

As someone who has interacted with both parties I would like to note that Montanabw does display a maked tendancy towards "ownership" of articles and often unilaterally reverts to the revision which she approves while telling the other editor/s that edits need to be approved by the lead editors of the article , usually Montanabw. It was noted already by a different user here that Montanabw is showing ownership. Heres areseveral other instances of users noting the propencity toward ownership. [54], [55] [56] and [57] -- Kevmin (talk 01:37, 30 March 2009

Without disagreeing, Una is still wide of the mark, which I think is the more important issue. ++Lar: t/c 07:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the larger issue is that Montanabw does exhibit ownership but Una is the only one who actually brings this ti AN/I. But once here the underlying problems may people have with Una serve to sidetrack the issue and there ends up being no actual discussion regarding Montanabws actions rather the problem is dismissed each time. Thus the cycle starts again. I commented here in hope the Una/Montanabw issue would be skipped and the ownership issue be addressed --Kevmin (talk) 08:02, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

No, I think the wider issue here is Una, not Montanabw or any ownership charges. Una has a record of difficulty working with others, across many projects, not just the equine one, (ask the medical or botany folks, for example) and a record of bringing things to various venues, such as AN/I or WQA or wherever, when she doesn't get her way. Usually these are rebutted, but only after some time is wasted. ++Lar: t/c 15:10, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

IF this is only an Una issue how do you account for the number of OTHER incidences which myself and others have brought up. I'm sorry Lar, but looking through the links I don't think you are unbiased in this, having a clear dislike of Una and thus siding against her in almost every situation.--Kevmin (talk) 00:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't "like" or "dislike" Una. I merely dislike disruptive behavior. What you need to internalize here is that when I "side against her" I'm siding with many other people. And it's "almost every situation" because, as many other people point out, she's wrong about stuff in many different situations. Review this thread's participants and do some research on the many voices you see here saying there's a problem with Una's behavior. I think you and Peter have a narrower view of this matter than I (or many others) do, as these voices come from all over the wiki, not just equine, and certainly not just articles that Montanabw has made major contributions to. You need to broaden your perspective. ++Lar: t/c 04:40, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Another instance of ownership. Please see the talk page especially here and edit history starting on 00:13, January 22, 2009 for Template:Equine--Kevmin (talk) 18:23, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not involved in this, and I don't want to be, but I'll post a little because Una left a message on my talk page asking me to.

Because of the message on my talk page, I looked into this a little earlier, and I felt that this AfD is of concern to me because it apparently shows a new user in an emotional state as a result of interactions with this user. I would tend to suggest that the ownership issues Una alleges are real, as shown by this diff.

This AN/I entry appears to show that there's more substance to the ownership issues than can be explained by a dispute between Montanabw and Una/Buttermilk.

On the more positive side, this request for mediation appears to show an ability to compromise on both sides when under scrutiny.

All in all, I think both sides genuinely believe that the other is acting unreasonably, and because both sides are active in horse-related articles, there will be regular, repeated drama between these users. It's a long-standing pattern and needs outside intervention.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 08:17, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I have been involved with Montana and I've tried to bring up what I feel are ownership tendencies on Montana's in various articles.[58][59][60][61] The problem as I see it is that Montana places far too strict demands on information that she disagrees with. Usually this leads to a rather unnerving revert-first-ask-later-policty. I've even seen her remove thoroughly referenced information only to motivate her actions with personal suspicion, or simply plain ignorance (most obviously in horses in warfare).

In my experience Montana's often restrictive and defensive behavior towards users new or unknown to her generally results in active or passive support from her colleagues. Most or all attempts to raise complaints about this tend to be branded as personal attacks, or just plain mean to the otherwise hard-working Montana. I'd this is more an issue with WP:EQUINE than just Montana personally.

Peter ^Isotalo 10:52, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the Rodeo article, but from my contacts with Montanabw at Cowboy, I would not use 'ownership' in describing his approach. He is passionate about the subjects he works with, shows a great deal of knowledge on them, and prefers history over legend. I have had no problem from him when I have added well sourced material to Cowboy. -- Donald Albury 10:29, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

The wider issue happens to those who do not seek her permission to edit an article she owns. The common response is many times wholesale revert to her last edit and generally rather snippy comments either in the edit summery or on the persons talk pages.--Kevmin (talk) 18:23, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Based on my recent (and brief) involvement in this article, Montanabw doesn't try to 'own' articles she edits, but rather, takes active interest in the edits other make to the article. I would also say that just because you warn someone for something, Una, does not mean they actually did anything wrong. One of those 'warnings' you gave happens to contain a comment by Montanabw explaining why she didn't believe she was making attacks. To that response you simply repeated the original warning! Una needs to deal with other active editors on pages he/she edits. I encourage everyone to discuss before editing. Prodego ^talk 21:42, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Reply I have had a long history of Una accusing me of article ownership and any number of other thngs when I challenge her for advocacy of fringe theories. Any issues here must be examined in light of the general disruption Una causes all across wikipedia, not just in the articles where I edit. I am one of the few people to consistently challenge her, and at this point I am convinced that she is trying to run me off of wikipedia. Una has repeatedly engaged in the same pattern with many users and articles: She makes significant edits to an article, often advocating fringe theories, often disturbing a long-stable article, then reacts with hostility and aggression when these changes are challenged. The AN/I above on Tumbleweeds (The WP POINT link), which I was not involved in at all, is particularly illustrative of this. The result is that even when she occasionally makes a useful edit, and she does, her contributions are viewed with distrust. I must point out only a few days ago, I encouraged her to continue editing an article here. I have made repeated efforts to negotiate, to work out a truce, to have a meeting of the minds, all of which have been rebuffed, often rudely. I can provide diffs if requested.

As for myself, my position is that quality control and respect for past consensus is not ownership. Yes, I am quick to question new edits, but I have ALWAYS been willing to engage in good faith negotiations with anyone who can explain the reasons for their views with good, solid info, and is willing to engage in mutual listening and cooperation. I have changed my own viewpoints on many occasions and all I ask is that people explain what they are doing and why, backing it up sources that are not fringe theories or otherwise poor. On the other hand, trying to bully me or dismiss my concerns is generally counterproductive. Montanabw^(talk) 23:58, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I've looked into this and I urge them to seek WP:DR, either RFC or mediation, in the hopes it helps avoid a deeper look by arbtration. Something deeper is going on here. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:44, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

My concern is that this is not really an issue that is bilateral... if you have a contentious editor who repeatedly causes issues, and each time you send that editor to mediation, and they get 1/2 their way, you're enabling that contentiousness as a way to get one's way. Which is bad for the project. Despite those folk here who are perhaps grinding their own axes to make whatever points, the real problem here is Una and her approach. Not Montanabw. Una has mastered the technique of chipping away at folk until they give up. ++Lar: t/c 15:10, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

With respect, Lar, I've already shown that there's more to this than a dispute between Montanabw and Una. I don't disagree that there is a dispute there, but I think it's a mistake to imply that Una is entirely at fault and Montanabw is entirely blameless, because I've provided diffs that show otherwise.

I'm with Rlevse: there's something deeper going on here.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 19:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I've not been clear enough, apologies. We are none of us perfect and I am not going to say Montanabw is "entirely blameless". Should she work on not immediately reacting when an article she put a lot of effort into gets messed up? Sure... no argument there. But this isn't bilateral. It isn't really about Montanabw. That's just a side issue. Not the main issue. When I look at Una's contributions, I see a pattern. And it's not good. Montanabw is not her only adversary and equine is not the only project she's stirred up. I think if you look long and hard you'll see it too. Mediation between M and U doesn't fit the problem which is why I said what I said just above. But... yes... maybe an RfC on Una is in order... but those tend to be high drama. I think I'd rather just see this thread shut down with an admonishment to Una to stop being disruptive, and hope for the best. Because really, that's what she does... it's low grade and it's within the envelope, technically, but it is disruptive. ++Lar: t/c 20:33, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

There is indeed "something deeper going on here", and it will not be resolved by any dispute resolution or mediation between Montanabw and Una. Una is a disruptive editor, and has been involved in numerous incidents and disputes in other areas of WP. I am no wikistalker, and have no intention to spend time trawling throuigh her contributions, but I can direct you to a current dispute at suspension bridge where Una's page moves and neologisms have resulted in serious disruption (even down to an afd to raise awareness of her poor page choices) - not all one sided, of course: Una's actions have a tendency to raise ire and rash responses from otherwise mild editors. See also Talk:Tumbleweed where UNa caused strife by a move to another neologism. Anyone with time can find plenty of disruption at GA where Una has derailed noms, or provided inappropriate reviews. I am sure Una is well-meaning, but she has a tendency to carry out actions which make sense only to her, and to argue bitterly with anyone who stands up to her.
As far as Montanabw is concerned, there is continual strife between the pair because Montanabw recognises Una's tactics and will not put up with them, where many others just avoid her and clear up the mess later. Montanabw is the first to admit she is not blameless, and has responded sharply at times; she has also very generously sought to reach compromise with Una through mediation and dispute resolution, and to discuss things on talk pages. Cries of "ownership" abound mainly because Monatanabw is a diligent editor, who feels strongly about maintaining neutrality (and reacts strongly to PETA-type propaganda, for example) and WP:RS, and , above all, maintaining a reputable and creditable Wikipedia. We need more editors like her, and should not try and drive her off with finger-pointing and name-calling. She recognises her faults (which is more than I can say for some) and works hard to maintain good relations with all editors - even those with differing views. I first encountered Montanabw when I challenged content on one of "her" pages. She showed concern, not "ownership" and we worked out the issue on the talk page, and in the end constructed a whole new article incorporating my research and hers. I found her generous with her time, and vigorous in her efforts to establish fact and accurate, reliable reporting. I could, of course, have thrown a tantrum, drumming my heels until I got my own way, but neither of us, or WP would have been any better for it. As Lar says, lets close this tantrum, and get on with building an encyclopaedia. Gwinva (talk) 21:41, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect, this is NOT an una\montana issue. Please actually look through the links posted by myself, S Marshall, and Peter, which encompass a number of separate unrelated incidences all of which have involved montana displaying overt ownership. What seems to happen is the same small group of editors come to montanas defense and turn the discussion into a problem with the person bringing up the matter and ending the matter with "don't pick on montana she does so much". Yes I agree she does contribute a lot but she also has shown a tendency to be very harsh with any editors who disagree with her or make edits without her permission and does not take kindly to others editing her articles, tolerating them when they are persistent. I am not meaning to offend anyone with this but it annoys me when editors try claim "una/montana history so just forget it or better yet penalize Una". The provided link clearlyu show a longer wider history of incidences then that.--Kevmin (talk) 23:41, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I would prefer to just let this ANI die a natural death, again, but Kevmin distorts the record. First off, no one can prove a negative and hence how can I prove that there are thousands of article changes I have reviewed and simply left as it because they are suitable? If one does not wish to accept Gwinva's summary of my edit history, which is pretty accurate,then I welcome any admins (hello? Is there an admin on this?? S Marshall, are you the admin assigned here?) to review my work at Banker horse, where a high school student brought an article up to FA standard while I mostly remained on the sidelines, particularly as the project advanced and the user's skills dramatically increased. This is far from "tolerance," it was support, encouragement, and mentorship. I would also point out that on the Banker horse article, Una did not appear until very late in the game, at which point she attempted to disrupt the whole article and interrupt its push for GA and FA status. I could rest my case on that example alone. However, I would also like to refer reviewers to Thoroughbred, where I worked collaboratively with three other editors, again with a smaller and smaller role as the project progressed, to help guide that article to FA status. Finally, I helped get Horse to GA status, again with significant collaboration with others, in spite of a concerted effort by Una to actively derail the nomination, as noted here. There are other examples of successful collaboration I can provide, but frankly I am reluctant to even mention other articles I care about for fear Una will go in and try to ruin them. I mention these only because I know they are already GA or FA and also routinely patrolled by other dedicated users who will prevent serious disruptive attacks. Kevmin points out that I can be snappish, and I agree, I even admit it on my own talk page and state I am open to trout-slapping. However, I try to be patient with most edits to articles I watchlist. However, when a situation involves either Una or the PETA crowd (or in the case of the rodeo articles, both), my patience is, admittedly close to zero; I'm quite sick of dealing with Una. I also don't care for bullies in general. Montanabw^(talk) 01:16, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I have distorted nothing I have stated my opinion given the information provided and based on my interactions/observations of you. We can safely assume all respondents in the AN/I have large edit counts, and we all watch numerous pages without interacting as people make changes, thus commenting on pages where you have not had much interaction really doesn't address the situation. What is being discussed here, and what I think is the larger issue, are those time you do step in. You yourself just stated you tend to be "snappish" and "open to trout slapping". THESE are the cases that I think are the major concern, as they are the times when the mass reverts, short language, and tendency to tell other editors to buzz off come out. The links provided by myself([62], [63], [64], [65], [66] (Also brought up by Peter), [67]); by S Marshall ([68], [69], [70]); and Peter Isotalo ([71], [72], [73], [74]) Most of these incidences do NOT invlove Una Smith. I also do not like the implication the that I have distorted anything or that myself, S Marshall, and Peter_Isotalo are bullies for bringing up what we see are valid concerns with your actions.--Kevmin (talk) 02:33, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Montana, trout-slapping is something that many experienced editors are reluctant to do, especially against someone they don't know. It's generally advised against in guidelines since it can easily start fights, and usually you only do it to close friends or highly disruptive users. Claiming that you need to be yelled at occasionally to deal with your behavior implies that other user are responsible for your shortcomings.

Peter ^Isotalo 15:14, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I'd resolved not to edit this AN/I again but Montanabw asked me a direct question. No, Montanabw, I'm not an admin. I'm a perfectly ordinary editor with no history in this prior to this AN/I, posting here simply because Una asked me to. She said on my talk page that input from a previously uninvolved party would be a good idea, so I went over the diffs in some detail.

I won't criticise you for feeling attached to articles you've worked hard on. I'm exactly the same; I watch every article I ever started like a hawk. Creating new material is a lot of hard work, and if someone went in and radically cut one, I wouldn't be thrilled either. But I think I would strive to assume good faith, and if necessary take a break for a few hours before addressing the issue.

I think that there's an entrenched pattern here, and I think that both you and Una are in a place with this now where neither of you are prepared to assume good faith. And I'm disturbed to see how many people in this AN/I thread are assuming bad faith on the part of one side or the other. Because what it means is that there can't be change. In other words, the assumption that Una's in bad faith with this AN/I is effectively forcing her into a particular behaviour pattern, and I think that's taking both of you along the road to arbitration.

I'm perplexed that the one person who this AN/I is not focusing on is Buttermilk1950. It's become "about" Una and Montanabw. But Buttermilk1950 is displaying behaviour patterns that indicate distress, and I suggest we think more about that part of the matter before this AN/I is closed.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 00:30, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I think some review of Buttermilk1950's contributions by previously uninvolved admins is warranted. I don't know that i would characterise the actions as "distress" so much as "stubbornness"... this editor has been counseled about many things by many other editors and the advice isn't sticking. They are displaying disturbing ownership tendencies, as well as edit warring and incollegiality, at the very least. Repeatedly removing well cited material and reinserting poorly cited material which slants the article further in one direction is really not the sign of an editor who is in tune with our ways. ++Lar: t/c 14:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

In a dispute a few weeks ago, I have started a draft of a RFC on Una, because of her disruptive attitudes on wikipedia. I let it slip because the topics I encountered her most frequent were left alone, but the same issues have been popping up again. I invoite everybody who wants to contribute to the draft to go over here : User:KimvdLinde/RFC and help me out. I agree that it is time for more action, and maybe we can avoid a Arbitration case in this way, because it is heading fast that way. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 00:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

In the December Issue of ANI, Una was advised to file this as an RFC should they believe future issues arose. Although many believe this "incident" is indicative of the atmosphere surrounding the Equine section of WP, there is certainly a root of it between Una and Montanabw. Una: file your RFC - but be advised that your actions will be under the exact same microscope. It's time to "clear the air" once and for, and stop the petty run-to-the-parents style of passive-aggressive interaction. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 09:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Block review - Nishidani - AshleyKennedy

Resolved

 – Unblocked.

User Nishidani (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked by Jehochman for 1 week, for [this] edit. I don't want this to turn into a contentious extension of ARBPIA drama, or anything more complicated than a simple review of whether a block was warranted in this instance. Jehochman has indicated that he believes the block is justified, and that it should be brought here. Reproduced inside the box below is the discussion on the users talkpage. Avruch ^T 19:18, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

• Block message.

• 1 week is certainly unwarranted and far too harsh given that the last block far too back in 2007. Even if it's similar conduct, people aren't expected to permanently remember ancient history whenever making an edit. Even 72 hours would've been too harsh. Can someone please downgrade this to 24 or 48 hours as a priority? A straight unblock ("time served") would've been okay if an unblock request was made. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:45, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

• See here for further discussion and Nishidani's thoughts on requesting an unblock. Avruch ^T 19:48, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

• The problem is less the 1 week block of Nishidani than the 1 year block of AshleyKennedy3. Jehochman has arrived like the cavalry, rapidly checked the problem and pronounced the sentence without having any background of the issue, as proven by Nishidani's block. For Nishidani, no block can be justified (he tried to solve a real problem with AshleyKennedy) and for AshleyKennedy, another sentence than a brutal and agressive 1 year block should have found. Ceedjee (talk) 20:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

A few more comments addressed to AshleyKennedy3. Ceedjee (talk) 20:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

• Let's keep this coherent. The issue of Ashley kennedy3 should be discussed in its own section above. I think the block of Nishidani was ill-considered and should be undone. The comment for which Nishidani was blocked, although flowery and in an idiosyncratic style, was clearly intended as friendly advice, and I can't find anything objectively objectionable in it. (Or did I miss something?)  Sandstein  20:49, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

• I was giving an overly sensitive interpretation of the final sentence: "Regards to a fine, studious, and dedicated, but fucking irresponsibly irascible fellow editor". But yeah, I came to the same view originally. Ncmvocalist (talk) 21:17, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
• I'd love to know what Jehochman was thinking. The meaning behind Nishidani's post was blindingly obvious: you can choose to commit wikicide with or without help, but why not just--as he said--pull your finger out? Anyway, I would absolutely move for an immediate unblock and an apology from Jehochman. //roux   20:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I could be called involved, so feel free to discount this if you wish. But I've dealt with Nishidani before, and he's the only editor I know who not irregularly quotes literature in his comments. I can't see him being blocked for having a definitely unique style, even if once in a while it is hard to see it as just a matter of style. I too would support an unblock. Ashley kennedy3 I agree is a different matter to be discussed elsewhere. John Carter (talk) 21:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

• Nothing really to argue about here - the block is an obvious misunderstanding (a genuine mistake, I hope), and should be undone ASAP. NSH001 (talk) 21:03, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
• I will not apologize becvause the edit in question was most unhelpful and disruptive. We do not need editors (even well meaning editors) to fan the flames of hot disputes. If Nishidani would agree to refrain from dispute intensification behavior in relation to WP:ARBPIA, I would agree to an unblock. Otherwise, I feel this arbitration enforcement block is valid (notwithstanding my failure to distinguish between hostility, and a friend disrupting a thread with excessively strident rhetoric). Went do not need gratuitious violations of decorum on this board. Jehochman ^Talk 21:12, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Jehochman, why did your block log fail to indicate "arbitration enforcement" in the reason field? Notwithstanding, the duration for your block was excessively harsh. Any user in your position should've contemplated that giving a 1 week block over this would just end up being deemed as "bad" in this venue. Ncmvocalist (talk) 21:17, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

• Quoting Jehochman (from inside the archive box): "All Nishidani needs to do is back down and request unblock."... "I'd unblock Nishidani myself if they posted an unblock request that said something to the effect of, "yeah, my comment at ANI was over the top and I now understand that it was unhelpful and won't do it again." No, we don't set such conditions, Jehochman, because the purpose of blocks is not to humiliate the user. I'm unblocking Nishidani, as there is obviously consensus for such an action. Bishonen | talk 21:52, 1 April 2009 (UTC).

• Support Bishonen's unblocking. While I appreciate civility, I think that a 1-week block for incivility was particularly harsh for someone who has no prior history. 12 hours would have been appropriate, if at all. Bastique ^demandez 21:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

• • Please re-read WP:ARBPIA, Bastique. This is not a typical situation. Unfortunately, it has been dealt with in typical WP:ANI manner. You'll notice that the block was promptly logged on that arbitration case. Bishonen, the purpose was not to humiliate the user. The purpose was to stop them from posting obscene, gratuitous and inflammatory comments to WP:ANI during a discussion of another editor's behavior centering around one of the most intractable disputes on Wikipedia. (I am generally opposed to incivility blocks, but at some point talking about stuffing cotton balls up ones arse to prevent a mess after committing seppuku crosses the line) I regret that none of the editors here, other than Bastique, seem to have recognized the incorrectness of Nishidani's behavior. If somebody had said, "yeah, the behavior was really bad, but the block should be shortened," that would have been a good basis for consensus. Jehochman ^Talk 22:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think anyone else saw any incivility or disruption there, or any "inflammatory comments", and plenty of people have tried to explain why to you. I certainly didn't see anything of that sort, and I'm still at a loss as to how anyone who'd spent more than two minutes reading it and taking on board the history there could have done. I just saw a (lengthy) piece of advice to a friendly editor, written up in a jokey (and yes, mildly obscene, but I've seen far worse) style. You just made a very bad call. Admit that, and stop continuing to complain that everyone else is wrong and that you alone are right, but are merely being generous. --Nickhh (talk) 22:44, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

• Question Was Nishidani warned of a potential ARBPIA block, preferably specifically?--Tznkai (talk) 22:54, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes, see WP:ARBPIA. They were put on notice some time ago. Jehochman ^Talk 22:57, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
    • "Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines." Nishidani's only logged notification is in April of 2008, having been notified of the case itself. I have not seen any specific nor recent warning to Nishidani. We can quibble for a bit whether that is textually required, but it is certainly a good idea.--Tznkai (talk) 14:36, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

.Tznkai In defence of Jehochoman's integrity here, as I noted on his page this morning, I was writing remonstratively, in a hyperbolic-comic tone we (AK and I) both understand, to a mate. Jehochman can't be expected to know our background. But he was sensitive to something I knew nothing about, i.e. apparently, that there are areas where taunting and suicidal stuff crops up, so, while he completely misread my strategy, he had a very sound and ethical sense of a dangerous implication (i was unaware of) that must be monitored and rapidly sanctioned in most other cases. Perhaps he overlooked some required warning, but in his boots, with his experience of such situations, I think we are obliged to read any oversight as dictated by a strong responsibility for editors (AK in this case, even though under sanction) and by a prophylactic urgency. I think this can be buried and forgotten. We both acted, in totally diverse ways, in complete good faith, and in good will.Nishidani (talk) 14:47, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I am not questioning Jehochoman's integrity. I am questioning his use of a rule as justification when he did not follow the provisions of that rule. It is at best, sloppy - especially when one of the defenses for the action was "Please re-read WP:ARBPIA." What I have read has suggested a rushed block without due consideration before or after the fact. Is it your opinion that this situation could not have been better handled with a concerted effort at thorough communication? We have a lot of problems with Arbitration enforcement, and they are made worse when arbitration remedies are used without considerable - even excessive conscientiousness. --Tznkai (talk) 17:53, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I've seen quite a few curious arb decisions, and been hit by two way back. But it's a terribly difficult job you guys have to do. Plaintiffs and accused all work from within an intense history of interactions they have at their memory's fingertips, and you guys have to just rush through hundreds of diffs to figure out if an infraction has been made. From the inside, what folks call wikidrama, decisions look odd half the time, but that's because wiki administrative culture, by its nature, is not looking at narratives, or using some penetrating psychological glance over the people involved, with some knowledge of the topics and their respective records. I've no straight answer to your query, because it is formalist and impeccable. My only advise to editors on my side has always been, 'don't complain, don't dob people in to arbitration, because those guys are too overworked, and in far too complex a rule system to ever be humanly capable of regularly making a just decision, as opposed the formally correct one. Argue, even let off steam, and just hope guys on the otherside, who use the rulebook with more effect than their editing, learn to fight things out on talk pages, like gentlemen. That's an informal system, and an honour code. And probably wouldn't work. But I think, nonetheless, it's the proper option for some of us to adopt. Though initially miffed, I can now see why Jehochman's lapse occurred, and its inspiration was the not only rulebook, but an ethical concern for possible malicious damage to an editor Jehochman had just severely sanctioned. I'll always defend a guy who is motivated like that, even if I disagree with him, and catch him slipping on a formal procedure. This is not helpful, I suppose.Nishidani (talk) 18:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

• Also support unblock. I can see how Nishidani's soliloquy could have been misinterpreted, but the proper response is a request for clarification on the user's talk page, not a week-long punitive block out of the blue. (If I am incorrect in thinking that there is not a deeper recent history of incivility here, please correct me with diffs to the warnings required by ARBPIA.) —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 22:56, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of "List of Exalted comics"

Resolved

I created this article yesterday evening, initially as only a single sentence. At that time, I had not yet added content to the article. Pontificalibus spotted this and correctly tagged it as a speedy deletion candidate under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion. I added some content, placed a "hangon" tag, and requested more time on the article's talk page. Despite this, Nihonjoe speedy deleted the article. I discussed the matter with Nihonjoe. I was expecting him to realise that he made a mistake; the article did indeed have content and should not have been speedily deleted. However Nihonjoe did not realise this. He offered to userfy the article so that I could work on it privately. I remained concerned that Nihonjoe had inappropriately speedily deleted the article so I sought deletion review to gain a consensus view on the validity of the speedy deletion. Deletion review is supposed to be open for five days, to allow a consensus to form. However Nihonjoe closed the deletion review, justifying it on the basis that he userfied the deleted article.

I am not unduly concerned by the deletion of this article. It is easy enough for me to re-create it. However I am concerned that Nihonjoe has not applied speedy deletion correctly, and subsequently closed a deletion review without waiting for consensus. In particular, he may continue to speedily delete new stub articles without realising his mistake. Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:38, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, this is beginning to become stupid. I userfied the article and then closed the DRV as no longer necessary. As it stood, the article in question didn't meet any requirements for remaining on Wikipedia. As I've already told you, once you have the article ready to be a real article, move it to the mainspace from your userspace. This isn't a difficult concept. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 19:47, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

As Nihonjoe said, you can avoid this problem by preparing the article in your userspace before you publish it. There is no policy stating that articles can be left in mainspace to give people time to edit them up to inclusion standard. If everyone did that, we would never be able to delete unsuitable articles. Pontificalibus (talk) 20:26, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I should also point out that if you spent as much time working on the article in question as you have complaining about this perceived unfairness, you might already have the article ready to be unveiled. I recommend focusing your energies on productivity. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 21:40, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

With the article in userspace, the DRV closed, time to close this drama as well. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:36, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Hold up. Axl is quite right to object, as Nihonjoe is violating process. If there's a hangon tag, you hangon. It exists for a reason, not to be brushed aside because someone thinks they know better. Jtrainor (talk) 00:35, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

You're misrepresenting process. As {{hangon}} says: 'Note that this request is not binding, and the page may still be deleted if the page unquestionably meets the speedy deletion criteria'. Algebraist 00:39, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. I just checked the page as it was at the time it was deleted, and it was a completely appropriate deletion, even under A3 (it would also easily be deletable under A7). In the future, with articles even remotely like this, I suggest writing them in userspace before moving them to mainspace. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 01:08, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

This version had content beyond WP:CSD#A3, and was work in progress. Certainly not an A7 since it's a list of comics, which is neither a real person nor web content nor an organization.
I also don't find it really appropriate to close a DRV about ones own deletion, even if the article was userfied. --Amalthea 10:35, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I apologize for being bold about it, but since it was userfied, it was going to be closed anyway by the next admin who wandered along, so I saw no point in dragging it out. I think this issue has been blown way out of proportion by Axl. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 18:27, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I stand corrected about the hangon tag. Jtrainor (talk) 16:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Kate Murray - article history and uncaught vandalism + massive number of attack edits by IPs

Just came across Kate Murray, and it was in a horrendously vandalised state. I think I've reverted back far enough, but could someone check the history and find out what happened here? Lots of IP vandalism, but also people only partially reverting vandalism and obviously not reading what they are saving. This led to BLP violations being saved by editors and admins. Any ideas on how to get through to people that they need to check they have reverted far back enough, instead of just blindly reverting, would be appreciated. Carcharoth (talk) 01:05, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I have semi protected the article due to the excessive number of BLP violations and blocked the most recent IP for 24 hours. There's not much that can be done to stop people from messing up on reversion when a lot of edits happen except for someone such as yourself to occasionally come along and revert to a known stable edit. Mfield (Oi!) 05:33, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

She certainly seems to be the target of a huge amount of attacks from multiple IPs in the last 24 hours, the most recent 3 IPs 69.123.211.145 (talk · contribs), 69.113.90.18 (talk · contribs) and 69.117.104.191 (talk · contribs) are all the same person. I suspect from looking through the history that is is something to do with the Lighthouse as evidenced by [this edit] and [this contribution by another IP]. It seems that the Lighthouse may have a bunch of supporters out to get her. Not sure what course of action could or should be taken beyond protection at this point. Mfield (Oi!) 05:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I am disturbed by the photo added here, but looks reasonable from a copyright perspective (disregarding personality rights) and the other edits by that IP are constructive. WP:BLP and MOS:BIO doesnt seem to cover unflattering photos. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 14:18, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I have discussed this issue in the past, and my understanding is that BLP does apply to photos. We have had cases on m:OTRS where subjects have complained about what they percieve as deliberately disparaging photos, and we are usually able to substitute them with others. BLP applies to the how wikipedia portrays the person, visually or textually. -- Avi (talk) 14:26, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed.. We are not all of us runway models but using deliberately disparaging photos really is not on. ++Lar: t/c 14:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Just looking at Her own website, I believe that it's perfectly okay for someone to remove this unflattering photo and leave nothing until someone provides us with something that is actually useful. Bastique ^demandez 15:53, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Jarmancooper blocked as sock, back as Jarmancooper2

Resolved

Checkuser clerk says too ducky to bother with.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:14, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Jarmancooper (talk · contribs) was blocked as a sockpuppet of Manhattan Samurai (talk · contribs) by User:Gwen Gale, and is now back as Jarmancooper2 (talk · contribs) here [75]. I think Gwen is off line and I'm involved in the discussion on that page, so could someone else please handle this? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 05:35, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I reported this to WP:AIV. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 07:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

And he's geeked. On a side note, would a CU be useful in determining if they are his socks or not? -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 07:47, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Although they both are currently blocked as socks, I don't see any confirmed checkuser reports that they are, in actual fact, MS socks (assuming I'm looking in the right places). Both blocks seem a bit premature to me. Am I right? — Becksguy (talk) 12:11, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

No need. This edit [76] makes it as ducky as could be, as i think most here who know any of the background would agree.Bali ultimate (talk) 12:16, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

But to minimize ongoing drama, here's a CU request for the latest crop. I wish the enabling would stop though. [77].Bali ultimate (talk) 12:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Bali, it's the right thing to do. I'm removing the resolved tag here until the CU results come back. — Becksguy (talk) 13:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Don't thank me. You've wasted mine and other editors time with this nonesense. Why didn't YOU jump through those hoops if you honsestly had doubts that quack quack behavior was something else? At any rate, the cooper accounts are toast anyways. Socking and SPA's of someboedy, of that there can be no doubt.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:48, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, either way they're socks and most likely linked somehow with MS. See also User_talk:Gwen_Gale#User:Jarmancooper. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:03, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

CU has been declined, quacks were loud enough. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:15, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Airi & Meiri AfD; move help and more eyes please

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Airi & meiri ended 2.5 weeks ago with "no consensus" - IMHO mainly due to the acrimony and edit-warring - and yesterday the same editor renommed it again. They have also been active in the editing. To me this seems a too short of period for AfD and several others have expressed similar concerns. Part of the issue is translating non-English sources as well. This may be a slam dunk proceedural close but I'll leave uninvolved folks to help clarify the way forward.

Separate from the appropriateness of such a short time between AfDs I need an admin to move Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Airi & meiri to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Airi & Meiri where the second AfD was started (I moved that one to "2nd nomination"). Thank you! -- Banjeboi 13:21, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Im not sure what the first part of your message has to do with ANI. Moreover, the closer's comments were "there is a huge question mark over the reliability of these sources [...] I forsee us being right back here again very soon if something more substantial is not found". yandman 15:12, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I guess I'm looking for insight from those who know AfD protocols and this was a good place to head off AfD-war - round II. Seems to me that an article that has sourcing issues needs work, I would be more swayed if it were a harmful article in some way rather than just one that needs better sourcing. Regardless, 16 or 17 days between AfDs seems a tad abusive to community resources but I've certainly been wrong before. -- Banjeboi 15:43, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Robert D'Onston Stephenson article

The Robert D'Onston Stephenson article is a minor article related to the 'Jack the Ripper' murders. I started it about a year ago. A week ago it was redirected by User:DreamGuy, with the claim that parts of the article was slanted, and that a very short section in the Jack the Ripper suspects article was better. I added some material to make the Stephenson article more objective and reinstated it. A large part of the material that has been there since last year was then removed. I added some more material and reinstated the article again. And then the same user redirected it again. I have reinstated the article again, with some changes, attempting to reach a consensus. But I expect it will be to no avail. I know this user quite well from the 'Jack the Ripper' article and noticed last year that he was trying to redirect another article related to the same subject, at least 11 times (Whitechapel murders), though I did not take part in that discussion. It seems to me that "Dreamguy" has been redirecting the Stephenson article to enforce his new version. Which surely cannot be right ? He also seems to have this habit of talking on behalf of "experts" without any referencing, and pointing at wiki policies without actually providing any arguments. And he has an abusive style, that makes it seem quite impossible to argue with him in a rational way. Could some univolved administrator please take a look at that article ? Thank you. ΑΩ (talk) 14:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I commented very briefly there, after reading the article. DGG (talk) 16:39, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

Could someone have a word with User:Falls Orangeman they have ignored all warnings and advice about the disruptive editing that they are doing on the Falls Road, Belfast article the latest offering being this. It has been raised at WP:AE before and admin PhilKnight recommended a 48 hour block here thanks. BigDunc^Talk 16:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Blocked. I told the editor I'll shorten the length way down if they agree to stop. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

They don't reply or even go to talk page but maybe this time they will thanks for swift response. BigDunc^Talk 16:47, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the lack of talk page input has to do with why I made the block longer than I would have done otherwise. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Legal threats

Resolved

See these two edits to my talk page: initial posting and adding signature to a legal threat. I'm an administrator, but I think it might look bad if I dealt with this issue; would someone else please deal with the issue? Nyttend (talk) 18:23, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for legal threat. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:33, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I have been blocked for 3 months for posting on a Talk page on how to cure ingrown toenail.

Resolved

 – IP evading block of User:Ericg33 blocked.  Sandstein  20:52, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I only posted exactly how everyone else was doing and some moderator picked my comments as the one he wanted deleted. I undid the deletions thinking they were just 'TALK' edits and he wouldn't mind because it WASN'T an ARTICLE edit. It was discussion on remedies. Ericg33 is my account name.

Banned for 3 months by some intolerant moderator. Not fair at all. There was ZERO vandalism.

Need some help from someone to remove the block. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.149.164.240 (talk) 06:24, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Block evasion does not a convincing plea for unblocking make. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 06:29, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I wouldn't call this "block evasion", this is someone who doesn't want or know how to use the {{unblock}} thingie in their talk page, so they simply request unblock as an IP at an appropiate place (well, what he thinks that is an inappropiate place). If he has only made this edit as an IP, then calling "block evasion" is just blind application of rules. Just tell him that he needs to log in and request unblock on his talk page, and mark this as resolved. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

The user has been blocked from editing their talk page for a personal attack (this edit), so this isn't currently an option for them. - Bilby (talk) 21:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Uh, I think someone is having some fun. MuZemike being orange^{Or is Orangemike being MuZe?} 06:52, 1 April 2009

(UTC)

Strangely - especially today - maybe not... EyeSerene^talk 08:12, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I knew I'd seen something silly to do with toenails. All the editor has to do is promise to stop the talk page spam. Dougweller (talk) 08:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, see User_talk:Ericg33#March_2009. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:45, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Just a quick question, even though this is marked as resolved - while I'm not desperate to argue for this editor, given that the editor was blocked from posting to his talk page, it doesn't seem entirely unreasonable for him to use an IP for a single edit to request consideration here. And yes, I know that normal and proper process is to use email, but I'd lean towards Eric Naval's comments that this doesn't seem like a significant case of block evasion. Just an editor trying to work out how to request unblocking when the normal channel (the unblock template) is closed. - Bilby (talk) 02:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I think blocking both the editor and his IP for three months and blocking his talk page is overkill and may lead a potentially good editor to hate Wikipedia. Also, and I'm not aware of the specifics of this case, but I feel the Talk page, while not a forum and where WP:TALK still apllies, has more leeway in editing than the mainspace. At any rate, a three months block for allegedly inappropriately editing the talk page just because you don't expect him to come back sounds a bit draconian. This is why, I believe, we need standards for blocking. JustGettingItRight (talk) 20:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

We have such standards, at WP:BP, and they provide at WP:EVADE that "IP addresses used to evade a block may also be blocked." But, of course, if any admin feels that unblocking that IP address will result in improvements to the encyclopedia, I do not object to them unblocking it.  Sandstein  20:47, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Jennavecia indef blocked?

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
April Fool's? Or is this real? D.M.N. (talk) 15:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC) "User account "Jennaciva" is not registered. If you wish to use "Jennaciva" as your username, please make a request at Wikipedia:Changing username." -- Avi (talk) 15:20, 1 April 2009 (UTC) That'll teach me: Jennavecia (talk · contribs) D.M.N. (talk) 15:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC) Read the edit summary :) -- Avi (talk) 15:32, 1 April 2009 (UTC) You've gotta be kidding me. Anyone want to block me as a sockpuppet of Majorly? It's about as likely. Iridescent :  Chat  15:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC) @Avi: 41? D.M.N. (talk) 15:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC) @Iridescent: The only reason I'm asking is because the block description doesn't even look funny... nothing at all to suggest its an April Fool (although I'm guessing it is...) D.M.N. (talk) 15:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC) Hush Iridescent! :)  – Majorly 15:45, 1 April 2009 (UTC) Quick, someone block User:Jimbo Wales as a sock of User:Larry Sanger, he was just fooling us so he could have two encyclopedias at the same time and simulate fights with himself about who founded wikipedia just to throw us off :D --Enric Naval (talk) 15:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC) @DMN (4=Month, 1=Day). -- Avi (talk) 15:47, 1 April 2009 (UTC) Linking an account with an individual whose actions were considered so bad he lost his job with HM Government is simply not funny GTD 16:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC) I would ask administrators to please avoid using blocking as part of any April Fools related festivities. In addition, although presumably not really apropos here, any genuine information concerning suspicion of any further Poetlister-related activity should be forwarded to the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:14, 1 April 2009 (UTC) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8AOfbnGkuGc HalfShadow 16:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC) In Tiptoety's defense -- Jenna was literally asking to be blocked. (She did it last night in the -en-admins IRC channel. She even specified she wanted to be blocked at a Poetlistener sock). Making the block wasn't Tiptoety's best decision, but Jenna deserves at least as much of the blame for causing drama. Raul654 (talk) 16:40, 1 April 2009 (UTC) I had assumed as much, actually, regarding this being largely Jennavecia's idea. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC) Since when do we ever block people just because they want it? Even as time-wasting AFD pranks go, this block was both a poor use of the tools and in exceptionally poor taste. — Kralizec! (talk) 16:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC) At least since June 1st, 2007 at 13:58. WilyD 16:56, 1 April 2009 (UTC) Jesus Christ, you people are such unfunny stiffs. And Raul, stfu. Hypocrite. My block caused no disruption. Your stupid Ceiling Cat account is disruptive... and unfunny, by the way. You people need to learn the point of April Fools' Day. Unfunny, obviously false crap, like today's main page, is not foolery. The point is to make people think something is true when it's not. The hilarity caused by my friends freaking out because they thought I was blocked as a PoetSock... that's the point of this day. Take a damn day's break from the project if you're too unfunny to enjoy the day, particularly if your bitching will accentuate your shameful lack of self-awareness. Disruption and drama is caused by you guys, not the people enjoying the joke. Now everyone get back to ignoring the BLP problem. There's work not to be done. لennavecia 16:54, 1 April 2009 (UTC) Yeah, you all ought to be blocked for not finding this funny! Or, like.. something. --Conti|✉ 17:12, 1 April 2009 (UTC) Conti, it's even worse than that. Not only is she here whining that no one laughed at her dramawhoring, but she's actually has the temerity to say that she's not disruptive. This is coming from a self-admitted white-prider who has previously (a) argued on-wiki in defense of white pride, and (b) picked fights with others over it. (Her old username, "LaraHate", takes on a whole new meaning once you know where it comes from.) But of course, she's not here to cause drama. No sir. She's just here to make productive edits like this and this. Raul654 (talk) 19:32, 1 April 2009 (UTC) "Self-admitted white-prider"? Is it not time to remove this thread before even more editors say anything else inappropriate? Jesus. Black Kite 19:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC) In before ID cabal --NE2 20:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC) Oh, uh uh. See, that's just wrong. I cleared this up almost a year ago. Way to pull a SWATjester, screaming stuff you don't understand, Raul. Funny you bring up the RFAR that you prematurely initiated against a user that you then blocked "per Arbcom", despite not being an arb AND the whole COI in that you initiated the request. Then you protect his talk page for no reason, even by your own admission later. The white pride issue isn't even something I need to address again. Geographical difference in meaning of the term, not conflicting belief systems. And you want to talk about picking fights?! Haha. Raul, self-awareness. You lack it completely. You are such a hypocrite, it's staggering. What would you call what you just did here? That's you picking a fight. And it's another glorious example of why you should not have the power you do. LaraHate was created after I forgot my password to WR. I picked it for one reasons: Hate being the opposite of love. It had nothing to do with anything, and for you to attempt to make it appear as though I chose that name as an expression of hate towards people for their race... you, sir, have no shame. Or honor. But just like SWAT got away with it, you will, too. That's the beauty of this project. Those in power get away with the harshest of crimes while those without are banned and silenced. So shut me up, Raul. Do what you do. COI block me of your own volition. Or fast-track this to RFAR, for I dared to call you out on your own drama-mongering and dared to call your unfunny sock account out as an unfunny sock account. You're disruptive, much more than you apparently realize. And trust, plenty of people appreciated this prank, which was one of few actual acts of foolery to take place today. لennavecia 21:05, 1 April 2009 (UTC) Oh, it's on... and true. "MOAR KATZ" is somewhere between watching paint dry and posting on AN/I. --NE2 17:33, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Jenna and I discussed this in IRC. I apologized to her for my white pride comment, which was uncallled for and out of line, and we agreed to bury the hatchet. Raul654 (talk) 21:36, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Stop this bickering right now, or I will ... write another poem! Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:57, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Good god, Brad, have you been possessed by the ghost of Moulton? Iridescent :  Chat  17:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Watch your mouth. Brad has talent. لennavecia 17:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

NO NO, anything but another poem by Brad!??!?!

Once upon a day of joking, Dramaboards were nearly choking

under the weight of many jokes which charitably could be called bad

While these posts I was perusing, a sudden halt came to my musing

There was a threat, a grievous threat by that one we know as Brad

A threat of monumental proportions by the one called NewYorkBrad

Another poem, what a cad.

From my chair I rose a-trembling, hoping, praying he was dissembling

In a terror from the image his previous posts were not a fad

for surcease all are yearning, poetic muses in their graves turning

all who witness mute with shock, dismayed, lugubrious, and just sad

At the thought of yet another poem from the man called Brad

Why, oh why, another poem from the one called NewYorkBrad

I think that I am going mad.

And the posts they keep arriving, barely do I stay surviving

the verbal onslaught that just marches on and on from that young lad

diluvian in its proportion, perpetual in its own motion

waves and waves of prosing torture from the one we call our Brad

copious volumes of poetic torture from the one called NewYorkBrad

Forevermore, I have naught to add.

-- Avi (talk) 17:24, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

The pranks come

on lolcat feet.

They sit laughing

At admin and wiki

On dubious punchlines

And then move on.

-- alanyst ^/talk/ 17:47, 1 April 2009 (UTC), with apologies to Carl Sandburg

˙ʎɹɐɹqıʃ ǝɥʇ uı sʞooq ǝɯos oʇ ǝɹıɟ ʇǝs oʇ pǝpuǝʇǝɹd I ǝɯıʇ ʇɐɥʇ ǝɔuıs ɹoɯnɥ ɟo ʞɔɐʃ ɐ ɥɔns uǝǝs ʇ,uǝʌɐɥ I 'ʍoM HalfShadow 17:55, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Heh, the wonders of UTF-8 :) Gwen Gale (talk) 18:02, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

¿spɹɐʍʞɔɐq puɐ uʍop-ǝpısdn ƃuıʞʃɐʇ ǝʃdoǝd noʎ ǝɹɐ ʎɥM HalfShadow 18:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

It's easier for some than others, I guess. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Many hoaxes come

springtime Wikipedia

delete block ignore

Tonii Warotonu talk 18:54, 1 April 2009 (BST)

Ok, who invited the Vogons?LeadSongDog come howl 20:53, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

anonymous disruption on Johan Bäckman

Resolved

 – The article has been semiprotected.

On the article of Johan Bäckman, the anonymous editor User:91.152.84.165 is doing strange stuff that makes me question whether he is here to improve the encyclopædia. Characterising a reputable weekly newspaper as "nationalist" (diff), using edit summaries such as "Wikipedia is not the place for Estonian fascists to spread their shit" (diff), writing on talkpage "Hah this is typical fascist nonsense from Estonian nationalist idiots" (diff) are not exactly harbingers of passion for collegiality.

The user's contribution list shows interest for only two articles, both on closely related topics. His talkpage shows a stack of warnings, but the user does not appear to have taken them to heart. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 08:00, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Requesting a block for this IP, which appears to be fixed, has been reported to the COI board and warned repeatedly for edit warring, incivility and personal attacks [78],[79],[80],[81],[82],[83],[84]

The latest round of edit warring has involved personal attacks:

00:43, 2 April 2009 Eesti Ekspress is not reliable source to say anything

00:49, 2 April 2009 Edit comment: "Wikipedia is not the place for Estonian fascists to spread their shit"

01:44, 2 April 2009 [85]

With this spray on the talk page: "Hah this is typical fascist nonsense from Estonian nationalist idiots. I hope you can read your own language. Your press is fully corrupted and it publishes any nonsense from the Estonian Kapo Kaitsepolitsei, such as the opinions of person called Andres Kahar. His task is to spread insane ideas about Finnish nationals, because they do not support your apartheid policies. Interesting that Kapo aids are stupid enough to write to Wikipedia" --Martintg (talk) 09:36, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The address has been blocked for 3 days for vandalism in Finnish Wikipedia. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 13:58, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The article was recreated as an attack page on Johan Bäckman. It is possible that the IP is Johan Bäckman himself. If so, he has ever right to remove WP:BLP violations from the page, even by breaking WP:3RR. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 15:06, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Nope, he has no right to remove reliably sourced information no matter what. WP:BIO doesn't grant him that privilege. It is not an attack page, it is a relatively fair (though somewhat unbalanced) assessment of his activities. If I were him, I wouldn't publish fringe writings in the first place. I may well understand why he is so ashamed, but nobody is to blame for this except for Bäckman himself. And to remove BLP violations, if there are any, one doesn't need to be the subject of the article, by the way. Colchicum (talk) 15:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

While there was some initial suspicion, this IP is definitely not Johan Bäckman himself, as it talks of Bäckman in the third person in discussions on talk. Apparently Bäckman has very poor english language skills, so he would be able to contribute to english Wikipedia anyway. Martintg (talk) 19:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. I think I saw Petri Krohn -- who belongs to the same Safka as Bäckman -- state somewhere that it "may be Bäckman". I remember I wondered why'd he be so vague. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 19:57, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Side dispute

I also think that a reminder to other editors that attribution is required on articles is also in order. Additionally, is referring to other editors as pigs acceptable, or is it uncivil and a personal attack? That editor has only recently been warned against such things. I would note that admins may want to put this article on their watchlist, as there is a desire to use this article as a forum to discredit the article subject (i.e. engage in WP:BLP violations), as I noticed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Johan Bäckman (2nd nomination). I've also alterted the IP editor here to this discussion. --Russavia ^Dialogue 10:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Digwuren, you have been reminded on many occasions not to remove or refactor other people's comments. The IP editor is clearly not the only person who is delving into personal attacks in relation to this article, and this should be made clear to admins. --Russavia ^Dialogue 10:46, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

If Russavia has an issue with another user, he ought to create a new section rather than piggy back on to this section. There really is no relationship between these allegations by Russavia and the issue of this disruptive IP. Martintg (talk) 10:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Here is just fine. Edit summaries such as this and this are not discussing article content. It should be noted when referring to "pigs" in relations to others started. Perhaps these editors can explain exactly what pigs and pigcams have to with creating content on WP? Apart from being veiled personal attacks on other editors? --Russavia ^Dialogue 11:03, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

This is irrelevant to the issue with this IP, the two diffs you provided are in a different article and are talk page comments by Digwuren three days ago. I also received a "pig cam" message on my talk page here, so what? Are you suggesting you are this IP, hence your involvement in this section? If not, then I suggest you start another section with your complaints. Martintg (talk) 11:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

It is entirely relevant. Finnish Anti-Fascist Committee and Johan Bäckman are actually connected articles/entities. And I fail to see how referring to other editors and their edits as "pigs" in thinly veiled personal attacks has anything to do with promoting collegial spirit on WP. The IP may not know about such things, but as established editors, you most definitely do. --Russavia ^Dialogue 12:14, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. For me it looks as an attempt of some users to to attack user Russavia. Want to warn the users involved, that it's a dangerous game to play on Russavia's sense of humour. Once -- if -- personal attacking would be proved, it may painfully hit back the users who'd initiated the mess.
Let's stay civil/play by rules. ellol (talk) 14:14, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Of course this diff essentially shows what I have stated about them being veiled personal attacks, i.e. Sure, pigs are tasty (though maybe not for Risto Abdullah), my English sucks, I meant something else. I meant our beloved eliminationists. At least Colchicum is honest enough about his continued delving into personal attacks on other editors (in this case User:Offliner) by referring to other editors as pigs. Is that evidence enough of personal attacks, because such an admission is quite convincing in my eyes. --Russavia ^Dialogue 16:26, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Russavia and Offliner submitting bogus 3RR reports (harassment)

Resolved

 – Please deal with at WP:AN/EW, Tiptoety ^talk 19:00, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Frankly, this is getting disruptive. We (Martintg (talk · contribs) and I) cannot spend our time defending ourselves against the bogus accusations of 3RR violations made by Offliner (talk · contribs · logs · block log) and Russavia (talk · contribs · logs · block log). Some action should be taken promptly. See User:Martintg reported by User:Offliner, User:Martintg reported by User:Offliner 2, User:Colchicum reported by User:Offliner, Colchicum reported by Russavia on WP:AN3. Colchicum (talk) 18:49, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's disruptive, at least not yet. If you did not violate 3RR, there is no reason to defend yourself, the reviewing admin will decline taking action. If you did violate it, then forcing you defend yourself is not disruptive. In either situation I don't see a reason for any admin intervention at the moment. Regards SoWhy 18:58, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

This is already being discussed at WP:AN/EW, as such there is no need to do so here as well. Tiptoety ^talk 19:00, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The curious case of Lester Coleman

There has been a considerable amount of odd activity by a number of SPA anon. IP addresses at Lester Coleman over the last several months. IPs involved include 85.154.253.13 (talk), 85.154.52.37 (talk), 68.35.248.90 (talk) 70.180.77.23 (talk), 208.114.116.75 (talk), and 204.250.12.246 (talk). The purpose of these edits has been to add several pieces of misinformation into the Lester Coleman article, namely asserting that he is dead and that he had a twin brother named Lex Coleman (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lex Coleman). However, no proof has been presented or found in extensive searches to verify either claim. Other edits have been made to try and make Lester look more like a sympathetic victim than a liar and a criminal. My suspicion is that these anon IPs are in fact Lester Coleman attempting to edit his own article for the purposes of creating a false identity for himself (the much more positive looking twin brother). I have spent a considerable amount of time chopping OR from the article but these IPs are still a problem. I am not sure what the best solution is here. Perhaps a permanent semi-protect of the article is warranted.Nrswanson (talk) 21:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Need someone to lock Danielle Jones (EastEnders)

Resolved

 – Tiptoety ^talk 23:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Edit dispute there. User:James2b on 10 reverts and counting PXK ^T /_C 20:23, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Consider taking to Request for Page Protections. Cheers. I'^mperator 20:49, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

(e/c) It looks like AnemoneProjectors (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has fully protected it, though I after looking at the page it appears he too was involved in the content dispute [86]. Personally, I would have rather blocked a few of the disruptive parties, and let the other constructive editors continue to edit. Either way, I am notifying AnemoneProjectors of this thread. Tiptoety ^talk 20:51, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I fully protected it because it was the quickest thing I could do (my computer is playing up a bit tonight). I was editing the page but I've left it as it was at the time I protected it. It expires tomorrow. ^anemone│_projectors 21:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Right, but do you feel that for the sake WP:UNINVOLVED it would have been best to request outside administrative assistance? I would have gladly stepped in and helped. :-) Tiptoety ^talk 21:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Had I not done it, someone else would have. Doesn't WP:UNINVOLVED say I can do it if that's the case? ^anemone│_projectors 22:28, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

That is the thing, I would not have protected. I guess I am just saying that in the long run, it avoids any questions about bias if you (or any administrator for that matter) request a uninvolved party to step in. In this case, no real harm was done. Tiptoety ^talk 23:00, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

True. I'll remember that next time. ^anemone│_projectors 23:14, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Removed CSD tag

Resolved.

We all make mistakes sometimes :) Cheers. I'^mperator 01:41, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Brought this here, perhaps the wrong forum. Someone tagged an image for speedy deletion with the tag What evidence is there that uploader owns the copyright?. This is simply ridiculous, unless there is evidence that copyright is infringed or a copyright violation is identified that is one thing. But any image could be tagged with that analogy and then deleted. I've therefore removed the CSD tag as I felt it was violating the spirit of the policy. File:RFA Sir Tristram.1982.jpg is the image involved. Justin talk 20:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Note: First, I don't think that you should have removed that tag; instead, you should have talked to the user in question who placed the tag. Second, I think you may have to provide an explanation as to how you came to find this image. See Fair use. Cheers. I'^mperator 20:54, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I am fully conversant with fair use criteria but the image in question was uploaded by the copyright holder. The person adding that tag is basically saying I don't believe you, without any reason whatsoever. That is a clear abuse of the CSD criteria which is for deletion of images that meet certain narrow criteria. I would suggest you do not jump to assumptions that is a fair use issue, it clearly isn't. Justin talk 21:04, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

You were right to remove the tag, this is a Commons: image. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 21:12, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Blimey I made a mistake, we all do it. There is absolutely no need to bring it to ANI, no need for any admin intervention, urgent or otherwise. – ukexpat (talk) 21:20, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Eh, someone needed to delete the image-less image. But yeah, no biggie ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 21:26, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Whilst the uploader may well have taken that image, it is interesting though that that user has uploaded a lot of imagery as the copyright holder, but some such as this have a URL on them and this has a URL where the image has been taken from yet the users name does not seem to appear in the photographic contributor list at the top of the page (although this may be their own website, I have't checked that far). It suggests the uploader is possibly not aware of how copyright works, and may have uploaded some images that they have found as own work rather than fair use. 21:23, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Check the sites, the uploader contributes to both. The URL watermark should be removed, nonetheless the images check out, regardless of their usage outside of Wikipedia. Any questions about the copyright should be addressed to DM Gerrard, 4 Furzehill Road, Heybrook Bay, Plymouth. PL9 0BT. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 21:30, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

For info that is the guy's web page, see his talk page, he helped out on a number of Falklands articles. He was a sailor aboard the RFA Sir Lancelot, sister ship of the ship in the picture. Justin talk 21:35, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

UNINDENT

This is clearly resolved and for the record my intention in bringing it here was more to log my removal of the CSD tag than to request admin action against a good faith mistake. I probably should have made that clearer and some misunderstanding could have been avoided. Justin talk 23:16, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

BandieraRossa mass addition of external links to rev.com.usa

BandieraRossa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has added external links to roughly 50 55 (and counting) articles, all from the Revolution, the newspaper of the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA. I reverted one from James W. Holsinger but I would like to hear from administrators whether they think these are appropriate additions to Wikipedia external links; I'm not knee jerk anti-communist, but I don't believe that most of these would be considered reliable sources and want to know if they satisfy WP:EL's:

Links to be considered: Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources.

Thanks. ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 01:39, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

That's linkspamming, and we most certainly don't let people do that here. BanderaRossa's indefinitely blocked for spamming and I'm rolling all the links back (anyone else is welcome to, and doublecheck them...) Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:48, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

The content of the article shahzada is hidden

I nominated the article shahzada for deletion and based on the policy of the pages that are nominated for deletion, during the time that a page is nominated, no one should blank, redirect it or hide the content of it, so other users can look at the actual content of the article and vote accordingly. However, right now, with the changes that this user (the user:Geo Swan) has made to this page, the page does not look like before at all. As you can see, what the article looked before and during the nomination is different with now which is a disambiguation page! The change that this user has made to this page has violated the AFD policy as it states:

"You should not turn the article into a redirect. A functioning redirect will overwrite the AFD notice. It may also be interpreted as an attempt to "hide" the old content from scrutiny by the community."

Although the user's change is "disambiguation page" and simillar to "redirect" but it has violated this policy the same way by hiding the content of the original article. As I mentioned earlier, now users are unaware of the original content of this article to vote.

I would appreciate your decision on this matter as this is vital for the nomination of this page. Kind regards Parvazbato59 (talk) 22:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually no, a redirect is entirely different from a disambiguation page. Turning (or reverting) it into a disambiguation page is entirely appropriate IMHO. – ukexpat (talk) 22:21, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

but the content are hidden?! what about that? how can people know what was the original shape of the article? Parvazbato59 (talk) 22:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, a redirect is a technical feature that hides content, a disambiguation is just a normal edit, looks fine to me. MBisanz ^talk 22:25, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Have you looked at this article? All the contents, the picture, everything was deleted to make this disambiguation page. my nomination was based on that original article. Any change that hides the content, or deletes the content should count as violation, shouldn't? my question is, what about those deleted contents? no one cares about them? Parvazbato59 (talk) 22:28, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

This policy also states that you should be carefull about what you add. I am wonder, the things that are deleted is not important? the whole article was deleted. Can someone explain me how this is NOT a violation please? forget about the redirect, that was my example of violation. Parvazbato59 (talk) 22:31, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Had you looked at the history, you would have seen this version [87] prior to its hijacking by anon edits - a disambiguation page - so alas, rather than delete it, other editors boldly put it to rights. No violation of any kind seems to have happened other than by those anon's who repurposed a disambiguation page to their preferred meaning. May I suggest that you check the history of articles before nominating them for deletion - the version you are criticizing may well be the result of vandalism or good faith errors (the latter applying here). I suggest you withdraw your Afd. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I am sure you have looked at all the history for this article, as well as this one. Of course I have looked at the history and I would continue on for the AFD nomination, simply because I do not thin that article should be there. I really appreciate administrator: Ukexpat for linking shahzada to where it belongs. Kind regards Parvazbato59 (talk) 00:07, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I just edited that link a little, I didn't add it. N.B. I am not an admin, just an editor dealing with stuff that does not need admin intervention so that admins can be freed up to deal with the stuff that does. – ukexpat (talk) 02:43, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Help

Where to report administrator that breaks privacy violation gives people's names away —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.107.220.167 (talk) 00:59, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Can you please list the page(s) on which this privacy violation occurred, preferably with the history diff between versions that the administrator did?

We can't investigate anything if you won't say what this is about.

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:07, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

On the other hand, you should not post the diffs here if you don't want many people to see the name (even if for a short while). You should follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. Fram (talk) 08:21, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Indef block of User:Alastair Haines

User:Alastair Haines was indefinitely blocked by me last week for violating WP:NLT (this was mentioned on WP:ANI as well). Now, Alastair Haines thinks it is time to lift the block: User talk:Alastair Haines#Time to lift the block. I'll not unblock him myself, I've not seen an unequivocal withdrawal of the legal threats, but I have no objections to another, uninvolved admin going over his talk page and doing whatever he or she thinks is the right course of action. Fram (talk) 08:40, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I told him to ask formally for it. Frankly, his attitude is not the type I'd like to see and would suggest converting it to an indefinite block and moving on. Arguments that "A legal threat may exist, but it is no longer being made" are just asking for trouble and against the spirit of NLT, in my opinion. As User:LisaLiel noted, this doesn't look like a withdrawal of threats, but a declaration that they exist but he won't announce them. We don't need inferences like that here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:01, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

His language is difficult to decipher at times. LisaLiel is not helping. I interpret it as maybe a bit of obfuscation perhaps, an unwillingness to make any promises as to future possibilities, and a withdrawal of any immediate intent to take legal action. Dougweller (talk) 09:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Alastair is not helping himself very much at the moment. If he can make a clear and short statement (one unequivocal sentence?) of his positive intentions towards wikipedia, then I hope the block can be lifted. I agree with Doug that there is no current threat of legal action, just rhetoric that is sometimes not so easy to decipher. The only thing that I take seriously on his talk page is his intention of attending one of the next Ozzie WP meetups. Mathsci (talk) 11:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

In his recent unblock request by template, Alastair has a given a very clear and helpful statement. [88] I hope that those that have voted below will look at it. Mathsci (talk) 09:44, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

But in one of his next posts[89], he follows it with statements like "For simplicity and ease, I will not be submitting Fram's decision and reasoning to block me to third party scrutiny. But it works both ways, others can't really raise it as evidence against me in future without putting me in the unfair position of not being able to defend myself without breaking NLT." Can someone please try to explain to Alastair that that is not how it works? His blocks, including the block for NLT, can be used as evidence in future disputes if needed (e.g., if he makes a new legal threat in two months time, then it is only logical that this one will be mentioned as well when discussing it). Furthermore, he can discuss the block as much as he likes and can have it scrutinized endlessly (although it has been quite thoroughly scrutinized by the editors in the next section and on his talk page already). If this block and what lead to it is discussed again, there is no objection to him e.g. stating "I said I would do X, and I meant it at the time", that's not a legal threat. On the other hand, stating "I repeat it, I will do X (or even I may do X) is a legal threat. SOmehow the difference between what is allowed and what not on Wikipedia seems to be completely missed by ALastair in many of his comments, and I would prefer that he stays blocked until those things are cleared up (perhaps mentoring or something similar?). But despite these objections, I let the community (i.e. an uninvolved admin) decide what to do with th unblock request, and will not object to an actual unconditional unblocking. Fram (talk) 11:36, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this does seem to be dragging on. Several administrators and editors have given Alastair examples of what he should write in the unblock template. Perhaps if he archives the current page and starts with a fresh template with no supplementary commentary (from him or anybody else)... Mathsci (talk) 14:22, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Block of Alastair

To keep things from getting messy, as discussions usually do, I'm putting this here. In my opinion, due to this editor's recent behavior on the talk page(demanding apologies, idea that he did nothing wrong), I

• Support - That his block remain.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 09:53, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
• Support. "I observe that one week has now elapsed. The original block should now be lifted. There are now 51 weeks remaining for the grounds of that block to be admitted to have been erroneous, and a notice be published to that effect. On the matter of whether I would take action to secure such a public retraction and apology, as requested, I withhold comment.
• In regard to alleged legal threats I also, as requested, withhold comment. It is quite true that I am under no obligation to signal legal intentions in advance in the forum of a talk page. But it is also true that I cannot deny the fact that, among the uncertain possibilities of the future, such professional courts of appeal are deliberately made available, to allow suitably qualified persons to balance the vital necessities of both permitting responsible and fair criticism and preventing irresponsible unfounded criticism." taken from his talkpage. He hasn't retracted any threats, he's basically gone "Alright, so I won't sue you now. I'm not saying I'll sue you in the future, just that there are ways in which I could." He doesn't say what would happen in 51 weeks, but it is fairly obvious. This goes right against the grain of the spirit of WP:NLT, if not against the letter. He obviously hasn't learnt anything, and still doesn't see what he has done wrong. Let him maybe or maybe-not sue WMF in the future; I'd like to see him use Australian law against a company registered in Florida and with no Australian presence. Ironholds (talk) 10:31, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
• Suppport block - Legal threats of any kind must not be tolerated. There is no constitutional right to edit wikipedia. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 10:46, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
• Support block. If he hasn't withdrawn the legal threat (and, as far as I can see, he hasn't), then the block should stay in place. Obfuscation is not helpful here, and the fact that time has passed, as it inevitably does, is not relevant. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 10:57, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
• Support block per FisherQueen. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:01, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
• Support block what semantic rabbit-hole is this? He says he won't promise not to make legal threats in future. He says he won't comment on the "alleged" legal threat made in the past. And then he blabbers about an uncertain future that might include "courts of appeal" and then "there are now 51 weeks remaining for the grounds of that block to be admitted to have been erroneous, and a notice be published to that effect." This all sounds like an implied threat to sue if he doesn't get an apology in writing. And he's being weasely and evasive. ("Are you threatening to sue, yes or no?" A: "I can not say. I am keeping my options open as to how i will handle these false and likely libelous claims made against me. YOU still have 51 weeks to do as I demand, which will make my decision easier...") Throw away the key after this display is my advice.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:10, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
• Support block. We don't care whether a person actually pursues legal action, as long as they don't threaten it onsite. It's simple enough to withdraw the threat and promise not to repeat it. Alistair, if you are reading this and wish to be unblocked, please copy and paste the following: "I withdraw any threat of legal action and promise to make no onsite threat of legal action in the future." Clear direct prose is best in this situation. If Alistair does copy/paste the suggested text, then count this statement as a support for his unblock. Durova^Charge! 20:11, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm in complete agreement with Durova. I just suggested a similar sentence on Alastair's talk page. Now it's up to him. Mathsci (talk) 20:33, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

• support block per Durova. I'd prefer a slightly stronger statement of the form ""I withdraw any threat of legal action. I have no intended or ongoing legal actions against the Wikimedia Foundation or any Wikipedia editors." JoshuaZ (talk) 21:07, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse block - Legal threats need not be tolerated, and the nonsense on his talk is really just disruptive. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 21:16, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse block - I see a lot of tap dancing around that he never made any legal threat, when clearly he did. I also see no recanting of any previous statements, misinterpreted or not. In fact, it's almost the exact opposite with a dash of attitude and contempt on his part. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 03:19, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
• support block  rdunnPLIB  09:04, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse block The reason for WP:NLT is to diminish the chilling effect that such threats have to the editing environment; nothing that has been quoted from Alistair Haines has the effect of reducing the chill potential, but rather increases it when noting that the block should be apologised for. This editor does not appear to get it, and should remain blocked until there is some indication that they do. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:18, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
• Support/Endorse block - No legal threats allowed on Wikipedia. Although he says he won't threat anyone, his behavior shows otherwise. MathCool10 ^{Sign here!} 01:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

A suggestion

Guys the problem here is not whether we can or should unblock Alastiar, the question is does he or does he not understand what the ArbCom ruling was. This is not just a WP:NLT issue, this is also directly related to the ArbCom ruling and problematically to Alastiar's repudiation of that ruling (see relevant diffs, logs and sectionshere, here, here and here). I have the feeling from his comments and his series of blocks since then that he does not accept the restrictions placed on his account by the ruling - I believe that he maintains his actions prior to, during and currently are 'above reproach' even though there is a clear issue regarding his use of the revert function. Basically the current issue is merely a symptom of the underlying problem. We need to address that one way or the other--Cailil ^talk 12:26, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll just reproduce what I said at the AE discussion.

Alastair Haines...continued to violate his own sanctions. I previously left an "additional comment" (see here) for John (and Casliber) noting that if (1) Alastair did not understand what the problems are, and (2) did not have the willingness/ability to deal with those problems, he would find himself prevented from editing. It seems that it has come to the point where my words have come into effect (again); Alastair failed to give enough regard to the remedy that was imposed wrt Abtract (for Alastair's own benefit), but Alastair also apparently still has issues he needs to deal with when it comes to legal threats - one of the original reasons Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Alastair_Haines was opened. The block, and block extension, were needed.

In other words, there are 2 ways to address the underlying problem - by someone getting through to him, or by blocks that escalate in duration (or by keeping him blocked until he does). I doubt that there is any other choice or option in the matter. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:59, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Point taken Ncmvocalist. I don't know if Alastair realizes why the RfAr found against his actions. If he did - if he is willing to see why we do not accept this behaviour - then we should unblock. But I've seen no movement towards this situation since the RfAr closed. Alastair's current block is bound-up with the RfAr's rulings. We can't resolve these matters for him - these are the site's core policies - it's up to Alastair to work through the ruling and sanctions. However, unfortunately attempting to reach resolution here feels like a test of the paradox: What happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object?--Cailil ^talk 13:25, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

If there is a legal threat on the table, and his comments (as reproduced above by Ironholds) indicate that the threat is unlikely to be withdrawn, then his failure to understand the ArbCom ruling is irrelevant. Those comments point up several misunderstandings, both of his actions, Wikipedia policies, the nature of Wikipedia and its parent organization and his rights under any law. Unblocking him, or endeavouring to further exlpain, seems pretty pointless. Avruch ^T 19:08, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree. If he is to be unblocked, I shamelessly plug this proposed remedy as a possible restriction that could be imposed by the community. Daniel (talk) 02:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually my point is this: if we unblock again without examining this - the real problem will continue to fester. But I understand your point Avruch and agree with you about the misunderstandings--Cailil ^talk 13:28, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

He should not be unblocked unless he makes a commitment to renounce anything that looks anything remotely like a legal threat. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:26, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed - this was an issue I raised last year at the ArbCom but was never properly or explicitly address by their findings--Cailil ^talk 19:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand how arbcom figures into the equation. They make a legal threat, they're gone. End of story. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 01:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

My logic is that when the threat is retracted the underlying problem will remain. This is a good editor who has gotten himself into to escalating trouble because he doesn't agree with the ArbCom ruling. The whole reason for the legal rhetoric is that he doesn't feel the RfAr was fair. This is a case with 9 months of history - the threat wasn't out of the blue - it goes back to a failed attempt at mediation, a series of dispute resolutions that nobody here paid attention to, and quite simply it looks like Alastair was being wikibullied/harassed. WP:NLT is predicated on the retraction of all legal threats as much as it is on immediate indef blocking because of them. We need to hold out the possibility (as Durova has above) of a way back. In this case the only way back is through dispute resolution processes or a review and explanation of the RfAr in light of the continuing problems of the editors involved--Cailil ^talk 14:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

If he's threatening legal action over an unfair arbcom ruling, or for any reason at all, then he stays blocked. Presumably he still has an avenue to challenge the arbcom ruling. But a legal threat ain't it. There is no constitutional right to edit wikipedia. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:36, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Precisely. I'm not arguing with you BB. The thing is Alastair will most probably retract the threats and be unblocked. But the problem that caused them will continue and his breach of the ArbCom rulings will continue. So I'm assuming he WILL renounce the legal rhetoric but i'm saying that after that we need to look at WP:DR to make sure no further issues emerge in the future--Cailil ^talk 19:16, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The bottom line is that it's up to him. He has to decide how badly he wants to edit wikipedia. He can either behave or not. And if he won't cooperate, he can stay blocked. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 06:02, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:OUTING (?) by User:Husond at Talk:Greece

It's pretty clear that this isn't WP:OUTING. We've now got a second thread on ANI about the same dispute, let's forget this one. yandman 12:21, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

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

---

Husond (talk · contribs) recently set-up a poll in Talk:Greece. In order to prove his point he decided to out all voters' nationalities (whether they're real or false is irrelevant)[90]. I consider this is as WP:OUTING since Husond did not ask permission for this nor this information was readily available in user pages. He did it only to promote his point, which was to virtually disqualify the votes opposing his POV due to ethnic background (which might be another punishable offense in the grounds of WP:NPA since he is attacking implicitly a whole ethnic group).--Avg (talk) 19:34, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Avg's loss of sense of reality really approaches danger levels here. Somebody seriously needs to topic-ban Avg for his endless disruptive filibustering on that talk page. Seriously, the level of nonsense from this person is unberable. (But whatever, I've removed that list for now. It's not needed; anybody can see the facts even without that simple visualisation.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:43, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

It is incorrect that the information was not readily available in user pages: in many cases, the identification is specifically tagged as being from the user page. In other cases, it's inferred, but I don't see anyplace where OUTING would apply. FP, please skip the personal attacks.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

No, sorry but I won't. We are dealing with blockable levels of disruption here; we need to be able to talk about the fact of this disruption, and there's simply no polite way of naming this particular kind. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:49, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

"endless disruptive filibustering" is not a personal attack. "loss of sense of reality" is. Don't defend it.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:59, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Fut.Perf. I'm sorry to say that the primary person who causes disruption to the article is you. The sheer amount of revert wars you're involved in the last days and of personal atttacks to a plethora of users and to Greeks in general ("obsessed", "trolling") is sufficient proof. --Avg (talk) 20:01, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Come off it, Avg. When you have a phalanx of editors from a particular community all taking the same line in a nationalist dispute, it's plainly obvious that the agenda being pushed is a nationalist one, in defiance of NPOV. Let's not forget that NPOV is non-negotiable; Fut. Perf. is quite right to point out what's going on here and to object to it. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:11, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

It is one thing to object, and another thing to insult.--Avg (talk) 20:18, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll add my comments at Talk:Greece. These accusations are ludicrous, clear retaliation for exposing some pretty obvious facts on that talk page. There's no outing whatsoever, just the exposition of facts everybody knows at the talk page; facts that the users themselves disclosed. I just compiled and added some visual effects. Húsönd 19:47, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

It's a rather straightforward case of racial profiling. Truly emetic. I must also note FP's own attacks on Greeks in recent days.[91][92] ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 19:52, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Visual effects or not, I object to my personal information being used to dissect my contributions here and therefore cast aspersions on my motives and character. The talk page of an article is for improving the article and not to investigate the motives of users based on their personal information. As an eponymous user I find this to be covered under WP:HARASS. Dr.K. logos 19:56, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Personal information? Was it, like, confidential information that you accidentally posted on your userpage for everyone to see and edit?! Húsönd 20:07, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

No. It's the way you used it. I object to you analysing my motives based on my personal information, draw your own arbitary conclusions and then publish them on Wikipedia. This is simply not done. I am an eponymous editor and I object to this treatment of my personal information. Dr.K. logos 20:13, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. But I object to you objecting me, so we're even. Húsönd 20:19, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

This is not funny. Dr.K. logos 20:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I would put it more simply: if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck. It's silly to object to someone pointing out the duckness of the duck. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:23, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately what you are saying applies equally well to English, American, Portuguese, French etc. ducks. Let's ban all ducks from editing Wikipedia. Dr.K. logos 20:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

If a duck does not want to reveal her duckness, you have no right whatsoever to expose her duckness, especially when you just assume he / she is a duck, without being 100% sure (if he / she is a goose?).--Yannismarou (talk) 13:54, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

unless you ask for a CU as per the Wikipedia Duck  rdunnPLIB  14:06, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

The background to this is the interminable Macedonia naming dispute yet again. I can well understand the frustration that this is producing; unfortunately Talk:Greece has been swamped by a wave of bad-faith, disruptive nationalist point-scoring and POV-pushing over the past few days, in which every single Greek editor who has commented has lined up in favour of an approach which turns that article into a little island of Greek nationalist POV, divorced from Wikipedia's policies or, indeed, common sense. It's not "racial profiling" to point out that every single editor from a particular group - be it religious, political or ethnic - is lining up in the same way; it's just a statement of fact. It's sad to see that the previous arbitration case on this issue has been completely ignored. I suspect a fresh arbitration, and probably some topic bans, will be required. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:57, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Chris, if anything, probably someone should ensure users are not subjected to continuous insults, racial or other.--Avg (talk) 20:22, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Considering that you and others apparently consider that it's a grave insult to even use the word "Macedonia" for anything other than a part of Greece, I don't think I can take that complaint very seriously. Honestly, from all the fuss that's made about it you would think that saying "Macedonia" chops an inch off every Greek's manhood each time. It's like the Monty Python "Jehovah" sketch or something. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:31, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's all one big joke to you. Why would you take a nation of "crackpots" seriously? We know how you feel. We don't care. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 20:38, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I never know you were a fan of Millwall F.C... -- ChrisO (talk) 22:25, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

So what if "every single editor from a particular group is lining up in the same way"? A voter's ethnic background bears no relation to the value of their vote or the outcome of the straw poll any more than, say, what his or her favorite food is. I find it objectionable that some users are using the ethnicity of those who participated in the straw poll in an attempt to invalidate the outcome. Let me remind everyone that the poll was comissioned by Husond, who, when it became apparent that his side would lose the poll, proceeded to publish the list with every voter's ethnicity. Now what could be the purpose of such a move other than to imply "the oucome is invalid because all Greek users voted "oppose"? --Athenean (talk) 20:23, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Now he's created a subpage for this ([93]). I can't help but wonder how he/she got to be an admin. This is very immature. The Cool Kat (talk) 20:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

It should be immediately deleted. It's unencyclopedic WP:OR and serves no other purpose than to malign a group of editors based on their ethnicity. Dr.K. logos 21:05, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah it should be deleted, this might be over-reacting, but maybe block would be appropriate, although i'm not sure that would work with an admin. The Cool Kat (talk) 21:10, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, userspace doesn't have to be encyclopedic, and WP:OR is very much welcome in that space. Block? No wonder you wonder how I got to be an admin. Húsönd 21:15, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

But he did not fail three times on something.--Caspian blue 23:10, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

That's how we weed out the unfit. The third one was lost for a good cause though. And at least it's a blue link, not a red one. Húsönd 18:28, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

User space can't be used for ethnic profiling. WP:OR or not. Dr.K. logos 21:22, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, that's just plain nastiness. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 21:23, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

So, we've established that Greeks overwhelmingly want to refer to the republic as the former yugoslavian republic, in order to distinguish it from the region. Why the drama? I thought we already knew that. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:19, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Heh, indeed. But right now it's the added question of how to deal with the effects of this polarisation in a Wikipedia decision process. How do you evaluate a straw poll where it's a 100% one nation against the rest of the wiki community? This is really an issue of project-wide governance. How much power can we afford to grant to closely-knit determined POV teams of this kind, which have all the wiki-resources to outlast any opposition by force of sheer numbers and sheer obstinacy? Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:25, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it is interesting to mention that the straw poll started against WP policy which states we should not change a controversial name with another controversial name (WP:NAME: "Editors are strongly discouraged from editing for the sole purpose of changing one controversial name to another. If an article name has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should remain."). Out of nowhere a group of editors (FP included) started to edit war in order to change the status quo that existed for years in the Greece page. Every invocation of WP policy, guideline or MoS to them (which sometimes they have written themselves!) was met with ridicule and insults. When it became apparent that the poll was turning against their favour, they filed Arbitration Enforcement cases, posting anonymous reminders about banning and blocking and started threating users with topic bans. This is a very unhealthy environment indeed. For anyone interested of the story of this (and with a lot of time in their hands) please read from Talk:Greece#FYROM onwards.--Avg (talk) 22:15, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Precisely. No need for straw polls and ethnic-based lists. Dr.K. logos 21:22, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Response to Husond Touche, but maybe it's not such a smart idea to make a personal attack on a page full of viewing admins? The Cool Kat (talk) 21:25, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

If you put information on your userpage, don't be surprised if people use it. I don't think this discussion is going anywhere, it is well within what Husond is permitted to do to have this page, and a far better use of userspace (analyzing something in the mainspace) than, for example, a userbox. Prodego ^talk 21:46, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

So you approve of ethnic profiling. Dr.K. logos 21:53, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I approve of any analysis anyone would care to make, with publicly available information. I may not find it helpful, but I still see no reason to discourage it. Prodego ^talk 23:48, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

You're evading the main point.--Caspian blue 23:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

And what would that be? Prodego ^talk 03:28, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

You don't find it helpful, but have no reason to to discourage the unhelpful analysis. Your answer circumvents "I approve of ethnic profiling".--Caspian blue 03:50, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Husond did wrong in this case. Administrators are elected to help resolve disputes, not to inflate them with inflammatory behaviors, especially on highly sensitive matters. I'm quite disappointed at anyone who supports this racial profiling. The subpage should be deleted as soon as possible or WP:MfDed.--Caspian blue 22:12, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Admins are users before being admins. There is no rule stipulating that admins cannot be involved in disputes, just rules preventing them from using their admin powers in those disputes they're involved in. Besides, this dispute has never been anything less than inflammatory, I just made it a bit more visual. WP:MfD? You can't be serious. For someone who's just accused me of inflating disputes, you seem to be looking forward to have yet another discussion with plenty of drama amid another Greek mass voting. Húsönd 22:22, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

(ec2) Admins are users with the admin tools and are required to have and behave "high standards" on any aspect. If you do not find any differentiation, then why do you hold the title? Besides, the visualization makes you land here with the various accusation, so I'm not kidding with the MfD thing. There is no wonder for anyone here to request MfD on your page that has caused nothing but troubles. Since the racial profiling has caused anger, I don't see why it is not due.--Caspian blue 22:33, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Being an administrator means you have access to technical tools to maintain Wikipedia, because you are trusted not to misuse them. You are expected to behave in accordance with good practice, as is everyone else, nothing more, nothing less. Prodego ^talk 23:48, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Then, this thread is a clear evidence of "distrust" against the admin in question. Good to know.--Caspian blue 23:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Has Husond misused the admin tools in any way? No. So then I see no reason to believe he will do so. Prodego ^talk 03:28, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

You don't seem to get my point at once. My comment is very clearly stating that his behaviors regarding the poll is not a way that trusted admins generally do. Why do you think we're talking on this thread now? To praise his conduct?--Caspian blue 03:45, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I would say that the first step in resolving a dispute is to identify its scope. Husond's subpage may be controversial but it does demonstrate graphically what Fut. Perf. has pointed out - "it's 100% one nation against the rest of the wiki community." The substantive question before us is how we can deal with that, since it's completely obvious that we're faced with politically-motivated POV-pushing. The fact that it involves Greeks is extraneous; it could just as easily be Iranians, Scientologists, Republicans or any number of other groups. The outcome is the same. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:23, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

So I gather that: a) Greeks mass vote everywhere, even at MfDs. b) Greeks are politically motivated POV-pushers. Conclusion: It's open season on Greek Wikipedians. Dr.K. logos 22:30, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Please don't be silly. Some Greeks oppose this FYROMization, and they will not be affected; some don't care, and will not be affected. It's the other way around; those who mass-vote for this POV are (overwhelmingly, if not entirely) Greeks. Open season on nationalists of all flags is long overdue. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:36, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

You are entitled to your opinion. But I don't appreciate the incivil remarks at the beginning. Please be more civil. Thank you. Dr.K. logos 22:43, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I dislike nationalists as well. Perhaps I may ask why do you label certain Greeks nationalists just because they have a certain opinion on a certain matter?--Avg (talk) 22:49, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

• Husond observed the obvious: that one strand of opinion on this matter is confined to Greeks and those of Greek descent, and to international organizations where the (present) insistence of the Greek Government has swayed the organization (chiefly the EU).
• Observation suggests, in fact, that some Greeks and persons of Greek descent do in fact hold the other PoV - it is, for example, a political issue within Greece - but they are less strident about it.
• Husond was relatively moderate in observing nationality; there are several users whom he counts as indeterminate who, for example, use we and our of Greece. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:39, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Egad, this might be the first discussion where you and I won't have to butt heads, apparently. The Greeks must be VERY wrong, for the BOTH of us to disapprove what they are doing. Húsönd 23:01, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Just a note that Husond published his "list" after it started to become apparent that his side was going to lose the straw poll which he initiated. --Athenean (talk) 22:42, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

No, it was actually after it started to look too much like fraud. Húsönd 22:56, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Please provide evidence of fraud, or else this is another one of a series of false accusations of yours against an ethnic group.--Avg (talk) 23:06, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I said started to look like fraud. Obviously if I had evidence that it was fraud then the poll wouldn't be open now, would it? But lack of evidence doesn't mean that someone here was born yesterday. Húsönd 23:12, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

So you do not have evidence but you do suspect fraud. What kind of fraud? By whom? Care to be any more specific?--Avg (talk) 23:56, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

As a side note, I have created Special:AbuseFilter/119 (log page) which is intended to provide a log of when non-admins change "Republic of Macedonia" to "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" or vice versa. It will have some false positives and it is only a log. What people choose to do with that information is up to them, but constantly going back and forth is no good and this should help identify the conflict points and edit warring. Dragons flight (talk) 23:10, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

• Note Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Husond/Straw Poll‎. I MfDed.--Caspian blue 00:09, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Caspian, let the voting begin. The Cool Kat (talk) 00:10, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

MfD is not a vote. Prodego ^talk 03:32, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I have attempted to remove my name from User:Husond's ethnic blacklist, but he has reverted me and accused me of vandalism. Per WP:Wikihounding and WP:OUTING, I consider this a form of harassment and request the immediate intervention of other admins. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 08:06, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

And two admins, myself and Future Perfect at Sunrise, have intervened, but not in the way you requested. You have now made the same edit three times, and have been reverted by three different editors, so I hope that you'll stop now. The page will probably be deleted after a normal discussion anyway, but until then, the inclusion of you there is not harassment or outing, but a logical inclusion in a list where you belong, and with only the info that it blatantly obvious for everyone. Fram (talk) 09:19, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I just happened to come across this conversation. I'm curious, what exactly does Husond intend to do with this information? Is he trying to prove that many Greeks have a certain POV (shocker) and then attempt to dismiss their opinions? If so, then we should let all of wikipedia know that any opinions or straw poll votes concerning their own country will be dismissed as irrelevant. That would be me finished with the Scotland article. As for the British Isles article, there would be a distinct lack of editors. PS, if anyone is wondering what my opinion is on the subject? I don't have one, but to have a list of nationalities voting on this subject is just plain wrong and should in my opinion be deleted as soon as possible. Jack forbes (talk) 09:54, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

It can lead to anti(insert-nationality-here) vandlisim on thier talk pages.  rdunnPLIB  10:11, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not the greatest fan of how this was handled; everyone and their cat can generally intuit this kind of information in any case. Husond after all launched the poll to get numbers on his side, so shouldn't be surprised or indignant that this didn't happen. Nevertheless, with that said, I find it difficult to understand how this information is not relevant to anyone evaluating WP:Consensus. Wikipedia is not a democracy, and if one set of views are in general marginal they should not be allowed to dominate one individual articles just because editors with that marginal view are concentrated there. We have WP:NPOV for good reasons concerning the health of this encyclopedia, and in this case one can forgive certain users if they are forced to come up with novel ways to maintain the encyclopedic standards we aspire to. It may be though that the editors in question will eventually have to seek arbitration if force of numbers rather than broadly-based consensus continues to dominate. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 10:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

All of this is really a bit silly when it should be expected that Greek peeps will edit articles about them or this all could be a very strange coincidence.  rdunnPLIB  10:42, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Maybe we are too sensitive with all this stuff in Greece, because of our past, but I also feel outraged and disappointed, because this list looks like "filing" ("φακέλωμα" is the Greek word, which I cannot accurately translate). And I really cannot understand why an adm, namely a revered member of our Community, should include comments like "but speaks Greek", "username hints at Greek". This is unbelievable! Assuptions?! About something a user did not want to reveal for himself. I am a self-declared Greek; this is my right. The X user does not want to reveal his nationality, his religion etc. This is also his / her right. Why are we tresspassing so brutally a field of his / her personality the X user wants to keep private?! Just in order to prove our point, because that is all about. Husond did exactly what he had accused other users of doing (asking, at the same time, for their topic ban). This is outarageous, and insulting for me as a member of this Community. I do not accept to see users to be characterized "x" or "z" based on assumptions, just because the "a" user wants to make his point. Then he should find another way! Most of these "parenthetical statements" are a disgrace for Wikipedia.--Yannismarou (talk) 13:11, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

destroy block the hypocrite!!!! "φακέλωμα" seems to be about correct. not ideal but correct.  rdunnPLIB  14:06, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I'm Greek, hooved and horned. Yet, I bite not human, but food and sip not blood, but wine. Just wanted to share that with you. Bye, I'll rid you of my sordid presence now; and I suggest that others of Greek descent depart as well, for a cleaner Wikipedia. Yannisk (talk) 13:33, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

This is the worse thing you can do. if you want a "better" (I don't like "cleaner" as a term) Wikipedia, stay in, and fight for it. Don't let abominable list (sorry but I cannot fing a "gentler" word to characterize this thing) disappoint you.--Yannismarou (talk) 13:50, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, this is growing tedious. Frankly, I am used to seeing other nationalist groups canvass and vote en masse. POV editing - and make no mistake, when you bring your nationalist feelings to an article, you ARE pov editing, my friends - is antithetical and corrosive to the values we aspire to in Wikipedia. Every single time someone uses Wikipedia to push an ethnic or nationalist agenda, we should take a metal baseball bat to them (metaphorically-speaking, of course). Husond was none too graceful and less than perfect in pointing out the clearly displayed ego-icons of nationality, but he abso-frakkin-lutely did not out anyone. He is likely expressing a frustration most of us feel when a group of folk try to use Wikipedia for a use not intended. I feel it, too. If you are going to edit and vote your nationality, ethnicity, religioun, etc., be prepared to be bitch-slapped as hard as we can possibly muster. Thank His Noodly Appendage that we have a noticeboard for this sort of crap. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 13:46, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Husond is an adm, and he knows rules, provisions and procedures. If he thought what you say he thought, he could and he can follow them. If you believe that his choice was the right one, and that this list is not a disgrace, than ok, we obviously believe in different Wikipedias.--Yannismarou (talk) 14:04, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

If you feel that injecting one's nationality, ethnicity, etc into the editing process to promote aforementioned ethnicity. etc. is acceptable in Wikipedia, then you are indeed thinking of some other online encyclopedia. I didn't say that his method of pointing out the pov-editing (aka, DUCK) was graceful, but it wasn't wrong. Since he didn't OUT anyone, what "rules, provisions and procedures" are you of the opinion that he violated? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Read DGG's rationale in the MfD, and you'll understand exactly what I mean. And I did not say he "violated" them, but that he chose another path agaisnt the spirit of Wikipedia, and this is even worse.--Yannismarou (talk) 14:20, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I seem to remember reading that if an admin is suspected of wrong doing then thier powers are temorarily removed whilst they are investigated.  rdunnPLIB  14:06, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Husond has been kindly advised to voluntarily withdraw the list now. This would end the drama immediately, and I also think that it would be an action greatly appreciated by everybody here.--Yannismarou (talk) 14:20, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

No. If there is serious concern that an admin account is compromised, or is there is evidence of extreme behaviour by an admin (going on a deletion or unblocking spree against all commonly accepted standards or something similar), then an emergency desysopping may be done. A temporary desysopping may also be done if e.g. ArbCom believes that there is sufficient evidence to indicate e.g. sokcpuppeteering by the admin. But complaints by a number of editors, no matter if they are correct, incorrect, or something inbetween, by itself never have lead to a temporary suspension of admin powers, certainly not when the actual complaint has little or nothing to do with the editor being an admin. Fram (talk) 14:23, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Various editors seem to have put unfortunate interpretations on this. No one is saying (or should be saying) that Greeks are wrong or bad in any way, nor is using the term FYROM. All that Husond has demonstrated is that the straw poll is non-representative of the wider Wikipedia community (which is not 50% of Greek descent). Given its location, that's not surprising. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:33, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

But it is offencive in that its singling out people unfairly in that Husond hasnt asked the users if he can reveal thier nationality.  rdunnPLIB  14:38, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

He doesn't even know the nationality of many of them. He just "assumes".--Yannismarou (talk) 14:43, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

If he knew nationalities not officialy disclosed, and he had revealed them without previously asking, then WP:OUT would have been more than self-evident.--Yannismarou (talk) 14:44, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

What else can be done? We can't advertise to the wider community as that would be deemed forum shopping. In my opinion, if you lose a poll take it on the chin and then perhaps a lot later try and convince others to come over to your point of view. Jack forbes (talk) 14:45, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree. And IMO what Husond did is more in violation of WP:POINT than WP:OUTING. Personally, I don't feel like "going after him" (let's punish the bastard etc. etc.), but I do expect some gesture of good will. The voluntary withdrawal of the page would be the best one, and personally it would earn me.--Yannismarou (talk) 14:51, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

agreed  rdunnPLIB  14:55, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Try also WP:HARASSing the users by parading them with flags attached to their names as some better remain unnamed progroms in some countries of the recent past where people had to carry signs of their ethnicity on their clothes. This is just the updated wiki equivalent. Dr.K. logos 15:44, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

And I do feel the need to stress once more (knowing the danger to become boring, and irrelevant!) that one of the reasons this list (still abominable IMO) caused this wave of reactions (excessive for some of you, not for me; both opinions respectable) is that it touched sensitive aspects of the collective sub-conscious. "Φακέλωμα" was a plague for the Greek society for decades. People with such memories, experiences, stories from their families etc. etc. feel that they suffer the same things in Wikipedia by just facing this list. "Disgust" is the first thing I felt looking at it. The visual effect was extremely strong for me as well. Excessive? Maybe! But couldn't it be avoided? Did we need it? No! Husond had already made his point eloquently and clearly!--Yannismarou (talk) 15:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Point taken, and respected. Yet, I'm afraid whoever is called upon to call a "result" on that poll will have to do even more fakeloma: how many of the !voters are actually productive contributors, which are single-purpose accounts, which are continual drama llamas and which are notorious nationalist warriors. That, too, will have to be taken into account (and it is possibly even more pertinent than the mere nationality issue). Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:12, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Fut, please don't start another discusson about who is "productive", "revered" etc. Because this was an argument used in ChrisO's motion against Kekrops (how can we question the arguments of the "revered adm" against the "nationalist" Kekrops?!). Seeing some choices, actions, suggestions and arguments of both Husond's and ChrisO's, as well as your totally inacceptable initial comment against Avg, I really think that we should be very very careful when trying to categorize users into small boxes. Finally, I also feel that it was a huge mistake of yours to ask for the topic-ban of both Avg and Kekrops, and I am happy both these requests were wisely rejected.--Yannismarou (talk) 15:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

(Just a note: "revered" is probably not quite the word you want here. Try "respected" :-) -- As for Avg, I stand by my opinion. He should have been banned long ago. And there is unfortunately no polite way of describing why. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Any more insults and threats on the menu today?--Avg (talk) 18:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, here is the problem as I see it. If we start going down the road of naming voters nationalities the next step may be their religious affiliations. Shall we then be asking if they are Jews, Catholics, Muslims, etc? I don't think that would go down too well in some circles, why should this be any different? Jack forbes (talk) 15:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

If there ever were a political decision that were equally transparently divided between factionalised groups, then yes, evidently, we should talk about it. Just like when dozens of Muslim users came to demand we should not use pictures of Mohammed. Of course we named the obvious fact that those people were all Muslims. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:34, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Because the saving grace of Wikipedia is that because it is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, the articles borne out of that effort are neutral in that a mélange of viewpoints are represented, thus finding the objective neutral ground. When nationalist/ethnic/religious groupies band together to push a specific viewpoint, it skews away from objective neutrality. And, since it has been repeatedly (and incorrectly) suggested that Husond named these editors' nationalities, it needs to be reiterated that the users themselves have self-identified as being of the nationality/ethnicity noted. Husond only saw a patten and pointed it out. If you don't want your nationality/gender/ethnicity/sexual preference used in arguments that utilize those viewpoints (and shame on you for bringing your personal beliefs into articles to begin with), keep those identifying parts to yourself. It isn't rocket science. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:42, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Do not forget that there were also others listed who did not make this information readily available in their userpages, but they were inferred to be Greek by Husond... NikoSilver 15:45, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

And quite rightly they were. Get real man, don't pretend you are not yourself categorising your fellow editors in that way. Everybody who edits regularly in these domains does. Everybody knows who the "Skopians" are, who the Bulgarians are and who the Turks are in this game. Are you going to make me dig out links where you yourself and your friends talk about each other in precisely these terms? Aren't you the person who had an ethnic editor blacklist in his own userspace until quite recently? Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:58, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I am also the one who agreed to delete it immediately because it was forgotten from a distant (and btw terrifying) past of mutual mud-slinging form both sides. Your point? NikoSilver 16:59, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Does the WP community know that Husond had accused all Greek users of being a "fiercely opposing" and "unnecessarily politicizing" faction in the very background section of the poll he initiated? He didn't even have the decency to use it in his own "support position", but he had to slap it in the (supposed-to-be-NPOV) background section, for all to read! Is it moral and correct to discourage future visitors of the page from voting "oppose" because they will be characterized as joining this ...faction? Doesn't this render the poll stained, biased and nullified? And, btw, where is the sense of fair-play, where's the chivalry? How shameful... NikoSilver 16:59, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

• (Isolated) comment: Merely noting that the page is definitely not racial or ethnic profiling, harassment or posting personal information ("outing"). People claiming that Húsönd's straightforward observations on the straw poll constitute any of the former either don't understand those concepts or deliberatedly exaggerate the situation to distract from the actual issues at hand & score wiki-points (which is blockable disruptive behaviour & flaming). — The real question is how should Wikipedia handle such clearly defined groups of editors determined to impose their bias on certain areas of the project. - Ev (talk) 17:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

The name of a certain lovely country in Southeast Europe certainly does seem to raise an excess of drama every time it is named, and this frustrates everyone involved, but the way to resolve these disputes is not to lump all editors from an adjoining lovely nation as "those people" and assume none of them are amenable to reason. It only makes it more difficult for reason and reasonableness to prevail in the discussion. Jonathunder (talk) 17:47, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

You're right, Jonathunder, of course. But lumping toghether "all editors from X nation" is not what is happening here. Instead, we're dealing with a specific group of Greek users active in this long drawn-out naming issue, who happen to reflect the attitudes of a certain sector of Greek society. Closing our eyes and pretending that this is not the case only makes it even more difficult to reach a solution, as we would not be addressing the real problem. - Best, Ev (talk) 18:02, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes of course. How could I be missed amidst all these over-generalisations? What specific group am I supposed to be a member of? This is the absolutely first time I entered in such a poll. But since I am Greek I must automatically belong in whichever group "these people" belong to. This discussion is unreal. Dr.K. logos 18:20, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

The only way to make reasonableness prevail in that case is if the decision is finally taken out of the hands of those who have their own nations' political interests at stake in it. So, please, please, everybody, instead of wondering why people get so heated over this, come and decide this for us. Enter your judgment on that poll. Make the national factions a minority in the process. I don't care if you decide it this way or the other. You can vote at random, for all I care. I just want this decided by somebody other than them. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:03, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Has anyone asked for a Wikipedia:Request for comment? Jack forbes (talk) 18:09, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

It's a formal straw poll that has been advertised at a number of outside places, though as far as I know not formally through the RFC mechanism. Usually, RFCs in such issues have drawn negligible amounts of response, so I can understand that nobody bothered this time. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:14, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

It might be a good idea nevertheless. Well, I shall take my time and read through the discussions, arguments and different points of view and will make a decision on that as to where my vote will go. Don't expect a quick vote. Oh, if someone insists on including my nationality after my vote please call me Scottish. That's my particular POV. ;) Jack forbes (talk) 18:26, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Now this is just being smug. He's gloating about how the MFD is petty and how he's gonna keep his page. Please help vote, i'm still wondering how he got to be an admin. The Cool Kat (talk) 18:25, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Just a question. How would people feel if an admin compiled a list of Jews editing Israel and slapped a big Star of David next to each of their names? Or a list of African Americans editing Barack Obama? Or a list of homosexuals editing same-sex marriage, pink triangles and all? ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 18:20, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I made a similar point further up. Where will it stop? Jack forbes (talk) 18:28, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

You could hardly name an article that is better monitored for WP:NPOV and WP:MOS#Internal_consistency than Israel, Barack Obama and same-sex marriage. Is there any comparison between these articles and what's happening with Greece? No. So why producing far-fetched arguments that are nothing but plain reduction to the absurd of the issue here? Húsönd 18:56, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, here's an idea Husond. You are an admin and expected to help play down any controversy that gets out of hand. Why don't you delete the list you compiled and do just that? Or do you want this to go on and on? You are not doing your cause any good when everyone is concentrating on your controversial list (which doesn't seem to be getting much support) and not on the debate which brought on the straw poll in the first place. Either you act like an admin or you don't. Jack forbes (talk) 19:14, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure his pay grade requires him to listen to rude demands to obey. I know I'm not paid enough for that. I suggest you try to be civil, forbes. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:32, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

And I'm not sure you even read my post Chihuahua. I demanded nothing, I suggested it. Please be more civil yourself, it's not hard you know. Jack forbes (talk) 19:37, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Jack, you noted that admins are supposed to play down controversy that gets out of hand. Part of that is true; admins are supposed to step in when things get wacky and set a more appropriate tone. However, when they pick up the mop, they don't put blinders on. When they see clear pov nationalism going on, they - as anyone else - have a responsibility to point it out. Husond did so and proved it. One of the major points you are missing here is the idea that nationalism, ethnicity and religious background cannot are not a defense in editing. You are supposed to leave those at the sign-in page. If you cannot do so, you do not belong here. There are literally millions of forums where one can go to spew whatever little rant/tirade/bs you wish. Wikipedia is not a forum, and not a soapbox. When we see it, we are going to beat it like a rented mule. Every time. As we should. Whether Husond went about it in a ham-fisted way is secondary. Are you complaining that he should have had more grace in pointing out the clearly-identified pov? If so, I'd probably agree with you. If you are saying he was wrong for doing so, we are going to have to agree to disagree. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:12, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

That's all too well, but Husond had built his "case" way before that. He actually initiated the poll blaming Greek users [94]. He even accused Greek users of "fraud" in this very topic we're discussing now, without of course substantiating his claims although I challenged him twice. It is very very clear Husond is preoccupied against Greeks and would do anything to invalidate Greek opinion. --Avg (talk) 18:20, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I did not intend to return to this subject but will do so in order to reply to your post. I have been looking at the Greece talk page to discover the reason for Husond's suspicions concerning pov nationalism. Basically it concerns the naming of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia or as others would call it the Republic of Macedonia. There are editors over there who claim the Republic of Macedonia is the most common English language name of the country. I beg to differ, I have always heard it referred to as the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, whether that be in the news or football circles. Now, I'm just a wee Scottish guy with not a drop of Greek blood in me or even a visit to Greece on my cv who happens to agree with many of the points those so called Greek nationalists put forward. They also appear to have plenty of references to back up their POV, so why don't people who jump on the nationalist bandwagon have a look at the discussions that are ongoing and look at the evidence before they start listing peoples nationalities. I would be the first person to say it was nationalist pov if they had nothing to back up their opinions. Honestly, have a look at the discussion and evidence from both parties. Jack forbes (talk) 18:31, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

If I could add one more thing. Arcayne, if you do have a look at the Greece talk page try and forget their nationalities and concentrate on the debate and references provided. You may conclude that you don't agree with them (or maybe you will) but I don't think you can say they don't make a good point. Thanks. Jack forbes (talk) 19:47, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Anything someone posts on their user page is fair game for scrutiny and evaluation. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 07:58, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

hasnt that been what has happened?  rdunnPLIB  09:28, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, they just don't like it. But when they make a fact about themselves known, it's not "outing" to report that fact elsewhere. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 09:51, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Do not forget that there were also others listed who did not make this information readily available in their userpages, but they were inferred to be Greek by Husond... NikoSilver 11:27, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

He stated that they know Greek. If a user is writing in Greek (or any foreign language) on their user page, or revealing anything about themselves in any way, that info is fair game. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 11:31, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

But still infering that someone is from somewhere where they are not shouldnt be is unfair.

ps (to Baseball Bugs) What I meant when I said "hasnt that been what has happened" was that the peeps who dont like it have scrutinised the page.  rdunnPLIB  14:30, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

It seems that the so-called "outing" is the complaint, which is a distraction from the allegation of collusion. It's the classic non-denial denial. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:33, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

No need to overcomplicate things. Husond hypothesis is that if you voted "oppose" to the abovementioned poll you must be Greek, because no one else could possibly have this opinion. For some users, he is right, they have the information available in their user pages. For others, he simply infers the information with criteria that are at least shaky and an intrusion to privacy. And finally, some others, who explicitly mention they are not Greek, he simply ignores. Funniest fact of all? Future Perfect at Sunrise himself speaks Greek. He should be categorised as a Greek by Husond's logic.--Avg (talk) 17:40, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs, my niece speaks Greek along with several other languages, she's a lot smarter than her uncle. Would you think it right to classify her as Greek as Husond would have done when she has as much Greek blood in her veins as I have (none)? Don't you think that is assuming too much? Avg, are you saying I have been omitted from his list? I hate being ignored, it makes me feel so insignificant. :) Jack forbes (talk) 18:00, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The editor who compiled the list is trying to show a pattern of bias. Instead of griping about "outing", the supposedly biased editors should work on refuting the charge of bias. Griping about being "outed" rather than refuting the claim of bias makes it look like the claim of bias could be true. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 18:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Ὅτι μὲν ὑμεῖς, ὦ ἄνδρες Άθηναῖοι, πεπόνθατε ὑπὸ τῶν ἐμῶν κατηγόρων, οὐκ οἶδα: ἐγὼ δ' οὖν καὶ αὐτὸς ὑπ' αὐτῶν ὀλίγου ἐμαυτοῦ ἐπελαθόμην, οὕτω πιθανῶς ἔλεγον. Καίτοι ἀληθές γε ὡς ἔπος εἰπεῖν οὐδὲν εἰρήκασιν. It may be applicable. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 18:20, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

And in the English language that means what? Jack forbes (talk) 18:33, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

[95]. Mathsci (talk) 22:04, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Baseball bugs, how to refute something as absurd as "All Greeks are biased, therefore anyone who votes oppose must be a Greek, so I will put a flag beside each opposer name regardless if they are Greeks or not and I don't care if I offend some people, out some other or even be plain wrong"? Where to start really. False premises, false assertion, false methodology. A total mess.--Avg (talk) 19:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

This is not outing. If Husond infers someone's nationality incorrectly, they can say "No, you're wrong". If he infers it correctly, that is evidence that any reasonable person could infer the same thing. Either way, nothing has been "outed". shoy (reactions) 00:38, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

This is specifically what WP:OUTING prohibits: "Do not confirm or deny the accuracy of the information, as this would give the person posting the information – and anyone else who saw the page – feedback on the accuracy of the material.".--Avg (talk) 01:36, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

What evidence is there that anyone has been "outed"? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 06:00, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I quote thusly "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." If you use common sence then nationality should be added to the bracketed list.  rdunnPLIB  08:19, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

If such information is on their user page or is otherwise evident from their own work, then they can't claim "outing" - they "outed" themselves. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 08:23, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, this is ridiculous. It's like somebody waving the Stars and Stripes, chanting "USA! USA!" and wearing an "I ♥ Uncle Sam" T-shirt accusing a person of "outing" them for calling them "American". If you don't want to be mistaken for a national or ethnic chauvinist on Wikipedia, then don't edit like one.--Folantin (talk) 09:12, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Thats NOT what i mean. what I am trying to say is that some people can be offended at being called "insert-nationality-here" and that it should be covered in wp:outing because someones national identity, to them, might be important.  rdunnPLIB  10:34, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

If they make any personal fact about themselves known, then having it echoed back to them is the risk they take. The rule about "outing" cannot apply when you "out" yourself. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 10:38, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

This kind of question arises from time to time, and it always turns out the same. If you say "I am 'A'" and someone else says, "That guy is 'A'", then the "outing" claim is false. If someone might be offended at having someone say, "That guy is 'A'", then they shouldn't post "I am 'A'" in the first place. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 10:47, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

oh so if I claim that two users are from (for example) Germany when all the proof I have is the fact that they can speak German and I then claim to be from England when the only thing I know to be correct and when my assumption about the other two is incorrect and they turn out to be from France, and they find the suggestion that they are from Germany to be offencive, then they cancel each other out do they? (by the way I know its hypocritical for me to say this but I have family from all three countries, but this post is just an example of what could happen if someone didnt)  rdunnPLIB  10:51, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

The point is that there is an allegation of biased and blocked voting, and instead of addressing that, the response is a bogus complaint about "outing" - a non-denial denial as I said earlier. You all need to speak to the allegation of bias, and drop this "outing" nonsense. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 11:51, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes. National and ethnic block-voting is a fact on Wikipedia and it's rarely to the advantage of reliable encyclopaedic content. Most admins turn a blind eye to it because they are more interested in internal Wiki-politics than trying to keep our articles free from being skewed by special interest groups. --Folantin (talk) 12:05, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

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

COI edits by user:Jokestress putting WP at potential legal risk

Resolved

No evidence provided to support the title of the section. Fram (talk) 11:42, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Jokestress has an off-wiki website interlinked with that of a group called OII, including comments she and the owner of the other site make of each other's off-wiki actions. [96] [97] [98] [99] User:Jokestress violates WP:COI (at the least) by editing the page without disclosing her relationship to its content. Because real-world lawyers have become involved with allegations of libel for that site's content, this situation is problematic, even egregiously problematic, for WP.

Because I myself have an indirect association with the subject matter (I know some of the people involved), I've refrained from editing the page (other than to tag it for notability and lack of references), and I disclosed my association nonetheless [100].

Although the substance of user:Jokestress’ edits are not objectionable in themselves, to fail to disclose on WP an off-wiki association with the website of an organization undergoing libel accusations for the content of that website, all while editing the WP page about the organization that created the site is a serious lapse in judgment, one potentially putting WP at legal exposure. (I therefore brought it here for input rather than to COIN.)

Although user:Jokestress contributes to a wide variety of topics on WP, her involvement in pages related to her off-wiki activism (she openly acknowledges her real-world identity as a professional activist) have long been disruptive, and now may be dangerous to WP. I do not believe she should be editing either the mainpages or the talkpages related to her off-wiki activism.
— James Cantor (talk) 22:56, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Has she actually made any problematic edits on Wikipedia? What people do on other websites is something we've no control over, even if you're certain they're the same person. – iridescent 23:03, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

These are her edits of the page on which she has a COI: [101][102]. As I said, it is not the edits that are objectionable, it is the failure to handle her COI when off-wiki legal action underway.— James Cantor (talk) 23:11, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Maybe it's just me, but the above approaches WP:TLDR, and I'm not sure what the problem actually is. James, what, concisely, is/are the incident(s) on the en Wikipedia you are bringing for admin action to AN/I? Do you have any diffs that show harm or against-policy edits? Can you précis, please? Tonywalton ^Talk 23:15, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

It is certainly possible that I am over-interpreting WP's willingness to tolerate liability issues. In the present situation, an editor is content of a page with which she has an off-wiki relationship. That's straight-forward COI and can typically be handled by disclosing the relationship. However, when there are real-world legal actions about libel, then the failure to disclose is much more dangerous to WP. Better?— James Cantor (talk) 23:31, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a zero-tolerance approach to legal threats on the Wiki. If there is libellous content you can contact the foundation or provide specific diffs here. Mentioning libel repeatedly without specific edits or content listed is operating right on the edge of our no legal threats policy. Please stop this. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

This user is a WP:SPA here to promote his sexology coworkers and their ideologies, and to denigrate their critics, including Organisation Intersex International (OII). The OII article was tagged by James Cantor as needing sources, so I added a couple. I have no professional connection with OII, though I do report some of their news items as I do with all major trans and intersex groups. James Cantor, on the other hand, is a coworker with Kenneth Zucker, who has some sort of legal feud going on with OII right now. That's why James Cantor tagged this as non-notable, even though he knows this is the largest intersex organization in the world. I added a citation from renowned intersex scholar Milton Diamond to keep this article from being deleted. I suggest ignoring this editor's behavior and focus on the article's content. He wikilawyers like this all the time. Jokestress (talk) 23:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec)The diffs he provided above as evidence of "objectionable" edits look like the addition of well-sourced references to me. I'm also a little confused about James' use of the term "objectionable", which, unless translated into "specifically against WP policy" appears to be a mere point of view. Tonywalton ^Talk 23:35, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, James, I'll be very concise. How? Tonywalton ^Talk 23:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I said her edits themselves were not objectionable. Her failure to disclose her COI with the topic is. For example, in the above, she says she has not professional connection with the group and only reports news; however, here she explicitly endorses the group as a speaker.— James Cantor (talk) 23:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

'How, exactly and concisely, is her behaviour "putting WP at potential legal risk" (as your section header claims). Please be specific. Please also list what administrator action, specifically you are requesting to stop this "legal risk". If you are unable to specify what immediate admin intervention is required I suggest you take this dispute to the dispute resolution process. Tonywalton ^Talk 23:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

This is a non-issue. The off-wiki link listed above does not endorse OII for anything. It merely reports that they have published a list of speakers. This editor's incessant on-Wiki attacks on me are really disruptive and have gotten quite old. I've been here since 2004, and most editors who have been this bothersome have typically been blocked indefinitely. He even has a personal attack about me on his user page. Does anyone have thoughts on how to proceed? Jokestress (talk) 23:55, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

A couple of things. The fact that the folks editing the list of articles on Cantor's userpage have a conflict of interest has been well established for a long time, and has led to multiple edit wars and enormous amounts of discussion. On the other hand, Jokestress has never been a source of disruption directly and nothing listed above would seem to change that. While discussing this we should keep in mind that Cantor edits under his real name and Jokestress' name is easily connected to her Wikipedia account. I would suggest, though, that Cantor not connect the two (her name and her account) on his userpage unless he has permission. Anyway, unless there is more of a problem than has been established so far, I think this report can be archived with no action needed. Avruch ^T 01:45, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Jokestress has never been a source of disruption? Since when is a discussion even a heated one a disruption? Remember it takes two to tango.

The substance of this report is that Jokestress did not reveal her COI with respect to OII. Ok. I think if anything somewhere there should be a discussion of weather or not cross linking things on webpages constitutes enough of a relationship to cause a COI. But not here. However there are such cross links, it can give an appearance of impropriety. As for legal threats. JamesCantor is just mentioing the fact that OII has been threatend more than once, as have websites that link to it. (IMHO a link does not have to imply agreement, context matters.) That said I can think of one place where she has cross linked something from OII and given it her agreement Click my name. Her relationship to them is not innocent. But I am not impartial in my judgement of this matter. However I think sensible advice would be to avoid any appearance of impropriety. Not everyone will shrug off what that website says. --Hfarmer (talk) 05:36, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

In this case avoiding an appearance of impropriety would mean instead of just adding the ref's she could add them to the talk page, and notify someone really neutral at the COI notice board. As a matter of fact that may have been a beetter place for this thread.--Hfarmer (talk) 05:38, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

It does not always take two to tango. One may throw a punch while the punching bag is innocent of wrongdoing. Do you then accuse the punchee if he attempts to defend himself? This platitude is accurate fairly often; however it is inaccurate at least as often and I for one would prefer people would think this through and stop using it.

But that's not the case here. As a matter of fact I can think of plenty of cases where Jokestress has insulted or personaly attacked people. --Hfarmer (talk) 11:20, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Appealing one-week block from Sarah Palin article and talk page

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

---

Resolved

 – further mediations are being carrying on off this page. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:54, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

User:KillerChihuahua, who I’ll call “KC”, blocked me (at 2:35 on 2 April) for one week from editing both the Sarah Palin article and the corresponding talk page.[103] I'd like to appeal, as I stated to KC a few moments ago at my talk page.

My last edit to the Sarah Palin article (at 18:49 on 31 March) reverted a bunch of edits that I had previously made, and that reversion was at the insistence of KC.[104] My last edit to the Sarah Palin talk page (at 19:36 on 1 April) suggested inserting “Knik Arm Bridge” (KAB) into the article.[105]

KC’s stated rationale for blocking me today from both the article and the talk page is that I was "derailing" discussion of the "Knik Arm Bridge" at the article talk page. KC is obviously incorrect, as my edits at the talk page were specifically about the KAB.

On 30 March, KC had stated at the article talk page as follows: "GreekParadise wishes to include mention of the Knik Arm Bridge, as that explains an otherwise unexplained 200 mil, almost half the sum in question. GP feels it is unbalanced, misleading, and poor writing to explain half the money and one bridge, and leave out the other half and the other bridge."[106] My suggested article edits were on precisely that topic, by clarifying that the earmark for another bridge (Gravina) was separate from the earmark for the Knik Arm Bridge (KAB).[107] And I was merely discussing those suggested edits at the article talk page. For that, KC has blocked me, and I appeal the block. Thanks.

Incidentally, because this block is so far out of bounds, I'd like to ask if some action might be appropriate to deter such things in the future.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I noted my dissention on Talk:Sarah Palin previously, but would like to also note here that the reason KillerChihuahua seemingly gave for the ban ("Discussion on the disputed content has stalled completely, and all discussion has been on FL and his edits and so on. Cease. We're done with this for now."[108]) doesn't appear to be valid. As you can see at Talk:Sarah_Palin#Take_two, the discussion about the original dispute continued yesterday, and is still going on. Ferrylodge has been receptive to criticism, and self-reverted some edits a few days ago. He has since come to the talk page and has been constructively contributing to the discussion (both of his intended edits, and the original dispute). He's been a helpful editor on this article (and talk page), and has remained calm (excepting a slight outburst towards KC on his talk page regarding his ban). I support a lift of his ban so discussion can continue will all involved editors. Mahalo. --Ali'i 17:15, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

This request seems reasonable at face value. What boggles my mind is the paragraph attacking KC that FL posted on his talk page diff with an edit summary of hardly unexpected from the likes of Wikipedia's most officious admin. Maybe FL has had time to cool off, and that is why the post above seems reasonable. But I can't fathom why he felt it was necessary to go off ranting at KC. Attacking the blocking admin flies in the face of WP:NOTTHEM. FL, can you address why you felt those comments were necessary, and what purpose they serve?-Andrew c ^[talk] 17:16, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Pehaps that discussion could be held separately from the discussion about the Palin article ban? Or is it an issue that is inherently connected? Either way, FL and KC have had a long history with one another. It's been less than collegial. --Ali'i 17:21, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Since I'm the one that suggested Ferrylodge appeal his ban, I figure I should comment here. It should also be noted that KillerChihuahua and Ferrylodge have a rather extensive and acrimonious history from their editing of abortion related articles. This includes a request to have Ferrylodge banned by the community on the old Community sanctions noticeboard, which resulted in Ferrylodge getting banned, and an appeal at Arbcom that resulted in the ban being lifted. The arbcom case and it's evidence page has a pretty extensive record of the acrimonious nature of KillerChihuahua's and Ferrylodge's interactions. Regardless of the merits of the banning of Ferrylodge from Sarah Palin, I'm not sure KillerChihuahua qualifies as an uninvolved admin per Talk:Sarah Palin/Article probation. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 17:22, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

In answer to Andrew c, what I said at my talk page is not part of my appeal here at ANI. I didn't link to it, and I don't want to make this appeal about KC. It's about me, per WP:NOTTHEM.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:23, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you can get a free pass to badmouth a blocking admin, and expect everyone to ignore it because it has nothing to do with the Palin article. Incivility and personal attacks are related to ANI, and to think your behaviour shouldn't be scrutinized in relation to how you reacted to the ban is nonsense.-Andrew c ^[talk] 17:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not asking for a free pass. If something I said at my talk page after the block was off base, please feel free to criticize me for it there. What I said at my talk page is not part of this appeal. I'm not trying to excuse anything I did based on what KC may have done, so please let's not mix them together here.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:56, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

It isn't uncommon for an editor to blow off a little steam when they've been blocked/banned. Especially when the admin that is blocking/banning them is an editor that they have had extensive content disputes with. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 17:53, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that FL possibly made matters worse for himself by his comments which stem directly from the block which is the subject of this thread. I don't believe incivil comments are ever appropriate. Blowing of steam and past histories are never valid excuses for poor conduct. I would feel a lot better about this whole preceding if FL admits that the comments were inappropriate, striking or redacting them, perhaps even apologizing, and then we can move on. If it was simply a heated, hot headed thing to say to blow off a little steam, surely we can forgive that if there is remorse. But those comments are tied to this block and they need to be discussed in this context. -Andrew c ^[talk] 18:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

We often make matters worse when we get upset and post in frustration or in anger. If an editor is blocked, and they vent about that block on their talk page, I'm not inclined to give that too much weight, or to care much. We don't leave people blocked as a punishment for being mad that they were blocked.

KC will be fine; better if he refrains from blocking people with whom he's had personal conflict. It's not like there's a shortage of admins out there. It's certainly not our place to determine if Ferrylodge feels remorse, or to "forgive" him. I find it presumptuous, the idea that it's our place to "forgive" anyone anytyhing. -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:54, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I support Ferrylodge in this. I found his contributions to be positive indeed. If KC has long-term issues with FL, I would ask at a minimum that this be well taken into account. It might, in fact, be wise for KC to disengage here. Just as Caesar's wife must be above suspicion, so also should all admin actions taken with regard to an editor with whom the admin might be interacting in another contentious arena. I fully respect both, but feel that might be the best solution. Collect (talk) 17:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Disengage with FL, or disengage with the Palin article as a whole? Because if it's the latter, that's not good. Because KC has been at least trying to direct editors towards a common goal, providing quality unofficial "mediation". I just happen to disagree with this specfic ban. Mahalo. --Ali'i 17:35, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

With FL. KC is a good person. I would only iterate my suggestion above that admin actions in this case be reviewed. Collect (talk) 20:22, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

• For the purpose of imposing sanctions under this provision, an administrator will be considered "uninvolved" if he or she is not engaged in a current, direct, personal conflict on the topic with the user receiving sanctions (note: enforcing this provision will not be considered to be participation in a dispute).

I agree that KC is not an uninvolved admin. It'd be better if he lifted the ban and requested an uninvolved editor to place it instead.   Will Beback  talk  17:48, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Admins should never (or hardly ever) block someone they're in a content dispute with. This kind of question came up during my own RfA. The right answer is to turn it over to a neutral admin for a decision. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:56, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Not in a content dispute; see my note below and ask anyone on the article: I'm enforcing probation there, have been for months, and don't edit the darn thing. KillerChihuahua^?!? 01:30, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with KC about this. The content dispute has been at the talk page, as described below.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:32, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

KC, even if it's not technically a "content dispute", blocking any editor with whom you've had personal conflict is a terrible idea. It tends to lead to threads like this. What's the rush to block him that can't wait until you find one uninvolved admin to agree? We try to be drama-negative, and de-escalatory. This block has clearly had the opposite effect. Hence, bad idea. -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:58, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Two points; One: any block or topic ban of Ferrylodge has a high probability in resulting in drama. One one-hour block of his resulted in his starting an ANI thread which took up 77856 characters (13412 words) which summed up said Good block, deal with it. Ferrylodge responded by opening a frivolous Rfc on the blocking admin. I was already one of two admins enforcing article probation on Sarah Palin, and Ferrylodge had been editing there with that circumstance, prior to this incident. My "involvement" with Ferrylodge has consisted of two things: content disputes on Abortion repeated articles (where FL is now under ArbCom editing sanctions for his disruptive behavior), and my enforcing policy everywhere else (not counting his harassment of me, which I don't classify as "involvement" on my part at all.) I suspect had I gone and found another admin, the result would have been similar to when Bishonen blocked Ferrylodge for harassing me - continued attacks on the poor admin for weeks if not months. Two: In hindsight, probably would have been much better for me to go find that poor admin, their peace of mind be damned! (joke) but as I did not, we have now this current situation. IMO, not a Bad Ban. One week, for disruption. I am not conceding Wrong Admin; I'm simply not arguing the point. However, if we accept Wrong Admin as a hypothetical given, I see no other reason given by you to rescind the ban, and Ferrylodge is not behaving in a manner which leads me to believe he will reduce the level of disruption. FWIW, he is in correspondence with SB Johnny, my co-"enforcer", and I would prefer at this pint to see what transpires there. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:11, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Is Ferrylodge being blocked likely to lead to less disruption?... hmm. If that's true for a week, what makes it not true for a longer period? Is there some good that's supposed to result from a week block? It makes life more difficult for editors like me, who want to work with him on an article that's unrelated to this dispute. Do you think it will cause him to re-evaluate the way he interacts with others, and come back less disruptive? -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:30, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the solution is to lift the ban, but block Ferrylodge for the attacks on KillerChihuahua. (I'll do neither, since my opinion of Ferrylodge is a matter of record.) SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:11, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

(undent)I've stricken the comment in question at my personal talk page. It was not part of KC's block rationale, it was not part of my appeal here at ANI, and now it is gone. Most of it is factual, and I hardly think that calling an admin "officious" (at my personal talk page) would be grounds for a block. In any event, can we please focus on the actual block and the appeal?

KC opined at the article talk page: "It appears the primary argument for [inclusion of KAB in the article] is that the bill included both bridges and half the money was for the KAB. Can everyone concede that this is a valid point? We're talking about what, around 424 mil, and then we start talking about 240 mil with nary a mention of what happened to the other 200 mil - that could indeed be confusing."[109] My edits at both the talk page and in the article itself were in direct response to KC's opinion about the KAB.

This particular article talk page is for a high-profile political figure, so differences of opinion are inevitable, but I did not do anything more than disagree with the blocking admin about content.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:20, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

• Note: The block was logged on the Talk:Sarah Palin/Article probation page. I have, along with SB Johnny, been the admin enforcing probation there. I have emailed him to inform him and get his view; he has not yet replied. I do not edit that article; I've been enforcing the probation for several months now. Anyone who thinks I'm in a content dispute or involved is mistaken. I do have a history with Ferrylodge; I have given him far more leeway than I would have given any other editor. Please see, for example, Buster7's post on the article talk page yesterday[110] where he states Ferrylodge's sudden move to made considerable edits to a secion under dispute, while every other was refraining from editing and working very hard to find consensus, said edits not about the same subject but entirely different: "Close to resolving via discussion--->make a drastic change--->discussion shifts to the newer edit--->the two discussion intertwine (causing confusion)--->focus shifts further afield by engaging fellow editors in personal rants over completely irrelevant side issues--->newer edit survives via tactics rather than quality or consensus" - and then Ferrylodge ate reams of talk page time and space on said edits, refusing to wait until the larger dispute was resolved, first asking if there were objections - this AFTER I asked him, more or less, to wait his turn - and when there were objections refusing to drop it until the larger issue was resolved and tendentiously arguing and complaining ad nauseum on the talk page. Whatever the fuck heck Ferrylodge is talking about regarding "my opinion" vs "his opinion" is utter bullshit nonsense. I haven't given an opinion, and his edits had nothing to do with the content dispute I'm trying to help the editors resolve. KillerChihuahua^?!? 01:30, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
• It may help those trying to understand the situation to read Talk:Sarah Palin#Thanks, + note about editing, including the sub-section "Ferrylodge's edits". KillerChihuahua^?!? 01:41, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

KC says, "Whatever the fuck Ferrylogde [sic] is talking about regarding 'my opinion' vs 'his opinion' is utter bullshit." So civil, aren't we?

This is a direct quote from KC: "It appears the primary argument for [inclusion of KAB in the article] is that the bill included both bridges and half the money was for the KAB. Can everyone concede that this is a valid point? We're talking about what, around 424 mil, and then we start talking about 240 mil with nary a mention of what happened to the other 200 mil - that could indeed be confusing."[111] My edits at both the talk page and in the article itself were in direct response to KC's opinion about the KAB.[112]Ferrylodge (talk) 01:37, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Summarizing and confirming people's positions is normal in mediation. I summarized, and asked for confirmation. Then I summarized, and asked if everyone could agree on that one piece of that one view. If there are editors who cannot agree with that, then I proceed to ask why. Its a back-and forth thing. Its important for editors to understand the "other sides" rationale and views before they can find a common ground. KillerChihuahua^?!? 01:41, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

You banned me for not conceding what you asserted was a "valid point" and for daring to discuss at the talk page whether the two bridges were covered by the same earmark or not. Would you please leave this up to an uninvolved admin?Ferrylodge (talk) 01:47, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

No, I didn't, and you know it. You cannot seriously think anyone will believe this. After I warned you, gave you another waring, a final warning, and then explained the warnings, you know that you were banned for completely disrupting the (previously) highly focused and productive efforts on the talk page. I've linked the relevant section above; if someone else is unclear I'll be more verbose here but I don't believe for a minute you actually think that's why you were banned. KillerChihuahua^?!? 01:54, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

No, you didn't link the relevant section above. The section where you banned me is here. I do not understand why you think this talk page comment of mine was disruptive. You really are asserting that it was disruptive? KC, would you please let another admin handle this?Ferrylodge (talk) 01:58, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Nope, never said (or thought) that one was disruptive, never commented on that in any way, as you well know. How many red herrings you planning to put here? KillerChihuahua^?!? 02:45, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

You banned me on 2 April at 10:34. It would help if you could give a diff of an edit by me on April 1 or April 2 that you found problematic.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:52, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

If no diff is provided, would it be fair to infer that there is no evidence?Ferrylodge (talk) 15:45, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

(e/c)I would highly recommend everyone taking Ferrylodge's statements with a gigantic grain of salt. His behavior here is typical. I've yet to figure out if it is tactics or his nature - I don't really care to be honest - but he has, and will continue to carry on debate, at a length and degree of rhetoric that exhausts patience of nearly everyone who comes into contact with him. Andrew c for example, is one of the most calm, civil and patient editors I've encountered. I further remind everyone that some administrators appear "involved" only because of repeated administrative involvement - make your own judgment if KC is too involved anyway, but there is not sufficient reason to doubt her good faith.--Tznkai (talk) 02:48, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

FYI, Tznkai and I have been in a content dispute at another article for weeks. Here's the RFC at that other article, where several dozen editors have weighed in.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:59, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

It appears that Ferrylodge and KillerChihuaha have had disputes over abortion-related articles going back at least two years. The Sarah Palin talk page looks mostly like a fight between the two of them. Maybe the mediation would go better with a different editor.   Will Beback  talk  03:26, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

You volunteering?--Tznkai (talk) 03:31, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

The Palin article had a brief edit war, which immediately ceased when I mentioned it. All editors (except FL) have been exemplary - coming from widely differing views, they are working very hard to resolve the issues. Enter Ferrylodge, who has taken up two sections, and yes it is virtually all between he and I, concerning NOT the dispute which is being discussed by all the other editors, but a manufactured dispute which Ferrylodge has been pursuing, which has eaten up most of the talk page over the last several days. This "fight between the two of them" is Ferylodge being tendentious and derailing the mediation with a trivial side issue, and has nothing to do with the mediation, which has NO fight, between myself and anyone, nor between Ferrylodge and anyone. I begin to doubt whether you have examined this in any detail, Will. KillerChihuahua^?!? 04:32, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Roadmap to the talk page:

The mediation/editor discussion to resolve the dispute is occurring in these sections: # 10 Bridges, again; * 10.1 Take two; and # 12 Knik Arm Bridge - include or not.

Ferrylodge's derailment, aka tempest in a teapot, aka Ferrylodge persistently and tendentiously taking up time and bandwidth on some edits which are not part of the mediation/dispute, and discussion surrounding Ferrylodge's behavior, occurs in these sections: * 11.1 Ferrylodge's edits; * 11.2 Further discussion about Ferrylodge's edits. This is not a fight between editors; this is me repeatedly warning Ferrylodge and him repeatedly pursing his agenda. KillerChihuahua^?!? 04:42, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what kind of mediation is going on over there - is it under the mediation committee, the mediation cabal, or just freelance? It looks like the latter. Since it's a contentious topic under probation perhaps it should be handled more formally.   Will Beback  talk  04:59, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Freelance, or as I put it "informal" in the hopes that formal could be avoided, per standard DR escalation. As there are zero problems with the mediation/discussion, which is proceeding well, I fail to see why you, who are not involved, are suggesting it be escalated. None of the editors who are involved have expressed any dissatisfaction for the way things are proceeding, and there have been many positive expressions regarding the process so far. There has been only one complaint, and that was about Ferrylodge. For those who are unaware, I am a member of the Mediation Committee. KillerChihuahua^?!? 05:07, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I regret having to bring this up, but as Bobblehead and Will have characterized interaction between myself and Ferrylodge on Abortion as undifferentiated "disputes", I draw editors' attention to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ferrylodge, in which Arbcom found that Ferrylodge "has a long history of disruptive editing on topics related to pregnancy and abortion", and the remedy of that is that he is subject to an indefinite editing restriction. This is hardly two editors having a dispute; this is one editor being disruptive. I am usually in disagreement with Ferrylodge on his disruptive and tendentious edits. I trust that this lays the entire subject to rest and we do not have to rub Ferrylodge's face in this any more - the problem at hand is on the Palin article, and Abortion has nothing to do with it. Ferrylodge, for what its worth, I am sorry I had to bring this up to clarify things. KillerChihuahua^?!? 06:05, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

KC, I see editors from both sides of the dispute saying that they disagree with the topic ban. In fact I don't see anyone agreeing with it as it was performed. Again, I suggest that you lift it and find an another admin to do it. Acting as mediator and as enforcer may be a bad combination.   Will Beback  talk  06:21, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I've reviewed the article talk page and as another admin consider the ban both sensible and justified, and am ready to reconfirm or reinstate the ban should KC choose to lift it. KC as an experienced and trusted mediator has put considerable thought and effort into moving towards agreement on essential aspects of the article, and that should be given time to run its course without unnecessary and disruptive diversion. As of the most recent edits at user talk.Ferrylodge,[113] Ferrylodge agreed to Bobblehead's suggestion of this ANI appeal "even though I don't have time", so I'm sure he or she can find useful things to do in the meantime, and can always prepare the case carefully for discussion once the issues currently being discussed on the Sarah Palin article have been resolved. . dave souza, talk 08:20, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

While Ferrylodge can become a bit zealous at times, I don't quite see why he was banned here. Were there sections redacted from the talk page that I might be missing here? I'm pretty busy at work this time of year, so haven't been monitoring very closely (well, at all... I didn't even know I had talk page messages until KC emailed me). --SB_Johnny | ^talk 10:04, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Let me get back to you with some details you may have missed, SB - thanks for coming over, btw! I much appreciate it - but for now allow me to simply say he's displaying the same kind of disruptive tactics which have already resulted in restrictions for him in a previous situation.

Reply to Will Beback: I don't believe you understand or appreciate the problem, Will, and have not phrased your request in any manner which indicates you do, or that you are focusing on what would be best for Wikipedia - in this case, the Sarah Palin article ? Please note also that although Ferrylodge was well aware I was watching his talk page, and if he was watching the article talk page was aware I would carefully consider a request from him to reverse myself (my post stated "As Ferrylodge has made no such request, nor has he made such a commitment, and has instead redirected everyone's attention to his edits, disrupting the process, I see no reason to consider this at this time. If Ferrylodge chooses to make such a request, I will consider it. I do watch his talk page."), he responded not by a civil "reaching out" to myself as the blocking admin with a request to reconsider, perhaps combined with either a commitment to cease his disruptive behavior, or a sincere request to more fully understand what was wrong with his behavior there, but rather with a vicious rant against me on his talk page[114] and then a series of misdirects, red herrings, and outright lies here - beginning with the lie that this is in any way a content dispute between myself and him. This does not reassure me that he plans to be more productive and less of a problem on the article talk page. KillerChihuahua^?!? 11:32, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Can we split two issues really quick here?

• K.C's topic banning of Ferrylodge as an administrator
• K.C operating as a mediator (which is dispute resolution which is the best kind administrative work as it actually can improve content)

I've read some objections to K.C being the person doing the ban but not the ban itself, and some disagreement whether the ban itself is justified, some notions that regardless of the ban itself, Ferrylodge being blocked for his behavior. I have not read anything significant that suggests that we have any business criticizing K.C for intervening as a mediator - and absolutely nothing that justifies asking her to back of. In the hypothetical situation we find that K.C's mediation is less than ideal, who here is going to stand up and take over for her? Until someone is willing, able, and has the community trust to actively help out instead of critique from the sidelines, I firmly suggest that we end that line of discussion immediately.--Tznkai (talk) 15:02, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. I asked to make the discussions separate back on 17:21, 2 April 2009 (above). I fully disagree with the ban, but honestly have no real problem with KC being the one "mediating" (I noted that the relationship between the two was less than collegial above, but don't take any of that into account regarding my view of the ban). I think KC is doing a good job of trying to get editors on the Sarah Palin article to work towards a common goal, and have no problem with her remaining and doing so. I just disagreed that FL was being disruptive to the point a ban was required. Discussion is still taking place, and FL has been comporting himself well after asked to self-revert his disputed edits, taking part in the discussions working towards a settlement of the disputes at hand. Mahalo. --Ali'i 15:10, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

This is true - FL did self revert, at my request (he mentions this above, calling it 'insistance') and has made a few edits to the content discussion for resolving the core KAB/GIB/B2N dispute. He unfortunately would not stop making his main effort towards an off-topic set of disputed edits which were taking time and attention from teh main discussion, effectively derailing it. This is to the tune of 22252 characters or 3595 words on his side issue, which no one else was discussing and which he introduced by editing the section where all other editors were observing a "good conduct" editing ban. In contrast, he has spent a mere 310 words on the core issue. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:21, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I've been watching this and see no worries with what KC has done. Ferrylodge, you'd get much further with KC and other editors by being civil about all this. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:06, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I try. The accusations against me are so inflammatory that it's difficult. Accused here at this page of "fucking bullshit", of "lying", "smearing", and the like is not something that I remotely enjoy or understand. I ask for a diff of something I did wrong, and instead I get cursed?Ferrylodge (talk) 15:20, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

If you're going to edit one of the highest traffic and PoV-ridden articles on en.Wikipedia, about a politician no less, then find yourself banned from it for a week, you may want to think about settling down and skirting any and all posts which might be taken as attacks or claims of having been done wrong but rather, steadfastly and in a civil way, stick to sources you'd like to have echoed in the text. You'll get nowhere on this project page trying to get through KC diff by diff. Start afresh, I'm only saying. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:45, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

KC has explicitly banned me for discussing sources I'd like to have echoed in the text. That's what I was doing, and got banned for it. Please show me one diff on April 1 or April 2 where I was doing anything other than exactly what you recommend.Ferrylodge (talk) 15:49, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Forget the diffs. My understanding is, she banned you for more than bringing up sources. However, if you want me to look at this, hie to my talk page and list the sources. If you throw in a lot of text my eyes will likely glaze over. This is a political topic, so most sources from any outlook you can think of will be mostly worthless spin and lies to begin with. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:56, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

If I was banned for more than bringing up and discussing sources, then why can't anyone show me a diff from April 1 or April 2 where I was doing anything but discussing sources, and discussing how to edit the article so that the article tracks the sources? I have no idea what I've done wrong, and am simply asking for a diff. Do diffs not matter? Does it not matter what I was actually doing? On April 1 and April 2, I was discussing sources and how to edit the article accordingly.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:04, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

So far as this thread goes I don't care about anything but sources. List them on my talk page or forget it. All the best to you, though. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:10, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd say that FL has been rather civil about this (excepting, of course, the slight outburst on his talk page directly after being informed of the ban, since struck). --Ali'i 15:13, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't really consider lying, misrepresenting, and personal attacks and character smears civil, Ali. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:15, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Re to Tzn: thanks for your kind words, but I really must give most of the credit to why the mediation/content discussion is going so well to the editors involved. This is a Hot Topic; its why the article was placed on probation to being with - and an edit war had just gotten underway, and I merely gave a couple of reminders to discuss and find consensus, and to focus on content not contributor, and they have been exemplary and admirable in their restraint and focus and willingness to work to find a solution. The editors of the article, namely GreekParadise, Kelly, Threeafterthree , Buster7, Fcreid, Collect. and Ali, Zaereth, and JamesMLane (I hope I haven't missed anyone, if I have I am sorry!). While I appreciate the vote of confidence, no one can mediate if the editors are not willing and able, and these editors have been amazing. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:14, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

KC/FL: check your emails, and back down please. It's pretty clear that neither of you trusts the other, and this is getting a bit unseemly (on both of your parts). You're both here to improve the encyclopedia, not make drama, right? This is not a conversation, and if you can't have a conversation with each other, just talk to me, and I'll try to figure out why you can't just talk to each other. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 16:20, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Close, please: Email recieved, so I'm going to try some imformal mediation here between KC and Fl. I think we've gone over the edge into "schoolyard debate" at this point, so good taste suggests closure of this thread. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 16:44, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

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

Strange contribs

Resolved

 – Blocked indef. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 15:06, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Would someone else mind taking a look at the contributions from the new user McDonald's Incorporated? I was tempted to username block the account for impersonating McDonalds, but I think something stranger is going on. This comment from MastCell left me even more confused! Any thoughts? Papa November (talk) 23:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Odd. Either way, someone blocked him. Tiptoety ^talk 23:46, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Already blocked by EncMstr for username and vandal-only account. — Edokter • Talk • 23:46, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Requesting a WP:3PO concerning the actions of User:C S

• User talk:C S
• User talk:David Eppstein
• history

To go straight to the point, I believe that the user has a skewed idea of what they are allowed to do on their talk page. And they feel that it is appropriate to remove part of a discussion thread, part of someone's comments.

I think it's inappropriate.

I did not post here immediately in the hopes that this would change, but I don't see a change in sight.

I'd like both:

a.) either all of the comments restored (I'll just speak for mine, though others' were as well), per WP:TALK, or all of the comments removed, per WP:USER

b.) and (more importantly) someone to explain to the user that this is simply inappropriate.

If this is how they continually treat other editors when they disagree with them, then I have sincere concerns.

I realise that this can seem a minor concern, but the editing of others' comments to remove context, or to in any way misrepresent what someone may have said is in my estimation at least, a very "bad thing".

Thoughts/advice/concerns welcome. - jc37 07:32, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Last I checked, only blocks and the like were not to be removed by a user. Other than "formal stuff" like that, it is their page. And you control your own page. If you wish to make comments on your own page, then that user does not control your page. Collect (talk) 10:25, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain that people are not allowed to refactor other peoples' comments, except in cases of PA, etc. //roux   10:31, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

There was no refactoring or editing of jc37's comments as can easily be determined. I am allowed to close threads on my own talk page, am I not? I made it clear further comments on the matter were unwelcome. After previous harassment from a friend of jc37 (despite jc37's claims of being an "uninvolved" party, it seems evident they are in fact close associates), I made it clear they should not continue to post on my talk page. They insisted on doing so. That is all. And it's a sad thing that jc37 just can't let this go. He has to get in the last word somehow, even if that includes coming here to harass me indirectly. The bot has archived my talk page, as it does to anything after 7 days. This is my last comment on this matter. I do not intend to watch this very busy page, and I would appreciate someone closing this section as it is nothing more than the continuation of a minor grudge. --C S (talk) 10:53, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I was responding to Collect, not commenting on the specific situation. The lack of diffs makes that--ahem--difficult. My feeling is that if you have told jc37 explicitly to stay away, s/he should stay away, period. //roux   11:00, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I had looked at all the diffs (a bunch to be sure) and there was no case of putting words in anyone's mouth - it was "removal" precisely, though I ought to have made that clear. I am pretty sure that everyone knows that making it appear that someone said what they did not say is clearly wrong. Collect (talk) 11:51, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, first, the reason I was there is because the user was brought up at a DRV discussion as recreating something (prior even to the DRV notice - which incidentally resulted in the restoration anyway), with rather "interesting" edit summaries. I seem to recall that they were discussing what to do about him, and I thought that perhaps a friendly notice to their talk page might be helpful. I got there, and it was just animosity from the user.

I posted what I thought to be an informative post, and they made accusations (among other things), I respond, civilly, I believe (though I welcome WP:3PO on this), and received rather uncivil edit summaries, and threats of blocking, coupled with the removal of anything that apparently they felt didn't support their view of the world.

This was discussed at David Eppstein's talk page (the admin C S went to for assistance), and even he tried to remove, and was balked at, with CS calling it harrassment, and suggesting that people would be blocked for removing their own comments. (And posted a notice to that effect on their talk page)

Fascinating opinion of policy, even if it's not true.

As for not having diffs, check the link above called "history".

And this isn't a "grudge", this is about unrepentant inappropriate behavior.

Three editors, all who also happen to be admins, seem to find issues with the editor's behavior. And even now, the editor seems to think that this is correct.

Yes, I'd like to see this assessed. - jc37 15:30, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

For now, I'd advise every other editor involved to refrain from editing User talk: C S. In future, it clearly is not reasonable to expect C S to respond well to admins raising concerns about their actions - even deliberate and disruptive actions such as performing an end run around deletion. It seems to me that, in the event of any future disruption, such as attempts to circumvent Wikipedia policies or processes, a short block would be the best way to protect the encyclopaedia. Any other approach is likely to lead to unnecessary drama. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:15, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Russavia and Offliner inserting neo-Nazi material into Kaitsepolitseiamet

In concert with the previous report, look at how Offliner inserts material lifted from the personal blog of Risto Teinonen, a man known for his love for Nazi armbands, into a Wikipedi article. After removal of this unnotable opinion, he restores it, then Russavia restores it. Clearly, what's going on is some sort of neo-Nazi trolling. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 19:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Just a note that four minutes after this item was opened, Russavia removed the contested material. Looie496 (talk) 19:11, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Then why editwar over it before it was opened? Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 19:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Looking at this and other reports, seems to me Russavia is engaging in WP:BATTLE. Martintg (talk) 19:22, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest that people look at Talk:Kaitsepolitseiamet#Removed_from_article_for_time_being. I removed this oblivious to this report, and removed it only after editing the material and coming to my own conclusion that the accusation is WP:UNDUE in its current form, in that it is too much huff. However, as this person has been investigated by the KaPo and was charged (and convicted ??) with "Neo-Nazi" "activities", then his opinion does have some weight, but not in the form it was in. As to whether he is notable, well the President of Estonia withdrew state decorations from the individual as noted here. I would also like to point out that Wikipedia:DIGWUREN#Editors_warned states that editors are warned in insinuating others are Neo-Nazi or harbour Neo-Nazi sympathies, and I have asked Digwuren to refactor this, as I hate them as much as the next person, and reject such childish things as that. And as I write this, I noticed that Digwuren has reinforced this with this further solidifying of his opinion. --Russavia ^Dialogue 19:31, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Russavia is clearly experienced enough to know that information from a personal blog, particularly a blog of a known neo-Nazi, is generally unreliable and not suitable for inclusion into Wikipedia. He would have to know these edits and similar edit warring on Soviet deportations from Estonia are highly contentious given the context of his involvement in Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#anonymous_disruption_on_Johan_B.C3.A4ckmane. Martintg (talk) 20:04, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Martintg, blogs are not generally reliable sources, and yes I know this, but I was also somewhat confused by the URL of said blog as well. But even then, he is borderline notable in my opninion, and hence his blog may be allowable as a reliable source for HIS comments in a very defined number of occasions. But anyway, how about http://www.ekspress.ee/2009/03/19/eesti-uudised/40473-teinonen-kapo-ahvardas-mind-surmaga-kapo-kommentaar as a source for the accusations? I've just run that through Google translate, and it reports the accusations. I am not about to label someone a Neo-Nazi, because to be honest I have no idea, however, the photo in that article is somewhat telling, and as much as I hate everything Neo-Nazism stands for, Wikipedia is not censored, and as he does seem to be a notable person (blame the press for making such people notable in the first place), this is valid for inclusion on the article. Now take that in addition to this, and work on getting it included in the article in some way. --Russavia ^Dialogue 20:59, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank God this has been removed by now. This section was outrageous: clearly violating WP:FRINGE,WP:TEDIOUS and just every major wiki policy. Numerous ludicrous claims by a certain Finnish activist would at best make up one sentence, if other, more reliable critics were included, too. --Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 16:58, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it has been removed, temporarily. Of course, the lack of an ounce of good faith on the part of the other editors (not Miacek) is amazing. And the thing that is Digwuren is going to have some questions to answer in relation to his re-inforced vile, disgusting accusations that I and Offliner are Neo-Nazis. One would think that an editor with their own Wiki shortcut (what an honour that must be! his mum must be so proud) would know better (Wikipedia:DIGWUREN#Editors_warned). --Russavia ^Dialogue 19:17, 3 April 2009 (UTC)