Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive556

Articles for deletion/Russian influence operations in Estonia (2nd nomination)
Just heads up, Articles for deletion/Russian influence operations in Estonia (2nd nomination) is starting to get nasty. Users are throwing phrases such as "Estonian KGB", thinly veiled personal attacks and so forth. -- Sander Säde 19:42, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello, if I had a dollar for everytime that some editors referred to the FSB as the KGB, I'd be a multi-billionaire. 50 times over. KGB was the secret police, and Kapo is the Estonian equivalent of the FSB. Other than that, there is no personal attacks, there is no being nasty, but there is quite a bit of taking to task issues surrounding the article. No need to make a mountain out of a molehill here. --Russavia Dialogue 19:56, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * So, you are comparing a regular government agency with a repressive organ which was responsible for killing millions of innocent people - but it is okay, because some unnamed persons have used old name for an official successor of KGB? Oh, yeah, I see no problems whatsoever. -- Sander Säde 05:52, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

strange vandalism
I just discovered some really strange vandalism in the userspace. It happened about two years ago, so it's not a major issue; rather a weird curiosity and a minor annoyance. I discovered it during a google search. Anyway, a user, using the login User:Somecreepyoldguy, copied the contents of my userpage and changed a couple of the userboxes to rather offensive and just simply stupid things. This was back on June 16, 2007. I'm not sure why s/he did this -- I went back into my own contribution history to figure out if I might have said something to tick this person off, but I couldn't find anything. And these are virtually the only edits made by this user (though it's probably more appropriate to just call them a vandal).

I already blanked out the page, but I was wondering if it is possible to just delete this user's account entirely as well as the page and it's entire page history? Thanks! Dr. Cash (talk) 01:20, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅I have deleted the page for you. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:17, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Dr. Cash (talk) 03:36, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

User: E Sanchez
This is either a user or admin, but Esanchez has made a public accusation on a discussion thread, which needs to be addressed or deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kewingk (talk • contribs) 05:30, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * You appear to be referring to this edit, in which case it was perfectly fine. Noting single-purpose accounts on AfDs is normal. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

FAQ disruptions from one editor in multiple places
Just a heads up. An editor has been making unilateral, usually un-discussed, and often unconstructive changes to several FAQ documents on Wikipedia, as if every FAQ must conform to his opinion of what a FAQ should look like (specifically, all answers must be collapsible and all questions must be yes/no questions). The following users are evidently the same editor, based on substantially identical editing histories:

The FAQs for articles I monitor (e.g. Talk:Evolution/FAQ, Talk:Muhammad/FAQ, Talk:Sarah Palin/FAQ, Talk:Global warming/FAQ, and others) have not benefited from these changes, and have been reverted by me or other editors, only to have this editor come back and restore the unconstructive changes.

The disruptive activity includes the following behaviors:
 * Not editing from a consistent location, instead using multiple IP addresses and one established account
 * Coming to articles unfamiliar with the history and unilaterally forcing numerous FAQ documents into some fixed mold that fits the editor's personal view of what a FAQ should be
 * Modifying meanings of questions in forcing them into yes/no format
 * Removing content by merging distinct questions
 * Destroying internal anchors to questions
 * Changing questions to yes/no format so the answer text no longer make sense
 * Failure to justify or explain any of these changes on the talk pages of the associated articles

I and others have given warnings to this editor. I placed some vandal warning templates, although I don't think this good-faith disruption is really vandalism, more like misplaced enthusiasm. I escalated vandalism warnings up to level 4, after which the editor continued to revert back to his preferred version.

The editor hasn't technically violated 3RR, but the reversions combined from all FAQs affected probably do. I haven't checked.

All that said, I do believe this editor is acting in good faith, albeit being disruptive about it. He has created some FAQs from scratch, which is fine. There are other FAQs with which the article community (e.g. Talk:Intelligent design/FAQ) has so far not had a problem with the changes. I think this editor has good intentions, but cannot seem to accept when others disagree with his changes. =Axlq 06:35, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Huw4beynon
From its edit history, User:Huw4beynon appears to be essentially a vandalism-only account, with the possible (but unhelpful) exception of creating an article “Huw Beynon”. Additionally, the edit history of User:Chaliepenn looks rather like that of a sock-puppet of the same editor. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 03:10, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Update:. The edit history of this IP number suggests that it is used by the very same editor. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 09:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Further Update: Chaliepenn has now vandalized my user page with a personal attack. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 01:01, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Chaliepenn is making something of a habit of vandalizing my userpage. Further such: . —SlamDiego&#8592;T 22:34, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * —SlamDiego&#8592;T 01:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * —SlamDiego&#8592;T 09:21, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The Chaliepenn account is now indefinitely blocked. (We'll see whether another sock-puppet appears in its place.) I still hope to see some discussion and perhaps action concerning the Huw4beynon account. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 09:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Repeated date format changing by User:TerraHikaru
Requesting block for, who has repeatedly changed date formats and regional English spellings unnecessarily on a number of pages despite a full set of warnings to desist. Most recent edit. --DAJF (talk) 02:59, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You gave a last warning, thus if they do it again report to WP:AIV for a block. Nothing needs done here until the last warning is breached. Nja 247 08:17, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

modifying AfDs after closure
Having an issue with an AfD and editing the closing template to point to the DRV he brought (AfD edit history). I've always been under the impression that, outside of perhaps needing to remove personal attacks or a courtesy blanking for BLP concerns, that the "Please do not modify it" tag means just that; no alterations, period. My last edit has a less-than-stellar tone, and I'd strike if I could. So, otherwise, input appreciated on if editing an AfD closure template to point to a specific DRV is acceptable. Tarc (talk) 16:25, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I blocked the editor in question for 24 hours for violating 3RR. There is a long and unwarranted history of edit warring here.--agr (talk) 16:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

As an outsider, perhaps not having a full background, it looks like DOTM's edits were a helpful navigation aid. I'm not sure why it required being reverted in the first place. Was there a reason besides "the rules must be followed".--Cube lurker (talk) 17:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * This user was one of the main contributors to the deleted article, a persistent voice opposing deletion during the AfD, and the initiator of the deletion review. The template that closes an AfD points to the main DRV page, I've never seen the template altered to point to a specific entry, and saw it as a somewhat disruptive method of calling attention to what he believes to be a wrongly decided deletion.  For the record, I wasn't angling for a block, just a clarification on if this was proper or not. Tarc (talk) 17:43, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delrevafd was created for just this sort of situation. Where an AfD is currently under appeal, I don't see how linking to that appeal could ever be considered a malicious move. Why didn't anyone look for a compromise, here? If it's really that bad to edit the template, just pop a notice in above it. Seriously, who cares? Why are we blocking users for linking to ongoing discussion? – Luna Santin  (talk) 18:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree the link in itself wasn't problematic, but the edit-warring over it was. In reviewing their first unblock request I spent some time going over their history; they have quite a record of tendentious editing and gaming 3RR, so I guess if it hadn't been this it would have been something else in the near future. However, with their unblock request declined twice, they've now apparently retired. EyeSerene talk 19:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * [EC]I'm with Luna Santin. This is innane. The changes were a bit out of the norm, but not the least bit harmful. Reverting with "go be a vandal somewhere else, pls? Thanks." was out of line, Tarc...and came on Tarc's 4th revert. &mdash; Scientizzle 19:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think Tarc was perhaps fortunate to avoid a block; the edits to the template were not obvious vandalism. EyeSerene talk 19:49, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I indicated that that last edit msg was out of line in the initial report here, but unlike normal edits that can be reverted or stricken on 2nd thought, what's done is done. And I didn't even consider blocking on anyone's part here, as this was spread out over 2 days.  The 3 hrs should be long expired by now though. Tarc (talk) 21:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Based on this discussion, I've dialed back the block to 3 hours. My concern was the revert warring. At least Tarc eventually brought the matter here instead of continuing.--agr (talk) 20:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Three hours from when? ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:21, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Since the complaining editor said he wasn't seeking a block and others expressed support for the disputed edit, I felt a shorter block would suffice as a message to change behavior, without overly discouraging an editor who seems to be trying to contribute. I went to the change block page and selected the lowest option from the drop down list, which was 3 hours. I thought that selection meant change from 24 to 3 hours. Sorry for the confusion, but I don't use these tools very often.  --agr (talk) 23:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I guess the answer should have been '''yes, it is perfectly legitimate to add navigation to the closed AfD, but the proper way to do it is by adding. This block was completely unjustified '''. Dems on the move (talk) 04:22, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Compromised account

 * And now the user is indefinately blocked with talk page protection, because of a "compromised account", by User:Steve Smith, what is that about? --Reinoutr (talk) 07:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I can see nothing in the user contribs that would indicate a compromised account; Dems on the move's only post since the unblock is the one just above, and there's nothing in their deleted edits either. Steve Smith hasn't posted anything, so unless there's been off-wiki contact I'm at a loss to account for this block. Hopefully Steve can enlighten us, but on the current evidence I believe an unblock is in order. EyeSerene talk 08:17, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I strongly suggest another admin at least lifts the preventing of Dems editing his own talk page, to allow the user to speak his mind in the absence of the blocking admin. In the absence of any additional evidence, this action by User:Steve Smith seems severely out of line. --Reinoutr (talk) 08:26, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Here here. He should be unblocked immediately. - ALLST✰R ▼ echo wuz here  09:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I've unlocked Dems's talk-page, though perhaps we should wait to hear from Steve Smith before jumping to conclusions. EyeSerene talk 09:47, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't wait too long. The goal here is to convince Dem's to change behavior and I think extending the block without an explanation is counterproductive.--agr (talk) 10:01, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Fair point. As a few editors have commented now and there seems to be consensus for it, I've unblocked Dems on the move. Note that this is purely in the interests of fairness to Dems based on current evidence, and not in any way prejudging the suitability of Steve's original block; until he's commented we can't know why he acted as he did. EyeSerene talk 10:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Seems like the appropriate thing to do. Indefinitely blocking a user without explanation and then going offline is unacceptable under under most circumstances. --Reinoutr (talk) 10:52, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Sorry for joining the discussion late; I didn't realize that this block would be contentious. He posted his (correct) account password on his user page. In my books, that's a compromised account, and we indef-block compromised accounts. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 14:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Ya, I would say if someone posts their correct password that the account is compromised regardless of who is using it. Good block. Chillum  15:01, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I've re-blocked, since I assume that with the explanation this is now non-contentious. As for the talk page, talk page posts from a compromised account don't do us much good, since we have no idea who's making them. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 15:32, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a reasonable explanation for the block. (I'm assuming the edit was deleted because I don't see it.)  Was there a reason though for not leaving some sort of block message?  Both on the first block and the reblock?--Cube lurker (talk) 15:48, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * OK Steve, thanks for the explanation and no arguments with your reblock. I saw an oversighted edit in the page history but all I recalled seeing prior to that was his 'retired' banner, so couldn't imagine what it might have been that would lead to the action you took. Makes sense now. A block note or something would be helpful next time though ;) Best, EyeSerene talk 16:42, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that a block notice was necessary, given the circumstances (his edit summary is still visible to administrators; have a look and see if you think he'd have needed an explanation for why he was blocked). In hindsight, I obviously wish I'd been more thorough in my explanation in the block log, or posted a note on ANI, but you know what they say about hindsight.  Cheers, Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 17:34, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * This is probably an unusual step, but I've taken control of the account, and will be more than willing to return control of it to Dems, should they be able to demonstrate to me that they are who they claim to be (bear in mind: checkuser). If I'm able to do so to my own satisfaction, would anyone mind if I released the block? Or, if my taking control of the account is deemed unwise, I can set the password back to its prior (compromised) state. – Luna Santin  (talk) 01:46, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thought it might be helpful to have a subsection for this, as things certainly took an odd tangent while I was off for a few days. Tarc (talk) 13:11, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I certainly don't think the password should go back to its previous compromised state; your actions seem perfectly reasonable to me, Luna. EyeSerene talk 13:47, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Dispute between User:Alansohn and User:AdjustShift
An edit war has been brewing at the article Thomas Henry Barry, where a group of editors have decided that quotations must be removed from footnotes. After a lengthy discussion at Talk:Thomas Henry Barry, there is no consensus for their removal, yet User:AdjustShift has been repeatedly making blind reverts to push his position. I have left repeated pleas to all involved to explain why this is unnecessary and to encourage an end to the edit war on the article's talk page. I had left a user talk page message on July 31 for both AdjustShift (see here) and User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (here). RAN has respected this request and has refrained from editing the article since the request was left on his talk page. Despite multiple pleas to end his pointless edit war, User:AdjustShift has jumped back in, making another blind revert to the article here), insisting that he and another editor WP:OWN the article (here), while acknowledging here that he has been involved in an edit war (and helpfully listing all of his blind reverts) but blaming the other party for being the problem. As an administrator, we need to expect the highest standards in dealing with such disputes, but AdjustShift appears to insist on perpetuating a needless edit war. Restoring the content before the blind revert, locking the article for a few weeks and imposing a brief block on User:AdjustShift, will help ensure that this violation of policy will not be perpetuated. 17:35, 3 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alansohn (talk • contribs)
 * This thread is not proper. Admin should review the talkpage discussion here. I've not engaged in any edit warring. This is a false accusation. AdjustShift (talk) 17:41, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I've never suggested that I own any article. The block log of Alansohn strongly indicates that he has a problem assuming good faith and he has a history of falesly accusing people. I'll bring more evidence. AdjustShift (talk) 17:46, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Below are my points:
 * A quick look at Alansohn's block log will indicate that he is a disruptive editor. Now let me explain how this all started.
 * The bio of Thomas Henry Barry was created by Rlevse. I expanded the bio and it qualified for DYK. The problem started when Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) started inserting quotes on the biography. Three people, Rlevse, JGHowes, and I opposed inserting the quotes. But, Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) continued edit warring. From 26 July 2009 to 31 July 2009 Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) has reverted five times. From 28 July 2009 to 3 August 2009, I have reverted only three times. So who is edit warring? I've never claimed that I own the bio; I'm willing to discuss with fellow editors. If there is a clear consensus to insert quotes, they can be inserted. Alansohn, because he supports Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )'s position, is accusing me of edit warring. This is nothing but an attempt to gain an upper hand in a content dispute.
 * Before Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) started inserting quotes, Alansohn did nothing to the biography, but after Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) started inserting quotes, Alansohn has been busy defending Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ). In fact, Alansohn didn't even know that the bio of Thomas Henry Barry was started by Rlevse. Please read this comment of Alansohn. He wrote I thank you [me, AdjustShift] for creating the article, but I will remind you that when ...". He thought that the bio was created by me!
 * This is not the first time that Alansohn and User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) supported each other in content disputes. Alansohn and Richard Arthur Norton often work as a team for each other, one appearing at an article to do tag-team reverts when the other is in an edit conflict. See Requests_for_arbitration/Footnoted_quotes/Evidence.
 * I think Alansohn should be blocked for a short time to prevent disruption.
 * I also believe that the heading "Edit Warring and WP:OWN problems with User:AdjustShift" is misleading; it should be changed. AdjustShift (talk) 18:26, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Admins should also analyze past problematic behavior of Alansohn. He has used misleading edit summaries, twisted the words of others, and needlessly accused multiple admins. See Requests_for_arbitration/Footnoted_quotes/Evidence. AdjustShift (talk) 18:51, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I do admire the effort to shift attention away from AdjustShift and his edit warring, first blaming User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) for adding sources and now blaming me for causing his problems. I have a strong opinion on the issue of using quotations in footnotes and have added them in a few thousand edits to several hundred articles. Despite efforts to argue the issue, Arbcom has refused to take on the issue of "footnoted quotes" and it is a built-in design feature of our citation templates. Just as I will not force any editor to add quotations to sources, I have expressed my opinion in discussion on the article and user talk pages asking for an end to a rather needless (and pathetically WP:LAME) edit war and asked that other editors not impose their arbitrary preference on the subject by blindly reverting such quotations. While User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) has complied with the request to refrain from edit warring, User:AdjustShift has persisted in a string of retaliatory blind reverts, which he brazenly acknowledges. While I'm sure that any editor can find something to take issue with among my 220,000 edits, I have played no role in AdjustShift's edit war and have not taken his bait to jump in and exacerbate the disruption he has caused here. It is disappointing that, as an administrator, AdjustShit has refused to respect the opportunity for other editors to participate in a article he claims to WP:OWN by perpetuating a rather needless edit war. Alansohn (talk) 19:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that AdjustShift lied when he said that he has made only three reverts on that article in the past week? Yes or no, please. And if the answer is yes, I think we all expect diffs as proof. In fact, diffs proving he has been edit warring are basically required at this point. → ROUX   ₪  19:48, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Roux, you can check the history of that article. I've made only three reverts on that article in the past week. AdjustShift (talk) 19:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Not long ago, on 30 July 2009, Alansohn accused User:Rlevse and User:JGHowes of "meatpuppetry" and "edit warring". It should be noted that both Rlevse and JGHowes are good-faith editors, and respect members of the community. This was JGHowes' response to Alansohn's outrageous accusation. After analyzing Alansohn's behavior, it is absolutely clear that he makes outrageous accusations to good-faith editors to gain an upper hand in content disputes. Alansohn makes good edits, and tries to ameliorate the encyclopedia, but this sort of behavior is unacceptable. Alansohn also has a history of pursuing vendetta against editors he doesn't like. He has repeatedly targeted Rlevse. He opposed both Rlevse's RFB and ArbCom candidacy. During Rlevse's RFB, Animum even warned Alansohn. Wikipedia is a collaborative project; here we have to respect other editors and view-points we don't necessarily agree with. If one is +10 as an editor, but he/she demoralizes 5 other editors, he/she is a net negative to the project. Making outrageous accusations to gain an upper hand in a content dispute is unacceptable. Pursuing vendetta against fellow editors is also unacceptable. I think Alansohn should be blocked for sometime, and he should be warned that such behavior will lead to an indef block.

The heading "Edit Warring and WP:OWN problems with User:AdjustShift" should be changed because it is misleading. I've not engaged in any edit war, and I don't believe that I "own" any article here on en.wikipedia. AdjustShift (talk) 19:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure where I've stated that User:AdjustShift lied, he's simply refused to respect other editors and repeatedly edit warred to remove material without a policy or consensus argument to perpetuate an edit war. My original report of AdjustShift's edit warring included his own link to a list of his blind revert edits, but I will include all of them here for reference:
 * 10:30, 28 July 2009 "erase needless quotes"
 * 09:46, 31 July 2009 "There still is no consensus on the talk page to insert the quotes"
 * 11:47, 3 August 2009 "please don't insert quotes without any strong reason"
 * Contrary to AdjustShift's repeated assertion, there is no policy that requires other editors to ask permission to edit articles, even ones AdjustShift appears to believe he owns. Nor is there any policy that permission must be obtained on the article's talk page to edit an article. There is a rather simple solution here: Editors either use or don't use the built-in quotation feature, while other editors respect that choice. In addition to discussing the reason why they make perfect sense here given that the sources are not publicly available, I have made that suggestion on the article's talk page offering this rather simple solution on the article's talk page on July 29, on July 31, again on July 31 after a blind revert by AdjustShift and on August 1. This was in addition to requests to cease from edit warring left on July 31 on the respective user talk pages for both AdjustShift (see here) and User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (here). RAN respected this request and refrained from editing the article since the request was left on his talk page. AdjustShift has brazenly tried to impose his arbitrary position despite these rather clear requests to cease from edit warring. In the lack of policy requring their removal or consensus that they cannot be used here under any circumstances, we are left with admin AdjustShift abusing process to impose his arbitrary view and perpetuate one of Wikipedia's lamest edit wars ever. As User talk:JGHowes aptly pointed out in response to efforts by AdjustShift to canvass and drum up support, "Repeated reversions will not resolve the dispute over footnoted quotes, nor has Talk page discussion helped. Consensus of the wider community is needed, one way or the other." (see here). Continued edit warring by an admin is not going to help AdjustShift "resolve the dispute", nor should the community condone these tactics. Alansohn (talk) 20:52, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Three reverts over seven days is not edit-warring. Can you please provide evidence that an editwar has been occurring? → ROUX   ₪  21:27, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Please refer to the first two paragraphs of Edit war, which state that "An edit war occurs when individual contributors or groups of contributors repeatedly override each other's contributions, rather than try to resolve the disagreement by discussion... Policy forbids edit warring generally, and editors may be blocked if they edit war, with or without breaching 3RR." While I agree that there is no WP:3RR violation by User:AdjustShift, repeated blind reverts of content to impose an arbitrary position is the textbook definition edit warring, certainly not the example we want our admins to set for the community. Alansohn (talk) 21:44, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * My reverts are not "blind reverts". I was one of the editors who contributed to the article. I was not forced by anyone to revert. I reverted because I felt that inserting the quotes will not benefit the article. Three reverted in seven days is not edit warring. I've never indicated that I "own" the article. I've never abused the process to impose any "arbitrary view"; multiple editors have opposed the idea of inserting quotes in that article. AdjustShift (talk) 02:14, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I object to bringing up an editor's block log and using it as a cudgel. Editor's who work on contentious material are often blocked and some of our best contributors are rather frequently blocked (which is probably good cause for concern). This is a dispute over quotes in footnotes. Perhaps a discussion at the Article content noticeboard would be the best place to to try to get broader input? ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * An editor's block log is quite a valid point to make in any discussion of transgressions, as it can show a pattern of behavior that has crossed the line. A "good editor" with a long block log is a contradiction in terms.  It would be nice to have a better visual indicator of blocks that are reduced or overturned, tough. Tarc (talk) 21:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * There are many ways someone can get mistakenly or improperly blocked. Just last week, an administrator blocked someone for canvassing because they sent the admin an email with a link to an AN or ANI thread. The block log is nothing more than a log of when an editor was blocked; it is not to be used as an indication in any way of how good an editor is. --NE2 21:50, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well I would hope that when someone drops "look at User X's" block log" into a discussion, other users will actually look at it and note what the individual entries are about. Not do a "OMG it scrolls the page == TEH GUILTY!"  shtick. Tarc (talk) 22:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, all it says in the log is "canvassing", so there's no way to know it was a bad block. Either way, it's poisoning the well. --NE2 22:18, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

While I agree that some editors have been unjustly blocked, an editor's block log may indicate the problematic behavior of the editor. In Alansohn's case, he was blocked three times in 2009. Below are the three blocks:

22:12, 29 April 2009 Good Olfactory (talk | contribs | block) blocked Alansohn (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 55 hours ‎ (persistent assumptions of bad faith; incivility; personal attacks in violation of editing restrictions) (unblock | change block)

01:04, 15 April 2009 Good Olfactory (talk | contribs | block) blocked Alansohn (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 31 hours ‎ (incivility; violation of editing restrictions at several recent CfDs) (unblock | change block)

21:46, 22 January 2009 Postdlf (talk | contribs | block) blocked Alansohn (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours ‎ (incivility, violation of editing restrictions) (unblock | change block)

Please analyze the rationale behind each of the three blocks. In some cases, editors are blocked unjustly by a single admin. But, in Alansohn's case, he was blocked twice by Good Olfactory and once by Postdlf. None of those three blocks were reversed. The block log of Alansohn strongly indicates that he has been uncivil towards other editors, and he has a habit of assuming bad-faith. AdjustShift (talk) 02:34, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * In addition to edit warring, User:AdjustShift has been actively violating WP:CANVASS, inviting several other editors he presumes would be supportive of his actions to participate in these proceedings here, here, here and here. While none have taken the bait so far, it is unfortunate that an admin would be working so actively to poison the well here. Even after multiple pleas to AdjustShift to refrain from edit warring, he still appears unable to recognize that his actions are a textbook violation of Edit war policy, while blaming others for the issues he has created. AdjustShift appears now to have convinced himself that his edit warring here is somehow related to my edit history from months and years in the past. As I've said before, there has been a very simple solution all along: Do nothing. If editors would respect editing preferences of other editors, without imposing their arbitrary preferences, there would be no issue here. An admin who understands how to resolve these issues, rather than escalate them, could have solved this problem over a week ago by simply refraining from doing anything. The choice is still here if AdjustShift is willing to finally accept it and learn a rather simple lesson. Alansohn (talk) 03:32, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Three reverts in seven days is not "edit warring" or "ownership of article". If anyone thinks that three reverts in seven days is "edit warring" and "ownership of article", he/she is assuming bad-faith. Alansohn, your past behavior, your behavior in this thread, and three blocks in 2009 strongly indicates that you've a habit of assuming bad-faith. If you would respect editing preferences of other editors, without imposing your arbitrary preferences, there would be no issue here. It would be better if you learn a simple lesson, and starting assuming good-faith with fellow editors. AdjustShift (talk) 15:01, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Isn't this dispute really about quotations in footnotes? I've indicated my opinion, but I think the topic is worth a good faith discussion at the article content noticeboard. As far as civility goes, there's probably room for improvement on both sides. I still think rehashing prior blocks is often an inappropriate way to win a dispute by tarring a fellow editor and making them out to be the "bad guy". I will concede that in this case there have been prior disputes involving this editor, so maybe you have a point, but Alansohn also does an enormous amount of excellent article work so it would be good to try to work with him despite whatever challenges there may be personality wise. It looks to me like an editing dispute, there are other ways to work it out. Would a third opinion help? Is there an editor you both respect whose opinion you could solicit? I suspect the opinions on this particular issue may vary, so you could also try to work out a compromise on which quotes are essential and which aren't really needed. And again, the content noticeboard is a good venue for getting some experienced opinion on the core issue. Anyway, good luck and happy editing. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Why are you getting yourself into this edit warring ChildofMidnight ? How does that help resolve anything? There was no consensus to add the quotes in the first place. How about following your own advice and discuss it first. Quantpole (talk) 08:20, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Here on Wikipedia we don't need consensus to add material to articles. The more accurate question is that there was no consensus to remove the quotes in the first place. Even better is to ask why an admin would perpetuate an edit war over "footnoted quotes", when two out of the three who had initially removed the material decided not to continue edit warring over the lofty principle of keeping an article free of additional information about what is being referenced. No one is under any obligation to use the quotation feature built in to the citation templates. Some editors use them and some don't. That's ok. I've used them on several thousand occasions in several hundred articles, but I don't force other editors adding other references to add quotations. It's up to them to take advantage, or not. The article in question is the perfect place to use footnoted quotes, where the sources are nearly 100 years old and are all unavailable to the public behind the subscription wall of The New York Times. All of this wikidrama would have been -- and could still be -- eliminated if editors learn to respect the fact that it's an optional feature that they are not required to use, even if their arbitrary choice is not to use the function. The best action to take here, and to have taken in the first place, is to do absolutely nothing. Alansohn (talk) 14:57, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I have no opinion either way on the quotes in question. I just found it odd that someone who was stating on here to discuss the isue then goes straight to the article and carries on the edit war. No you don't need consensus to add something to an article, but once that addition is reverted, the correct course is to discuss the issue. Quantpole (talk) 16:43, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Alansohn, if you want to discuss this in a civilized manner, please drop your accusation of "edit warring" and "ownership of article". Three reverts in seven days is not "edit warring" or "ownership of article". I was involved in the development of the article, so I became involved in reverting the quotes. I was not told by anyone to revert. The heading of this thread "Edit Warring and WP:OWN problems with User:AdjustShift " is inappropriate – please change the heading. AdjustShift (talk) 15:07, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I find it really shocking that an admin thinks that "three reverts in seven days is not edit warring". Even 2 reverts in 10 days can be edit warring, it's attitude that matters. I've analysed the page and the talk page carefully and it seems that AdjustShift's behaviour was a classical case of edit-warring. Instead of engaging in constructive discussion with the other guy he just deleted stuff with a grotesque comment that there was "no consensus" for it. And this comment: Bio of Thomas Henry Barry was developed by Rlevse and me. You were not involved in the article before Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) inserted the quotes. There is no consensus to insert the quotes, so I erased them. It is Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) who is engaging in an edit war. is downright comical, with whom was Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) involved in an edit war? with himself perhaps? It takes 2 to tango. Loosmark (talk) 15:52, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Loosmark, were you involved with this issue before? We had some disagreements over Polish-German issue, but that doesn't mean you should jump here and make comment on an issue that has nothing to do with you. Rlevse and JGHowes also reverted the edits of Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ). Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) reverted five times, I've only reverted three times. AdjustShift (talk) 16:17, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Loosmark, you can read the discussion here. AdjustShift (talk) 16:20, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * AdjustShift i can comment on whatever issue i want, so i think your telling me what should i do or not do is out of place. Also your understanding of the editwarring concept is simply appalling. If he reverted five times and you three times it simply means you two guys were involved in an edit war. Loosmark (talk) 16:32, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * ANI is not the place to sort out whether quotes are okay to include in footnotes. I suggest this discussion be archived and the discussion be continued instead on the WP:content noticeboard where it can be discussed civilly and in good faith. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I've to oppose the archiving of this discussion. AdjustShift seems to think that if the other editor reverted 5 times and he reverted 3 times then the other guy is edit-warring but he is not. I think this needs to be addressed. Loosmark (talk) 18:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Three reverts is editwarring just as much as five reverts is. I have received a warning for this myself on this noticeboard.·Maunus· ƛ · 20:42, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Why not make a report at WP:3RR? The core issue remains a difference in opinion over using quotations in footnotes and I don't see what admins can be expected to do to resolve it. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:57, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * In this case, no one has broken WP:3RR. The report to that page will not make any sense. AdjustShift (talk) 04:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Below are the three reverts I've performed:
 * 28 July (Edit summary: erase needless quotes)
 * 31 July (Edit summary: There still is no consensus on the talk page to insert the quotes.)
 * 3 August (Edit summary: See the talk page; please don't insert quotes without any strong reason.)
 * Those three reverts were performed in seven days. Before the second revert and the third revert, I waited for two days; there was no consensus to insert the quotes, so I made one more revert. I wasn't edit warring. AdjustShift (talk) 04:58, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It is completely irrelevant whether your edits were made in 5, 7 or 10 days. Your behavior was textbook edit-warring and your denial is starting to be disturbing. Loosmark (talk) 10:52, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, I looked at the "quotes" and find they add no actual information at all pertinent to the article. For example, the article states "Barry died of uremic poisoning at Walter Reed Army Medical Center on December 30, 1919.[1] He had been ill for three weeks.[4]" and the quote sought is "Major Gen. Thomas Henry Barry, U.S.A., retired, died early this morning from uraemic poisoning at the Walter Reed General Army Hospital, near Washington, where he had been ill three weeks, a sufferer from Bright's disease. Mrs. Barry and their son, Major Thomas B. Barry, were with General Barry when he died." which adds the nicely useless information about his illness and who was with him at his death. Another example has the article saying (under Legacy) "Army transport Thomas H. Barry.[5] " with the totally non-essential and trivial quote "The Army transport Thomas H. Barry arrived here yesterday and docked at Pier 11, Staten Island, with 474 passengers after a stormy fourteen-day voyage from ..." which manages to tell us the size of the transport, and no other useful information at all. IMHO, quotes should be used to convey context of information for a claim, and useful additional information. Rlevse was correct, and this complaint from Alansohn, such as it is, applies to him as well, to be sure. Collect (talk) 11:19, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Original researcher
Can I get a couple more eyes on these contributions? It seems that they are entirely original research, with no citations whatsoever. Has even created several articles - Barbecue chicken, Rib chop, Loin chop - and moved Chili pepper to Chile pepper despite lots of discussion in the past and a relatively stable consensus. However, I don't want to totally be bitey and I find myself doing that - some help would be appreciated. Tan  &#124;   39  00:09, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think the matter needs immediate administrative attention since it is a matter of contents especially food. The user in question appears to be a newbie who needs more time to understand the content policy. So you might try to visit WP:FOOD project for the next time if you face similar matters. After googling news, the article of "meat cuts" seem valid given this ample reliable sources.12,100 for "Barbecue chicken", 797 for "Rib chop", 839 for "Loin chop" In fact somebody asked us (the project members) a couple of days ago to fill in missing information on various meat cut and urged to create article about them. So let's assume good faith since the person is a newbie of less than one month. I have not read all contents of the listed articles, but the label of "original researcher" could be a bit premature.--Caspian blue 01:32, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to find the value in your comments - I really am - but I'm just not seeing any. A matter of content? A core policy is not being followed, namely, WP:V. I can't see how "original researcher" is in any form premature; there are zero cites and it's patently obvious this guy is adding in stuff off the top of his head. But what else would I expect from you, Caspian. I do my best to stay out of your way; try to return the favor. Marking resolved; if no one cares then I won't either. Tan   &#124;   39  01:39, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Please be civil and assume good faith. I tried to help you regardless of the past but you're always same. Sadly many of food articles are in poor status without any single sources for long time, so if the project members find out that some article on a same theme should be fixed, then all tend to try to add sources or others. And as far as I've known, you said so just content issues on similar matters brought up to ANI. If you want to resolve this, that would be several ways for yourself; adding sources and educating the newbie. You only just gave him a warning one time so far and he got no warning before. If it is going to happen chronically, you're an admin with the magic tool that just non-admins are afraid, so what is bothering you? :P--Caspian blue 01:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I do not need, nor want, your "help" in any imaginable capacity. I seriously make a very solid effort to not comment about you, to you, or about much of anything you are already involved in. I hold opinions of you that I cannot post here. Please, just try to return the favor. Tan   &#124;   39  02:00, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Instead of making the uncivil and pointless comment off the topic, you really need to get along (or at least pretend to get along) with people who have disagreed with you in the past or validly criticized your action. Since the subject is in my usual interest, I don't care who've brought up the issue to ANI since I wanted to help the issue resolved from good faith. Is your feeling something to do with the editor who produced articles of meat cuts? Since you're an admin that should hold higher standard of integrity and civility, please focus on the subject and show me some good one. Or just simply stop adding your comment here.--Caspian blue 02:15, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you both made some good points. The issues were worth bringing to people's attention, and as Caspian suggests (and as I believe Tan already did?) a note on the food and drink project probably would have been the best place. I think the discussion and concern were legitimate and there's really no harm in posting this kind of issue here. There's certainly no need to argue. We're all friends on Wikipedia. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:30, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with ChildofMidnight, a note on the WikiProject would have been a good call. Tan is already pushing this discussion to the edges of civility, and its not achieving a damn thing. Jeni  ( talk ) 11:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You mean like this note on the Wikiproject? Do you ever look into situations before you comment, Jeni? All I ever see you do is accuse other people of incivility and telling them to "assume good faith" (the most overused phrase on this project), when you never seem to have the first clue of the actual situation, historical behavior, or any other pertinent information. You like to fan flames, don't you? Tan   &#124;   39  14:05, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * And once again the incivilities start to show. You posted that note 9 mins before coming here, hardly a chance for anyone at the WikiProject to look into anything or even reply! Jeni  ( talk ) 14:23, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Overdue AfD
This is past its sell-by date: Articles for deletion/Anthropocene extinction event Dougweller (talk) 11:15, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Closed. Cheers, Skomorokh  14:04, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Ladgy


User has been making frivolous and vexatious reports to WP:AIV, including, , and with no warnings given whatsoever. I strongly suspect that this user is making such reports in retaliation to either reverts on watched articles or for talk page messages received. Can someone help out here, please? MuZemike 02:34, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

If just trying to make them stop reveting the article for their is no need to and im not trying to block myself and it was not if grude or furiosity kk. And the solutuion that came to pass was 24 hr block and pg protcect thats all just to make them stop.Ladgy (talk) 02:45, 2 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ladgy (talk • contribs) 02:44, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Ladgy has been edit-warring over a redirect on Broken-Hearted Girl for some time . It's one of those "rumored but unconfirmed" single articles that fails WP:NSONGS by a wide margin. There isn't any particular reason to even have the redirect, and, since Ladgy won't leave the redirect alone, I've taken it to AFD. At the very least, we'll get a consensus about what to do with it there.&mdash;Kww(talk) 03:23, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ladgy, AIV is not the purpose for that. AIV, quoting the page, is intended to get administrator attention for obvious and persistent vandals and spammers only. Settling content disputes or revert-warring are not the purposes of that page. You are supposed to engage in dispute resolution, which starts at the articles' talk pages involved, and then you work from there if said dispute is not resolved. While I'm at it, don't continue to forum-shop at other places if you don't get your way, such as requests for page protection (see ), let alone cite "vandalism" as a reason for protection when it clearly is not. Nobody owns articles here; we discuss actions taken – not write them off as vandalism. Now that the article has been nominated for deletion, I suggest you start discussing there. MuZemike 05:13, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm resurrecting this report because the disruption continues:Articles for deletion/Broken-Hearted Girl has been under sock attack, with all the socks sounding suspiciously like Ladgy:

Additionally, he's made personal attacks against Charmed36 on my talk page.

I think it's time for Ladgy to receive a time-out.&mdash;Kww(talk) 13:28, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I've indefblocked all the other accounts per WP:DUCK as obvious socks, and Ladgy for 24 hours for trying to votestack the AfD and otherwise being disruptive. Because Charmed36 self-identifies as gay on their userpage, I don't think Ladgy's comment can really be construed as a personal attack (although the tone of it was less than civil). Hope this helps, EyeSerene talk 14:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith

 * I would appreciate if an uninvolved admin would have a look at this article, it's talk page, and the edit-warring currently going on there. Please also have a look at this diff, which (perhaps incorrectly) interpret as bullying. Thanks. --Crusio (talk) 12:57, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Firstly, the diff - that's a standard warning template (see 3rr). If you look here, you'll see you've made two reverts today on that page, so the warning was warranted. Secondly,, , , and   have also been revert-warring, and the same warning would apply to them as well; Verbal was being rather presumptive in leaving you a warning when they were engaged in the same problematic behaviour. I've locked the page for now to head off any further trouble, and I strongly encourage all involved to discuss their differences on the article talk-page or, failing that, follow dispute resolution. The same goes for American Scientific Affiliation (the article currently redirected to by Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith). Further edit-warring will lead to blocks.  EyeSerene talk 14:06, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the protections. The fact that Verbal slammed me with a 3RR warning while engaging in the same behavior (and the general uncivil behavior on the PSCF talk page were indeed exactly what made me upset and feel that it was unwarranted (at least coming from her/him). (I have yet to break 3RR after several years of WP editing). --Crusio (talk) 14:14, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * By warning you I also warned myself, so don't worry about it. Establishing notability would be a first step to reversing the redirect. Verbal chat  14:18, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, I see no uncivil behaviour by me there, and I would appreciate a notification if I am going to be criticised on ANI. Unsubstantiated accusations of incivility would seem to be themselves highly uncivil. If you come to my talk page with diffs, or provide RS asserting notability, I'll be willing to discuss those - which is also the first step in WP:DR. Verbal chat  14:21, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Verbal, as an experienced editor I'm sure you've already realised that a friendly reminder would probably have been more tactful than a templated warning (per WP:DTTR). However, your willingness to engage in discussion is excellent and demonstrates good faith, and I wish all of you well in resolving this. EyeSerene talk 14:46, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

The return of Sim12
Guesws who's back, it's Simulation12's latest sock Simulation21. She/he has been bombarding my talk page with socks for months now ever she was banned and blamed me and Gladys j cortez for it. Can someone please ban this one? The Cool Kat (talk) 13:55, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Blocked. Closedmouth beat me to it. ➲ REDVERS Buy war bonds 14:29, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I have blocked the underlying IP and, who is most likely a good hand account. -- Luk  talk 16:04, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Troublesome Pair
and. I've already blocked Katsumasahiro for violating the 3RR (which is how I found them). Just kinda take a look at Articles for deletion/Kira Takenouchi (2nd nomination). We have personal attacks, legal threats, incivility, edit warring...I'm kind of at a loss...I'd provide diffs...but it's pretty much, well...all of them...but here are some of Kxings', shall we say "Greatest Hits": --Smashvilletalk  16:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This is rich...he just "blocked" me. --Smashvilletalk 17:01, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Haha, neat. Propaniac (talk) 17:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * LOL. Kxings has been indef blocked by J.delanoy. AdjustShift (talk) 17:24, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * This sockpuppet case was started before either one was blocked. I would like to say that the drama is over, but Katsumasahiro's block only lasts for 24 hours. --Farix (Talk) 17:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Request to revoke sanction
Because of an edit war between me and User:William Allen Simpson, User:Aervanath imposed a certain sanction upon both of us. I think this sanction is unfair to me. User:Aervanath seems to be unavailable. At the end of that Wikipedia:AN3 discussion it says that this is the place to appeal. I have outlaid all my arguments there a week ago. (I was offline this last week because I moved.) Debresser (talk) 18:45, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That does seem like a little extreme of a restriction. Have you tried discussing it with William Allen Simpson to see if the two of you can come up with a mutual agreement?  I think it should probably be reduced to "no reverts of each other's edits, widely construed".  In other words, mandating that you review each other's contributions to make sure that the other hasn't edited a page within the last month is a bit extreme.  But I don't see a reason to remove the restriction completely unless/until the two of you have an agreement that the disruption will not happen again. --B (talk) 22:43, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That sounds reasonable, although the idea of discussion with William Allen Simpson sounds unlikely, as it is not his way... On the other hand, it ignores my arguments in Wikipedia:AN3 that I have behaved a lot better than William Allen Simpson, and don't think I deserve to be treated the same way as he. Please note that other editors there have stated their agreement with this assessment of mine. In short, I feel that the sanction is an unjustice and should be lifted from me regardless. Debresser (talk) 20:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Please notice that the admin imposing the sanction seems to be on a wikibreak ever since, and is not available to explain herself or change her mind. Debresser (talk) 10:27, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I see that. I notified Aervanath of the thread and he hasn't responded, so we can take that to mean that he isn't monitoring his talk page or doesn't care.  I have notified User:William Allen Simpson of this thread as anything done here needs to be mutual.  I suggest modifying the sanction as follows: For an indefinite period,  and  are on a mutual editing restriction.  They are not permitted to revert each other's edits (widely construed) or take any action that would reasonably be inferred as "stalking" the other's contributions.  (Do not look at special:contributions/the other party.)  This sanction will only be lifted at the mutual agreement of William Allen Simpson and Debresser. --B (talk) 22:28, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That sounds better. I accept this proposal. But in the end it will not be enough. User:William Allen Simpson is a disruptive editor: he violated the 3-revert-rule in this last conflict (as linked in the Wikipedia:AN3 discussion), engages in tendentious editing, reverts any of my actions without any explanations in editsummaries/article talkpages/my talkpage, disregards the fact that others disagree with him (which happens often because of his tendentious and pointy editing), and has been warned numerous times for trying to own pages and uncivil conduct (including a recent block). When he does engage in discussions (one of these instances was after an admin protected the page and insisted he should partake in discussion) it is invariably with a lot of ad hominem remarks and wikilawyering. I'd prefer a solution that would try and address these problems, because an editing restriction on me is only surpressing the symptom, but not curing the sick. Debresser (talk) 10:01, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi, I've returned from an involuntary wikibreak (my internet connection was cut off for a week, and I was too busy with other real-life considerations to get it fixed until now), so I apologize to all concerned that it's taken so long for me to get back and comment on this situation. I would first like to address Debresser's concerns that he and William Allen Simpson were subjected to identical restrictions.  The primary reason is that it takes two to tango.  While my impression is that overall, in his on-wiki behavior, Debresser has been the more cooperative and consensus-seeking of the two editors, I believe that he has developed somewhat of a knee-jerk reaction where William Allen Simpson is concerned.  I agree with 's suggestion that  and  be restricted from reverting each other's edits for an indefinite period, and I now concede that my initial restriction was overly harsh.  I recommend that both of them be encouraged to engage in some sort of dialogue to reach an understanding on how to deal with each other.  I thank  for his cogent and well-thought-out comments on this situation.--Aervanath (talk) 20:52, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Welcome back Aervanath. I mean that. As I said before, I will agree with this second sanction.


 * I deny having any reaction to User:William Allen Simpson, be it knee-jerk or allergic. I just have come to the conclusion that he is a pointy and tendentious editor, and furthermore likely to show problems of ownership and incivility. My personal opinion about him, which you have on occasion supposed to be one of dislike, is clearly defined, but just as clearly of no consequence. What is important, is that User:William Allen Simpson is, in my opinion, detrimental to the Wikipedia community.


 * Please do not think that I am wagging a war against User:William Allen Simpson. I have tried to bring him onto the right track, posting on his talkpage and on occasion on wp:wqa, wp:AN3 or here, but he has shown himself unreceptive to my posts, as well as those of many, many others. I am just trying to fix those edits which I consider "wrong", that is, not reflecting the opinion of the Wikipedia community as I understand it to be. Of course, I am prone to lean to the side of what I would like this community to think, but that does not diminish the sincerity of my efforts. I find an important indication that I am doing the right thing, in the fact that several editors, including you, have expressed worries along the lines of my own misfeelings. Sometimes they have actively supported me, in repeating my edits and on Wikipedia:AN3. Without me even dreaming of asking for their support! Recent edits of User:William Allen Simpson on Arbitration/Requests/Case, brought to my attention by another editor, together with what I already had seen myself, indicate an unhealthy pattern of involvement with Wikipedia.


 * I wish User:William Allen Simpson would stop being a problem, but I have come to the conclusion that this will not happen. One way or the other, this will not end nice. And that is the way it should be, for the benefit of the community. I would like to appeal to you to consider carefully wether there is no way to influence User:William Allen Simpson to better his ways, or, if none can be found, to solve this problem otherwise. Debresser (talk) 21:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Escalate from WQA
User:Ekspert9123128391 I think that this use of "cunt" is beyond our typical warnings. ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 15:41, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I hope that folks will regard my blocking of alphabetsoup there with no warnings extant on their page in a kindly light. Syrthiss (talk) 15:47, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. I gave them a final warning, but had little faith they would become a proper contributor, so do not object. --John (talk) 15:52, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Geez, did I really accidentally put my welcomecivil template on his Userpage? My bad ... conference call + editing Wikipedia at same time = feckups :-)  ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 15:59, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

For the general record, we should probably establish a guideline like warning first THEN ANI/AIV THEN blocking or something. ;) Syrthiss (talk) 15:58, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I might disagree with especially bad uncivility like this ... ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 15:59, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Generally, at WQA I look to see if they have even been given the standard set of rules in a welcome. It's one of the reasons I designed my  template.  However, the way this guy used "cunt" is IMHO an especially bad WP:NPA, and a couple of days block - plus the reminder Welcome - should be a wakeup call to him. ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 16:04, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeh, thats why I IAR'ed (pronounced YAAAARR, like a pirate). Syrthiss (talk) 16:01, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Gonna put a block notice on his talkpage? Or just keep him strapped to the yardarm? ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 16:07, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The 3 of you need to remember the following: the user to whom the comment was directed did not take care in his revert, and admits that his edit-summary was at least partially misleading/incorrect. The blocked user hadn't been warned (and given an opportunity to reform), let alone welcomed. No effort was made to communicate with the user at all prior to the block, which should've been done when it came to WQA, rather than escalate immediately. No block message was put on his talk page either. If the user is capable of being professional in his commentary (both in edit-summaries and user talk contributions), and can be a proper contributor, and moreover, ends up being frustrated because of the block, guess who's head(s) will be served on a platter for not communicating with him and escalating this? ;) I think my point is clear, but that's just a hypothetical, I suppose. :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:10, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * No worse than the sort of language that some admins used to praise JzG for using. How times change. That said, warn first, and always leave a block notice. DuncanHill (talk) 16:14, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I did overlook the block notice. I will go do that now. Syrthiss (talk) 16:17, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I of course would not be offended by it being a 24hr block as prevention of additional being p'd off at Jimbo Online, and additional tantrums, rather than indef. He then has a full chance of reform based on the wakeup call that Wikipedia is collboarative.  That is why I at least welcomed him ... didn't expect an indef. ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 16:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd like to move that the block be shortened to ~ 48 hours, for the reason above. That said, I'm not an active sysop, and am treading lightly.  -- Pakaran 16:51, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the block should be a definite length. Indeff is for people who are here only to disrupt/attack/vandalize etc. and/or continue to do so after warnings, usually more than one. 24 hours should be plenty for two personal attacks without prior warnings and when other edits seem to be constructive. While blocking at all is often opposed when there are no warnings, the block in this case is good, however, the length is excessive. The   Seeker 4   Talk  16:57, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

As I mentioned on my talk page to Ncmvocalist, I'm content if anyone wants to shorten the block or unblock the editor in question. I expect that the user was here solely to pick fights, but maybe I'm just inferring that from the interest in soccer hooliganism and the quick jump to personal attacks. I don't know for sure that is what they intended. So: unblock, shorten, whatever you (the community you, not YOU you) think best. Syrthiss (talk) 17:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Again, reduce block to something in the range of 24 hours, 48 hours, or 48 less time served. -- Pakaran 18:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Reduced to 24 hours...tho I suspect the block log will start the 24 from now so its more like 31ish total. Syrthiss (talk) 19:07, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

A very quick request.
I don't know where else I can make this request so I am asking here. I would simply like some kind administrator to restore some content that was speedily deleted and move it under a user account. See. If that content could please be restored as a subpage under either the original user's account, or alternatively mine, I would appreciate it. I will work with this individual to understand how such controversy pages normally come into being. I would like to review to content they originally had in the deleted page and to assist them in adding it to the main MSNBC page, if appropriate.

If there is a more appropriate place for such requests please let me know for future reference. --GoRight (talk) 17:08, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * See WP:REFUND - if they don't get it done rather quickly, drop me a line and I'll look this evening. — Ched : ?  18:17, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I took a look at it, and there's nothing really to add to the MSNBC page. It's basically a short unsourced piece that says MSNBC is a left-wing propaganda outlet that hates Bush and Palin. -- Fabrictramp |  talk to me  19:15, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Correction -- the version that was ultimately deleted had no sources, but the version last edited did have sources, although several of them were blogs (and the others I couldn't determine reliability with just a quick glance.) PokeHomsar's last version might be a candidate for userfication, but WP:DRV would be a better venue than WP:REFUND because it would be just a tad more controversial than our scope at REFUND. Cheers!-- Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  19:35, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the pointer to WP:REFUND. Cute acronym.  I shall pursue the matter there.  Thank you all for your assistance and you can mark this item as resolved from your perspective.  --GoRight (talk) 19:43, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Escalate from WQA
User:Ekspert9123128391 I think that this use of "cunt" is beyond our typical warnings. ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 15:41, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I hope that folks will regard my blocking of alphabetsoup there with no warnings extant on their page in a kindly light. Syrthiss (talk) 15:47, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. I gave them a final warning, but had little faith they would become a proper contributor, so do not object. --John (talk) 15:52, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Geez, did I really accidentally put my welcomecivil template on his Userpage? My bad ... conference call + editing Wikipedia at same time = feckups :-)  ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 15:59, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

For the general record, we should probably establish a guideline like warning first THEN ANI/AIV THEN blocking or something. ;) Syrthiss (talk) 15:58, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I might disagree with especially bad uncivility like this ... ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 15:59, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Generally, at WQA I look to see if they have even been given the standard set of rules in a welcome. It's one of the reasons I designed my  template.  However, the way this guy used "cunt" is IMHO an especially bad WP:NPA, and a couple of days block - plus the reminder Welcome - should be a wakeup call to him. ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 16:04, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeh, thats why I IAR'ed (pronounced YAAAARR, like a pirate). Syrthiss (talk) 16:01, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Gonna put a block notice on his talkpage? Or just keep him strapped to the yardarm? ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 16:07, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The 3 of you need to remember the following: the user to whom the comment was directed did not take care in his revert, and admits that his edit-summary was at least partially misleading/incorrect. The blocked user hadn't been warned (and given an opportunity to reform), let alone welcomed. No effort was made to communicate with the user at all prior to the block, which should've been done when it came to WQA, rather than escalate immediately. No block message was put on his talk page either. If the user is capable of being professional in his commentary (both in edit-summaries and user talk contributions), and can be a proper contributor, and moreover, ends up being frustrated because of the block, guess who's head(s) will be served on a platter for not communicating with him and escalating this? ;) I think my point is clear, but that's just a hypothetical, I suppose. :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:10, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * No worse than the sort of language that some admins used to praise JzG for using. How times change. That said, warn first, and always leave a block notice. DuncanHill (talk) 16:14, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I did overlook the block notice. I will go do that now. Syrthiss (talk) 16:17, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I of course would not be offended by it being a 24hr block as prevention of additional being p'd off at Jimbo Online, and additional tantrums, rather than indef. He then has a full chance of reform based on the wakeup call that Wikipedia is collboarative.  That is why I at least welcomed him ... didn't expect an indef. ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 16:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd like to move that the block be shortened to ~ 48 hours, for the reason above. That said, I'm not an active sysop, and am treading lightly.  -- Pakaran 16:51, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the block should be a definite length. Indeff is for people who are here only to disrupt/attack/vandalize etc. and/or continue to do so after warnings, usually more than one. 24 hours should be plenty for two personal attacks without prior warnings and when other edits seem to be constructive. While blocking at all is often opposed when there are no warnings, the block in this case is good, however, the length is excessive. The   Seeker 4   Talk  16:57, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

As I mentioned on my talk page to Ncmvocalist, I'm content if anyone wants to shorten the block or unblock the editor in question. I expect that the user was here solely to pick fights, but maybe I'm just inferring that from the interest in soccer hooliganism and the quick jump to personal attacks. I don't know for sure that is what they intended. So: unblock, shorten, whatever you (the community you, not YOU you) think best. Syrthiss (talk) 17:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Again, reduce block to something in the range of 24 hours, 48 hours, or 48 less time served. -- Pakaran 18:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Reduced to 24 hours...tho I suspect the block log will start the 24 from now so its more like 31ish total. Syrthiss (talk) 19:07, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

A very quick request.
I don't know where else I can make this request so I am asking here. I would simply like some kind administrator to restore some content that was speedily deleted and move it under a user account. See. If that content could please be restored as a subpage under either the original user's account, or alternatively mine, I would appreciate it. I will work with this individual to understand how such controversy pages normally come into being. I would like to review to content they originally had in the deleted page and to assist them in adding it to the main MSNBC page, if appropriate.

If there is a more appropriate place for such requests please let me know for future reference. --GoRight (talk) 17:08, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * See WP:REFUND - if they don't get it done rather quickly, drop me a line and I'll look this evening. — Ched : ?  18:17, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I took a look at it, and there's nothing really to add to the MSNBC page. It's basically a short unsourced piece that says MSNBC is a left-wing propaganda outlet that hates Bush and Palin. -- Fabrictramp |  talk to me  19:15, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Correction -- the version that was ultimately deleted had no sources, but the version last edited did have sources, although several of them were blogs (and the others I couldn't determine reliability with just a quick glance.) PokeHomsar's last version might be a candidate for userfication, but WP:DRV would be a better venue than WP:REFUND because it would be just a tad more controversial than our scope at REFUND. Cheers!-- Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  19:35, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the pointer to WP:REFUND. Cute acronym.  I shall pursue the matter there.  Thank you all for your assistance and you can mark this item as resolved from your perspective.  --GoRight (talk) 19:43, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Scribner 3RR block
I gave a 72 hour block to for edit warring on Paul Krugman. (This user has been blocked several times before.) He has emailed me, asking for an unblock so that he could contribute to the RFC on Talk:Paul Krugman. Any opinions? -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 22:24, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * If he can write on his talkpage still, tell him to write a commitment there first, that he will refrain from making any edits to the article whatsoever during these 72 hours. Debresser (talk) 22:27, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, I'll contact him on his talk page. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 22:45, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Error when accessing Talk page for First-person shooter engine
It consistently return the message "Override this function.". It's an old article which already had content in its Talk page. I don't know if it's a result of vandalism (though I think it's unlikely), or simply a technical error. I even don't know if here is the right place to report it. Hervegirod (talk) 22:33, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I would say go to WP:VPT or bugzilla. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 22:34, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, however, it just returned after approx. 10 mns. Thanks however. I will know how to report next time. Hervegirod (talk) 22:35, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * (EC) I have had the same problem as well, when trying to edit a (different) page, BTW. Probably just a technical glitch, not page-specific at all. I tried it and had no problem accessing Talk:First-person shooter engine. Try it again, perhaps? -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 22:36, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks, you are surely right about this. Now it's OK again. Hervegirod (talk) 22:38, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll make a bug report. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 22:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Known issue, related to a software update. Mentioned earlier on Talk:Main Page.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:43, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Oops, I already reported it. Oh well. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 22:44, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I received the same thing while editing my own sandbox. Glad it's not a big deal. &lt;&gt;Multi-Xfer&lt;&gt; (talk) 22:45, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Sharma
User:Solyd truth (single-purpose account) persistently added dubious text to Sharma article, reverted by several users. After some time, he created two fork pages with his verison of text, Sharma Family Name and Sharma Name Origins. (I redirected them to "Sharma".) Since he failed to respond to the notice in his talk page, I blocked him for 1 hour with the note to read and respond to the message. Since I am involved in editing this page, please someone admin take from there and keep an eye on the activities of this editor. - Altenmann >t 23:03, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That username seems like it may fail the username policy... or at least raises red flags. Anything with "truth" in it does for me anyway. &lt;&gt;Multi-Xfer&lt;&gt; (talk) 01:08, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

User vandalising pages and has no talk page
Is it me, this ip is strange. He is vandalising pages and has or appears to have no talk page.[] (Off2riorob (talk) 23:06, 5 August 2009 (UTC))
 * Works for me... User talk:81.76.4.92 Jeni  ( talk ) 23:10, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That's when you edit the red link and make the talk page yourself.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 23:11, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Strange, it is there now! All I was getting was a white page with the words, 'overide this function' in the top left corner. (Off2riorob (talk) 23:12, 5 August 2009 (UTC))
 * Funnily enough, I got the same white screen with "override this function" an hour or two ago when I tried to look at the RSN history. There is a gremlin in the system. -- JN 466  23:18, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh. I got that error before too. Server hiccup.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 23:19, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, thank you. Excuse my panic. (Off2riorob (talk) 23:21, 5 August 2009 (UTC))
 * I also got an "override this function" when looking at a history. Never seen that before. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 00:19, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I keep getting that too. In fact, I got it just now when I tried to comment here. Hit the back button and clicked edit again and worked normally. I hope they resolve the issue soon, it's kind of annoying. &lt;&gt;Multi-Xfer&lt;&gt; (talk) 01:06, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

David Miscavige
These edits are very questionable in terms of application of WP:BLP:. BLP demands an emphasis of a neutral POV and must be very verifiable. These edits in the lead section of the article are not conform with these rules, but it seems to me an indicator for "edit warring" as it was common recently and caused the Arbitration Committee to decide in May 2009 "(C) To edit in accordance with all Wikipedia policies and to refrain from any form of advocacy concerning any external controversy, dispute, allegation, or proceeding", which has been put on the article's talk page. Please review. Proximodiz (talk) 01:11, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note that Proximodiz was topic-banned from Scientology related topics (including that article, on the Church of Scientology's current leader) by Requests for arbitration/Scientology. I won't hazard an opinion if this is a violation of a topic ban, but just FYI for anyone who is reviewing in more depth.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:31, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * On further review, it does constitute a clear violation of clause (ii) of the topic ban:
 * Scope of Scientology topic ban
 * 3A) Editors topic banned by remedies in this proceeding are prohibited (i) from editing articles related to Scientology or Scientologists, broadly defined, as well as the respective article talk pages and (ii) from participating in any Wikipedia process relating to those articles, including as examples but not limited to, articles for deletion, reliable sources noticeboard, administrators' noticeboard and so forth.
 * Passed 11 to 0 at 13:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC) 
 * One month block is authorized by the case findings but I will limit to a one week block in the hopes that that's enough pour encourager les autres and have people take the arbcom findings seriously. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:40, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Requesting long-term block for IP 69.225.251.134 (a.k.a. User:Lysdexia, previously banned)
This IP signs posts as "lysdexia" and has the same editing pattern as User:Lysdexia (banned for sockpuppetry). The IP has been warned numerous times by myself and other users (see User talk:69.225.251.134) for the use of nonsense words and invented usages (examples: ). When confronted the IP simply responds that everyone else is in the wrong. The IP will undo other users' reverts. Short-term blocks appear have no effect on this user, and I doubt an unenforced ban will either. Strad (talk) 03:52, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * She (Autymn DC) received a 31 hour block after the last report here a week ago. Mathsci (talk) 06:14, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I gave the IP a week block. Note that banned means banned--not allowed to edit at all--block-on-sight without warning. I don't see a formal community ban (though I would support one), however, socking or block-evasion itself is blockable per policy, and this user does have a long history of that type of behavior. DMacks (talk) 06:33, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Allstarecho
Allstarecho was indefinitely blocked in June when Moonriddengirl found long term copyright violation problems in his contributions. The next week Allstarecho requested an unblock and Akhilleus unblocked without discussion.  Additional issues have emerged since that time. Akhilleus has not edited since July 23 and has not replied to a query I left at his user talk page on July 28. Also see above at Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents (tangentially related). Submitting to the community:
 * WP:BLP, WP:UNDUE, WP:EDITWAR, WP:RS, WP:COPYRIGHT problems:
 * Steve Porter (producer) July 30: sources a BLP to an open Web forum.
 * Chip Pickering: U.S. Republican congressman from Mississippi. July 30-August 2: Allstarecho edit wars against three people to keep an image in the article until the image gets speedy deleted as G10: File that serve no purpose but to disparage or threaten its subject.  Two administrators also agree it has a possible copyright problem and would need additional sourcing to demonstrate public domain status.  Allstarecho responds by calling the opinions of four experienced people "utter ridiculousness" and tries argue that the image's appearance at a .gov site is demonstration of public domain status.  (Allstarecho's public domain rationale is not sufficient).  Prior to that image edit war, Allstarecho had also added a BLP violation to the article on July 16.
 * Thio Li-ann:Singaporean law professor. July 11: Allstarecho adds a long quote from abovethelaw.com, which describes itself as a gossip site.
 * Mike Duke: CEO of Wal-Mart; one paragraph substub biography. May 5 - July 28: Allstarecho creates a 'controversies' section to state that Mike Duke signed a petition and restores the section after another editor removes it per BLP.  The result of Allstarecho's addition is a long discussion at the article talk and then a longer discussion at the BLP noticeboard.  Consensus agrees to remove Allstarecho's addition.

This amounts to pattern behavior of BLP violation, most of which aligns with a political agenda. Also edit warring, bad sourcing, IDIDNTHEARTHAT, and possible return of his copyvio problem. Seeking independent review and appropriate action. Durova 292 05:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * This is nothing more than retaliation for me having started Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents and I won't even bother addressing it any further after this post. No copyright has been violated and no BLP has been violated, everything validly and reliably sourced and nothing even paraphrasing.
 * Regarding Steve Porter (producer). No BLP vio or copyvio here. I sourced to the actual video being described in the article. Yes, it's TMZ but it's for the video, not any kind of BLP content.
 * Chip Pickering - Free image was repeatedly removed without any of the removers addressing the BLP vio caption. I removed that caption. The image itself, there was no reason to remove it except, as I later saw, the actual name of it was disparaging (Chickpickering.jpg but looking at it quickly it looked like CHIPpickering) and when I noticed that, I left the matter as it was. I also did not add a BLP violation to the article, as Durova says about this It's sourced to a newspaper for pete's sake.
 * Thio Li-ann - regardless of the type of site, it reported word for word the press statement.
 * Mike Duke - No issue here. The source is an official government document signed by the subject proving his age and that he signed the document.

That's all I have to say on the matter and won't say anything else. It's obvious this is pure retaliation based on Durova's own comments here and here days ago where she all but threatened to bring up my own past transgressions if I didn't stop insisting on Matt Sanchez being held to the same standards that I was held to. Cheers. - ALLST✰R ▼ echo wuz here  05:16, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I want to ask two questions to Durova, don't want to start a "thing" over this, just want to ask. First, how is a potential copyvio problem related to the Matt Sanchez situation?  Second, since you are involved in the Matt Sanchez conversation, should you be the one to bring this matter to ANI? -  NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • 05:17, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, Matt Sanchez is another BLP subject and Allstarecho's interest carries some of the same political overtones across all five BLPs. Durova 292 05:23, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That answers (barely) my first question, how about the second? -  NeutralHomer •  Talk  • 05:24, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Matters of content policies--especially BLP--are weighed upon their merits. Please focus on the evidence, not personalities.  Durova 292 05:32, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * My questions have been swapped over to Durova's talk page. Carry on. -  NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • 05:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. Hmmmm, I have a hard time interpreting these as a return to prior bad behaviours which I think were seen in hindsight as only some attributed to ASE. In a brief looking through these the sourcing could be better. The Chip Pickering "BLP violation" actually looks to be reliably sourced and presented NPOV. The Thio Li-ann quote was sourced to a wobby source when it should have been attributed to where that source got it, My preference would be both on purely a quick look so we have the primary source as well as how it was seen. To me this does seem to be tied only to ongoing tension caused by 's connection; with Allstar generally trying to keep that user (and apparently some socks) in check while Durova bravely attempted mentoring the same who sadly seems rather unrepentant and unable to reform. As a bit of advice to both that user really seems unable to reform their ways so you can step away and let them dig their own hole. Durova is an image specialist IMHO, and ASE tends to get a bit heated and means well but errs on some image usage. In any case the image has been deleted so we can move on from there, ASE should chill a bit and each should likely step away from the whole drama of the former editor who now seems to have earned another block. You're both valuable to the project so ... please don't let some man come between you ;) -- Banj e  b oi   05:40, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No comment on the BLP issue, I'm not going to comment on ASE for i don't want to look like I have any sort of vendetta against him, but the 'and apparently some socks' comment deserves a response. The CU was negative, as was the previous run of IP's believed to be Bluemarine. Sanchez has attracted a lot of media attention that makes him a high profile target, and I firmly believe that these anonymous users are trying to get Sanchez into hot water here, as well as provoke him into rather unsavory behavior. Sanchez has, so far, been rather quick and blunt to respond to those he feels have wronged him, I believe partly out of frustration with this whole things. The editing restrictions and mentorship settled upon in the Matt Sanchez thread are an attempt to address that. If Sanchez/Bluemarine proves unable to hold himself in check, we can of course address it, but your comment about socking, making it seem like some sort of ongoing, current problem does not accurately reflect the current situation. -- M  ask?  07:13, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I was going by this and this. Sadly I am quite familiar with Bluemarine's record here. They likely have been harassed but they also have incredibly antagonistic, tenditious and combative. I had hoped they would have amended their approach but that seems less likely than ever. They have basically attacked even those who were trying to help repelling those editors away as well. -- Banj e  b oi   08:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The block message on the ip was made before the CU was run and found unrelated. This (the ip) is actually a prime example of the things Sanchez has to deal with. I understand how you came to the conclusion, I'm just pointing out the assumption is erroneous (for now, we'll see how Bluemarine comes out of this). -- M  <sup style="color:#000000;">ask?  08:16, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ahh, but look at all of these socks that are Bluemarine's. Don't put socking past him. Just recently he was caught socking on other projects as well. It's perfectly acceptable for anyone to assume a new and sudden IP editing things only he edits, is him. - ALLST✰R ▼ echo wuz here  09:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I take the counter-socking claim to heart as sneaky vandals - as we seem to have on both sides of the Bluemarine related dramas have both advocated for him and against him - it wouldn't surprise me at all if they were subterfuging to misrepresent and malign their "opponents". Agreed it was an assumption and likely all the socks could be also categorized as socks associated with the ongoing disputes than with one user until proven conclusively. -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e  <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b oi   18:33, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I was going to bring ASE's behaviour to this board for review for slightly different reasons. He seems to be unable to stop provoking/attempting to provoke Bluemarine - unable to step away from the issue, despite being told that his conduct is unhelpful. Indeed, this quote"I'm so over dick suckers who suddenly find jesus in a pool of cum." attributed to himself, which was until recently displayed on his userpage (until he redirected that to his talk page), is a comment about Bluemarine, and referred to him by his real name until I told him it was a BLP violation and had to be removed. Apart from the inability to disengage from Bluemarine (who from what I have seen, while not behaving brilliantly himself, has repeatedly asked ASE to leave him alone and is not instituting the contact), his general conduct is frequently quite combative. Viridae Talk 07:34, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not attempting to provoke him or anyone else. The guy is community banned from Wikipedia. He has stated he is confused about the ban. I challenge anyone to look at my edits to his talk page and you will see they are nothing but explanations of his community ban... no sarcasm, no smartassnes, no trolling, no harassing, no goading and no baiting and I dare anyone to find such. Yes, I can be combative, but that's certainly not my "general conduct". In fact, my "general conduct" is quite pleasant and jolly. Ask the people that actually get it. - ALLST✰R ▼ echo wuz here  09:33, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Personally I think ASE should just step away and avoid Bluemarine as Bluemarine will undue themselves with no outside involvement thus keep the two apart from each other moot. ASE was among the many editors at the receiving end of the others' less-than-civil conduct, this doesn't condone reciprocation but it does explain the rather low threshold for the nonsense that seems to go on two years and counting. Part of the issue with Bluemarine was that precious little was done for a very long time. Knowing what I know now I would have rolled out warnings in real time and let ANI sort things out as they escalated. He didn't get the luxury of escalating blocks but quickly went to community banned coinciding with Arbcom intervention. IMHO, he will get re-banned and if the parade of socks and advocates on his article doesn't end it may need to be deleted as more trouble than it's worth, it's certainly POV bias as is but that's for others to watch over. Bluemarine can work on the other wikicites including the French and Spanish versions of the page and it looks like he's been edit-warring on wikiquote as well. Let's not place undue blame on ASE for dealing with a vexatious editor who has caused years of drama on multiple projects. -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e  <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b oi   08:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * sigh* I suppose I do have to comment now. ASE, after announcing he needed time to compose himself after this thread, then some time later changed his status to offline and signed off with this edit summary, a reference and taunt. It follows his favorite line of goading- compare it to the "I'm so over dick suckers who suddenly find jesus in a pool of cum." quote he displayed aimed by name at Sanchez. -- M  <sup style="color:#000000;">ask?  09:10, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This coming from someone who has a blatant BLP vio on their own userpage?? Despite being a total geek, I am of the opinion that Richard M. Stallman is a dick. Clean your own house first please. My edit summary had nothing whatsoever to do with Bluemarine. I'm glad you did your best to assume faith, good or bad, with this one. It was more along the lines of when people ask god to give them strength and again, had not one single letter to do with Bluemarine. But thanks for playing. - ALLST✰R ▼ echo wuz here  09:33, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I recently made the first edit to my userpage in over a year, that comment dates to a time before there *was* a BLP policy, before Office Actions, a CoI policy, before the BADSITES fights, and is, as wikipedia goes, a stone age relic. In addition, we link WP:DICK quite frequently, and do not believe it is stating anything offensive in terms of community norms, nor outside the appropriate range for an expressed personal opinion. Should others think it so, I would be more the happy to remove it, but I dont think it rises to any sort of violation, nor have i used it to taunt, harass, and berate a fellow contributor as you have done so lately. That, my friend, is a vast stretch of difference between them for any sort of comparison you feel the need to apply. -- M  <sup style="color:#000000;">ask?  09:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah well, I first made the "jesus cum" edit to my userpage well over a year ago so I guess by your standards, I'm safe as well. Good to know. Thanks for clarifying. Either way, it's still a BLP vio. - ALLST✰R ▼ echo wuz here  10:03, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The edit that introduced it was on 18 march 2006, over three years ago, not one. Also, you failed to address the other points. -- M  <sup style="color:#000000;">ask?  10:07, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Durova is trying to rehabilitate User:Bluemarine a most difficult user and, yes she's on a fools errand, but ASE doesn't help things. In fact he goes out of his way to make things worse. Where we should be assisting Durova in taking time to help Blue come back to the fold, we aren't. We're in a tizzy about ASE and his hurt feelings. Frankly Durova was and is right. ASE should butt out and leave this most vexing issue to the community. Crafty (talk) 09:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, I'm sorry, I thought I was part of the community. My bad for thinking such a thing! ;] - ALLST✰R ▼ echo wuz here  09:33, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course you're a member of the community. A greatly valued and highly respected member. But surely you can see how less invested members might resolve this issue in a way that produces a resolution which advances the cause of the encyclopedia, rather than the causes of individual editors. Stepping back might give you and everyone else space to breathe and move forward in a constructive fashion. Crafty (talk) 09:43, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, I have stated in several places that I'm all for the lifting of his community ban (which is still in effect per this I just found), provided the stipulations as mentioned up the page in a different thread are agreed to by him and enforced by the community. I can provide diffs upon request to prove such. Even now, after him having just been blocked for vile personal attacks against me, I still support the lifting of his community ban under the provisions. However, my only involvement has been to ask that while he's under community ban, he remain blocked or at least edit-restricted to his own talk page. Yet others, including AKMask and Pastor Theo, have told him or said that he isn't under a community ban any longer. No wonder the poor guy is confused. Someone has to make sure the false information being presented, and the one-sided stories being presented, are balanced and accurate. And that's what I have done. A ban is a ban, not just in name. - ALLST✰R ▼ echo wuz here  09:52, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * And you've been a vigorous advocate for your cause. But I'm not sure it's getting us anywhere. Yes we all know he called you a pervert, an appalling calumny and it's high time we dealt with his continuing disruptive presence. But your well intentioned efforts aren't resolving this. All they've produced is this thread by Durova which seeks to restrict you. Seriously, take a step back and let less involved types assay the situation. Crafty (talk) 09:58, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the point ASE, and I agree FYIW, is that the issue is becoming more about you which is deflecting away from constructively doing anything about Bluemarine. As Bluemarine burns through one opportunity after the next their behaviours speak for themselves. You are, likely unintentionally, delaying others from being able to see that user's conduct clearly as it deflects attention away from them. If the article degrades? So what, it's already advertorial for him, it will get corrected soon enough even if it takes months. Just avoid the whole mess for now and let that user earn their reputation over yet another group of editors. We did our part in bringing attention to the situation, if the greater community wishes to let it ride then they can deal with them. -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e  <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b oi   18:33, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Back to the issue at hand here - was this meant to be a Matt Sanchez thread? - there is no WP:BLP, WP:UNDUE, WP:EDITWAR, WP:RS, WP:COPYRIGHT problems as Durova suggests and in some places, makes up - at least nothing actionable. Yes, there may be problems with one of the sources, but who defines it as reliable is to one's own taste I guess. So unless there's anything else in regards to the complaint of this actual thread, or in regards to the reason it was filed in the first place - that being the blatant retaliation after threatening to do so - might it be closed and we move along? - ALLST✰R ▼ echo wuz here  10:08, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the history of Steve Porter (producer) may offer some insight: The Mike Duke incident seemed like a very clear BLP and sourcing issue to me, but as the ridiculously long discussion at the BLP noticeboard shows, not everyone agreed with that view. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 11:12, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * On 15 May, Allstarecho adds a new unsourced section about remixes complete with direct YouTube links.
 * On 14 July, he replaces another editor's contribution with another reference to the Slapchop remix, this time with the TMZ source. I doubt TMZ is considered a reliable source for anything except TMZ.
 * On 30 July, he expands his first entry again adding the TMZ link. As far as I can tell, none of the information added is actually mentioned at TMZ, but I may be missing it.
 * Hi DC. Somehow, I knew you'd find your way here. Weren't you instructed by J.delanoy to stay away from me? To your first entry, the youtube links to the actual videos is the source. Strike one for you. The TMZ source, as I've already said above, was used only to source the actual video. In that case, it's reliable. Strike two for you. As for the Mike Duke article, it's an official government document that I sourced to a quite reliable third-party source. Strike three for you. You're out. - ALLST✰R ▼ echo wuz here  11:36, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think J.delanoy meant that as a suggestion not a command directive which meant I had to ignore editing that goes against WP guidelines and policies. At the risk of making this sound like a content dispute, the Mike Duke edits were sourced to a blog and a piece in The Advocate which referenced the blog post, not "an official government document". Even with reliable sourcing, it was a violation of WP:UNDUE. I suggest people review the Steve Porter edits and decide for themselves if it's properly sourced. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 11:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Considering he said Both of you stay away from each other., I'd say that is pretty commanding. The "blog" you refer to has the official government document linked in pdf format here. Also, the "blog", http://knowthyneighbor.org is a reliable source that uses blogging software but it is a reliable and valid organization and web site. Nice try though. As for Steve Porter, where else would one source a video and the video's statistics other than where the video and statistics are located? - ALLST✰R ▼ echo wuz here  12:03, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This was thoroughly discussed here, although you refused to constructively participate at the time. Again, editors can review what you added to the Steve Porter article themselves and see if it was adequately sourced. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:20, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

comment: Allstarecho asked me to comment on copyright matters here, because of our prior history. I agree that both the photograph and the long quote represent copyright issues.


 * In re to, not everything on a US government site is public domain; it is not pd if it is not explicitly released or "a work prepared by an officer or employee of the U.S. government as part of that person's official duties." If the photographer who took that image was not a government employee engaged in his official duties, its display on the government site does not automatically make it free.
 * a quotation that lengthy certainly doesn't meet non-free content policy & guideline Barring explicit revocation of copyright, even press releases are non-free content, as many agencies wish to retain control over where and how these are released. We can't take too much in substance related either to the source or the destination under fair use.
 * further, the youtube links in Steve Porter (producer) may be a problem under WP:LINKVIO. The Slap Chop people seem to have embraced the remix (though I don't know this officially), but I see nothing to indicate that the Sham Wow people have done. Similarly, it was certainly notable and worth reporting that somebody bootlegged the Wolverine film before its release, but if we linked to it in reporting on that leak, we are guilty of contributory infringement.

However, I've glanced at other contributions, and I didn't see any other issues in my spot check. At the time I first encountered copyright concerns with Allstarecho, some of his issues seemed to me blatant; others seemed plausibly to arise from misunderstandings of copyright. I think these two might fall into that camp. I'd urge Allstarecho to embrace a view of copyright that he might himself think is overly precise to avoid accidentally going in the other direction. There are always other editors willing to give feedback on particular issues.

Edit warring is a different issue, however. If multiple editors disagree with an image being in the article, it's time to let the consensus process work. If more input is needed, there are forums to seek that. Perhaps where BLP matters are cited, a tightening of 3RR would be appropriate, to ensure that proper conversation is had before potentially problematic material is restored? (I say this recognizing that BLP can be overused, and I would not want Allstarecho put in the position that any editor could abuse the consensus process by blatantly misusing BLP to thwart him.) With respect to the topic ban proposed below, I think based solely on what I've read here (including Allstarecho's declaration of his willingness to abide by certain restrictions) that it seems reasonable to expect him to stay away from Bluemarine and commenting on Bluemarine, but I don't know that such a ban should extend to all official noticeboards. If Allstarecho should for some reason become disruptive with bringing such matters to noticeboards, that could be dealt with then, but so long as any comments he makes are civil, it seems he should be allowed some forum for expressing legitimate concerns. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:47, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear here, I didn't upload the Chip Pickering images. As a photo appearing on his official congressional web site, taken by a staff member of the federal government, it's always been my understanding that such images are free and public domain. As for the long quote, as it was placed in a cquote template, I've been under the impression this was acceptable practice as it's something a human said and not an actual published body of work. Apparently I'm wrong there as well. If so, there are thousands of articles in violation of copyright right now. - ALLST✰R ▼ echo wuz here  22:28, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I know you didn't upload it; I am referring to your comment about it here. The individuals to whom you were speaking both raised the perfectly valid point that it might not have been taken by a staff member of the federal government. Even if it was, if it was taken by an off-duty staff-member, the government doesn't own it. I'm not sure I understand your second point. Are you saying that you didn't realize that extensive transcription can constitute a copyright infringement? If so, they can. Speech is performance and covered by copyright law. However, I don't see anything to indicate that the statement was not released in print...at which point it was published. Even private letters are copyrighted and cannot be reproduced under United States law without permission of the copyright holder (generally the sender). --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:44, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * You know, the common denominator in these many and various dramas is ASE. I think that we're getting to the root and branch stage. Cut out the troublesome users and the trouble will subside. Crafty (talk) 12:53, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think once the Bluemarine issues are unwoven the rest is marginal and comes down to an over-agressiveness which can be dealt with more of a warning. Suggesting cutting out editors seems like a terrible idea. -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e  <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b oi   18:33, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposed topic ban for Allstarecho
In the interest of maximizing the chances Bluemarine's rehabilitation as well as reducing the ongoing drama that is clearly getting to be disruptive at this point, I would like to propose a topic ban for Allstarecho on Bluemarine's talk page and the Matt Sanchez article, as well as community processes relating to the same. He has shown an incapacity to deal with the situation in anything but a disruptive and dramatic way, and the discussion seems to show that both sides agree that Allstarecho seems unable to disengage or proceed rationally. -- M  <sup style="color:#000000;">ask?  10:17, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I would endorse such a ban. Clearly wherever there is a dispute about Bluemarine, you find ASE agitating and causing disruption. Something has to give and it isn't the encyclopedia. Bluemarine is under the watchful eye of well-respected editor. ASE clearly won't leave this matter to cooler heads. Frankly I think a community ban against ASE is on the cards.Crafty (talk) 10:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * So much for getting back on the topic of this thread and thanks for rewarding retaliation. Anyway, this seems rather pointless to ban me from the Matt Sanchez article as I don't edit there much anyway, but if it makes you feel better, and because I don't edit there much, I'll kindly accept that without the need to run it through an online lynching. Additionally, I'll also accept not editing on his talk page anymore. However, I won't accept any ban from bringing up Bluemarine matters here at ANI or at any other official channel such as AN/3RR/SOCK/RFC/AfD/COPYVIO/etc. Feel better? Sleep well now. - ALLST✰R ▼ echo wuz here  10:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Simpler: "Allstarecho is banned from commenting on or to Bluemarine anywhere on Wikipedia." Let non-disruptive people handle the problem, if there is one. → ROUX   ₪  11:22, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * As I said, consider it already done as far as the article and his talk page goes. I won't however agree to any ban of commenting on him at official Wikipedia venues such as, again, here at ANI or at AN/3RR/SOCK/RFC/AfD/COPYVIO/etc. If he does something wrong, I have just as much right to report it and bitch about it at these official channels, as you do to be here bitching about me. ;] - ALLST✰R ▼ echo wuz here  11:36, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Endorse Roux's wording. Allstar's word, frankly, means nothing. This has been going on way too long. -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 12:23, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Endorse the topic ban, but given the circumstances listed above... perhaps a moratorium on BLP editing is in order, as well. <strong style="color:#0033CC">Nathan <strong style="color:#0033CC"> T 12:35, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Endorse I agree with AKMask's and Roux's diagnosis. ASE's overstated interest in Mr. Sanchez, both as an article subject and a member of the Wikipedia community, gives the impression of being borderline obsessional. Pastor Theo (talk) 12:44, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Endorse way too much drama. Ronnotel (talk) 12:53, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I'm in favor of giving Durova, and everyone else involved, a little breathing room here.  I think it would be best for all involved to simply step away for a bit.  Perhaps some time will allow a fresh perspective to be seen. — Ched :  ?  13:02, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Although this user has been causing lots of drama, he is doing that still for good faith purposes. -- 科学高爾夫迷(讨论|投稿) 13:28, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Blocked for abusive sockpuppeting. See user talk page. -- FayssalF  -  Wiki me up®  17:18, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Endorse The simple "no commenting to or about Bluemarine/Sanchez anywhere on Wikipedia" seems better for all involved. If we're going to give an already difficult enterprise any chance to work, the pressure needs to be ratcheted down. I assume Bluemarine is expected to reciprocate? (from what I understand, he would be happy to do so) --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:47, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Endorse Roux's wording. Let there be peace in our time.   Hi DrNick ! 14:36, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Endorsw Roux's proposal. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 14:40, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Endorse Roux's wording. Less heat, more light. Lets write. Chillum  14:42, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. I'd not object to banning him from pretty much any other topic either.  I've never known his comments to be helpful.  Friday (talk) 14:43, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Endorse Roux's wording, simple and effective. Was going to suggest something similar, but go waylaid. Viridae Talk 14:50, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Endorse per Roux. ASE can provide no commentary on any AN regarding BlueMarine which isn't readily available by reviewing older AN reports about BM or ASE. His overly sensitive responses to any and all actions by BM while totally ignoring his own failings despite a recently repealed ban is equally problematic, and perhaps, if he's less distracted, he'll be more willing to focus on the faults within his own editing. Likewise, if Bluemarine has one less hawk over his shoulder, and instead can rely on Durova, he might turn into a marginally acceptable editor. Finally, it'll mean less dramadramadramaohmigawd here. ThuranX (talk) 15:27, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Durova's on a fools errand (happy to be proven wrong, of course, but that's not the way I'm betting) but ASE isn't helping matters. Endorse a topic ban, using Roux's wording of it. ++Lar: t/c 16:26, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I must endorse the proposed topic ban. seicer  &#x007C;  talk  &#x007C;  contribs  17:07, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I'm happy to dissent here. I think ASE should avoid interacting with that user but this seems to go too far. If others are unwilling to bring Bluemarine issues to community attention it seems like a bad idea to punish the one who is. Bluemarine repeatedly violated their community bans and have actively gamed the system(s) from the start. As the community has been quite slow to actually deal with that user in the first place we should be supporting those editors who are willing to not only try to reform those bad behaviours but those who drudge through unwinding the damage and reporting the issues. The problems Bluemarine have caused for over two years continue and I think we're quickly punishing someone who has shown a vigilance where others have walked away. -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e  <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b oi   18:33, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Others aren't unwilling to bring BlueMarine issues here; but many are sick of AllStarEcho's self-appointed policing, which the rest of us regard as dickish harrassment of an editor under restriction, with the intent of goading him into a fatal mistake. Durova's got plenty of issues, and I don't much care for her drama and antics, but she can steer BlueMarine into a reasonably acceptable track for editing here within community standards; but not with ASE's gotcha-game being played. There's a small contingent of editors here who feel that being police is what comes first, above being editors. Sadly(for them, fortunately, for us), these 'police' are not admins. However, they are like that obnoxious 'block captain' in your neighborhood, using his walkie talkie and safety belt, and his cell phone, to report every one decibel above standards radio, every 1/8" out of compliance lawn, and so on to the real police. ASE needs to get past this deluded behavior or his ,and get back to writing articles. ThuranX (talk) 18:45, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * <munching on popcorn and reading intently>Or at the very least, ASE could threaten to retire again and then return in a day or two when things have cooled down and then repeat the drama all over again. This is better than the Hills....--Tom (talk) 19:03, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, I don't watch these pages so don't know the full history of who does what here. The Bluemarine dramas have run its course a few times now with what IMHO, seems an enormous amount of community energy for what boils down to a COI editor promoting themself and playing the community for fools. ASE should back down certainly and although I think their take on the situation is accurate they should leave it for others to suss out. Just as a suggestion we likely should give ASE somewhere to post for the next time they are harassed by that same user or anons who may or may not be socks. -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e  <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b oi   19:10, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * He can bite his tongue, shut up, and wait. If it's bad, someone else will see it too. Durova's watching BM. Others are watching BM. Yet others are watching the articles BM problematically edits. If BM is doing wrong, it will be seen. ASE can go write articles. Or go out and get sunlight and fresh air, and shut off the computer. Giving ASE an alternate place to go does nothing at all to help, and invalidates Roux' proposal, because it still leaves ASE an outlet for policing, and harassing (yes, it IS harassment) BlueMarine. ZCP is ZCP. ThuranX (talk) 19:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Seems overly harsh but whatever, if others could keep an eye on ASE's pages it might be worth the effort. -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e  <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b oi   19:50, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Fwiw, I've got no problem with Bluemarine getting blocked for calling ASE a 'pervert'. The problem comes when ASE files an SPI report on an IP that can't even spell Matt's name right.  Two months ago I hoped ASE and BM could reach a working collaboration.  Apparently they can't.  BM shouldn't be anywhere near the Matt Sanchez biography.  He's an Ivy League graduate who speaks four languages fluently and travels to Europe and the Middle East on a regular basis.  BM's got a lot to contribute if he stays away from one hot button, and the best thing ASE could do is stop pressing it.  It's not my place to say how this gets resolved.  Am just looking to get things reasonably stable and pass the mentorship torch elsewhere.  Durova 292 20:47, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Fwiw also, I'm not the one that initiated any contact with the IP subject of the sock case. The IP left a comment on my talk pages as well as edits to the Sanchez article. I noticed another user tagged the IP as a suspected sock of Sanchez. I filed the sock case so we could be sure. Last I checked, that was common procedure.. unless of course your goal is to either protect Sanchez and allow him to sock, or to prove a sock isn't him. Which would you have preferred? - ALLST✰R ▼ echo wuz here  04:06, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose. I see nothing that shows that ASE has been wrong in his behavior.  Aggressive, yes, but only because there's far too much A'ing of GF where Matt Sanchez is concerned.  Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:02, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Endorse per Roux. If there are obvious problems with BM then ASE does not need to keep on bringing them up, and might be counterproductive in doing so, because someone else will. The evident problems with BM are being dealt with by Durova (or are being attempted by same), and there are sufficient eyes on that matter (witness a few of the above comments) that any serious backsliding will be noted. In short, it should be Bluemarine's actions and comments that drive this dynamic and not those of Allstarecho. Removing ASE's input may allow a clearer review of what progress BM is (not) making. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:45, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Endorse topic ban from Matt Sanchez article and ban from his user talk page - which I've already agreed to twice above. But as I've also already said twice, I do not agree to any ban of commenting on him at official Wikipedia venues such as, again, here at ANI or at AN/3RR/SOCK/RFC/AfD/COPYVIO/etc. To take that further, nor will I abide by such a ban from discussing him at official Wikipedia venues. Official Wikipedia venues are open, public areas where issues are to be dealt with and there is simply no justification whatsoever to tell me I can't participate in those areas when problems arise. Further, you all should be ashamed of yourself for letting this thread go from a thread about my editing on 4 specific articles, to turning it into a thread about me and Matt Sanchez. This is exactly what Durova wanted in seeking out her retaliation, which she threatened to do days ago. Thanks for gift wrapping it for her. Pathetic. - ALLST✰R ▼ echo wuz here  22:24, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Allstarecho, let's not take that path. You've been around; you know where it leads.  This was why I was talking to PastorTheo and contacting Akhilleus: you've got a lot to offer this site.  But emotion and ideology can't get ahead of site policies.  The Matt Sanchez biography isn't rated for importance by the LGBT studies project but it probably deserves "low".  As a demonstration of good faith I've downloaded this image of Noel Coward and will be restoring it.  Let's focus on the positive.  Durova 292 00:22, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * And that image, and your restoration work on it, has what to do with me or Sanchez? I'm missing the connection. As for the importance rating of the LGBT Project's tag, if it were me doing the grading, I'd grade it mid importance considering how his notability came about - the whole him getting an award at a conference where a right-wing nut called a presidential candidate a "faggot" only to learn later the award they gave was done so to someone who "acted"/"performed" in over 30 gay pornography films. Regardless, this thread isn't about Sanchez's notability, or lack of. It's about my edits to 4 unrelated articles.. or it was about that anyway before being turned into a "let's ban Allstarecho!" circus. -  ALLST✰R ▼ echo wuz here  00:37, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You do a lot of work for the LGBT project. You've been a prolific editor for years.  There are much more significant LGBT issues than Matt.  But there is a common political thread to your actions at most of those four BLPs, and that's a problem.  Wikipedia isn't a platform for advocacy in that way.  You could follow Moni3's example and become one of Wikipedia's most respected editors.  The community chose to make this about you and Matt, probably because you chose to.  Durova 292 00:51, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * ASE, agree with it or not, if this topic ban goes through (and it looks like it will), if you comment on Matt Sanchez or Bluemarine, at any venue, you may be blocked. That includes public noticeboards whether you like it or not. Viridae Talk 01:42, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Then I guess I'll be blocked. To say I can't bring issues about an editor to any official Wikipedia venue defeats the purpose of those venues in dealing with issues. It's what they are here for and to ban me from making use of them is not only asinine but contrary to what they exist for in the first place. As has already been proven, other people can't be relied upon to do the right thing when it comes to Sanchez. I do not accept any ban from official Wikipedia venues when the need arises to report any personal attack, copyvio or other out of line action by Sanchez. Just when I report such things, I'll also ask that I go on and be blocked too.. but at least the issue was raised. - ALLST✰R ▼ echo wuz here  02:20, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You don't get it do you? The purpose of the topic ban is to stop you commenting on BM at all because your inability to disengage voluntarily is considered disruptive. Topic bans do not negate the purpose of ANI etc, there are thousands of other users who can bring any problems with BM to the attention of admins. Any wilful flouting of the topic ban will result in blocks of increasing severity. Viridae Talk 03:44, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You don't get it do you? Others have proven they either don't care about BM's problems or simply don't think they warrant attention. As a result, someone like me is most definitely needed. And thanks again for re-iterating that blocks will be forthcoming. I do believe, however, that I already acknowledged those by saying "Then I guess I'll be blocked" and "when I report such things, I'll also ask that I go on and be blocked too". The fact is, no user - not me, not you, not any single person, should be banned from bringing up any other user's issues at official Wikipedia venues such as ANI/AN/3RR, etc. There is just simply no justifiable excuse that exists for it. - ALLST✰R ▼ echo wuz here  03:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * "If he's out of line, I have just as much right to report it to the appropriate official venues, as any other user does." Should this topic ban be enacted, no you don't. Viridae Talk 03:59, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Watch. - ALLST✰R ▼ echo wuz here  04:07, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Endorse as per Roux.  Horologium  (talk) 22:32, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Although I don't think this goes far enough to address the underlying issue, endorse. Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:55, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Strongest Oppose Possible - There is no need for a ban of any kind on ASE. This whole post was about a BLP issue, how is got turned into a ban discussion I don't know.  Either way, ASE is not the problem in the Matt Sanchez/Bluemarine situation, Matt Sanchez/Bluemarine is.  ASE is keeping him in check as best as he can.  Durova's posting of this entire discussion should have never happened since she is involved in the Matt Sanchez/Bluemarine thread above.  It should have been brought up by someone else.  No matter what, no ban is needed and this should be closed as unnecessary and completely off topic. - <small style="border:1px solid #990000;padding:1px;"> NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • 03:42, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. But as I said, I've got no problems with a ban from the Matt Sanchez article or even a ban from his user talk page. I don't edit the article much there anyway and really have no desire to interact with him on his talk page. My only problem is with saying I can't mention him at official Wikipedia venues such as here at ANI or at AN/3RR/SOCK/RFC/AfD/COPYVIO/etc. If he's out of line, I have just as much right to report it to the appropriate official venues, as any other user does. For example, if I see him socking again, to say I am not allowed to file a sockpuppet case just because it's about him - well, that is absurd. Additionally, one would think that such venues would be the only place I'd be allowed to do such since such official venues are where admins troll the most and if they had a problem with me, they could deal with it there at that time. But then again, that's why the smart people aren't admins I guess. We'd actually do something constructive like keep threads on topic instead of letting them evolve to something totally unrelated. - ALLST✰R ▼ echo wuz here  03:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I completely agree, you should not be prevented from reporting him to AN/ANI/3RR/SOCK/RFC/AfD/COPYVIO/etc. That would just be silly and I would ask that is be confirmed that will not happen if this talkpage ban goes though. - <small style="border:1px solid #990000;padding:1px;"> NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • 04:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Endorse. If he voluntarily agrees to not go near the article or the talk page, then that's fine.  However, how else can someone comment about a person they aren't going to talk to unless they are just planning on stalking his edits?  What are we supposed to do, Allstar, when you come to ANI complaining about him?  Tell him that you're allowed to write reports and the like but he shouldn't respond or you won't respond to them?  Here's an idea: when you say you aren't going to interact with someone, don't interact with that person. Out of thousands of regular editors here, is one going to make a giant difference?  If you decide that you not wanting him here is that important, then don't play the "I'm not going to communicate with him" card.  I put it as an all-or-nothing deal: either you can communicate and will do it civilly or you drop it completely.  No midpoints; that kind of nonsense just doesn't work.  And Neutralhomer, I think it's clear from this discussion that most people don't think Allstar is keeping him in check so much as exacerbating the drama (I'm personally on your side, but if he's going to not talk with him, he needs to not comment on him as well).  Some people clearly shouldn't interact with each other, and Allstar, I think you should be adult enough to just say "his existence personally aggravates the hell out of me so instead of wasting time, I'm just going to ignore him."  I've done that before and it's a lot less stressful.  -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:14, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think being able to file, for example, a sockpuppet case on him, really needs me to talk directly to him, does it? I've said I'll avoid his BLP article and I've said I'll avoid his talk page. But should I come across him doing something he shouldn't be doing, I should be able to report it at the necessary official Wikipedia venue. To disallow me that, or any user for that matter, is a disservice to Wikipedia itself and to the reasons the official venues exist in the first place. - ALLST✰R ▼ echo wuz here  04:18, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ask someone else to do it. It's just a matter of sense at this point.  You know it's going to cause drama, and besides, do you really think you're going to be the only person out there who sees him doing something he shouldn't be?  Or better yet, the only person to report it?  If so, and it's egregious, it's probably be like most threads: you report, some comment on what you are saying, some look at the person reporting.  Can't you just follow an idea of "I'm not going to deal with him", meaning "I'm actually not going to deal with him", not "I'm not going to talk to him but I should be allowed to talk about him"?  Truthfully, do you think he's going to last long without going back to his old self?  Do you think you're the only person here who's not excited about him editing here again?  Most of this thread consists of people not amused at the idea of him possibly coming back.  The smart thing for you is to stop dealing with him, and let him hang himself.  -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * How do you propose I ask someone else to do it when via this "topic" ban, I'm not allowed to even mention his name???? - ALLST✰R ▼ echo wuz here  05:51, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't even do that, step right away, don't examine his contributions, don't interact in any way. If you happen to come across any blatant violation of policy,you can pass them onto Durova (BM's current mentor person) and she can post them here if necessary. Viridae Talk 07:20, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually that would violate the ban's wording: "Allstarecho is banned from commenting on or to Bluemarine anywhere on Wikipedia." ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:51, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Meant to say "by email" Viridae Talk 08:06, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Endorse per Roux. -- Deville (Talk) 04:25, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Motion for close
With 15 endorsements of Roux' wording, and 4 opposes, and a whole lot more dramuhz generated by ASE, I'd like this section closed with the ban enacted. It is clear that he intends to engage in some insane word-dance about things, demanding we respect his civil rights and other such horseshit, while all the while insisting that he's done nothing wrong ever, with each person who endorses roux' idea and gives any commentary at all, as if there's a chink in their armor that he can exploit. ASE seems to be enjoying the attention and the drama of this way too much, and perpetuating this would be rewarding him. He's already on probation, why are we wasting more time on this? ThuranX (talk) 04:59, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Horseshit is this thread and the inane babbling by you and others who can't take the blindfold off long enough to stop following the sheep and realize it. I'm not demanding anyone respect a damn thing and sure as hell didn't say anything about "civil rights". I am saying that to ban me from reporting a user to official Wikipedia venues just because of who he is, is absurd. I assure you I'm not enjoying this circus.. one that was started about my edits on 4 articles and turned into a bullshit topic ban discussion about something totally irrelevant to the topic of the thread. The "dramuhz" generated here is by you and others who turned it into the lynch mob circus it is. - ALLST✰R ▼ echo wuz here  05:48, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I support Roux's wording as well, bringing the total to, I believe, 20 supporting the measure. -- M  <sup style="color:#000000;">ask?  06:02, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I move this "Motion" be closed, the entire thread archived, the ban not be enacted as it is unnecessary and completely off topic from what this thread started out to be and everyone move on to something else. - <small style="border:1px solid #990000;padding:1px;"> NeutralHomer •  Talk  • 06:29, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

RfAR
Please note that Allstarecho has opened a Request at ArbCom intending to overturn the above. Comments, if any, should go there. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:52, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not a request to "overturn the above", it's an appeal to amend part of the ban regarding use of official Wikipedia noticeboards and reporting. Just wanted to present the whole story... - ALLST✰R ▼ echo wuz here  13:01, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Um, I'm not trying to be a smartass, but isn't the RfAR actually in violation of Allstarecho's ban? Couldn't this have been done via email channels? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:19, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No its not a violation, the request is specifically about the restriction and does not involve discussing bluemarine. It would be unfair to restrict him from appealing the ban on-wiki. Spartaz Humbug! 15:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Spartaz puts it well. Durova 293 18:21, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * If Allstarecho is banned from reporting comments like, which I think we can all be sure Bluemarine will repeat given half a chance, then all you who supported the ban should be ashamed of yourselves. Bluemarine gets 72 hours for that, Allstarecho gets prohibited from complaining about it. DuncanHill (talk) 20:27, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If you see comments like that, Duncan, then you report them - and action will be taken (by me, if not previously). What ASE has not taken to heart is that by his appearance of a campaign against BM he has possibly hindered the taking of appropriate actions upon BM's bad faith comments - since the history between the two becomes the focus rather than the complaint. Like I have said twice now; obvious violations by Bluemarine will be reported by other parties. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I certainly shall report such behaviour when I see it - but I still say that to prohibit the subject of such an attack from complaining about it is inherently unjust and has the appearence (at the very least) of condoning the attacker. I'm sorry LH, but my experience of reporting homophobic abuse on Wikipedia is that the reporter gets subject to more of it, and the abuser carries on pretty much regardless for far too long. I do not have any confidence that this will change. DuncanHill (talk) 20:47, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * DuncanHill, a suggestion has gone up at RFAR for a mentor/contact so that Allstarecho may report problems for screening and appropriate action. Would you like to fill that role?  Durova 294 23:29, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but I am unable to accept such a rôle. I will of course convey any report that ASE should make to me, but I do not have the energy or commitment to Wikipedia to reliably act as mentor to anyone. I do not know from day-to-day if I can bring myself to continue actively editing, so although I would very much like to help Allstarecho, it would be unfair on him to have to rely on me for this. I say again that I think that this sanction is appalling, and it is exactly the sort of thing that makes it harder for me to contribute effectively. DuncanHill (talk) 23:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I've had a cup of tea and a fag, and reviewed and its previous versions, and even if I was full of the joys of spring and imitating the action of a tiger, I couldn't face exposing myself to the filth peddled by Bluemarine. You're looking for someone to stand in a sewer. DuncanHill (talk) 00:24, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Conveying any report would be problematic: discretion is necessary. Bluemarine has been the target of an impersonation campaign that has lasted more than two years.  He's no boy scout, but the tactics that have been used against him have been dirty--to the point of hacking his home computer and emptying his bank account.  Been sweeping this sewer a long time, looking to hand over my share of the chore to a new shift.  Durova 294 01:47, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Durova, I very much appreciate your continuing AGF'ing with that user but "emptying his bank account"? Do we actually have any proof whatsoever that someone other than that person emptied some account? Really? Or that someone actually hacked his anything? Really? I'm sure these things could have happened but I was victimized by these similar circumstances; the word of a community banned and blocked user was accepted at face value over those of respected and long-time contributors who seemed to have no reason to falsify anything. I was given nil good faith when this abusive and banned editor was carte blanch accepted at their word when we had many instances that suggested that was a bad idea. Let's not re-victimize the people who have already had to repeatedly ask for fair support from someone who has continually attacked them. Let's use our reality filter and see an abusive editor who games Wikipedia continuously from day one for what they actually do. -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e  <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b oi   09:59, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I cannot verify the veracity of the bank account thing, but I know for a fact that an e-mail that I sent to Sanchez was selectively quoted here on Wikipedia; nobody else had access to the e-mail, which was one of several that were posted by another user (probably a meatpuppet of Pwok) shortly before the Bluemarine arbcom case of January 2008. (Don't bother to search for it; it has been oversighted out of existence at my request.) If his e-mail was hacked, it is likely that some of his other personal information was also compromised, and at least one internet site has posted some of his significant personal details.  Horologium  (talk) 12:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I hear you but we have imposters/socks going both ways; I've been contacted by numerous folks on both sides of these issues and just expected that some were BS'ing me and really didn't care who or why. Let's just take care to be NPOV, perhaps Bluemarine claims to have been impersonated for more than two years would be most accurate. This ties directly to the muddled claim that he had been an escort which he both confirmed then denied and, I believe soon after, the concept that it was someone using his image to provide escort services surfaced by way of a partial explanantion. Why logically anyone would use someone else's image for a service where intimate encounters requiring face-to-face contact made sense I'm unsure but certainly stranger things have happened. I'd prefer that we not perpetuate and inflate claims from a user has been regularly revealed to be, how to put this diplomatically, creative with reality. That they have themselves gotten some very poor treatment is unquestionable, however there are layers of socks and anons pretending to be both supporters and opponents in some odd quest to court public opinion and influence the main article and the user themselves have abused other editors here abysmally and repeatedly. Hopefully that will never happen again. -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e  <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b oi   13:02, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

And here's a new interesting twist.. what if any user I am banned from "mentioning or talking to" suddenly starts editing an article or article talk page that I'm also editing? Am I supposed to tuck my tail, lower my head and leave? What if any user I am banned from "mentioning or talking to" is posting here on ANI and I need to post here as well? Am I supposed to tuck my tail, lower my head and leave? What if any user I am banned from "mentioning or talking to" posts a thread here on ANI accusing me of something? Am I supposed to tuck my tail, lower my head, not defend myself, and leave? Seriously, this wasn't thought out at all, just trigger happy voting by mostly people I've had run ins with before. - ALLST✰R ▼ echo wuz here  02:59, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course not, you're being ridiculous. You simply do not comment to or about him. Should you be directly accused of something by Bluemarine, I am quite certain you will either be told to defend yourself or other people will do it on your behalf. → ROUX   ₪  03:37, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually that was a good question. I think this should have been though through.  But the Bluemarine is following ASE around to "push him" off articles, something should be done. - <small style="border:1px solid #990000;padding:1px;"> NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • 03:47, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it wasn't. The restriction is incredibly simple: ASE may edit any pages he likes (barring the Matt Sanchez page and Bluemarine's userspace), so long as while doing so he does not comment about or to Bluemarine. There is nothing complex about this, nothing that is difficult to understand, and certainly nothing that prevents ASE from editing any page on Wikipedia barring those mentioned above. I invite others to affirm or deny the accuracy of that statement. → ROUX   ₪  03:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I thought it was. Sorry I don't carry the party line. - <small style="border:1px solid #990000;padding:1px;"> NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • 04:18, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * So if I'm, for example, participating in an article talk page discussion and the user finds himself becoming involved in the same discussion, according to this ban, I should not participate in the discussion because it's quite reasonable to expect that people interact with each other in article discussions. Same for discussions on noticeboards. Again, totally not thought out, just pull the trigger. I think at the least, his own new editing restrictions recently imposed upon him should include the same ban against talking to me or commenting about/on me. Otherwise, he's free to say whatever he wants and I'm supposed to smile and enjoy it. And incidentally, why wasn't his new editing restrictions added to Editing_restrictions but instead allowed to be swept away to the ANI archives? - ALLST✰R ▼ echo wuz here  06:34, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, if you can't follow a simple idea like "don't talk to or about that person", I say we shouldn't bother having you around. If this were a topic ban, this level of wiki-lawyering would just be ignored as disruptive.  Because it's an editor, is it really that much more complicated? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:47, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You call it wiki-lawyering, I call it reading the word for word topic ban at its face value. Maybe I really am so stupid that I'm not seeing what you are but to me, and obviously to others hence Homer and DuncanHill's concerns above and elsewhere, it says that should he show up anywhere I am, I'm the one that's supposed to walk away, be it in an article, article talk page, noticeboard or "anywhere on Wikipedia". If I really am that stupid, please accept my apologies here and now, Ricky. Or chalk it up to making up for lost drama during the The Great Wikipedia Dramaout‎ "event".- ALLST✰R ▼ echo wuz here  07:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I"m beginning to think there's a better solution. Let AllStarEcho edit anything, anywhere, anytime. Just make sure every other editor, by bot notification, is warned that ASE is here for the drama, not to build an encyclopedia, and should be ignored. Let him scream about his obsession with bluemarine from the metaphoric rooftops, everyone in the village will shut their windows and go on writing. Let him become the homeless whacko with a hand-written cardboard sign. He's successfully turned this into a nice little soap opera about our persecution of him for persecuting someone else. I'ts like the 'Poor Lil' Hitler Show'. Since letting him scream and trying to ignore him on the scale of Wikipedia is impossible, I now second Ricky81682's call for a community ban of AllStarEcho. ASE should have stoped while he had half a chance. ThuranX (talk) 13:18, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Better solution stil - ASE topic banned from Matt Sanchez; Bluemarine & his enablers community banned for relentless personal attacks and creating a hateful atmosphere. DuncanHill (talk) 15:14, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Since the level of spite and nastiness is increasing, but the utility of the discussion here is practically nil, perhaps its wise to just stop here? <strong style="color:#0033CC">Nathan <strong style="color:#0033CC"> T 17:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Croatian language
- Croatian nationalist bigots keep vandalizing the article, removing referenced material. Since they are 3 and I'm one, and I don't want to violate 3RR or some other stupid rule that will get me blocked (to their satisfaction), can some admin with basic linguistic competence please take a look at their changes, and see what I wrote on the talkpage. Basically all the ISO macrolanguages are mentioned in all the Wikipedia language infoboxes, and there is no reason to exclude Serbo-Croatian, which as a genetic clade can be supported by many reliable sources (e.g. I provided a reference of Schenker's tree, and that guy wrote a standard English-language handbook on Slavic studies, so you can get more credible than that, and that reference was removed by Croatian nationalist Imbris as you can see).

It would be advisable to revert the Imbris' change and wait on the talkpage for some of them to provide actual evidence on why exactly SC should not be included in the tree, because there are obviously credible sources that claim otherwise. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 00:52, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Am I asking this at the wrong place? Can someone please take a look? --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 07:59, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * When you start with "Croatian nationalist bigots, most admins just turn off and ignore you. Try looking a bit less biased in your namecalling.  -- Ricky81682 (talk) 17:10, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

COI, repeated copyvios, yet again.
previous Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive200 after the block, his first edit was once again to insert copyright text into an article.. The same text he was warned and blocked for inserting. He's never responded to any attempts at on-wiki communication and often inserts the same copyright text over and over like in the case of this article. Since he is the PR guy for the team this is a combination of both copyvio and spam as the reason for these edits is promotional. 24 hours obviously didn't get his attention.--Crossmr (talk) 02:16, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not an admin, so I can't do it myself, but I strongly suggest a 1 week block. Firestorm  Talk 02:25, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ Already taken care of. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 02:27, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * User just fails to communicate and recognize his block. he logs out and continues to jam the copyvio in there .--Crossmr (talk) 14:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Override this function
I'm still getting this error... I click on a link and get an otherwise empty page with the words "Override this function..". Is this being worked on? &lt;&gt;Multi-Xfer&lt;&gt; (talk) 03:02, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * A few people are getting this (I've gotten it a handful of times also). It was discussed here and a bug report has been filed here. The developers are aware of the problem. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:06, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Just now got "Override this function." again. I looked in vain for the button to override the function. :'( Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 07:02, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Refreshing the page works for me. I guess I'm lucky -- Luk  talk 07:05, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It seems to be sporadic with no pattern. I got several of them in quick succession earlier, then this one a little while ago, nothing since. It's happened when going from history to an item, and when going back to watch list. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 07:44, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Fathers' rights movement
Article is subject to a vandal abusing multiple accounts. I'm not really up to speed with procedures, etc... maybe semiprot? Want opinions, thanks. -- Pakaran 03:12, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I've blocked at least one underlying IP address; please advise if more abusive sockpuppets turn up. – Luna Santin  (talk) 17:54, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Anon self-identifies as involved editor, deletes material embarassing to The Israel Project
At The Israel Project, has repeatedly deleted some material, with edit comments such as "(The text deleted was added by a person/group who tried to attack TIP on many occasions, using illegal methods sometimes. I am in charge of the web department at The Israel Project.)". There was no discussion on talk first. What seems to have happened is that The Israel Project had an embarrassing leak, which was picked up by Newsweek and then by the Jewish Telegraphic Agency. It appears that someone at The Israel Project is frantically trying to make the leaked material disappear. The deletions triggered "section blanking" and "references removed" tags, undid the blanking once, and I undid it once. I've also added additional references to reliable sources, and fixed reference tags, so we now have very solid cites to the material of interest. Please watch for further deletions in this area. Thanks. --John Nagle (talk) 18:09, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Request to revoke sanction
Because of an edit war between me and User:William Allen Simpson, User:Aervanath imposed a certain sanction upon both of us. I think this sanction is unfair to me. User:Aervanath seems to be unavailable. At the end of that Wikipedia:AN3 discussion it says that this is the place to appeal. I have outlaid all my arguments there a week ago. (I was offline this last week because I moved.) Debresser (talk) 18:45, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That does seem like a little extreme of a restriction. Have you tried discussing it with William Allen Simpson to see if the two of you can come up with a mutual agreement?  I think it should probably be reduced to "no reverts of each other's edits, widely construed".  In other words, mandating that you review each other's contributions to make sure that the other hasn't edited a page within the last month is a bit extreme.  But I don't see a reason to remove the restriction completely unless/until the two of you have an agreement that the disruption will not happen again. --B (talk) 22:43, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That sounds reasonable, although the idea of discussion with William Allen Simpson sounds unlikely, as it is not his way... On the other hand, it ignores my arguments in Wikipedia:AN3 that I have behaved a lot better than William Allen Simpson, and don't think I deserve to be treated the same way as he. Please note that other editors there have stated their agreement with this assessment of mine. In short, I feel that the sanction is an unjustice and should be lifted from me regardless. Debresser (talk) 20:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Please notice that the admin imposing the sanction seems to be on a wikibreak ever since, and is not available to explain herself or change her mind. Debresser (talk) 10:27, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I see that. I notified Aervanath of the thread and he hasn't responded, so we can take that to mean that he isn't monitoring his talk page or doesn't care.  I have notified User:William Allen Simpson of this thread as anything done here needs to be mutual.  I suggest modifying the sanction as follows: For an indefinite period,  and  are on a mutual editing restriction.  They are not permitted to revert each other's edits (widely construed) or take any action that would reasonably be inferred as "stalking" the other's contributions.  (Do not look at special:contributions/the other party.)  This sanction will only be lifted at the mutual agreement of William Allen Simpson and Debresser. --B (talk) 22:28, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That sounds better. I accept this proposal. But in the end it will not be enough. User:William Allen Simpson is a disruptive editor: he violated the 3-revert-rule in this last conflict (as linked in the Wikipedia:AN3 discussion), engages in tendentious editing, reverts any of my actions without any explanations in editsummaries/article talkpages/my talkpage, disregards the fact that others disagree with him (which happens often because of his tendentious and pointy editing), and has been warned numerous times for trying to own pages and uncivil conduct (including a recent block). When he does engage in discussions (one of these instances was after an admin protected the page and insisted he should partake in discussion) it is invariably with a lot of ad hominem remarks and wikilawyering. I'd prefer a solution that would try and address these problems, because an editing restriction on me is only surpressing the symptom, but not curing the sick. Debresser (talk) 10:01, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi, I've returned from an involuntary wikibreak (my internet connection was cut off for a week, and I was too busy with other real-life considerations to get it fixed until now), so I apologize to all concerned that it's taken so long for me to get back and comment on this situation. I would first like to address Debresser's concerns that he and William Allen Simpson were subjected to identical restrictions.  The primary reason is that it takes two to tango.  While my impression is that overall, in his on-wiki behavior, Debresser has been the more cooperative and consensus-seeking of the two editors, I believe that he has developed somewhat of a knee-jerk reaction where William Allen Simpson is concerned.  I agree with 's suggestion that  and  be restricted from reverting each other's edits for an indefinite period, and I now concede that my initial restriction was overly harsh.  I recommend that both of them be encouraged to engage in some sort of dialogue to reach an understanding on how to deal with each other.  I thank  for his cogent and well-thought-out comments on this situation.--Aervanath (talk) 20:52, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Welcome back Aervanath. I mean that. As I said before, I will agree with this second sanction.


 * I deny having any reaction to User:William Allen Simpson, be it knee-jerk or allergic. I just have come to the conclusion that he is a pointy and tendentious editor, and furthermore likely to show problems of ownership and incivility. My personal opinion about him, which you have on occasion supposed to be one of dislike, is clearly defined, but just as clearly of no consequence. What is important, is that User:William Allen Simpson is, in my opinion, detrimental to the Wikipedia community.


 * Please do not think that I am wagging a war against User:William Allen Simpson. I have tried to bring him onto the right track, posting on his talkpage and on occasion on wp:wqa, wp:AN3 or here, but he has shown himself unreceptive to my posts, as well as those of many, many others. I am just trying to fix those edits which I consider "wrong", that is, not reflecting the opinion of the Wikipedia community as I understand it to be. Of course, I am prone to lean to the side of what I would like this community to think, but that does not diminish the sincerity of my efforts. I find an important indication that I am doing the right thing, in the fact that several editors, including you, have expressed worries along the lines of my own misfeelings. Sometimes they have actively supported me, in repeating my edits and on Wikipedia:AN3. Without me even dreaming of asking for their support! Recent edits of User:William Allen Simpson on Arbitration/Requests/Case, brought to my attention by another editor, together with what I already had seen myself, indicate an unhealthy pattern of involvement with Wikipedia.


 * I wish User:William Allen Simpson would stop being a problem, but I have come to the conclusion that this will not happen. One way or the other, this will not end nice. And that is the way it should be, for the benefit of the community. I would like to appeal to you to consider carefully wether there is no way to influence User:William Allen Simpson to better his ways, or, if none can be found, to solve this problem otherwise. Debresser (talk) 21:56, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Seeking advice on user that is "profiling" voters in a poll
I'm helping to moderate the Ireland naming project, and based on the project members' desires, they felt that a single-transferable vote poll would be the best way to resolve the issue, accepting to be bound by its results. The WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/Poll on Ireland article names started recently, advertized in relevent places including VPP and CENT, and some users are already trying to compile data, something I've discouraged, but not going to stop. However, one user, User:Sarah777, has decided to create a tally that, based on what she can figure out from the voters' pages, if they are Irish or British. This is due to her believe that one option on the poll is heavily British-nationalistic against Ireland, and believes there to be a systematic bias for that. Whatever she believes is fine, but what is not acceptable, to me and apparently to others, is the post-vote profiling; two users at least, after discovering this poll, have removed their vote as they don't want to be profiled.

This, personally, is a serious matter (it's not quite a personal attack outright, but it walks and talks like one), and I tried to remove her polling results but she has since replaced them. I've warned her to not continue the profiling summary, but she appears to be intent on continuing this.

Is there any action that can be taken on this? The issue itself would fall outside of what the ArbCom case covered, and the timing is a bit more critical if people are scared away by voting. --M ASEM (t) 19:20, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * A tally ethnically or nationally profiling voters is clearly completely inappropriate for the talk page or anywhere else. The fact that it is has been tolerated for this long is just a testament to how far the entire Ireland "collaboration" has strayed from the norms of Wikipedia process and reality in general. Guest9999 (talk) 20:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I asked you not to remove my table without discussing it (as you did). I did not  say you I will keep restoring them if, after discussion you persist in removing them. I said that would be censorship; it would deprive voters of vital information about how "Republic of Ireland" is maintained as the status quo because of the votes of British editors, in the face of opposition from an overwhelming number of editors from the sovereign state. If you still remove my spreadsheet, so be it. But you will have employed censorship  and you will de-legitimise the ballot. Sarah777 (talk) 20:11, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * An editor has claimed that this has been done before without sanctions being imposed and is looking for the diff. He claims it happened on the Macedonia name change. BigDunc  20:16, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Frankly, I dont know why it matters if it was done before. It's clearly wrong and represents a fault in the earlier decision, not allowing it now. Also, the mthods for determining nationality are looking at user pages. I could change mine right now to say im whatever and throw off the whole thing. -- M  <sup style="color:#000000;">ask?  20:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec) It matters when editors are calling for a 12 month block. BigDunc  20:30, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * FWIW, indeed, I did such a "profiling" tally in the Macedonia case, and I stand by it – in that case, the very root of the problem was indeed a situation of permanent, very obvious entrenched frontlines along national affiliations, and it was an important point to demonstrate why a vote, as a vote, couldn't work (remember that votes are evil). I strongly maintain that in that particular case it was an important and legitimate thing to do. If, of course, the participants in the present issue have already decided that a vote is what they want, then such an analysis may make little sense. In any case, I do not share the moral panic in seeing such an analysis done, in principle. In many domains of ethnically-dominated contentious hotspots, nationally entrenched editing frontlines are a plain reality, and a serious problem, and the affiliation of individual editors with this or that side is usually quite plainly known to every insider. We cannot solve such a problem if we aren't allowed to even speak about it, naming and describing the frontlines. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:27, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how anybody can be imtimadated on Wikipedia. Anyways, if the profiling is so distubing, would it be alright if Sarah kept it on her userpage? GoodDay (talk) 20:32, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The trouble is Future Perfect, Sarah is not just pointing out in a fair way nationalities in a simple list as i seem to recall you did (when reading about that), she is making clear accusations of bias by British editors in an attempt to mislead and impact on the vote. The fact 2 people have withdrawn their vote (especially the first who didnt put the main option Sarah opposes as his first choice) shows its a problem all though i do agree a 12 month ban is way too extreme, banning her from contributing on the ballot/talk page whilst the vote is on going would prevent futher trouble. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:36, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * What is misleading about what Sarah has done? BigDunc  20:41, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * If several have withdrawn, maybe she's onto something. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 23:34, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * (to GoodDay)The fact that two people have withdrawn their votes, and I just got a talk page message from a third user who doesn't want to vote until Sarah's tally is stop, implies there are people feeling intimidated by Sarah's spreadsheet. Based on the Macadonia naming issue, this appears to be closer to WP:OUTING (though Sarah does not attempt to identify who are her Irish votes and British votes). That's still a troubling factor. --M ASEM  (t) 20:41, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Would it be alright for her to keep her 'tally' at her userpage? GoodDay (talk) 20:49, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * (to Fut. Pref)I looked at the poll you had done, Future, and my conclusion from looking at everything was that that poll was just part fuel of the fire that launched the ArbCom case. Here, we've past the ArbCom case, in its resolution, and we should be expecting a higher decorum from those involved. Of course its obvious that there are ethnic ties with how people are voting, but what's important here is that this poll is opened to all wikipedians, not just the select few involved with the Macadonia naming straw poll. As I've tried to identify here, we're coming (as agreed upon by parties involved) to a solution that is voted on by Wikipedians, not Irish, British, nor non-aligned voters, and the need to profile voters on a wiki-wide poll seems troubling as opposed to the case if we were only doing a straw poll among project members. --M ASEM (t) 20:41, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Let me just clarify that I haven't actually looked into the present context in any detail, so I can't speak to the merits of the present case. As I said, I might agree that in a situation where a "vote" (not a "!vote") has already been agreed on as the appropriate mechanism, it should probably be understood that everybody's contribution will be counted on the same basis no matter what happens, so analysing the ethnic make-up of the poll may serve little good. Incidentally, I'll also put on the record that in the Macedonia case we found that the ultimate solution, which proved fairly successful, was to have something that was very explicitly not a vote. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:54, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Two users have withdrawn there votes due to profiling - it shows wikipedia in a poor light. Action is needed. Djegan (talk) 20:47, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Endorse removal of poll. I see that if that is done Sarah777 says it will "de-legitimise the ballot" - I'm also very unhappy with this sort of pressure being put on to keep the poll. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 20:58, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The difference here is that this is a vote - an exception to WP:DEMOCRACY. Discussion has come and gone. Polling has come and gone. Edit warring has come and gone. ArbCom has come and gone. And after nine months of intense collaboration, we have agreed to have a vote that will be binding for two years. We all understood the seriousness of that. We all agreed that, "Non-trivial sanctions will be imposed for canvassing, forum shopping, ballot stuffing, sock puppetry, meat puppetry or otherwise manipulating the ballot (or attempting to do so)". How else could a vote take place?
 * Now, I don't believe that Sarah intended to intimidate anyone or scare anyone off. But her "spreadsheet" clearly did intimidate at least two voters (Nanonic and Andrwsc), who removed their votes explicitly to avoid being "ethnically profiled" or being "added to some POV warriors statistics".
 * What ever happens, the profilling must stop and voters must be allowed to cast their ballots freely and without intimidation (intentional or

otherwise). --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 20:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I have been referred to a previous Arbcom case where Sarah777 is restricted and "may be banned from editing any page which she disrupts by engaging in aggressive biased editing or by making anti-British remarks." I continue to seek if this is appropriate here (if Sarah doesn't do it, someone else might), but will report this aspect elsewhere. --M ASEM (t) 20:57, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It's pretty clear that this is disruptive if people are changing votes. I'd say give her one more chance to stop posting the results publically, and if she refuses, long-term block. I'd also suggest oversighting all the revisions where she referred to voters' nationality in anything close to an identifiable way. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:03, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * "oversight" - you mean delete completely from the DB? I would support that. A warning. Deleting reference to the profiling from the DB (even blanking the section I opened). And serious sanctions if she does it again/barring from the ballot page. That sounds fair to me. A block or anything else would be counter-productive for the entire WP:IECOLL project, I believe. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 21:11, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Instead of repeatedly talking about blocks why doesn't someone (Masem) talk to her again. You never know, this may be over before it's begun. Jack forbes (talk) 21:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for mentioning that interesting piece of history. I have looked at Sarah's block log and note that a permanent block was lifted last year after she agreed to mentoring. Is the mentor able to report on how her behaviour has improved from before? What I see in her current behaviour is aggressive point of view pushing. There is a clear anti-British agenda in how she is behaving even if remarks are buried in the sub-text.--Peter cohen (talk) 21:10, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Add me to the list of people who don't understand how this could be intimidating, and I don't see this as "clearly" or "obviously" wrong. What am I missing? Using information that other users have intentionally added to their own userpages, she's collecting information to see whether there is a possible systematic bias.  Maybe it's a valid point, maybe she's full of it, and I don't see how it can be used to invalidate the poll, so why are we forbidding the on-wiki assembly of information? If you're demanding action, it's not enough to claim that people are intimidated, you need to convince people that such intimidation is actually reasonable.  Is there any diff you can point to where she is actually trying to intimidate anyone? Otherwise, claiming intimidation is just another way to game to system. It seems silly that this cultural difference in preferences cannot be mentioned; while the word is overused here, forbidding the mention of it seem like censorship. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:01, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * "Is there any diff you can point to where she is actually trying to intimidate anyone?" I don't think she is doing it intentionally, but at least two voters (Nanonic and Andrwsc) removed their votes explicitly to avoid being "ethnically profiled" or being "added to some POV warriors statistics" so it is interfering with the vote (which is a binding vote, not a straw poll). --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 21:15, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thought experiment: What if I was clearly identifiable as Irish (I'm not, except on St. Patrick's Day, when my 1/16th Irish blood kicks in), had voted in the poll (I haven't) , and then retracted my vote because "it's obvious from what is happening to Sarah777 that there is ongoing harrassment of Irish voters". Would this be legitimate?  No.  I don't get to alter other people's behavior by just claiming intimidation.  So, could someone please move beyond saying 3 users were intimidated, and explain how it's intimidation?  Please? I could certainly be wrong about this, but just saying over and over "people were intimidated" isn't going to convince me. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It's fairly irrelevant whether you, or I, can understand it. What matters is if it affects the vote, which it clearly has done. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:32, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * And I agree with Floquenbeam can I now remove my vote and claim it was because of the intimidation of Sarah by pro British editors. Will sanctions be brought against Rannpháirtí anaithnid for starting this intimidation or the constant badgering of any one who doesn't agree with the status quo. Also the myth that every editor who took part in the process agreed to this poll is a blatant lie. BigDunc  21:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Let's keep calm. The emerging consensus appears to be that profiling should be banned while the vote is in progress.  The profiling is based on public information, and collated.  Like other editors here, I don't believe the case has been made that this could be seen as "imtimidating".  I believe she set out to demonstrate that a majority of primarily British editors vote one way, and a majority of primarily Irish voters vote another, and that since there are more British voters than Irish, getting things changed can be problematic.  Now it's a fact that this has resulted in some editors removing their votes, but the primary issue is intent and knowledge.  Did Sarah set out to imtimidate voters and could this have been foreseen?  I think not.  The obvious solution is to simply ban profiling while the vote is in progress, and I believe any sanctions are unnecessary.  --HighKing (talk) 21:44, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. Voter were intimidated. But I don't think Sarah set out to do so. Let's just remove the profiling (and any mention of it) - either by blanking it or deleting it from the DB. Let everyone, not only Sarah, be warned that what they write on the talk page can scare voters away - and so to be careful. No running commentaries. No statements about users who vote this way or that. No comment on the options (we have a page for that). Let's just keep the talk on that page to a minimum until September 14th and let the vote run its course all by itself. In fact, let's blank most of it except those posts that are directly related to the operation of the poll, etc.. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 21:58, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I certainly didn't set out to do so - nor do I think I have done so. But there is a clear and obvious attempt to intimidate Irish editors who oppose them by a tiny group of editors, including rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid, Bastun and Djegan. And this is by no means the first time in the case of the latter two. Sarah777 (talk) 22:12, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * YOU were intimidating others. Djegan (talk) 22:22, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Funny, but I'm 100% sure that the editors here are all pretty thick-skinned wrt intimidation. It's WP:OR to associate intent to Sarah's table.  Consensus to stop has only recently emerged, and it has been dealt with.  Blocks are not handed out as punishments, only to deter a repeat of disruptive behaviour.  Sarah has already stated that although she doesn't believe that what she was doing was as bad as being made out or wrong, she has agreed to stop.  Seems to me like this is done.  Can we move on now?  --HighKing (talk) 22:37, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, no, considering she added it to her talk page, as noted by Bastun below. Readding something multiple times while it's being explained to be against consensus and affecting the results of a vote that's taking place because nothing short of a binding vote has worked over the past year is highly disruptive. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:45, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Um, can I try and paraphrase the concern here. There is a vote (something of a unique process on WP) on matters where one user has concerns that a question or questions are skewed in such a way to underscore what they perceive to be a bias, and on the basis of the support/opposition of those wordings has concluded that there is a pro-British (I only take exception that being pro-British is being equated directly into anti Irish Nationalist sentiment; I am both the former and decidedly not the latter) sentiment regarding those who answer in one manner and a pro Irish Nationalist in responding in the other, the user has subsequently created a graph or some depiction indicating the levels of pro/anti British and pro/anti Irish Nationalist editors involved in this vote? What is the fundamental basis for this concern - that an area of political/religious/cultural dispute is being shown as having differing nationalistic backgrounds effect a large percentage of the disputants... or that non aligned editors are being placed within groupings on the basis of their responses. Seems to me that the problem lays still within the questions asked - if people are happy for the wording(s) to remain then I do not see the difficulty in someone making assumptions (and transparently publishing them) on the basis of the responses. Oh, and as for WP:Outing - I can make the same general assumptions on peoples English (or not) speaking nation of birth simply through grammer and spelling habits... to be sure. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:14, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Remove the 'spread sheet' from the Polling page. Jumpers & we're only 2 days into this. GoodDay (talk) 22:23, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Last night, Sarah accused me of canvassing (despite absolutely no evidence) - aware that that carries strong sanctions, as stated on the poll page. Today, two editors have so far removed their votes because of her profiling and one other has said s/he won't vote till she stops.  (Her "profiling" is, in any case, completely inaccurate and invalid, as plenty of Irish editors have expressed some preference for using "Republic of Ireland", even if its not their first preference).  Now, I'm being accused by her of intimidating voters - again without any evidence?!  Not only is that blatantly untrue, I've tried helping one editor (who didn't support "Republic of Ireland" as any preference!) to fix his vote and pointed out to another (who voted first for "Republic of Ireland") that he may have got his vote wrong, going by Position statement, where he says to vote for another option.  Hardly the actions of someone trying to intimidate voters to support my position... <span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 22:47, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah C'mon Bastun... At this point, what purpose does bringing this up serve?  This'll just notch it up again now that it seems it might actually be calming down.  Sarah made it very clear on your Talk page last night that she wasn't making any accusations although (as I commented at the time) it could've been phrased better.  Trying to infer that Sarah was trying to intimidate *you* would just make most of us laugh at the thought...  Let's move past this.  --HighKing (talk) 22:54, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It's symptomatic, though - those who oppose her are "imposing British PoV" and must somehow be cheating... For the record though, I'd support oversight of the profiling and a ban on it recurring, but would oppose a block or ban on Sarah at this time. Reintroduction of her mentoring/civility parole may well be in order, though. <span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 23:20, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Except - Sarah has now added the profiling to her own talkpage... <span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 23:28, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Bastun. Please refrain from using the phrase "profiling". It is analysis, which throws sharp light on some of the pious pretence that passes for argument on Wiki. Example Chillum below: "We should be basing the results of the poll by the strength of the arguments presented, not the nationalities of those who voted." Exactly my point! I am merely illustrated that this isn't the way Wiki works in real life! A truth that some folk find impossible to accept. Sarah777 (talk) 09:21, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Whoa!  Yellow card (or 2 minute penalty, or 5 yard penalty) for using "Wiki(pedia)" and "real life" in the same sentence! ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 09:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * OK. Would "Surreal Life" be a better expression? Sarah777 (talk) 11:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Since this has switched to a democratic process, rather than a consensus process, is the obvious answer to follow the principles of the democratic process - ie the ballot is secret and the results are not published until the ballot closes. That would get rid of any risk of intimidation or accusations of same. Surely a system where votes were emailed to a neutral admin or group of admins using a mail redirect, who would independently verify the outcome once the polls closed, would be preferable to the hybrid process ongoing at the moment.Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:04, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no way we would of got to the voting phase if it was a secret ballot, that would of concerned people from all side and its not hard to imagine they would consider it invalid. One thing that would of been helpful is if people couldnt change their vote at any point in the 42 day voting period. This clearly gives a reason to try and encourage people to change their mind. Sarah is doing that, by assessing peoples nationalities, claiming certain ones are pushing POV and making out that British people should not be allowed to vote. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:09, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * We should be basing the results of the poll by the strength of the arguments presented, not the nationalities of those who voted. I would think this would be evident. Chillum  00:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with Chillum and all the others who expresed similar ideas above. Editors should be judged by the quality of their rationales not by their identifiers. This is a point I made many times before and during ARBMAC2. Having said that I think that Sarah should not be sanctioned if she does not continue this profiling in project space. Dr.K. logos 01:07, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * agreed. (I've not spoken on this issue before) We do not decide issues depending on how many of each view are present on Wikipedia, but on the more general question of the consensus of all of us who care about the issue. This can be a fine distinction sometimes, but it's an important one. If 90% of the people here were Irish nationalists, that still would not mean that their view would prevail as against NPOV.  To explicitly divide people by nationality is an obvious obstacle to the proper settling of disputes and to the very basis of cooperative work here. But it's enough that it stop. DGG (talk) 04:04, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

The Ireland Collaboration process is and was a joke. We should have be basing the discussion on the strength of the arguments presented, however it was based on numbers. I did try my best to have a source/referenced and policy based discussion, but all some editors were intrested in was a vote. I do agree with Chillum and Tasoskessaris that on this project decisions should be based on the strength of the arguments presented and be judged by the quality of their rationales, but lets be honest, that's not going to happen. All I'd suggest is editors just read the discussion that was had on including references with editors rationales to get the idea. This vote undermines the project, and Sarah just hit at the underlining issue. IMO Masem's report is an insult having had to deal with them on the project and the BS they ignored during the process. Diff's can be provided, editors just need to ask! -- <strong style="color:#009900;">Domer48 <sub style="color:#006600;">'fenian'  08:11, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Once everyone agreed to a vote, the process should have moved to democratic rules - secret ballot, only one vote per individual and no interim results. Otherwise it is a recipe for accusations of intimidation, and for people deliberately setting out to skew or nullify the outcome by informed tactical voting, both of which have happened - with the second option being openly set out on the discussion page and nobody apparently seeing a problem with it.Elen of the Roads (talk) 08:52, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Everyone didn't agree to the poll Domer48, Tfz and myself are some that didn't and were in favour of a policy based approach not force of numbers. BigDunc  09:00, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * That is true. But in the end it still comes down to a vote; thus the imposition of POV names on Ireland-related articles. That is how "RoI" has remained the status quo against both the view of the majority of Irish editors, against WP:NPOV, WP:COMMONNAME and common sense. When it comes down to it what Wiki pompously calls "NPOV" is merely majority rule. As in the case of WP:CIVIL we will spout any old intellectually challenged gobbledygook to avoid a rigorous rules-based approach. And we have hordes of Admins loose some of whom more resemble a lynch mob than a police force. IMHO. Sarah777 (talk) 09:37, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * BigDunc: I don't remember anyone else not agreeing to it, apart from the three of ye. Policy-based approach, fine, except as pointed out on the project page, the policies often conflict.  So the overwhelming consensus was to use a PRSTV ballot.  This was entirely in line with the Arbcom decision.  Domer48, you were even insisting on sources to state that the name Ireland was ambiguous in the first place(!) and were admonished for disruptive editing in the lead-up to the poll.  Despite your claim above, several of the Position statements that voters are asked to base their preferences on are indeed sourced. Ireland Collaboration/Poll on Ireland article names/Position statements/Rannpháirtí anaithnid Ireland Collaboration/Poll on Ireland article names/Position statements/ScolaireIreland Collaboration/Poll on Ireland article names/Position statements/Valenciano (It's interesting that Sarah's one, not containing any sources, get's endorsed by Bigdunc...).  All of that aside - we are where we are.  The project has decided, per Arbcom's remedy, to use a community-wide, binding, poll.  Whether or not it was Sarah's intention, her practice of  profiling has resulted in the withdrawal of at least two votes and at least one editor has said they won't vote if profiling is ongoing.  That is disruptive to the process.  If Sarah will stop adding it to Wikipedia, including the project pages and userspace, grand - we can move on.  I'm sure she can keep the figures in Notepad and announce to the world how biased it's all been if "Republic of Ireland" "wins", or quietly say nothing if anything else does, when the whole process is over.  <span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 10:09, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm still trying to understand exactly *what* is intimidating about it? Sarah is only using public information.  She's not "outing" anybody using off-wiki info.  If people don't want to be profiled, then stop sticking flags on your user pages.  --HighKing (talk) 10:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * And I also don't see the harm in Sarah having it on her own user page, and discussions on it are kept away from more public places like the poll page. I mean, she published a picture of how to construct an atomic bomb on her page last week, and that wasn't censored, yet now there's editors demanding *oversight* on the table she created.  I'm starting to look around to try to spot the hidden camera ... am I on TV here?  --HighKing (talk) 10:57, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * While I personally can't see the problem with it, if there is even the slightest suggestion that it's affecting the voting process then it should be removed from the polling page until after the vote has taken place. After that Sarah and anyone else should be free to provide whatever analysis they wish though personally I can't see the point (there's systematic bias on WP? British editors outnumber Irish ones? No shit!) An agreement by Sarah not to post the data until then should be sufficient to close this. Valenciano (talk) 11:24, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, it's already gone from the polling page. If, as you say, the table won't "discover" any shockingly new information, there's even less reason for all this fuss...  --HighKing (talk) 11:30, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * This is not simply about effecting the poll. It is about the inappropriateness of sorting users by nationality, which I think is worth a fuss. Chillum  14:54, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This reached pretty absurd levels during ARBMAC2. Here is an example of nationality declarations during a discussion. Dr.K. logos 16:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That was voluntary, and still fairly contentious if I recall correctly. At least with voluntary declarations no one is mis-categorised. Cheers, <b style="color:#000">TFOWR</b>This flag once was red 16:38, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, no one is miscategorised if done voluntarily, but nationality declarations should not be used in any form, voluntary or not. Plus a "voluntary" activity can easily become coercive. I am being brief here on purpose. I have discussed these points extensively in other pages before and I don't want to open up yet another lengthy debate here. Cheers. Dr.K. logos 18:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Why not? This is not a secret ballot. And if nationalities are taking sides, it could suggest POV-pushing that needs to be addressed. From what I've seen in past discussions, the ones who oppose it, often oppose it precisely because it reveals information that could bring their POV into the spotlight, which they don't want. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 18:18, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Using ad-hominem, editor-based arguments will not advance your position Bugs and it is precisely the type of argument that I have, unfortunately, seen so many times. Let's call it the evil, underground nationalist POV pusher argument. It presupposes that editors of a given nationality will surreptitiously try to push their POV by not admitting their background or by trying to obscure it. To which I reply: Are people so dense that they have to know the nationality of someone to detect their POV? Can they not just simply read their comments and decide if these comments are POV-driven or not? Do they need to see the passport of the editor to decide if the guy is a POV-pusher? Don't they have analytical skills? Of course your type of argument also presupposes that anonymous, not easily identifiable users automatically tell the truth if they declare they are from an uninvolved nationality. Never mind if this can be verified or not. Like I said before: There is no substitute for WP:AGF and analysing the contributions and not the editors. Ad-hominem-based contribution evaluations must stop. They are anti-intellectual, lazy and contrary to WP:AGF and thus they run counter to the very spirit of Wikipedia. Dr.K. logos 21:06, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Posting a true fact about someone does not constitute an attack. The only ones who would oppose it, most likely have a guilty conscience or have something to hide. You can put the American flag right next to my name anytime you like. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 00:23, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Baseball Bugs, would you support profiling along all lines? If more users displayed their race, should we take that into account on disputes over articles on people from minorties or other racial disputes? Should peoples religions be counted for religious debates? Shall we go around counting how many openly gay wikipedians contribute to a dispute relating to homosexuality??
 * Sarah was not just presenting a friendly little chart on peoples nationalities. She was cleary trying to mislead people into thinking a certain option is "British POV" being imposed on the people of Ireland by British editors. If the same was done for races, would we all be ok with:  "15 white people voted for this.. 13 Blacks voted against this.. there for the whites are clearly biased?" because that is what she was doing.
 * Personally it didnt bother me, i found it rather amusing. However voters can change their vote at any point in the next 38 days, if the vote couldnt be changed it may not be such a big deal. 2 people withdrew their votes, thats enough to justify it being removed from the talk page and avoided until after the results are in. Anyway this all seems to be over now, everyones moved on and the spreadsheet is gone from the talk page which is the main thing. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:47, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The more you know about the voters, the better informed of a decision you can make. So, in general, YES - especially where it reveals an apparent pattern of "taking sides". Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 17:49, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It's been pointed out to you before. Why state that Sarah was ''clearly trying to mislead people" when you've acknowledged that she wasn't and she also states she wasn't.  Please AGF, this is not the first time you've been pulled up for spreading innuendo. --HighKing (talk) 00:56, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry if i was not clear in my comment.. Sarah describes the certain option as the British option, and says its British POV. I consider the claim "Republic of Ireland is British POV" misleading considering its was created by the Irish government as their country's official description, and its used often by the Irish government and parliament. BritishWatcher (talk) 01:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * ploughing through this thread it reminds me of Espeanza. But a weird esperanza, full of bad faith and socks and hate and point of view and cite swapping, and accussations of socking.  Why are nationalist articles so toxic to all involved? Remember Civility (talk) 11:55, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Because nationality is contentious. Quite often leads to people getting put in coffins in real life, and has at least a few thousand centuries. Unsurprising that it would be contentious on Wikipedia, where long and bloody wars have been fought over how someone's surname is spelt in the past.
 * For what it's worth, IMO you'd have to be actively feigning ignorance not to be able to work out why prfiling is bad here. The entire point of said profiling is to attempt to discredit the opinions of any editors who are British. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:00, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Those who are voting from a neutral point of view need have no fear of so-called "profiling". Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 17:51, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I strongly object to an attempt to profile me from information on my user page. I don't know if I've been profiled, but if so I expect I've been categorised incorrectly, and certainly would have been categorised incorrectly a few weeks ago. Dougweller (talk) 18:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * @Chris Cunningham: Profiling is a method of ad hominem argument which is is called "ad hominem circumstantial". Please see the Ad hominem article. It is a form of logical fallacy. And it does not apply only to British editors. It applies to anyone depending on the circumstances. Dr.K. logos 19:51, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * @Doug: Doug you have expressed, almost verbatim, an older opinion of mine around the time of ARBMAC2. (I am referring to your first sentence). Dr.K. logos 19:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

suggested pause

 * In response to Ratel saying Collect has a mental illness, Collect says Ratel has a mental illness--my comments about the way Ratel is conducted the dispute here seems to apply more widely. The subthread just above seems to indicate similar. I propose a 48 hr moratorium on Collect, Ratel, Noloop,  & Smashville and Pantherskin commenting on this here, in the hope of preventing more of this; the question of  who  is in the right would seem to belong elsewhere.  DGG (talk) 04:32, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Kindly note that I made absolutely no such aspersions on Ratel. Ever.   The quotes from Ratel which I cited are all his.  Now off to a vacation in the mountains ... Collect (talk) 19:01, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Tyciol Day 3
Sorry to drag this one back out of the archive. Tyciol has posted a huge response just after MiszaBot archived it. I'm not sure how to get the whole thread back, but Black Kite did make the following statement in the thread and on Tyciol's talkpage

''I'll be quite clear about this. Some of your redirects are fine, some are debatable (and those can be discussed) - ones like this are utterly useless. Here's a Google search for "Elton Hercules" without his surname - no results at all. It looks like you're unaware how Western-style names and honorifics are used. You are making work for other users who have better things to do, and I would have thought, given the number of users who have expressed similar opinions here and on AN/I, that you would know better than to immediately recreate these. So - if you start re-creating more obviously pointless redirects like Elton Hercules, I will block you for disruption.'' Black Kite 14:03, 3 August 2009 (UTC) (the other redirects he kept recreating were Sir John, Sir McCartney, Sir Paul)

He has re-created Elton Hercules, and continues to argue that adding a hatnote to Sir Hercules (the horse) directing to Elton John was appropriate, continues to argue about other redirects that were deleted, continues to argue that it is not his job to make proper dab pages  and has indicated to me that he intends to re-create the redirect Sir John ( to Elton John) despite their being hundreds if not thousands of "Sir John's" on Wikipedia, and the redirect Sir Paul (to Paul McCartney)(ditto with the Sir Pauls)

PS - and before anyone else notes it, yes I was rude to Tyciol and made an intemperate accusation, and I have apologised unreservedly for same as it was completely unjustified and inappropriate and I should not have said it.

I am reraising this not from any personal feelings, but because I'm not convinced this matter is resolved yet, as I don't think he understands why everyone is up in arms. If an admin wants to close it, then I respect that decision. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:37, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If he does not get it, then perhaps he should be blocked.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 12:11, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Look at the refactoring of Talk:United States that has just been performed. Is there a fast way to stop this misguided behavior, or do we have to debate the pros and cons of messing up talk page histories? Johnuniq (talk) 12:15, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, wow, I at first did not realize that he added his comment to the archives. This user is clearly not here to contribute constructively at this point, or he is so clueless that he should not be allowed to edit anymore.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 12:29, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * And god damn it I just found another whole set of redirects he had made for living people to a list of fictional characters. At this point, we should block him until we can clean up the shit he's made by deleting every single item he's made in the article space.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 12:33, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Blocked for a week. Dougweller (talk) 12:36, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If anyone thinks this is the wrong period of time, feel free to change it, the length was a response to the comment about 'until we can clean up the shit he's made'. Dougweller (talk) 12:39, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * From my experience dealing with Tyciol relating to talkpage reformating, he believes in the absolute rightness of his edits even if they go against consensus. I think he actually believes that WP:IAR also includes ignoring consensus (WT:TALK). This type of behavior is highly disruptive and unproductive. --Farix (Talk) 13:32, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Based on some of the stuff I've deleted while working my way through his history (such as redirecting Chris Kimble to Community of practice), I wouldn't be surprised if a badly-designed bot was involved. --Carnildo (talk) 21:57, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No, this appears to solely be a man made deal. Someone during this week of respite should compile a list of redirects that are still active and see if they should be deleted.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 23:12, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No, he does it all with his own fair hands. Were you to enquire, he would give you a three paragraph explanation of why that redirect was a good idea.Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:43, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to make of his intentions with this edit where he states that everyone complaining about his edits are hounding/harassing him. Seems he has no intentions of stopping after his block expires. Again, this is more evidence that he views that he believe in the ultimate rightness of his edits and can ignore consensus. --Farix (Talk) 00:33, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It just doesn't feel like he has any understanding of the problem.Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:56, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * He clearly doesn't understand. Perhaps an administrator should extend his block indefinitely until he shows an understanding of the issues at hand. I will also be contacting someone to compile a list of articles/redirects/disambiguation pages he's created to clean things up.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 01:13, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Let the cleaning begin
With help from MZMcBride, I've compiled a list of every single redirect Tyciol has ever made. This 5205 member list can be seen here. This list is four days old, so some newer creations and recent deletions are not incorporated into the list.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 01:50, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * His number of userpage redirects are interesting, to put it mildly. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:57, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Taking the number of redirects he's made, the speed at which he can make them, and his comments (some of which were, well, interesting, eg the one linked above which, including the comments on order and terrorism, lead me to think he won't and possibly can't stop his rapid-fire editing, I've changed the block to indefinite. I've explained on his talk page that this is in the interests of Wikipedia and is not punitive, as hypothetically it could be lifted today if he shows he understands the problem and agrees to stop. Dougweller (talk) 08:31, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Concur with the indefblock block per WP:COMPETENCE, and would suggest a ban on all redirect/disambig work as a minimum condition of their return. EyeSerene talk 08:40, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Endorse block; no objections from me either. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:47, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, he hadn't got it up to here (refactoring other editors contributions on a talk page seems an obsession, plus the statement "Hm, well I totally made a statement bout Elton, let's see how that turns out then I can review the other 3 to see if I can adequately explain my meaning for'm."), and I did get the sense he was waiting his block out as an unreasonable imposition  (where he links to WP:NOEDIT without any apparent grasp of its applicability to himself) rather than examining his conduct.  So yes, endorse.Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * While ideally, every single redirect should be judged on its own merits, considering the sheer number of bad redirects and the inordinate amount of work involved in evaluating every single one for plausability, has anyone considered the use of Special:Nuke (which will delete all pages, or a subset thereof, that a user has made the last month)? <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">decltype (talk) 09:58, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Can we do that? I suspect that would still leave a cleanup.  And from the looks of  (I did not know of other Sir Johns. Had I known of them I would have improved it into a disambig. and "You don't have an authority to tell me not to refactor talk pages, refactoring pages is useful for reading.") suggest it will be a long time before this editor is editing again.  Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:51, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think if feasable, Decltype's suggestion is probably the best option. We managed without these redirects before he came along, and if some good ones get deleted along the way, I'm sure they will get recreated eventually. Jeni  ( talk ) 12:58, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It'd work, but then there'd still be so many other redirects that he made a long time ago (and Urine Therapy as he mentions on his talk page is still a bad redirect because case sensitivity is only exists in links).— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 13:00, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * To Elen: If by "can", you meant "is it technically feasible", the answer is yes ("The following pages were recently created by Decltype; put in a comment and hit the button to delete them."). If you meant "would it be acceptable, and the right thing to do", well, that is more or less the question I am posing. <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">decltype (talk) 14:02, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It was the 'technically' rather than 'wikilegally' that I was wondering about.Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Aaaaaaaaargh! I've just discovered Anal Creampie. Which redirects to Cream pie. Which is a perfectly normal article about confectionery made from pastry and cream. Please God! nobody explain why he came up with that redirect.Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:33, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Polynomial123 unblock request
The following is a request for an unblock from who was found to be a non-totally reformed vandal operating more than a dozen of sockpuppets. The request is full of promises and acknowledgment of wrongdoings. Anyway, I'm leaving this for the community to decide upon it.

User:Friday had suggested that any unblock must be accompagnied by an ANI topic ban. Also, I believe this user needs more to get reformed totally. I suggest that a volunteer mentor takes care of that.

P.S. A full list of all sockpuppets and prior investigations can be found at the user's talk page. -- FayssalF  -  Wiki me up®  23:57, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I believe this person has the potential to be a great contributor to Wikipedia.  I was one of the people involved in getting his 80-some sockpuppets blocked originally (see Sockpuppet_investigations/ScienceGolfFanatic) and sometime afterward discovered that one of them had been unblocked because some of the pages he edits are still on my watchlist.  Whether the unblocking admin knew that the user was a sockpuppeteer or not, I can't say ... but after being unblocked, he seemed to realize he wasn't going to be able to get away with vandalism anymore and so he actually started doing some good helpful editing, creating several new articles about golf courses, doing New Page Patrol, and reverting vandalism.  Then apparently he slipped back into his old habits briefly the other day and vandalized 2 articles while using an edit summary that made it look like he was reverting vandalism.  He was immediately caught and then blocked as though he had just committed the sum of all sins.  I think that this was too harsh and would like to see him unblocked so long as he realizes that people are going to be watching his every move and that he won't be able to get away with even the slightest mischiefs.  If this happens, I think Wikipedia as a whole will be improved.  -- <B>Soap</B> Talk/Contributions 00:11, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Let me get this straight. Polynomial123 was blocked from April indef for vandalism and etc. On 18 July, some kindly soul unblocks him on promise of reform. Between 18 July and 4 August, Polynomial123 continues disruptive editing and builds a sockfarm, while continuing to make reasonably sensible edits from one account, apparently in the belief that admins won't block an account that makes some level of sensible contribution. On 5 August, Polynomial123 gets indefd again and on 6 August has had a Damascus Road experience and is asking to be unblocked? The phrase 'I don't think so' comes first to mind.Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:08, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The sockpuppets were used during the April to July period, not after it. Since being unblocked on July 18 he has been almost entirely a productive editor.  -- <B>Soap</B> Talk/Contributions 00:12, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * User:Dtotalswung69 was created and used after Poly got unblocked. They claim to have stopped creating socks after being unblocked, which has proven false. I would be disinclined to unblock an obviously insincere user.--Atlan (talk) 00:18, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the release of the block on Polynomial123 (originally named Pinkgirl34) must have unblocked all the others too. Perhaps it was an IP-based block; I'm not familiar with how Wikipedia's block system works.  Note: I see now that he had to be unblocked separately on the 69 account.  However, the Dtotalswung69 account was created on July 2, and Polynomial/Pinkgirl was unblocked on July 18, so it still remains that, as far as I know, he has not created any new sockpuppets since being unblocked.  Moreover, although he did use the swung69 account to edit, it was only to his own talk page (unless there are deleted edits I can't see), and those edits were wholly legitimate in my eyes. -- <B>Soap</B> Talk/Contributions 00:31, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * One look at Dtotalswung69's talk page history shows you there are indeed deleted edits. I wonder why you haven't bothered. Anyway, I'll let you be the judge of how legitimate they are.--Atlan (talk) 00:42, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I meant deleted edits from after July 18, because that was the time at which the user was unblocked as Pinkgirl contingent on his promise to not use sockpuppets anymore. I'm well aware that he was a vandal and sockpuppeteer of the highest order before that, and I was instrumental in helping get him blocked originally.  I'm defending him now because I believe he has changed and can become a productive editor so long as he realizes that he can't get away with vandalism anymore.  -- <B>Soap</B> Talk/Contributions 00:51, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, while the edits were from before the Polynomial account got unblocked, the unblock request came after that. I consider an unblock request an intention to continue editing under that account, which would amount to socking. Fact of the matter is, that on neither account, the use of the other account was divulged.--Atlan (talk) 01:00, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I have declined this user's unblock request as I have no confidence that someone who acted with so much deception can be trusted at their word. If the community comes to a different conclusion than I did regarding this unblock request I have no problem with my decision to decline this unblock being reversed. However I seriously doubt the community is that gullible. Chillum  00:23, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The list on the talk page is just of socks that have been found. Given evidence to this extent that he has done so before, we have no reason not to believe he may be socking even now. Half  Shadow  00:29, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Halfshadow. If he has socked a lot before, how do we know that he won't do it again. Also, I just can't get over the in your cage for your block and be a good little hamster. comment made on the blocked WebHamster's talk page.-- The LegendarySky Attacker 02:02, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ditto. Looks like he attempted to post a third unblock request, but it was categorically declined. seicer  &#x007C;  talk  &#x007C;  contribs  13:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps at a later date, if someone in good standing is willing to vouch for and mentor this person, I might support an unblock, but this soon after the sockfarm was rooted out and blocked, I can't say I'm eager. – Luna Santin  (talk) 18:12, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

User talk:99.149.84.135
A large number of hit-and-run IP editors are attacking User talk:99.149.84.135. I guess it can't very well be semi-protected, or the User him/herself can't edit it, but is there anything that can be done? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 01:25, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * BTW, those IPs come from all over the world. Is there some sort of organized harassment going on?  Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 01:31, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This has something to do with the Kevin Park (author) article and an account . There was some weirdness going on earlier today or yesterday with the account trying to get articles he had written speedied, perhaps as retribution for the article about himself being deleted, then posting to my talk page claiming his account was compromised. Someone ought to run checkuser and/or look into this. Maybe the IPs from all over are open proxies? &lt;&gt;Multi-Xfer&lt;&gt; (talk) 02:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not proxies, some of them are Comcast, Verizon, Telstra in New Zealand, and another server in the UK. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 07:21, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This isn't a new trick, but it's not widespread, either. Looks like a number of people are being directed, off-site, to restore the page to an old (and bad) version; the attack can be hamstrung by brief semi-protection (even just a few minutes) or by deleting the old version(s) being reverted to. The result, on-wiki, appears to be a massively coordinated effort, but it's really not. – Luna Santin  (talk) 18:10, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It's possible (btw the talk page is semi'd right now.) But what does this have to do with Aitias (going by the edit summaries of the IPs)? -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 02:06, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Absolutely nothing. Off-wiki stuff.  Keegan (talk) 20:45, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

User_talk:JAN3IRO_69
This user User_talk:JAN3IRO_69 there is an edit war going on at F.C._Internazionale_Milano is losing it, and getting very uncivil, here this edit summary for example, [] I will leave him a message to say I have mentioned this here.(Off2riorob (talk) 09:28, 6 August 2009 (UTC)) I have requested semi protection for the page here Requests_for_page_protection (Off2riorob (talk) 09:39, 6 August 2009 (UTC))


 * I've protected the article for a week just to stop the daft moving a dividing template up and down the page. (For transparency: I reverted before protecting, but the reversion was of childish IP vandalism, not of what was being warred over. I've resolutely protected The Wrong Version, not to any preferred version as the revert might suggest). ➲ REDVERS Buy war bonds 09:48, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not seeing any incivilities, just an edit war? The user doesn't appear to use edit summaries, unless I am missing something? Jeni  ( talk ) 15:50, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The edit summary here..[] Off2riorob (talk) 18:16, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, sorry, I was looking at the edit summaries, not the content! Jeni  ( talk ) 18:58, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * He was left a this is your only warning by User:Toddst1 on his talk and he has just come back and blanked his page [], not much communication from his side, so far. I will keep an eye on him. (Off2riorob (talk) 19:02, 6 August 2009 (UTC))

Disruption by User:Triplestop
User:Triplestop, after nominating my articles and categories for deletion, is falsely accusing me of being a sockpuppet. I have nothing to do with the other users. Joklolk (talk) 13:01, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Have you tried discussing this with Triplestop or did you just come straight here? Jauerbackdude?/dude. 13:08, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed, after first discussing with the other editor, why not head off to WP:WQA if there was no resolution?? ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 13:27, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Joklolk, they are not your articles or categories, they are the community's articles and categories from the moment you hit that "Save page" button. If you don't want your material to be edited at will by others, then don't submit them. MuZemike 15:07, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You don't need any help from administrators as nobody is doing anything wrong. If you have comments with regards to him accusing you of abusing multiple accounts, then note them at Sockpuppet investigations/Joklolk.  As for the nomination for deletion of the categories, there's no reason to believe he did it maliciously; comment on the deletion discussions.  Otherwise, please play nicely or nobody gets dessert ... - Rjd0060 (talk) 13:49, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

The above user is a POV pushing troll and a very likely sockpuppet of User:ViperNerd, who popped up right around the time the latter was blocked indef. See Sockpuppet investigations/Joklolk. And sorry if I'm being "disruptive", I take serious offense with users pushing their ridiculous POVs.  Triplestop  x3  13:47, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That is not helpful in the slightest. - Rjd0060 (talk) 13:49, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well either way, I had very legitimate reasons for doing what I did.  Triplestop  x3  13:52, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * "POV pushing troll" is a personal attack and very uncivil - there are legitimate ways to characterise a user's contributions as unhelpful/disruptive without resorting to personal epithets. Exxolon (talk) 14:12, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Alright, alright. I'll be keeping my hands clean of this matter from now on.  Triplestop  x3  14:38, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * As a procedural note, Joklolk has been blocked after some cross-wiki checkuser collaboration -- see block log for details. – Luna Santin  (talk) 20:39, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Joklolk
Now that this user has been blocked, I'm thinking G5 should be applied to all of the stuff he made, as it was created in a clear attempt to troll. Would someone like to do the honors?  Triplestop  x3  20:23, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks like discussion regarding some of that content is ongoing (for example, several uninvolved users seem to favor keeping the article at Articles for deletion/Communist genocide); where that's the case, we might as well allow discussion to continue. Are there any specific examples where that's not the case? – Luna Santin  (talk) 20:38, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * He created a few categories and redirects that haven't been edited by others.  Triplestop  x3  20:40, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * And anyway, its only content created by a banned user after they have been banned that G5 applies to. For the rest, there is WP:PROD  Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:43, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * He is a serial crosswiki vandal, he can be treated as banned. Especially when what he made is a clear attempt to troll  Triplestop  x3  20:45, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No, sorry. G5. Banned user.  Pages created by banned users in violation of their ban having no substantial edits by others.

For everything else, there is AfD.Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:08, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

POV Pushing by User:Cinéma C
Cinéma C today created an article called the "Kravica massacre". In this article it is written that "The Kravica massacre was the January 1993 killing of 49 Serb civilians in the village of Kravica near Bratunac in Bosnia and Herzegovina, by Bosnian Muslim forces under the command of Naser Oric during the Bosnian War." It is referenced by this dubious Serbian language source

Cinéma C afterwards edited the article Kravica, where the incident took place and he removed content which says 11 civilians were killed and 35 military people were killed. which was well referenced with this reliable English language source. In that source it says "The allegations that the attack resulted in hundreds of civilian victims have been shown to be false. Insight into the original documentation of the Army of Republika Srpska (VRS) clearly shows that in fact military victims highly outnumber the civilian ones. The document entitled "Warpath of the Bratunac brigade", puts the military victims at 35 killed and 36 wounded; the number of civilian victims of the attack is eleven." He has obviously removed the content because it said that only 11 Serb civilians were killed and that there were 35 military deaths and this does not agree with his personal opinions.

Cinema C is obviously trying to make out that all the deaths in this incident were civilians and not military casualties. This is a very biased and POV course of edits made by Cinema C. This is in gross violation of NPOV. Cinema C needs to learn that he/she should not use Wikipedia as a way of expressing her/ his personal bias to the world. His edits are very Pro Serbian and anti Bosnian.

Can someone please correct the POV edits and make sure that Cinema C doesn't make POV edits again. Regards Ijanderson (talk) 15:18, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you could try discussing this on Talk:Kravica massacre or User talk:Cinéma C before tattling. Toddst1 (talk) 15:33, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I am happy to discuss my changes, but this is not the place. I have not provided any information that I didn't back up with sources and if Ijanderson disagrees with my sources, he has the right to challenge them, not automatically accuse me of POV pushing here. Thanks, -- Cin é ma C 17:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

POV? NPOV? "The pursuit of balance can create imbalance because sometimes something is true." - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 01:06, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Account created solely for a personal attack
This account was created solely to post a personal attack against me. Account with one edit Given the talk page where it happened and the fact that the user called me "Red Hand" I suspect it's a serial sockpuppeteer I've clashed with in the past. Anyway, is this really acceptable behaviour here? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 22:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If you think you know who the puppetmaster is, file an SPI and a checkuser can flush out other socks. Otherwise, if that account makes no other edits (apart from the first one), I don't know what we can do. Protonk (talk) 22:17, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * OK. Thanks for the reply.  The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 22:21, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If the account makes more edits or another throwaway account pops up to hassle you, post again in this thread and we'll block him/her. Protonk (talk) 22:25, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * match for and . Both accounts have been editing in a similar area and posting identical content at Special Boat Service. I'll be checking shortly to be sure that all three accounts have been notified of this thread. –  Luna Santin  (talk) 23:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Luna. Protonk (talk) 23:17, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

User:AvatarMN just won't let go
(*sigh*) I tried to end this on my own, but this guy won't drop it. As you can see from this thread on my talk page User talk:Beeblebrox I repeatedly explained myself as clearly as I could, and told this user they could pursue the matter in any way they chose and not have to worry about me intervening again. The thread ends with him calling me a sociopath. I warned him on his talk page for violating WP:NPA, and his response was to call me a sociopath again. Since I gave him an "only warning" I'm bringing this here. If an admin (or anyone else) would like to try and explain why that is not acceptable it would be appreciated, I have had it with this guy and don't wish to talk to him anymore. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:42, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

If you don't want to talk to him. then just stop talking to him. Yes he shouldn't have called you a sociopath, but really an only warning?Theresa Knott &#124; token threats 19:20, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Would you prefer a "soft" approach on personal attacks? I don't believe consensus supports that, and I know I don't. I've done enough vandal fighting that I've been the subject of a number of personal attacks now, including that I am a pedophile, I think I'm Jesus, I have no life, and now I'm a sociopath. Put yourself at the receiving end of some of those and see if you want to mollycoddle such users. Anyhoo, I probably never would have noticed, but Twinkle automatically added his talk page to my watchlist when I left the warning. (I'll be taking it back off now). Beeblebrox (talk) 19:32, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * He shouldn't have attacked you, and you've given an only warning. If that line were crossed again by the user I think most admins would block. I think that could go to WP:AIV, as with any continued disruption after a only/final warning, and really I see no utility in continuing this ANI thread. You've vented, so let's not let this get out of hand and cause further undue drama. <em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#6600CC">Nja <em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#63D1F4">247 19:42, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I just wanted some more eyes on this so he understands it's not just me saying not to make personal attacks. That seems to have happened now, so as long as I never hear from him again about this I'm more than happy to consider the matter closed. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I can't believe this. You warned me not to post on your talk page again, not on mine.  I don't see how it's any different for you to conclude from my behavior that I'm too tenacious, but I can't collate from your own statements that you're a word that means uncaring and without empathy; things you yourself said you were.  I don't think it's fair for one person demand they get the last word, so just to satisfy my ego that you don't get to tell me to not say anything more, I put something on my own talk page.  I don't know why you looked for it, and I had every intention of ending it there.  So now I bow out.  -- AvatarMN (talk) 05:58, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Michael Vick
I worked today to put references and clean up the Michael Vick page to a respectable information outlet. Another user who is obviously watching the page failed to discuss my work on the talk page and instead reverted everything. I included references in the page that were not there before and I also removed content that was blatantly stated twice (in the lead and down below) so that the article would look more encyclopedic. Rather than just reverting the work and thus creating an editing war, I am coming to this board for some help. I realize Michael Vick's page will require some work to fix, but how should this be approached? Thank you for your help.keystoneridin! (talk) 03:38, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * You should review our manual of style and discuss this on the article talk page. It is routine for large articles to have relatively long summarizing introductions, as that article had before you removed much of the introduction section.
 * You added one reference, a link to thesmokinggun.com, which is often not the best of references but in this case contained the actual (primary source) indictment. You should also look at our reliable sources policy - we prefer secondary sources (such as news coverage or history books) to primary sources (actual source documents) in most cases, as secondary sources have already done useful synthesis which we do not want done directly on Wikipedia.  You should also discuss that on the article talk page.
 * Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:48, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. I appreciate it.keystoneridin! (talk) 03:50, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Editors failing to abide by AFD consensus at Public image of Barack Obama
A consensus was made at Articles for deletion/Teleprompter usage by Barack Obama that information regarding Obama's teleprompted usage should be included in the appropriate sub-article about Barack Obama. I discussed it on the talk page and editors refuse to even discuss the matter and claim that there is no consensus on the page to include the material. I believe discussions at AFD have precedence and show the widespread consensus of the community. The mob and ownership tactics of the band of Obama article protectors is a serious problem that should be addressed, especially when they're willing to edit against the community's consensus. --William S. Saturn (talk) 22:35, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Before reverting you, I even did a simple CTRL-F search at the AFD. There were 67 instances of the word "delete" (with a space after it), 22 of the word "keep" (with a space after it), and 19 of the word "merge" or "merger" (the latter of which usually recommended discussing a possible merger). How you divine that you have consensus behind your controversial additions from that AFD is quite baffling. Unit  Anode  22:42, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That is not an effective way to measure consensus, please read the AFD. A large amount of delete votes favor the inclusion of the material in some form, not a "merge." The insertion of a paragraph is in no way a "merge." --William S. Saturn (talk) 22:46, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * What is the specific complaint requiring administrator action? Protonk (talk) 22:47, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks like a pure content dispute. The ABF of 'mob and ownership tactics' could probably use some admin addressing though. → ROUX   ₪  22:50, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I know I didn't file this, but WSS has been edit-warring at the mentioned page, and is now wildly misrepresenting what the AFD contains. I just went through it comment by comment, and of the 67 deletes, only a few even tangentially mentioned merging. Is this kind of misrepresentation allowed? Unit  Anode  22:52, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Could you please provide diffs of the editwarring? → ROUX   ₪  23:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The ownership issues of the page, and the ignorance of community consensus by a small band of editors. I believe warnings, blocks and article bans seem to be a good solution to this problem, and maybe page protections. --William S. Saturn (talk) 22:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll leave it to some uninvolved administrators to decide where the fault lies in this case. I've posted all I have to say on this matter. Unit  Anode  22:58, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * William, please provide diffs and contextualised quotes showing a) the ownership issues, b) ignorance of the, c) community consensus you claim, and optionally d) your understanding of the ArbCom sanctions currently imposed on all Obama-related articles. → ROUX   ₪  23:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * This looks like a content dispute on an article under probation. All parties are invited to stop edit warring about it immediately.  From the talk page I gather the focus of the dispute surrounds a particular paragraph detailing "teleprompter" criticism.  Work together to weave that into the prose of the article if possible.  If folks continue to edit war or be obstructionist, I'll block people as need be. Protonk (talk) 23:05, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The history of the article shows his edit-warring, as well as his making false claims in his edit summaries. He tried this (and edit-warred then, as well) towards the beginning of July. If anyone needs topic-banned here, it's WSS. Unit  Anode  23:09, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Just so you know, consensus is that it doesn't belong in the article at all. No one is being "obstructionist" in any way. WSS is simply engaging in blatantly tendentious editing. Unit  Anode  23:11, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Nowhere did I say he was in the right. If this issue dies down with no further reverts then that's good.  If he continues to edit war or if other participants continue to make the talk pages unpleasant (more so) places to be, then there will be trouble. Protonk (talk) 23:14, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I will provide diffs, but Unitanode reflects the basic problem with the Obama articles and the SPA accounts that make it impossible for anybody to edit. --William S. Saturn (talk) 23:17, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * In my view, the incredible bad-faith present in the above post alone, combined with the wild misrepresentations of what the AFD consensus was, as well as the incredibly misleading edit summaries, and the "right up to 3RR" edit-warring should lead to an immediate block. Anyone who has taken even the briefest of looks at my edit history knows I'm not an SPA. In fact, in the last two weeks, I've made only 1 edit to the aforementioned article. WSS's accusations of bad-faith need to end right now. Unit  Anode  23:21, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I've not taken a close look at the AfD, but the closing statement as written by MBisanz reads: "The result was delete. The consensus indicates the synthesis, POV-fork and NOT#NEWS issues render the article unsuitable for inclusion." I don't see any mention there of a merge, nor of any specific merge target, nor do I think that a vague consensus to merge to "some article" at a closed, archived discussion should override more recent and more local consensus at an article's talk page, regardless of whether such a consensus could be inferred from the closed AfD; if there's something to indicate the contrary, involving more users who commented on the AfD might be helpful -- speaking of which, I'll drop a note to the closing admin, now. – Luna Santin  (talk) 23:26, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Closing admin here; I closed it per the discussion at the time. That discussion isn't set in stone, and short of re-creating the article (which requires DRV), anything else more current at the talk page would easily override any discussion at AFD.  MBisanz  talk 23:34, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * As someone who has done some adminly stuff with the Obama articles but also !voted in the AfD, this strikes me as a content dispute. There are some "bad faith" issues here but nothing which rises to the level of a blockable offense in my view. For what it's worth, I weighed in pretty heavily in favor of deletion in the AfD but also noted "Probably something about the teleprompter situation could be mentioned there if this continues to be an issue in the months ahead" - presumably an example of the kind of comment William S. Saturn has in mind. I meant that very much as written though, with emphasis on the "probably" and "if this continues to be an issue." I actually don't know whether I would support some mention of the teleprompter stuff in the Public image of Barack Obama article, but I certainly would not want my comment in the AfD to be read as definite support for that, and I certainly don't think the AfD resulted in any consensus either way on whether inclusion of the teleprompter material was desirable or not. So again, we have a content dispute. It should be worked out on the article talk page in my view, and probably this thread should be marked resolved fairly soon.. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Subsection for evidence

 * I am archiving my contribution here because another editor with whom I am forbidden from interacting, and who I had though was precluded from involvement in Obama-related matters, is accusing me of bad faith by way of commenting on my post. Rather than risking violating Arbcom sanctions myself by remaining, I am withdrawing and will likely avoid commenting further as long as they are here. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:05, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

(after many edit conflicts) WBS's edits, accusations, and conduct on the Obama pages, and again in this report are all either very misguided, or suspicious. Accusing Unitanode of being an SPA, along with the ownership and bias accusations, demands for blocks and topic bans, etc., suggest a tendentiousness of a sort we have seen before.


 * Previous edit warring on the same text, in the same article
 * Edit warring neutrality notices in that article. (editor made accusations of bad faith, bias, etc., at that time)
 * Editor previously warned about consensus, edit warring, and Obama article probation.
 * Renewed edit warring on same text / article
 * Accusations made elsewhere

Whether AN/I is a safe haven to make wild accusations like the above is up to the administrators here. They are impermissible in Obama articles and talk pages per article probation and general editing principles. On the merits of the complaint, whatever happened at AfD, there is no consensus on the page in question to include the material, and a consensus reached in an AfD at one time is not generally enforceable across article space today. I agree with Protonk, if everyone goes home I see no need for any action. So if an admin is watching, please cut the drama short, warn the editor that no further nonsense will be tolerated, and close this thread. If the original poster continues edit warring or makes accusations of bad faith again on the Obama pages they need to stop. That's all there is here. Wikidemon (talk) 23:24, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I've been getting a few, too -- curse of being the bottom section on AN/I! I hope you don't mind if I split this into a subsection, but I won't worry if someone reverts that. – Luna Santin  (talk) 23:26, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

This thread needs less back and forth between Unitanode and WSS and more evidence in the form of diffs. I'm aware that WSS was edit warring on Public image of Barack Obama but I have no interest in blocking him after the fact for it (and little interest in protecting the page). If someone can show evidence suggesting that WSS has done much more than edit warring or that folks on the other side of the dispute have breached our guidelines or the article probation guidelines or that the feud continues, then some administrator action can be taken. If none of that happens or if this thread becomes a place to recapitulate the Obama-drama on those talk pages, then I'll collapse the thread and end the discussion. Is this clear? Protonk (talk) 23:27, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Seems luna and wikidemon beat me to the punch. Protonk (talk) 23:28, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I also posted evidence, and am a little miffed that the fact that I simply answered the wild accusations WSS was making against me is equated in your initial post of this section with what WSS is doing here. Unit  Anode  23:30, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It's sad when somebody who has written 6 GA articles has almost every single edit they make to a topic reverted, and is then accused of bad faith when they attempt to fix a major wikipedia problem. I will provide diffs, but this only scratches the surface. This good faith edit is rollbacked, A sourced section is removed in an edit war (eventually the editor gives up), and this.
 * Plus, just look at the talk page of Talk:Public image of Barack Obama, how is one even supposed to gain consensus, when editors refuse to discuss the matter and resort to personal attacks, and ask other editors to just end the discussion?
 * A mob of editors should not be allowed to own an article and make it impossible for anyone else to edit. --William S. Saturn (talk) 23:44, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Is WSS just allowed carte blanch to insult those who oppose his viewpoint? I mean, in this thread alone, he's done it over and over and over. Unit  Anode  00:36, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

The evidence is overwhelming. The content is ridiculously well sourced, including an entire article on the subject in the New York Times. There are simply editors here who don't like it and who have no regard for our core policy of neutral point of view. Notable criticisms and controversies about Obama are not allowed. We must wallow in ignorance like sheep. I'm under a topic ban for daring to try and address the problem. Also, there are abusive and disruptive editors who will come after you stalking and hounding you until you're blocked if you don't toe the line. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:46, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * To whom it may concern: Is the above typically insulting comment by CoM also a violation of his Obama topic ban? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 00:58, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll ask again: are these kind of blatantly bad-faith attacks allowed? Unit  Anode  00:52, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The bad faith attacks of the censors and POV pushers need to stop. The NPOV policy is a core policy and it makes clear that notable viewpoints should be included even when they aren't in the majority. The mob rule needs to end. I encourage you to help put a stop to it. If the New York Times isn't a reliable source, you're welcome to explain that policy change. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:55, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm done with this, and unwatching this page. This issue will either be dealt with or not. Unit  Anode  00:58, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, by all means close your eyes. They are going to continue to come after any editor who dares to challenge the censorship and POV pushing. This is an encyclopedia not a DNC website. Yet these editors come after every editor who threatens to include notable content that they don't like with aggressive tactics and blocks and bans. They have admin friends and there are no checks and balances on it. As the Arbcom hearing proved, even the highest levels of Wiki-bureaucracy can't be bothered to enforce our core policies. I don't dare list all the editors I've personally witnessed be hounded off Wikipedia, but that this disgraceful practice is allowed to continue is unacceptable. The very first sentence of the NPOV policy states: "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. My topic ban is clear too, it applies to Obama articles and talk pages, but that will not stop those who want to get rid of me from hounding, stalking, and harassing me. Until admins and arbcom begin addressing these violations, instead of going into a frothy fury every time one editor calls another editor an "idiot", this grotesque abuse will continue. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:07, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If you hadn't arrived here with an anti-Obama agenda, things might have gone differently for you. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 01:11, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * COM, aren't you not allowed to comment on Obama articles or discussions per ArbCom? I think this is clearly an Obama discussion.  Please strike your comments and move along or I will find me a ArbCom member and have them block you. - <small style="border:1px solid #990000;padding:1px;"> NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • 01:11, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I know in the past month, Ferrylodge decided to disappear from the project. And two great editors that could add significantly to the articles: Happyme22 and Wasted Time R, refuse to even look at the pages because of the "protectors." This is a serious concern for wikipedia that needs to be addressed. We can't have a band of editors running others from the project and disregarding NPOV. --William S. Saturn (talk) 01:16, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You've got a point. For example, CoM and his brethren did a good job of running me off the Obama pages. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 01:19, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * @Neutralhomer, according to the probation statement, ChildofMidnight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is topic-banned from Obama-related articles for six months, including talk pages. It says he is not topic-banned to comment about Obama on his talk page or noticeboards. So he did not violate it. However, you can ask or request amendment. I'm getting tired of seeing his obsession with the new US president. There are many good subjects that would need his attention in Wikipedia like cake and architecture. And Baseball Bug's obsession with CoM is also always an accompanied set to watch.--Caspian blue 01:24, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I have asked for a clarification on the ruling. Am waiting on an ArbCom member to get back to me.  I think this is an end run around his restriction and should probably be looked into. - <small style="border:1px solid #990000;padding:1px;"> NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • 01:28, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * To CB: I am not particularly interested in CoM, in fact I find him very uninteresting (to recite his own words to me), but he keeps turning up, on pages that I watch routinely, yapping about Obama. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 01:31, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If you're not interested why do you keep stalking me around Wikipedia despite my repeated requests to leave me alone? You followed me to JulianColton's page, to Protonk's page, to Ched's page, and many others. Only recently did you stop posting your harassing nonsense on my talk page all of which was unrelated to article work. I'm here to collaborate on content contributions and to improve the encyclopedia not to play with disruptive and harassing characters that lack self-control. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:38, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No, you're here to criticize liberals. Editors who come here with a political agenda typically eventually find themselves where you have found yourself. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 01:45, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Caspian blue, with all due respect, this is about much more than the U.S. president. It's about censorship, it's about stalking, harassment, intimidation, disruptions, and other abuse that is dished out to editors with minority viewpoints. I've tried to abide by my editing restrictions, despite their inappropriateness, but it hasn't stopped the harassment and stalking I've received. Editors monitor my contributions and make all sorts of allegations. On occasion they stick or have enough to encourage even more abuse. I'm not going to remain silent in the face of this hounding of editors. I try not to mention specific editor names who are subject to this harassment because I worry it would only make them more of a target, but a few are mentioned above and these are all content contributors. It's time to put a stop to the abuse and violations of our core policies. If something is covered substantially in reliable sources it isn't a question of whether we should include, but where and how to do so appropriately. The abusive behavior must stop before we lose more good editors to the disruptive trolls and their admin friends. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:38, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * And I would say there is plenty to criticize Obama about. It's just that someone who comes in with an anti-Obama agenda isn't the one to do it. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 01:39, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Arbcom request
I've filed a new Arbcom remedy request concerning some issues arising in the above hatted discussion, here. I could use a little help notifying the other people and threads this affects. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 05:07, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, CoM's entry into that discussion, with its attack on unnamed editors who don't believe in NPOV, is a clear violation of his topic ban, and I have accordingly blocked him for 48 hours. Should Arbcom conclude it's not a violation, don't wait for me to wake up before unblocking.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 06:25, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * ChildofMidnight has responded by making several personal attacks . Elsewhere he has described his topic ban as inappropriate and censorship. Mathsci (talk) 06:49, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * With personal attacks being flung about, I think a move up in the block should be made from 48 hours to 72. Just an opinion. - <small style="border:1px solid #990000;padding:1px;"> NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • 07:00, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll be very brief in my caution: no increases to the duration should be made. If there continue to be personal attacks, then the page will be protected - again, I emphasise, no changes should be made to the block duration, at least at this time. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:17, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * To me and from your post on his talk page, it seems like you don't want to upset him anymore. As Bugs put it below, tough toenails.  Flinging personal attacks around should not go unpunished. - <small style="border:1px solid #990000;padding:1px;"> NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • 07:24, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Nmvocalist, CoM has made a second series of personal attacks. He should be given the chance to refactor these comments; otherwise his talk page should probably be locked. Mathsci (talk) 07:43, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) Here is what ChildofMIdnight has written in part: Haha. The usual stalkers and trolls are showing up to go after me. It's open season. Neutral Homer and WMC's (Connolley) partner in crime Mathsci. Have you seen that nightmare arbcom proceeding they are involved in? Actually there are a couple I think. What are the chances arbcom actually does something about these abusers? Anyway, thanks Bongo, but really I think the good people should stay away from these pigs in the mud. I like y'all too much to have you deal with these swamp creatures. This seems to be highly disruptive editing. Mathsci (talk) 07:56, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Matter now moot after John Vandenberg's conditional unblock. Mathsci (talk) 08:14, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Like he will hurl personal attacks now...he has received what he wanted on a silver platter, an unblock. An hour's worth of personal attacks meant nothing.  Completely pathetic. - <small style="border:1px solid #990000;padding:1px;"> NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • 08:18, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Improper block
User talk:ChildofMidnight SarekOfVulcan blocked ChildofMidnight with this block message. The action cited does not appear to be prohibited by the topic ban in force against ChildofMidnight (see Requests for arbitration/Obama_articles, which does not refer to WP space).
 * Focus of dispute, or action in dispute
 * Involved parties and confirmation they have been notified of the discussion
 * SarekOfVulcan (notice)
 * ChildofMidnight (notice)
 * Description of the dispute and the main evidence

Bongo matic  06:48, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by other involved parties (Please include diffs to substantiate your claims)


 * Comments by uninvolved users
 * One, I don't think this is the place for this. Two, good block.  CoM knowingly and blantantly violated his restrictions and posted on a clearly Obama related post, said he was under restriction, and got blocked for it.  Good block...should have been longer in my opinion, especially with the personal attacks being throw around on his talk page. (1, 2, 3). - <small style="border:1px solid #990000;padding:1px;"> NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • 07:09, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with that assessment. I saw that comment from him and wondered what he was doing in that discussion but I was on my way out so I didn't follow it up.--Crossmr (talk) 07:21, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Why is this template being used here? Mathsci (talk) 06:55, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Because the editnotice says to, presumably. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 07:04, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, the instructions state to use this template for "Any other request involving a complaint against a user or a matter in dispute". Bongo  matic
 * The personal attacks against the blocking admin, current admins, and past admins by ChildofMidnight were a nice a touch. As this is under discussion at Arb, I alsi think it should play out there, not here. <em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#6600CC">Nja <em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#63D1F4">247 07:11, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * As this entire issue is currently in front of ArbCom, would it not make more sense to wait for a decision by them before bringing out the pillory? → ROUX   ₪  07:13, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I really could agree with you on that.--Caspian blue 07:17, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Terrible block should be reversed with an apology log.--Caspian blue 07:17, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Why doesn't this surprise me. Caspian, you can find nothing wrong with CoM...sometimes I think, and I honestly believe this, you are one in the same. - <small style="border:1px solid #990000;padding:1px;"> NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • 07:19, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec 4) I already explained you that he did not violate the topic ban according to the ArCom probation since he is not topic banned to comment about Obama on noticeboards or his talk page. However, you're focusing on his blowing off the steam for the absurd block. If you can point out such the specific remedy, please show me. And drop the insulting sockpuppet accusation.--Caspian blue 07:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Not helpful Homer, particularly the vague insinuation of socking, which is more than a little hard to believe. Please don't personalize the issues here. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:24, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I second that - please do not begin bickering here; undoubtedly, there are problems with the block, but it is not completely unjustified either. I request civility and calm in the meantime while this discussion continues. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:26, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I am 100 percent certain that CB is NOT CoM. CB and I have clashed from time to time, but we can talk. He's OK. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 07:28, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If you Bugs thinks CB is not CoM, then that is good enough for me. Gotta take my "fishy meter" into the shop I guess. - <small style="border:1px solid #990000;padding:1px;"> NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • 07:30, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know that this block was the best course of action, but it's probably within the technical remit of the ArbCom restrictions. There are a couple of requests for clarification about the Obama case live right now, and in general the restrictions have been perceived differently by different parties, which is a pretty serious problem. Wizardman, who wrote the proposed decision, recently said that C of M commenting on these matters on ANI "is technically not a violation of the restriction." I found that surprising but I'll take my cue from the Arbs on that. While that would suggest the block is improper, C of M is also enjoined from interacting with or commenting on Wikidemon or Scjessey. In an earlier thread on this page (now hatted) C of M seemed to be clearly directing comments at the former without naming the editor directly (e.g. "there are abusive and disruptive editors who will come after you stalking and hounding you until you're blocked if you don't toe the line"). A block for that and similar statements was probably not unreasonable, though it might well end up doing more harm than good. If an Arb or clerk wants to reverse the block then that sounds good to me, and if not then it's probably okay for it to stand and probably not worth reversing unless a strong consensus develops against it, or Sarek does the reversing. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:24, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * There were 26 comments in the thread when CoM wrote his. One of those was Wikidemon's, and CoM's comment neither replied to or referenced it. The wording of the interaction ban is not clear, but the wording "including replying or reverting of each other’s actions" suggests (but obviously does not definitively prove) that this comment would not be contemplated. Bongo  matic  07:40, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't have the link handy and I'm going offline now, but this issue was specifically clarified by the ArbCom awhile back. Namely, Wikidemon and ChildofMidnight are not only required to avoid interaction, but also not to comment negatively on the other in any way. C of M made a blanket statement which was clearly being applied to several editors in regard to a specific article issue ("There are simply editors here who don't like it and who have no regard for our core policy of neutral point of view. Notable criticisms and controversies about Obama are not allowed. We must wallow in ignorance like sheep. I'm under a topic ban for daring to try and address the problem. Also, there are abusive and disruptive editors who will come after you stalking and hounding you until you're blocked if you don't toe the line"). This comes from the above closed section "Subsection for evidence," where the first comment is from Wikidemon, and where C of M clearly seems to be responding at least partially to that comment. Yes, he did not "name names," but anyone familiar with the history here would see C of M's comments as problematic, particularly since he is revisiting the exact same issues for which he was sanctioned in the first place. Whether a technical violation of his ArbCom conditions or not, it is clearly a problem, and blocking was not completely unreasonable. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:52, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I support the statement made above by Bigtimepeace. As there's general confusion on the restrictions, it's hard to say that the block is 100% wrong. I also encourage CoM to stay cool and not resort to attacks when upset. Walk away from the keys and punch a pillow or something instead. <em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#6600CC">Nja <em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#63D1F4">247 07:34, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The block purports to relate to the content restriction. An ArbComm member specifically stated that post on AN/I don't fall under it. Confusion based on administrator's not being fully informed (even if in good faith) should not result in blocking contrary to ArbComm rulings. Bongo  matic  07:40, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If this is the case, then do keep in mind it is within ArbComs remit to handle blocks. As noted by BigTime an Arb or clerk could unblock if that's their view. Or of course the blocking admin could make that adjustment, but I don't believe this is a clear case of an improper block, and this thread is doing nothing but spread the wildfire. <em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#6600CC">Nja <em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#63D1F4">247 07:54, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The personal attacks continue to fly. I think that needs to be addressed before the block is considered for removal.  Because at current, I think the block could be redone for personal attacks (which there has been many) instead of ArbCom violations. - <small style="border:1px solid #990000;padding:1px;"> NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • 07:50, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Without reading it (I don't watch his page anymore), I would say that it's par for the course, i.e. it's been the same thing every time he gets blocked, i.e. it's "everyone else's fault". Many editors rant and rave when blocked. Typically when indef'd, especially, where the rants are usually left alone unless they really go too far or too long. Less common, though certainly not unknown, it happens for short-term blocks. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 07:56, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * So just change the block from one about Obama restrictions to one about all of the personal attacks left on his talk page tonight. Done and closed. Regardless of the Obama issues, CoM is a serial violator of WP:NPA, yet his block log shows not a single block for the, dare I guess, fifty plus, personal attacks he's made in the last 3 months. I see 1 block for of incivility.. maybe that was a personal attack. No diff in the edit summary to know for sure. To be clear, I don't particularly agree with the block for its current reason as I don't really see a vio of the Arbcom restrictions. What I do see is the personal attacks so that's my 14 cents.. change the block to one for the attacks. - ALLST✰R ▼ echo wuz here  07:52, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I have unblocked CoM. The recent comments made me pause, so I hope that they will try to be more calm, otherwise I will reblock. John Vandenberg (chat) 08:04, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * So a good hour's worth of personal attacks are just swept under the rug. Damned lumpy rug it is.  Bad unblock....we should have waited for ArbCom.  He is your problem now. - <small style="border:1px solid #990000;padding:1px;"> NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • 08:06, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I am considering a close now to prevent further drama. As there is some confusion with the Arb restriction itself, I generally support the view made by Bigtimepeace. An Arb or Arb clerk should consider the unblock request as it's within their remit to do so and it's their decision that the block is based on. There's no evidence that the blocking admin went about their action improperly, thus I think if Arb truly has an opinion on this, then they should handle the request in this case. <em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#6600CC">Nja <em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#63D1F4">247 08:00, 7 August 2009 (UTC) Extended, after initial archive content (I started this comment before the discussion was closed, but saved it afterward, so I'm moving it down here.) I don't know if I can actually be coherent this late/early, but I'll give it a try. To clarify -- it was not that CoM was posting in an Obama-related discussion that caused me to block. It was the attacks in that Obama-related discussion that convinced me the block was neccessary. If he had just posted to the effect of "I believe that since the NYT did a story devoted to this subject, it is indeed notable enough to merit its own article", I wouldn't have seen that as blockable.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 08:16, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Remarks by closing administrator
 * Unblocked by an Arb member. <em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#6600CC">Nja <em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#63D1F4">247 08:07, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Response by SarekOfVulcan
 * "There are simply editors here who don't like it and who have no regard for our core policy of neutral point of view."
 * "Also, there are abusive and disruptive editors who will come after you stalking and hounding you until you're blocked if you don't tow the line."
 * "The bad faith attacks of the censors and POV pushers need to stop.... The mob rule needs to end."
 * "They are going to continue to come after any editor who dares to challenge the censorship and POV pushing. This an encyclopedia not a DNC website. These editors come after every editor who threatens to include notable content that they don't like with aggressive tactics and blocks and bans. They have admin friends and there are no checks and balances on it. As the Arbcom hearing proved, even the highest levels of Wiki-bureaucracy can't be bothered to enforce our core policies.... Until admins and arbcom begin addressing these violations, instead of going into a frothy [fury] when one editor calls another editor an idiot, this abuse will continue."
 * "The bad faith attacks of the censors and POV pushers need to stop.... The mob rule needs to end."
 * "They are going to continue to come after any editor who dares to challenge the censorship and POV pushing. This an encyclopedia not a DNC website. These editors come after every editor who threatens to include notable content that they don't like with aggressive tactics and blocks and bans. They have admin friends and there are no checks and balances on it. As the Arbcom hearing proved, even the highest levels of Wiki-bureaucracy can't be bothered to enforce our core policies.... Until admins and arbcom begin addressing these violations, instead of going into a frothy [fury] when one editor calls another editor an idiot, this abuse will continue."
 * "They are going to continue to come after any editor who dares to challenge the censorship and POV pushing. This an encyclopedia not a DNC website. These editors come after every editor who threatens to include notable content that they don't like with aggressive tactics and blocks and bans. They have admin friends and there are no checks and balances on it. As the Arbcom hearing proved, even the highest levels of Wiki-bureaucracy can't be bothered to enforce our core policies.... Until admins and arbcom begin addressing these violations, instead of going into a frothy [fury] when one editor calls another editor an idiot, this abuse will continue."
 * "They are going to continue to come after any editor who dares to challenge the censorship and POV pushing. This an encyclopedia not a DNC website. These editors come after every editor who threatens to include notable content that they don't like with aggressive tactics and blocks and bans. They have admin friends and there are no checks and balances on it. As the Arbcom hearing proved, even the highest levels of Wiki-bureaucracy can't be bothered to enforce our core policies.... Until admins and arbcom begin addressing these violations, instead of going into a frothy [fury] when one editor calls another editor an idiot, this abuse will continue."
 * Honestly, I don't think Sarek is far from the mark here. CoM seems to have made it a point to be noisily disputatious and to conflate the various conduct discussions he has been involved in with content disputes of (apparently) world-historical proportions.  He has produced no small number of animated complaints (pre-block, as I don't really care about post block venting) about the nature of Obama articles and hasn't hesitated to make known his opinions about other editors working in the topic area.  These aren't necessarily damning attitudes for an editor, but for an editor whose behavior has forced the community to resort to the last measure in dispute resolution just to be rid of him in a topic area, they are unacceptable.  Like any organization, wikipedia falls broadly under the 90/10 rule, 90% of the disruption is often caused by 10% of the editors.  We may and should establish clearly that we won't stand for this. Protonk (talk) 08:39, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It's clearly not an arbcom restriction as has been pointed out to you by the author of the decision. That you and Protonk continue to try to distort it in such a way to defend the indefensible is troubling. You failed to discuss the matter, failed to give any warning, acted against clear consensus in the discussion, and failed to correct your mistake. It is clearly you Sarek who is disruptive and abusive. I have also submitted diffs of your refactoring of other editor's comments on your take page and edit warring over them even after you were reverted. Your abusive behavior, like Connolley's, probably needs to be addressed by Arbcom. Protonk I'm not so sure about, but there are troubling signs in his recent actions. ChildofMidnight (talk) 09:02, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * This should be archived. Sarek made an abusive block without any discussion and against the consensus from those who actually participated in the thread. He refused to correct his mistake even after the Arbcom who wrote the decision made clear that this was "not a violation of the restriction."
 * Sarek's failure to apologize and his continuing to argue that he was in the right is a clear indication that he just doesn't get it. Clearly there are problem editors who pursue and harass those they disagree with, but lending them support and acting improperly in this way does enormous harm to Wikipedia's integrity and collegiality. Let's stop pretending this kind of abuse is acceptable. Citing my outrage as evidence against me only serves to demonstrate desperation and dishonesty from those lacking integrity. ChildofMidnight (talk) 09:20, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

User activites and Veiled threats.
There is a problem editor. User:Shimon Yanowitz has engaged in edit wars and personal attacks. In edition he seems to be making a few out of hand remarks about what happens if "we work against him" []. I suggest a cool down block until he realizes why we don't allow original research and learns how to productively communicate with our community.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 18:43, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Agree. I agree with Hell In A Bucket's assessment, and even with King ♣'s labeling of this user's actions as "a threat".


 * However, blocks are NEVER meant to solely enforce a "cool down time"; but rather, to stop a chain of disruption already in progress, and where the offending user(s) has/have not cooled themselves down. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 19:00, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I miss Kurt. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I myself wouldn't suggest a block at this point. I think the user is moving dangerously close to blockable territory, but he's not there yet. As I mentioned on the user's talkpage, he's acting very owney about the page, as well. He makes frequent reference to his own academic qualifications, specifically told Hell he wouldn't accept him editing the page unless he measured up, and left canvassed warnings to every editor who opposed his addition of unsourced analysis to the page.
 * Problem editor, definitely worth watching, if only for the /popcorn, but not yet blockable.
 * On a side note, apparently there's a sysop up there with a sig very similar to mine (which I wasn't aware of when I redesigned mine). I'll be changing it now. King ♣ Talk  19:48, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * There we go. --King ÖÖmie III 20:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I had similar difficulties with this user last year on the now deleted Psychophysical_Paradox article, as well as it's AfD. I generally gave the editor the benefit of the doubt, as I didn't want to bite the n00bs. -Verdatum (talk) 20:21, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That AFD is scary. Attacking EVERY SINGLE delete vote? And not just the votes, the voters, calling every single one a fool (just like what happened here). He needs to be informed that that kind of interaction is unacceptable. I can't believe he wasn't sternly warned (or even banned) for his performance on that page.
 * He seems to be unable to differentiate between "subject of importance" and "subject meeting Wikipedia's inclusion guidelines". I'm thinking that's the real problem here, along with the superiority complex (apparently all users without PHDs should be barred from editing articles created by someone who does). --King ÖÖmie III 20:33, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, one of the editors he attacked actually has a Ph.D. MuZemike 23:18, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Speaking loosely, I tend to agree more or less with Kingoomieiii's assessment of the immediate situation. The AfD link is helpful to understanding, as well, but not something I find actionable this far after the fact. – Luna Santin  (talk) 23:39, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, no, I meant I can't believe he wasn't warned at the time. --King ÖÖmie III 12:56, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The editor is continuing the same path of behavior as yesterday minus the personal attacks. He has changed the verbage to Warped reality but again has no sources to back it up. This is becoming quite out of hand, you'd think that a PHD would have more sense to actually read the rules but I feel like we're beating our headz against the wall here.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 12:39, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * From what I've seen, he feels that his academic resume exempts him from WP:V and WP:N. It's possible he even considers himself a Reliable Source. Everything he says just drips with ego.
 * We're far past the bud-nipping stage, but something has to be done. I have no problem with academia and experts editing Wiki. But when they start asserting that they are the only relevant opinion in a sea of ignorance... --King ÖÖmie III 12:56, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * He's violated 3rr 2xs in 2 days. [].Hell In A Bucket (talk) 13:15, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

He's not engaging in talk, just reverting. Despite at least six different editors asking him to go to the talkpage. A short block may be needed. Darrenhusted (talk) 14:05, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I've been biting my tongue on this topic. The user seems to want to do good, but continually isn't. After numerous warnings, and continuous blatant reverts, I think a block is needed as well. I, as well as a few others, may be coming quite close to breaking 3RR because of this users insubordination. I feel a cooling off period (i.e. a block) is needed. --HELLØ    ŦHERE 14:08, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

COmment, "However, blocks are NEVER meant to solely enforce a "cool down time"; but rather, to stop a chain of disruption already in progress, and where the offending user(s) has/have not cooled themselves down. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 19:00, 6 August 2009 (UTC)" I never knew that but it does do precisly the opposite and ussually only angers however blocks are to prevent disruptive behavior and we can all agree this is very disrupting. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:12, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * He hasn't actually violated 3RR (by the rules of the 3RR board he needs 4 reverts) but he is disruptive and refusing to talk on the article's talkpage. Although the page is fully locked so maybe he may get the message now. Darrenhusted (talk) 14:15, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I was blocked once and it was told to me as a "cool down time". Ha ha. But, either way, the entire film page has now been blocked due to our edit warring with this one user. I must say, to be honest, we all are probably to blame as we let it escalate, but the several of us have been working as one collaborative force, as opposed to this user who has been continuously going against us. And actually, looking at their edit history, they did break the rule. Three times "warping" was put in, then "Retroactive continuity" was put in twice. --HELLØ    ŦHERE 14:18, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

[] I count 4 today..... and 3 yesterday, i would also quote the template "Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule." as my reasoning for doing this. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:21, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * For a 3RR report you need the first version, then three reverts, a talkpage discussion, a 3RR warning then a fourth revert, taking the total to five. And you need to not have 3RR yourself. Moot as he's now blocked. Darrenhusted (talk) 14:42, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

The reason that I protected the page rather than block him is because he continually claimed that the phrase he was replacing was also unsourced and people simply reverted him rather than addressing that issue by providing a source. The protection is only 3 days. Discussion on the talk page is the way to go. Theresa Knott &#124; token threats 14:24, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, we tried the talk page and his talk page but the following source covers that arguement [] also the link I included with the original talk page under Alternate Reality covered that term too. But it is for now as you say a moot point so I'll drop it. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:44, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * 24 hours is good. I'll keep a close watch, as this is exactly the kind of editor that really Grinds My Gears. --King ÖÖmie III 14:52, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Since he's been blocked for 24 hours nyway I removed the protection on the article. I urge the editors involved to get their sources watertight before he returns. That should put an end to the matter. Theresa Knott &#124; token threats 15:01, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Needing mediation per television schedules...
I don't the correct forum to report this but I have to tell you this because of what had just happened. I'm sorry if this is not the correct one.

Hammersoft has been removing television schedules from several TV channel articles because the schedules clearly violate WP:NOTDIRECTORY. However, Jon2guevarra reverted some of his edits (those pertaining to Philippine TV stations) for no reason. And he did this despite the notes left to him on his talk page. It looks like all ways to communicate with this user has "fallen onto deaf ears," so to speak.

What can be done on Jon2guevarra? Thanks. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 09:48, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * For mediation, see Mediation. For advise on addressing editor behaviour, or how best to handle content disputes, see dispute resolution. <em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#6600CC">Nja <em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#63D1F4">247 13:50, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

AFD has most discussions concealed
Following the following edit, all the rest of the AFDs lower in the list are presently unviewable. The archiving of speedily deleted Articles for deletion/Shuttee made the next 49 AFDs disappear into the "archived, click to show" box. Could someone take a look and fix it? Thanks. Edison (talk) 15:02, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks to whomever fixed it. Was it the archive box somehow not being closed correctly, or a quirk in my browser? I would like to know in case it happens again. Edison (talk) 15:16, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It was just a collapse top without matching collapse bottom, caused by CambridgeBayWeather closing by putting Afd top at both top and bottom. Algebraist 15:18, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

ip 70.72.130.56
this ip comes on every couple of days to vandalize various articles. it has now been given 2 final warnings and should probably be blocked. thanks. untwirl (talk) 17:21, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * We block to prevent vandalism, not to punish. In the future, though, you can report vandals to WP:Administrator intervention against vandalism. The response time is much quicker.  hmwith  t   17:28, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Dynamic IP user adding large amounts of dubious and unsourced material to actor BLPs and related film articles
There's a user, who apparently edits only from IP addresses geolocating to Lima, Peru, adding a ton of unsourced, dubious information to actress and actress-related articles. The information typically involves roles the actress didn't get, but supposedly auditioned for, was "considered" for, etc, etc. Some of the information is obviously wrong (the first edit that caught my attention had Kim Basinger auditioning for a film two years after its release); some is conspicuously dubious (Meryl Streep and Alyssa Milano competing for the same role); some more subtly dubious (Legally Blonde originally envisioned as a "dark" comedy vehicle fo Uma Thurman); but much of it is superficially plausible as individual items, but visibly problematic when dozens of names have been added to the article. Today the editor has inserted an unsourced and implausible claim into the Daryl Hannah article ("narrowly missing on" in the lead in Coal Miner's Daughter ). Some randomly chosen exsmples of the IP's work include this unlikely list of roles rejected by Melanie Griffith ; Molly Ringwald up for Uma Thurman's role in Pulp Fiction ; and the deeply weird suggestion that David Lynch tried to cast Cher, Meryl Streep, and Goldie Hawn in Blue Velvet before having to settle for Isabella Rossellini.

Is there any way to track down these edits that's more efficient than trolling through film-related articles checking to see which IP addresses are associated with Lima? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:16, 7 August 2009 (UTC) (originally posted at WP:BLPN, reposted here per responses there)


 * We have no geographical IP search tool - The hard way you described is pretty much it. Do you have a list of IPs (those 3, any others?)?  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:20, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * There are probably dozens of them. In Jennifer Jason Leigh alone, there's User:190.43.185.217, User:200.106.73.1, User:190.43.34.105, 190.232.79.250, and 190.232.33.220. From Taxi Driver, there's User:190.81.73.39, and I've now run my limit of "Geolocates" for one day. I believe 190.232.79.235 is another, given this edit . In Melanie Griffith, probably 190.43.98.113 and 190.43.122.230. In Kim Basinger, I spot 190.43.191.239.. The user's also got an interest in SNL, and given the huge number of related articles there, checking the anon editors wil be a nightmare. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:08, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It would be possible to write a tool that would return a list of IP addresses (and, perhaps, the time of the most recent edit) from a specified range of IP addresses that have made at least one edit (from there you could use special:contributions to see all of the edits from each IP address). The edits above are from at least 3 different ranges of IP addresses (click the "WHOIS" link from the contributions page to see the ranges, for example 200.106.39.228 is from the range 200.106.36/22 which means about 1000 addresses from 200.106.36.00 through 200.106.39.255).  If you really want to chase down these spurious edits you might ask if someone has such a tool or has an interest in writing one at Bot requests. -- Rick Block (talk) 01:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Back to the incident at hand - is this still happening today? I will rangeblock appropriate small ranges if it's ongoing today.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:34, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Jza84 (2)
This has been archived, although it is unresolved. Can someone please have a look. Chrisieboy (talk) 10:52, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The editor moved a page in June. You accused him of doing it "craftily" and he responded back 4 days ago...granted a little snarkily, but your post to him was equally snarky. You've never made any further attempt to discuss with him. You've made more posts about it to ANI than you have to Jza. Considering it was one isolated snarky response to a bad faith comment made almost a week ago in response to an action made 2 months ago...there is absolutely nothing to see here. ANI is not the tattling board. --Smashville<sup style="color:#03F">talk 15:10, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * So an admin threatening to block someone over a content dispute is acceptable? Saying they will block you is not just a 'snarky' response at all. Why should there be any further attempt to talk to an editor who is threatening you? Quantpole (talk) 18:53, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * One edit two months ago is not a "content dispute". And the only interaction between the two was almost a week ago. Nothing further has come from it. There is no action to be taken here. --Smashville<sup style="color:#03F">talk 20:24, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Punjabi people and User:Information-Line
The above user has constantly made disruptive POV edits to the punjabi people article, made numerous reverts despite edits being explained, taken part in constant edit warring with other editors, and clearly has a bias and wants to push a pov which said user knows to violate the NPOV rules and make blatantly false edits, such as here and here, which user has repeatedly reverted here , here , and here , the only obvious reason being that he belongs to the minority Sikh Punjabi community and user feels the need to inflate numbers, user has been warned on numerous occasions here , here  and here  but has instead decided to be confrontational here  and here. Khokhar (talk) 21:02, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Yet again he seems to show anger towards my culture and people,see how he says minority Sikh punjabi community,but the thing is 25 million Punjabis are Sikh and all Sikhs are Punjabi.But that is not the matter you may see the article i have vandalised it before but that was to see if he reverted my edits and not pk5abi who is repeatedly spreading Islamic bias throughout wikipedia with the help of (talk) backing him up,ony recently you will see i reverted vandalism and later (talk) reverted it back but before going to this noticeboard attempted to re-do his mistake. He has had several warnings on his page about hatred for other Religions and cultures and i think he should be banned from ediiting.I did say harsh comments on his talk page but he had provoked me ,I am sorry and will now be showing a neutral viewpoint but i recommend you keep a close eye on Cocker (talk) My Regards to you ਖ਼ਾਲਿਸਤਾਨ  Information-Line talk 22:51, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Maybe this should be moved to the vandalism forum? Khokhar (talk) 12:45, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Moving here from Administrators'_noticeboard/Geopolitical_ethnic_and_religious_conflicts, the above user has continued to make disruptive edits of the exact same nature even after the above comments.. and user was blocked for 48 hours for the same disruptive and 'vandal' edits in another article but now another user Sikh-history, who is very active on User:Information-Line personal talk pages and was requested to intervene by said user here  and had already made 'threats' on the other user's talk pages (mentioned in previous link) here  before starting to make disruptive edits on an article I have been maintaining, about the clan called Khokhar, clearly to aid User:Information-Line and be a nuisance.

Khokhar (talk) 14:26, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

just check what Khokharhas contributed to he is aided by User:Pk5abi they go around deleted referenced material and Khokhar is always there to back him up ,if you take a look at Khokhars discussion page you will see he was been warned on several occasions about inciting hatred for other faiths, as far as sikh history goes i asked him to see the articles as i do not have the skills to maintain such vandalism that Khokhar is creating. <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:red;font-size:16px">Information- <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black;font-size:16px">Line 15:53, 7 August 2009 (UTC) Also you will see now he has brought this to this noticeboard he has refrained from vandalising the Punjabi People page you may go back and see his vandalism <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:red;font-size:16px">Information- <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black;font-size:16px">Line  15:58, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

There is no 'racism' or 'religious intolerence' on my user page accept for the derogatory remarks which were added by User:Information-Line here, which were removed by an adminstrator.Khokhar (talk) 18:10, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I think both of you are approaching this wrong. I have had disputes with User:Information-Line in the past, but we have resolved them amicably, after initial heated exchanges. What I suggest is WP:Mediation, rather than escalating this like this. Both of you, please Assume Good Faith.Regards--<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue;font-size:16px">Sikh- <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:goldenrod;font-size:16px">History 14:54, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Behaviour like this on the Khokhar, page does not help. I suggest that you both desist. I notice Khokhar]] you deleted valid references from that page that I made. I suggest you do not do that again, or it will be me taking action against you. I have said all along WP:Assume Good Faith, something which seems to be lacking from both parties. Thanks--<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue;font-size:16px">Sikh- <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:goldenrod;font-size:16px">History 16:13, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Sikh-history has now started to actively make disruptive edits and constant reverts (3rr), , to the Khokhar article, which should be considered vandalism as each of my edit was expalined and a section was also created explaining this in the articles talk page , which Sikh-history has completely ignored, instead adding content to my talk page ,  which is irrelevnt for the reaons above. Khokhar (talk) 16:10, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * KhokharI ask you again to WP:Assume Good Faith, something you have not done. You have deleted the following valid references:


 * http://www.sikh-heritage.co.uk/personalities/Bhai%20Roop%20chand/BRcj.htm


 * Glossary of the Tribes and Castes of the Punjab and North West Frontier Province By H.A. Rose, IBBETSON, Maclagan


 * Sir Denzil Ibbetson. Panjab Castes - page 313.

This is not good behaviour. It will get you banned like    <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:red;font-size:16px">Information- <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black;font-size:16px">Line. I have tried to make the article follow a chronological order, but for some reason you insist on some order to with alleged numbers and population for which you have no citation. Please stop. I have issued 3 warnings on your page for this sort of behaviour. Please be resonable and Assume Good Faith. I have also noticed a considerable amount of WP:Canvassing on your talk page. Please familiarise yourself with this sort of behaviour.--<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue;font-size:16px">Sikh- <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:goldenrod;font-size:16px">History 16:31, 7 August 2009 (UTC)--<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue;font-size:16px">Sikh- <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:goldenrod;font-size:16px">History  16:35, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

user:Sikh-history if you had bothered to look and read the edit reasons or even the articles talk page, something you have constantly refused to do yet insist on assuming 'good faith', you would notice that

A. Both references are used to include the Tarkhan clan, yet neither mentions it, also as I have explained on the articles talk page that adding nationalistic religious sites does not meet the npov standard for wikipedia.

B. The article is set according to relevence of material in terms of majority as we are talking about people here and any historical facts are set as such in the appropriate section.

It is strange that you have 'all of a sudden' indulged yourself in the Khokhar article and refused to reply or consider edit descriptions....The full online version of H.A Rose's Punjab castes can be found here.

Khokhar (talk) 17:05, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

user:Sikh-history was reported for edit warring/ violating 3rr in Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring section here Khokhar (talk) 17:16, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Well there are a number os issues here. One of WP:Synthesis, one of not WP:Assuming Good Faith, one of WP: Canvassing, one of WP:Article Ownership and lastly of WP:Gaming the System. All will be dealt with in due course rest assured. Thanks --<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue;font-size:16px">Sikh- <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:goldenrod;font-size:16px">History 17:33, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Most of the above 'practices' were clearly present in your recent actions, and they have all been documented and highlited in this very section. Have a nice day. Khokhar (talk) 17:40, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem, please view that you have been reported here for breaking the WP:3RR. Thanks --<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue;font-size:16px">Sikh- <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:goldenrod;font-size:16px">History 18:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Need admin to check articles
Could an administrator check the following articles created by Audiomixxer1123:


 * The Voice Within (The Silver Movement)
 * The Silver Movement
 * The Silver Movement (Discography)

against the articles that were deleted via afd, I am suspecting they may be reposts of the deleted pages, however as I can't view deleted pages I cannot be certain that they are/are not. Thanks. Fei noh a  Talk, My master 18:39, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Pretty close to the same, as far as I can see. Running out the door... Tan   &#124;   39  18:43, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅  Enigma <sup style="color:#FFA500;">msg  19:08, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Tenant23, again
Would somebody once again review the contributions of ? This is one of the most insulting editors I've run across in months. 98.248.32.178 (talk) 20:04, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I say block away, at a minimum, per, , and harassment and YouTubeish drabber on Sandbox. MuZemike 20:09, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It was going to be a 24 hour block before 98.248.32.178 gave him a warning. Now it's indef. -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:14, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * S/he's now issued a couple of death threats on my and his talk page. 98.248.32.178 (talk) 20:18, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Confused how to proceed (Copyright/Possible OTRS)
The images here are listed as released under CC by (I presume) the photographer - however they are listed as copyright over at the Miss universe site as is all of the content - to confuse the matter, the permissions of the photo were uploaded with an OTRS notice but with no ticket number.. I never deal with images or the OTRS system and I am a bit stumped how to proceed in determining a) if they are subject to OTRS, why and if the copyright/licensing is correct. More experienced heads/advice would be appreciated. --Cameron Scott (talk) 20:52, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Let me check OTRS and see what I find. Tiptoety  talk 21:21, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The miss universe website reserves all rights, in direct conflict w/ the CC license. If tiptoety doesn't find anything on OTRS, we should probably delete these under F9. Protonk (talk) 21:29, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I do not see any tickets archived in the OTRS system that are related to those images, and seeing as the person who added the OTRS tag (the same person as the uploader) does not appear to have OTRS access, I would say they are copyvios.  Tiptoety  talk 21:31, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * that's good enough for me. Protonk (talk) 21:38, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I deleted the photos linked above and left a note on the users talk page. If you see more photos from this user that might not be free, just post here or leave a personalized note on his talk page.  Don't template bomb them (not saying anyone has, just a gentle suggestion for the future).  What I deleted probably represented a fair amount of work on their part, so they may be upset.  We'll see how this develops. Protonk (talk) 21:56, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think I got everything. Protonk (talk) 22:21, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Harassment
Ok, I am seriously tired of this and I think I will stop editing here. One editor, Ratel accused me of being a sockpuppet at Sockpuppet_investigations/Marbehraglaim, for what I think less than sincere reasons. Bad enough, but now another editor Noloop is now stalking me. He first came to the sockpuppet investigation, strange enough that he found it. But then he also showed up at this deletion discussion, Articles_for_deletion/Criticism_of_Human_Rights_Watch_(2nd_nomination). Bad enough that he is following me, but he is also constantly adding a comment that I am an accused sockpuppet to the deletion discussion. Note that none of the other alleged sockpuppets accounts has shown up at this deletion discussion, so there is absolutely no reason to harass me that way. Pantherskin (talk) 01:26, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Wow, not enough that I have to deal with a stalker, now Ratel has left this nice message on my talk page, calling me a sick puppy and accussing me of harassing him. And this message on the talk page Roald Dahl, accusing me to be identical to an alleged mentally disturbed stalker and to be a psychopath. And to be sure, he makes it clear that checkuser cannot prove my innocence, so there is not even a way for me to clear my name from this kind of smearing. Pantherskin (talk) 02:51, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I am going to drop him a note on his talk page about this thread. --Tom (talk) 03:15, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Funny that this case is now opened. I have just finished writing to an admin (unnamed for now) about the fact that I am being stalked by a user and have been for about a year. Here's some of the text of the email:


 * "The involved editor is User:Collect (see his RfC to learn what sort of person he is). Collect is a clever person, a sophisticated user of wikipedia, who knows how to play all the rules to his advantage. He is expert at creating sockpuppet accounts using different IPs. When not opposing me as himself, which he has done on numerous pages, always following me to the pages in question, he otherwise appears as a new single purpose account to oppose me vehemently and with a sophisticated use of terminology and knowledge of policy that immediately makes it plain that he is not a new user. I'll give just two examples of many: fighting me on the page: Roald Dahl  who opposed me on the page IC/PBS  Given that checkuser will not work on this sort of IP-morphing, obsessed, mentally-disturbed user, what am I to do? I think this is about as bad as the editing experience in wikipedia can get."


 * I'm sure this will eventually be brought to an end when some admin finally takes an interest. It's just a pity that I cannot find the time to smack this cockroach the way he deserves. <span style="color:#333; font-weight:bold; font-size:9px; border:2px solid #FFCC33;background-color:#CEE1DD; padding: 2px 10px; letter-spacing: 6px;">► RATEL ◄ 03:42, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Ratel, there is no conceivably way that calling other editors cockroaches will help things. Regardless of the sockpuppet situation, I think it would be reasonable to consider a block to prevent your further violation of NPA--there are at least 5 instances in the material  above.  DGG (talk) 03:51, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Just following WP:SPADE here, DGG. I have honestly been stalked by this user for a very long time, with almost daily subtle harassment. It's a miracle I'm not using 4-letter words. I don't think wikipedia is set up to handle this sort of situation, frankly. <span style="color:#333; font-weight:bold; font-size:9px; border:2px solid #FFCC33;background-color:#CEE1DD; padding: 2px 10px; letter-spacing: 6px;">► RATEL ◄ 04:35, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Assuming that this mysterious stalker exists, how does that gives you the right to attack and accuse uninvolved editors? Attacking Maybe you should consider that not every editor that opposes your edits is identical with this mysterious stalker (again assuming that this stalker exists). I know for myself that I am not, but I guess in your book there is no way to prove that, because as you said he is an "IP-morphing, obsessed, mentally-disturbed user". Pantherskin (talk) 05:05, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd endorse such a block. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:55, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

One shouldn't wonder about new previously uninvolved editors showing up if one or someone else posts an RFC on an article. The fact that previously uninvolved editors showed up at the article was taken by Ratel as evidence for them being sockpuppets, and is now taken as evidence that they are identical with this mysterious stalker. For the record, I edited previously as an IP, but then registered. That is NOT sockpuppetry, and as the contributions history clearly shows I never pretended to be a different editor nor did I voted twice, nor did I continue to edit from my IP adress after I registered. Pantherskin (talk) 04:08, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

For the record, Ratel has made repeated claims of stalking and sockpuppetry on me. As an example of his civility, I proffer,  " I regard this as either insanity or a deliberate attempt to intimidate me. I think mentoring or a slap on the wrists will do little to cure this person of his/her ailments",    "Think you're being stalked? Not a nice feeling, is it?" with a comment of "pot / kettle",  how he regards admins at   "My "gleeful goal" (read: hard work) to balance hagiographies notwithstanding, I shall seek another admin to give oversight. I would appreciate it if you would bow out of this now, since I have assured you I shall not proceed to edit the page without admin input to possibly controversial material"  and   "Does not apply. I am not "repeatedly" seeking other opinions, simply one other opinion, since I believe you have an animus towards me based on your association with Collect and based on your mistaken understanding of my motives", attitudes towards others   "== Bullying comment: potent Personal Attack by Flowanda ==  Are you making a personal attack on me here by suggest I may be bullying this user (himself an assertive lawyer, by the way he uses legal language and keep disclosing the contents of court documents)? " ,,, his behaviour at SPI at, yet another SPI for him at  "The abovementioned suspected socks all chimed in on a RfC at Talk:Roald Dahl and at a related debate at WP:CCN almost simultaneously and in sequence, all with the same arguments, and they have no substantial history outside this issue other than the puppet master, Marbehraglaim".

has Ratel at WQA -- "The stalking by you continues, Collect. Even Gwen Gale has noted your pursuit of me, so take care. To Bwilkins, the other editor has called me "spiteful", claimed I am defaming the subject with no basis, claimed I threaten people because I posted a NPA warning to his talk page, sneers at perfectly valid edits (such as using [sic]), mentions me pejoratively rather than the edits or how to improve the page in every comment he makes .... yet this is "fine"? So that's the last time I'll come here for help ... totally bloody useless. You people are farking up wikipedia. I hope you are proud." Though Ratel never gave one iota of evidence for his claims, as "Indeed, the removal of a warning template from your own talkpage is tacit acceptance of the warning. None of the diff's appeared to be anywhere close to being contrary to WP:NPA in the least. Posts like "You don't like it, tough" sounds like some WP:OWNership issues, and "you don't have a clue" are indeed contrary to WP:NPA. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:29, 17 July 2009 (UTC)" demonstrates.

For icing on the cake "Despite all the hot air from 2 editors here —both of whom have admitted to being SPAs, one of whom is involved in a content dispute with me (where I am right and he is wrong, as shall soon become obvious), and the other of whom I maintain (despite the predictably unsuccessful checkuser) is a sock of Collect (himself now the subject of an extensive RfC)— no real evidence as to my awfulness has been presented. On the other hand, I can point to the absurdity of accepting that the sock Scramblecase is a new editor (pah-leeeeze! I've seen many new editors arrive on the scene and not one has shown Scramblecase's knowledge of rules, formatting of responses, and aggressiveness), and having been Collect's interlocutor for a few weeks I can recognize the same style and diction a mile away." One more SPI worked on by Ratel -- and he is batting zero for a very good reason <g>. contains such gemns as "fellated" "brown nose" "obsequious lickspittle" "weasely wikilawyer" "I believe he has an anxiety spectrum disorder, in the OCD range, that underlies his constant edit warring, so wikipedia is really just a place for him to act out, a form of therapy. So shame on the editors above who endorsed Collect because he's rightwing like you are, even when you know he's bad for wikipedia, and shame on the admins below who are playing the "hear no evil, see no evil" card. Shame on you. Something MUST be done about deranged editors like Collect, for the good of the project, or eventually the project will be swamped with every obsessive, obstructive, quarrelsome, querulous, no-life nutcase living in his parents' basement." and so on. In short, I think Ratel does commit the sins ascribed to him above. Collect (talk) 12:33, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

See also, ,  "Please note that Scramblecase — see contribs — is an obvious SPA started up specifically to make this attack on me here. I am currently in a tense confrontation with a highly tendentious editor with a long history of obsessive edit warring on the Drudge Report Talk page, and (s)he has decided to expand the attack on me by stalking and starting up this distracting rearguard action. Checkuser probably won't help because this is a sophisticated user who knows how to use proxies and/or the local library's computers to make this attack. Suggestion: ignore or block this SPA. Thanks." "Oh good, then by all means look into it. Collect caused a source document in Britannica to be changed during a dispute. The change was enacted by an editor at Britannica called Canterbury, and I mentioned that on the Talk page while complaining about the lack of ethics involved in changing source documents. I also wrote to Britannica (Canterbury) urging them not to accept Collect's edit and directing them to the relevant talk page. They then wisely reverted. That sums it up. I have not outed Collect, I have not broken any rules, but I'll wager he has." abnd so on. More if needed, but I trust the issues are now quite clear. Thanks! Collect (talk) 13:34, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Collect, Scramblecase and Pantherskin appear ❌ by checkuser; there is no evidence of trickery and they appear to live hundreds of miles apart. Some kind of sophisticated trickery can not be absolutely ruled out but seems unlikely based on the available evidence. Thatcher 01:08, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Unlikely? Since I have made personal information available to several admins (including Lar and others), and I have had a consistent presence online now for 27 years, I regard the claims of sockpuppetry as vile in the extreme.  I believe this is now up to 4 checkusers made on me as a matter of fact.  Collect (talk) 02:19, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * In response to Ratel saying Collect has a mental illness, Collect says Ratel has a mental illness. My comments about the way Ratel is conducted the dispute here seems to apply more widely. The subthread below seems to indicate similar. I propose a 48 hr block on Collect, Ratel, Noloop, & Smashville and Pantherskin, in the hope of preventing more of this; the question of  who if anyone is in the right would seem to belong elsewhere.


 * Dear anonymous, I have never made any comment at all concerning Ratel personally in any such vein, and would appreciate that such a charge not be leveled at me. Thanks! Collect (talk) 16:14, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Pantherskin is very clearly a troll. I'm starting to wonder how these sorts of things can ever really be dealt with by admins. In order to have a clear sense of Pantherskin's operations, you have to have built up a history with him, so that there is an awareness of the context in which things occurred. It is hard to document this kind of thing in a "report." Unlike User:Webhamster, who just routinely tells everybody to "fuck off" and "go fuck yourself", Pantherskin's problem behavior is hard to document in a handful of convenient diffs. He just slightly distorts everything, and aims 90% of his edits at personalities rather than article content. I can't speak for User:Ratel, but if I responded to all of Pantherskin's distortions here, I would get sucked into a drama that could consume vast amounts of time I'd rather spend editing. The only way to really know what's going on is to follow the story, which means reading a hundred or so diffs of Pantherskin's comments, and what admin in his right mind wants to do that? Noloop (talk) 17:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Have you ever heard of assuming good-faith Noloop? I bet that will help. Abce2 | Aww nuts!  Wribbit!(Sign here)  18:50, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * So quite clearly Noloop is unable to stop the personal attacks on me as he continues to attack me as a troll. In fact he even confirms past attacks and makes dubious claims about my "operations" and my "problem behavior", and is not even able to provide one diff or one single piece of evidence for his accusations. Pantherskin (talk) 01:42, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Noloop
Someone needs to stop Noloop, so today he called me gnat that needs to be swat here. He also keeps adding his harassment to the deletion discussion Articles for deletion/Criticism of Human Rights Watch (2nd nomination), calling me an accussed sockpuppet. Pantherskin (talk) 15:00, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, repeatedly deleting an editor's comments from a discussion page is very gnat-like. You've done this so many times it violates 3RR and you've done that in two different articles. Since the page you linked to is an "accused sockpuppet" page, why exactly do you object to saying you are "an accussed sockpuppet"? (Would you like me to accuss you a little?) Noloop (talk) 15:21, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * How exactly was pointing out that he had been accused of being a sockpuppet relevant to the deletion discussion? --Smashville<sup style="color:#03F">talk 15:29, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Which discussion? On the Anti-americanism article, it is relevant because two of the accused socks were editing the page. On the nom. for deletion, two of the other editors smell very socky. One is an anon IP that hadn't edited in 4 months prior to the nom., and the other is now flagged as having zero edits outside that subject. When there's a bad smell, people should know a likely source. You're free to disagree, but you're not free to delete someone's comments from discussion. Noloop (talk) 15:55, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Did anyone try to explain to Pantherskin about it on his talk page? Not from what I've seen. Abce2 | Aww nuts!  Wribbit!(Sign here)  16:01, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Anti-americanism, I have explained this above. That you call registering an account sockpuppeting only shows your bad faith (as if the swat the gnat threat did not show it in abundance...). Regarding the deletion discussion, yes, I am free to delete your harassing comments and you are not free to follow me to pages where I edit and harass me there by smearing my name. If there is a bad smell so it be, but without any evidence you just cannot go around and smear other editors. Pantherskin (talk) 18:18, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I love Wikipedia. Noloop continues with his attacks on me, calling me a troll . Pantherskin (talk) 18:21, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * @Noloop. Being accused of something is not the same as being proven of it. But based on your rule system I accuse you of being a sockpuppet. Now that's said I can now smear your name over any page you have made any comments on. That is the way you see it isn't it? -- Web H amster  22:19, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm starting to understand WP:DRAMAOUT. Noloop (talk) 00:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * How? And frankly, I don't give a(2-year old present) about your accusations about me. Or anyone else. Abce2 | Aww nuts!  Wribbit!(Sign here)  03:19, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It's the same idea as WP:GETALIFE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noloop (talk • contribs) 22:05, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? I do hope that you are not stating that I get a life. Abce2 | Aww nuts!  Wribbit!(Sign here)  23:08, 6 August 2009 (UTC) Abce2 |  Aww nuts!  Wribbit!(Sign here)  22:59, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Provisional Irish Republican Army and User:O Fenian
Section of interest: Talk:Provisional_Irish_Republican_Army User: 
 * Involved parties and confirmation they have been notified of the discussion


 * Description of the dispute and the main evidence

Can I get some eyes on this please? I give up as it's completely clear the editor has no plans to actually read what I'm saying in the linked to discussion. The article was protected today by me after I responded to an edit war report at AN3. Instead of blocks I fully protected, but User:O Fenian has been trying to get the article edited to his preferred version rather than work to resolve the content dispute which he is part of. The claim he disputes is sourced, but as noted in his protected edit request, he has many issues with it. Rather than trying to collaborate to have his issues addressed, he seems to just want the sourced text removed rather than clarified to take into account his points. The other User:Mooretwin has been offering possible solutions, but O Fenian has issue which each draft and has offered no compromised drafting. User:Vintagekits stepped in to insult me, but offered no valuable input to resolve the dispute. I would like for someone to pop over as I won't be on much tonight, and hopefully encourage seeking positive results, as it seems I'm failing. <em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#6600CC">Nja <em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#63D1F4">247 16:25, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Also he seems to have added a straw poll of sorts to seek consensus to revert to his preferred version, and leaves a note that would-be naysayers should be ignored as their argument holds no weight. As I noted above, the text he disputes is sourced, though it could use expansion and clarification. However instead of trying to work towards wording that would address this he simply wants it removed. Thus if the dispute isn't resolved now it will only heat up once protection is over. <em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#6600CC">Nja <em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#63D1F4">247 16:34, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Further:


 * I need to get a fucking grip
 * I'm incompetent, disruptive and a jobsworth
 * I've also been warned for distorting facts, ie stating the truth that the other editor made two attempts to draft a proposal
 * Also as noted below, I'm a so-called admin whose actions are a joke
 * This edit implies this dispute could go on forever without some intervention.

The actions of this so-called administrator are a joke. An earlier edit protected request was declined with the reasoning "Please formulate the exact change" (and a summary of "request not specific enough"). My request was both exact and specific, and due to his reply being underneath Mooretwin's post that means he was looking at Mooretwin's post, not the edit request.
 * Comments by other involved parties (Please include diffs to substantiate your claims)

After investigating the content further, I found the information was actually incomplete and inaccurate. I made a second edit request, which included the additional information showing that the information in the article was wrong. This was declined, allegedly for the same reason as the first one, ignoring that my first request had never been assessed by anyone, and ignoring the additional information. No attempt was made to assess the merits of the information and realise that the removal of incorrect information is beneficial, just a "sod you, it's not being changed" attitude.

It beggars belief that administrators are prepared to maintain incorrect information in articles despite this being pointed out, and despite the protection policy allowing for the incorrect information to be removed. Why should the reader be subjected to reading incorrect information because nobody can be bothered to remove the offending information? O Fenian (talk) 16:34, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * As explained to you on the talk page, the text is sourced and you should work to address your concerns. Also as noted protected edit requests are done when there's consensus for it (the box says so specifically). You do not have consensus, rather you're working against it. <em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#6600CC">Nja <em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#63D1F4">247 16:40, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The text in the article is not sourced, as you would know if you had read what I've said on the talk page. O Fenian (talk) 16:43, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The O'Brien source is indeed there. I understand you have issue with it, so as I've said all along work together to fix it. <em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#6600CC">Nja <em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#63D1F4">247 16:46, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You appear to be confusing two different things. There is a footnote to a page in O'Brien's book (which I have in front on me right now), but it does not source what is in the article. "Having a footnote" does not equal "sourced". If you wish to maintain O'Brien sources what is in the article, perhaps you'd like to quote from the book yourself the sentences in question? If you cannot, please retract your claim that the text is sourced. O Fenian (talk) 16:48, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You said here that the text doesn't reflect what the source says, and here compromised wording was offered, which you rejected both times. You didn't try to actually draft the wording to reflect what the source says, rather you want it removed outright. <em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#6600CC">Nja <em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#63D1F4">247 16:56, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If you look here (second green section) you will see that until a few hours ago I believed that the information was sourced to Lost Lives (which I do not have), but on seeing it was sourced to O'Brien (which I do have) I checked the information myself. Last night I assumed good faith that the sentence in another article was accurately cited, and considered the IPs (who has a history of disruption on that article) edits to be distorting the source. So please stop this distorting of facts. Are you prepared to retract your claim that the information is sourced, or not? O Fenian (talk) 17:02, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Also I take issue with the claim I have offered no alternate draft. I have made clear on the talk page that if figures are to be included, they should be complete figures not ones that only go up to 1986 and exclude certain areas (which is what the current figures are). So I do not see how I can be expected to propose to reword the current wording when I am saying complete figures going past 1986 are needed? O Fenian (talk) 16:54, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If the text said that they're up to 1986 and excluded certain areas that would have been a compromise and still within the inclusion guidelines. <em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#6600CC">Nja <em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#63D1F4">247 16:56, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * So you do not think a better compromise (the one I suggested!) would be to include complete figures? O Fenian (talk) 17:02, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Complete figures would be nice, but if they're not available then you can only provide what's available. Thus with what's available the compromise would be to clarify in the article that the figures are up to 1986 and exclude certain areas. A compromise wouldn't be removal of the lot. <em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#6600CC">Nja <em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#63D1F4">247 17:05, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Due to the nature of the IRA's campaign, in particular the first few years, giving a partial figure would mislead the reader. I have no objections to such a figure going in the relevant place in the article (ie, when it deals with 1986), but its inclusion in the lead is misleading. O Fenian (talk) 17:22, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Why didn't you say this sooner? I don't care either way, I just wanted some sort of actual collaboration. Thus, work with the other editor to sort out a wording and placement you're both happy with so that we can resolve this and unprotect the article. If you can confirm you will actively work for consensus with the other editor rather than fight me the whole way, then I would say this ANI issue is resolved for now. <em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#6600CC">Nja <em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#63D1F4">247 17:29, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It's difficult to work collabaratively with anyone when people insist on having misleading, incorrect and/or incomplete information in the lead, and when legitimate edit requests based on new information are turned down and the reader continues to be misled. Should policy not be upholded for the benefit of the reader, who should not be misled? I said right at the start that I welcomed a discussion about how the information should be incorporated into the article, but I do not see why the reader should continue to be misled while that discussion is taking place? Would anyone like to give a really good reason why? O Fenian (talk) 17:36, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Will you please confirm whether or not you will actively work with the other editor on compromised text based on the only figures currently available so we can move on please? <em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#6600CC">Nja <em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#63D1F4">247 17:39, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Wait. Other editors insist on having misleading, incorrect and/or incomplete information in the lead, and I'm the problem? The editor who doesn't want the number of people injured by the IRA to be underestimated? O Fenian (talk) 17:43, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Apparently this edit "implies this dispute could go on forever without some intervention" (nice collection of diffs, I note you've not included any of your own misconduct, like the many untruths you persist in repeating), it does nothing of the sort. The dispute cannot be resolved unless the power to stall by another editor is removed. So why should the reader suffer while another editor stalls? I have asked this question or a similar one many times, and not one person has answered it to my satisfaction. O Fenian (talk) 18:55, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * This so called admin wants a bit of drama, by refusing to have misleading information removed from the article. As has been pointed out a number of times to this admin, the sourced text is incorrect but they just keep ignoring this. They said there is no consensus! The editor O Fenian proposed an edit, provided a rational and gave a detailed overview of the problems with the current wording then looked for consensus, and this admin calls it “a straw poll of sorts.” This admin is here arguing and is an active participant. They were asked a question “Are you prepared to retract your claim that the information is sourced, or not?” and refused to answer! Now with that type of carry on, that have some neck bring a complaint here. -- <strong style="color:#009900;">Domer48 <sub style="color:#006600;">'fenian'  20:01, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the insults, and the edit history will show I've never edited the article. My only agenda is to resolve the dispute that lead to protection to begin with. Aside from the 1st admin who denied the request, another admin User:Thatcher also commented on the page saying to get consensus. But whatever, no one seems to care and I'm tired of dealing with this shit for tonight. <em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#6600CC">Nja <em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#63D1F4">247 20:55, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by uninvolved users


 * Remarks by closing administrator
 * I'm closing this thread without further comment. This appears to be a clear content dispute, and there is no need for admin action.  While one of the disputants is an admin, I can find nowhere where the admin in question is involved in the editing of the article, and this is starting to look like forum shopping.  Please take up dispute resolution if desired, but WP:ANI is not the complaints department, and there is no need to keep this pointless discussion open any longer.  -- Jayron  32  00:03, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Article Khokhar and WP:OWN by Khokhar
Hi I have tried to make Good Faith additions to this article from verifiable sources. See here:
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 

The sources I have used are:


 * about Bhai Roop Chand Khokhar
 * Glossary of the Tribes and Castes of the Punjab and North West Frontier Province By H.A. Rose, IBBETSON, Maclagan About Bhai Roop Chand Khokhar]
 * Sir Denzil Ibbetson. Panjab Castes - page 313. - cite Khkhar as a Tarkhan Gotra

He deleted them.

There also seems to be some WP:CANVASS Going on against Indian Administrators and Editors as in Here:


 * calling Indians names
 * again calling names
 * accusations of being Islamaphobic

He has WP:GAME the system here:

before I could repost him
 * by reporting me, when he actually reverted my edits
 * here

Also there maybe an issue of WP:NPOV because the article is titled Khokhar and the user is a Khokhar, hence again, WP:OWN.

Thanks --<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue;font-size:16px">Sikh- <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:goldenrod;font-size:16px">History 19:48, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure this is the right place for this, the conflict of interest noticeboard seems more appropriate. --  At am a chat 00:10, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

False information and sock puppetry
User:Enigmaman has blocked for repeated vandalism. However, I have good reasons to think the same Wikipedian uses several accounts, including (see this diff and his talk page he has blanked), and probably, , , , ,  in violation of WP:SOCK. If you see their talk page and their changes, you'll see they made the same changes, contribute on the same articles and regularly added false informations (notably on the lists releated to the number-one hits in Spain) in order to promote Shakira, despite the comments I've left on their talk page. I'm tired of reverting all these changes. So, please, do what is required in this case. Thank you. PS: Sorry for my English, it's not my native language !. Europe22 (talk) 21:58, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

New editor using Wikipedia for promotion/webhosting
A new editor came along and created an article about a non-notable person (Tracy shields, whose name is the same as the account name) twice, once after it had already been deleted as an unremarkable person. After the article was killed off tice, they then proceeded to create a subpage. This appears to be an improper use of Wikipedia, to promote this non-notable person and to act as a webhost. The prose of the "piece" reads more like a church sermon by a somewhat deranged person... I don't want to speedy this as recreation of deleted content by myself as I've already speedied one of her articles, so hoping someone here will know what to do. &lt;&gt;Multi-Xfer&lt;&gt; (talk) 22:39, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Page moves by User:Pub849sp
Would somebody review the spat of page moves by new user ? I can't make heads or tails of what they are attempting. 98.248.32.178 (talk) 23:45, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Looks like edit-warring over the names of Chinese counties. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:49, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Clayton College of Natural Health
A previously uninvolved admin, please, to take a look at Clayton College of Natural Health. Please see its recent history and also the recent history (only visible via the history tab) of User talk:Shannon Rose. My own opinion on this matter is fairly clear, but I also have a rather clear opinion about the value of the kind of stuff that this College is teaching (even when it's taught well), and have made the mistake of expressing this opinion; fearing that I might be taken for an edit warrior myself, I'm not reaching for my own cluebat er sorry I mean my own submit button. -- Hoary (talk) 12:45, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note the frivolous and clearly wrong SPI filed by Shannon Rose against three editors in good standing, where no evidence was even presented against one of the editors (me). They have also repeatedly placed inappropriate warnings on talk pages of involved editors, and provided no policy rational for their blanking of large sections of relevant and well sourced text. Editing suggests a connection with the college, giving a WP:COI, and a strong WP:POV. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  14:16, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

This user is repeatedly removing well sourced and pertinent information from the article, despite many warnings and a consensus against their edits on the article talk page. They have recently come off a block, but a new block should probably be considered to stop further disruption of this article, as warnings and discussion have had no effect. They have also engaged in personal attacks, accused other good faith editors of "slander", and filed frivolous SPI reports against long-standing editors (see above). <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  18:10, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It appears to me that ShannonRose is alone in her current campaign to expunge one particular sentence from Clayton College of Natural Health. Everyone else who has looked at the article recently seems to find the sentence reasonable. I think that protection of the page would be a more fitting way to cool the edit war than blocking the user. --Orlady (talk) 19:46, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * As there is only one user edit warring against consensus, locking the page down is unfair to all other editors who wish to improve the project. I have reported Shanno Rose to WP:AN3 for breaking WP:3RR as well as continued edit warring. Notice they have expanded their accusations of bad faith and sockpuppetry to even more editors. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  20:01, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I've blocked the editor for 48 hours based solely on the 3RR/edit warring on the article. I haven't time to dig further into this thread or the circumstances at this time, but based on their block log a longer period may be in order. <em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#6600CC">Nja <em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#63D1F4">247 20:37, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I have just added a warning against legal threats and intimidation. Brangifer (talk) 05:08, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I have added another appeal for Shannon to stop the gross incivility and disruption. Please read this section. Brangifer (talk) 03:20, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Katsumasahiro2

 * Previous thread: Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive556

was originally blocked for 24 hours over edit warring on Kira Takenouchi‎ by repeatedly adding unsourced and poorly sourced material in violation of WP:BLP. During the coarse of time, I opened a sockpuppet case do to similarities with another editor. has since been confirmed as an obvious sock of who was indefinitely blocked over a year ago for spamming via repeated recreations of Kira Takenouchi‎ and Yaoi house. (Note: Kxings is also the creator of the current Takenouchi‎ article.) Katsumasahiro immediately made a legal threat over the sockpuppety case just prior to his 24 hour block for edit warring. A checkuser confirms that the Katsumasahiro and Kxings use the same ISP and are from the same geographic area. Earlier today was created and is a clear sock of. The account was added to the sockpuppet case and blocked the IP as a result. Now the account is making multiple unblock requests as well as being very uncivil. --Farix (Talk) 01:44, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I have strong doubts that this user will contribute to the project in a constructive manner if unblocked, however if anyone wants to lift or modify my block, feel free. -- Versa geek  01:56, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Both Katsumasahiro accounts should be indeffed as disruptive. I find it hard to believe that he/she just happened to forget their password all of a sudden. The incivility, the ranting at the AFD page and all makes it obvious this person will not be a net advantage to the project. &lt;&gt;Multi-Xfer&lt;&gt; (talk) 02:15, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I declined his unblock, and asked him to address the numerous problems noted from his first account, which need to be addressed before he can be unblocked. Even if we assume his is truthful about forgetting his password, his general problematic behavior spread across two accounts must be addressed. -- Jayron  32  02:16, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * He is now seeking someone to "override" the block since he claims we are the ones being "rude". --Farix (Talk) 02:24, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Given the level of insults and personal attacks he has hurled, unprovoked, against other people, I find such claims about others being rude to be laughable. -- Jayron  32  02:38, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Katsumasahiro2 is now using their user talk page as a sandbox initial addition. I'm a little concerned this (or the actual content of the makeshift sandbox) may breach WP:BLP - second opinions? --Malkinann (talk) 02:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Guys, just realized he's not actually blocked; he's only just been caught by the autoblock on his prior account, see his block log and talk page. It seems plainly clear that, given that an Autoblock only lasts for a short time, that his claim to being ignorant of a prior password seems like a false premise given that he conveniently only forgot the password when the account got blocked.  Would someone care to ACTUALLY make the real block on his account.  I think also we may need a CU to look into this, as there appears to be some sort of shenanigans going on... -- Jayron  32  03:08, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think I already specified that the IP was blocked. In fact, here is the block log. --Farix (Talk) 03:12, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I would say that there are some serious WP:BLP issues with the "sandbox" as the sources don't support the claims being made. --Farix (Talk) 03:19, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Presumably there's nothing to stop this editor logging out and requesting a new password for their Katsumasahiro account. If they are managing to edit as Katsumasahiro2 then they are presumably able to get to the "Email new password" button for Katsumasahiro or am I missing something? If the answer is yes then the 2nd account should be indeffed with a pointer to that page. Right now they are effectively block evading by chatting on their 2nd talk page, even if is it currently constructive. Seems like a no brainer to lock down this second pointless account if only to keep all the discussion in one place. Mfield (Oi!) 03:42, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I have a theory: while the original block on has expired...the block on  is indefinite...and is probably the one he's getting caught in. --Smashville<sup style="color:#03F">talk 14:02, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * What is actually happening with this case? It appears  was blocked for 24 hours, a block that has now expired.   has said he didn't have email activated on the first account and can't remember his password.  He claims still to be blocked at Katsumasahiro2 (unable to edit anything but his own user page).  Has a Checkuser found anything conclusive?  I gather that he and Kxing may be related.  At any rate, something should be done about this.  Could the autoblock be lifted, the first account indeffed, and the current account be dealt with on its own merits/problems?  Exploding Boy (talk) 20:07, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If Katsumasahiro is being caught in Kxings' autoblock, that makes it very clear that he is a sockpuppet. I would take very serious issue with Kxings being unblocked so that he could edit under a user name. --Smashville<sup style="color:#03F">talk 20:29, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If he is, right. But is there any way to determine whether that's actually the case?  Exploding Boy (talk) 20:36, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't a template appear for an autoblocked user? Granted, he should be indefinitely blocked for the legal threat, but I had already blocked him for 24 hours before I saw it... --Smashville<sup style="color:#03F">talk 20:41, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I've just asked him if he gets a template message. He has said he can't edit the sandbox.  Exploding Boy (talk) 20:46, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Which means he's autoblocked. For some reason, he doesn't want to move to step 3. I have a hunch why. --Smashville<sup style="color:#03F">talk 20:50, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

You're probably right, which is why I'd like to get to the bottom of it, because in the meantime he's editing a once-deleted and soon to be re-deleted article in his user space, and generally being a bit of a pain. Exploding Boy (talk) 20:53, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, considering that he wasn't blocked for abusing multiple accounts, but is clearly getting that message...apparently, he's still at it. --Smashville<sup style="color:#03F">talk 21:00, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I've already pointed to the IP block above, which I got when he posted the initial unblock request. Aren't you guys paying attention? --Farix (Talk) 23:28, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well then, if that's the case, and given that the user is thus far refusing to complete the Clearing an autoblock instructions but is continuing to edit his page, what's the next step? Remove his ability to edit his new page as well? Exploding Boy (talk) 02:47, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the content on the user talk page which breaches the biographies of living persons policy, explaining it in terms of protecting Kira Takenouchi. Hopefully Katsumasahiro will understand. --Malkinann (talk) 03:15, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Page move edit warring and sinifying names
has been performing numerous page moves of Xinjiang-related articles, changing native placenames to Chinese versions of those names: I asked him several times to start a discussion at an appropriate article talkpage or naming convention guideline page to seek consensus for widespread changes such as this, but he has ignored these messages and just keeps moving on to new articles and moving them. It is reaching a point where these changes are disruptive, and he is creating a lot of work for people to clean up; given that he refuses to start a discussion on either of the talkpages I directed him to, would a block be appropriate? (I'm reporting this here rather than the edit warring noticeboard since it pertains to pagemoves rather than edits, and is across numerous articles. The issue here is not the content disagreement, the issue is the user's insistence on continuing to make controversial edits without starting a discussion.) <b class="Unicode">r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 04:22, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Aksai → Akesai
 * Hoboksar → Hebukesai'er
 * Qinggil → Qinghe
 * Burqin → Bu'erqin
 * Kumul → Hami
 * Barkol → Balikun

Possible IP stalker
I want someone to check out. Taking a look at this users edits, it appears that this user is stalking my contributions, and is selectively editing my areas, whether its articles, talk pages, or other namespaces, this user is there.

Here is a chronology: These are all of the users edits in which I feel is stalking, and in fact all of its edits in my areas.
 * At 20:57, 26 July 2009, I remove a large portion of content on The Biggest Loser (season 8). At 22:34, 26 July 2009, IP restores content without an edit summary.
 * On 01:31, 27 July 2009, I report two users to ANI. At 22:32, 27 July 2009, IP expresses opinion in the discussion.
 * On April 30, 2009 - May 1, 2009, I was in a discussion with another editor about the content of Archie Bunker. At 15:46, 5 August 2009, IP inserts "Test wikibreak" to the same talk page, but at 15:47, 5 August 2009, IP removed the text.
 * On 04:28, 7 August 2009, I propose a name reformatting at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship, and on 14:59, 7 August 2009, I make a further comment. On 16:23, 7 August 2009, IP expresses opinion in discussion.

Previously, on 00:28, 21 April 2009, made a post to my talk page informing me that it had been looking through my edits for "for a few months now". Whether this information is needed, I don't know, but a checkuser might need to check if these IP's are the same user.

Given the timing and areas this user is editing, I strongly feel that this IP address is stalking me on-wiki. Since this user is apparently stalking me, should this user be or not be notified of this discussion? Administrators, please look into this. -- Mythdon  talk •  contribs  17:33, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 4 edits? While it is obvious the anon checks your contribution history, I think 4 edits in 12 days hardly qualifies as "stalking". Except for the revert, the edits don't seem to be made to annoy or harass you, so I can't possibly see how you could be bothered by this.--Atlan (talk) 19:13, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Those are all of the users edits, except which is a page blanking of the users own talk page. Since that's the case, I definitely believe this user is stalking me. Do you think I should or shouldn't notify the user of this thread? I haven't done so. -- Mythdon   talk •  contribs  20:15, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I have notified the user of this thread. Mythdon   talk •  contribs  20:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * So you find this objectionable behavior? 4 edits on the same page as your edits? 1 of them is a revert, 2 only tangientially involve you and the other one is just a comment on the same page as yours. OMG let's call the cops.--Atlan (talk) 00:16, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It is the timing of the edits, and the fact that all of the users edits have been areas I've editing this year, and made shortly after me or just a few months after. -- Mythdon  talk •  contribs  06:11, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, like I said, it's obvious the anon tracks your edits. As we all have an edit history anyone can view, that's no big deal. Read WP:HOUND: "The important component of wiki-hounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing". Now, if you feel those 4 edits disrupted your enjoyment of editing, you should go find a different hobby. Can we slap a resolved on this?--Atlan (talk) 09:56, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Banned user editing mobster articles?
I've just blocked, an open proxy rapidly reverting a banned user on a load of mobster articles. The so-called banned user, still has a lot of outstanding edits, and it also looks like this little war has been going on for some time. See also. Can anyone shed any light on this? -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:35, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * There was some recent activity at Sockpuppet investigations/Mynameisstanley that might be related to this... wouldn't explain everything, though. – Luna Santin  (talk) 23:41, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks Luna, it certainly looks like something to do with Mynameisstanley and a friend. Since they claim each other is banned, they'll probably just continue reverting each other forever... -- zzuuzz (talk) 07:09, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Skiingat54162: immediate ban requested
Please see the edits done over the last two days by this individual and close the account which has been created for the purpose of vandalising articles. Thanks. --Jack | talk page 05:54, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Pls block asap
Massive vandalism campaign. I've posted to AIV but there's a backlog... - thanks <span style="padding:2px;background: #cccccc; color: #0000cc; BORDER-RIGHT: #6699cc 3px solid; BORDER-LEFT: #6699cc 3px solid;">  7   talk &#124; &Delta; &#124;   08:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅, blocked that friendly fellow and I'm taking a look at AIV now. ~ mazca  talk 08:40, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks.  <span style="padding:2px;background: #cccccc; color: #0000cc; BORDER-RIGHT: #6699cc 3px solid; BORDER-LEFT: #6699cc 3px solid;">  7   talk &#124; &Delta; &#124;   08:41, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Block request: User:Benmols2
A new user has been created by name of.

It's clearly a sock; the only actions so far are to attack people who have disagreed with. It's possible that it is WebHamster, though I think it is more likely that it is someone trying to make WebHamster look bad. I don't think it's worth a checkuser, but I see no reason not to block Benmols2. I've rolled back the worst of the user's edits. Regards, Ben Aveling 09:43, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The account has been indef'd. -- zzuuzz (talk) 09:48, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Ben Aveling 09:51, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Die4Dixie's attacks on another user.
--Die4Dixie (talk) 23:56, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

See 's comments here and here. Di4Dixie either needs a civility check, or a psychologist. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:47, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * "Are you now, or have you ever been..." Seems like a pretty tactless question and the line of inquiry behind it ought to stop. Protonk (talk) 23:50, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Question was answered by the rant he left on my page. I´m satisfied and we can move on.--Die4Dixie (talk) 23:56, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * What rant? All I see is a reasoned response to your personal attacks, and your continued attacks.  Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 00:00, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * As the user in question, I would add that I find Dixie's accusations and the possible paranoia that spawned them troubling. Apparently he/she believes that they can openly insinuate and impugn the motives of other editors - going so far as to assume that because I edit articles with relation to Che Guevara, that I must secretly be a hired communist agent sent by the now defunct Soviet Union to rally the Proletarian masses on Wikipedia for the coming world takeover (oops did I just disclose the plan?). To top it off Dixie then believes that he/she has the right to interrogate me and make flippant accusations that I am "safe for now" in my supposed role as a "Communist/Maoist" insurgent within academia (Dixie's obviously never roamed the halls of the Sociology department, some of who would make me look like Milton Friedman). I'm not sure what should be done (if anything), but I would like Dixie to focus on editing articles, and not his/her own personal Wiki ‘red scare’.   Red thoreau  (talk)RT 00:21, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Whatever happened to assuming good faith? --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:59, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Whom are you addressing? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 00:00, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * {ec}Sorry, failure to indent correctly (actually I think you may have snuck a comment in above me. Is this any clearer?Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:06, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Die4DixieWhatever happened to assuming good faith? --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:59, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Die4Dixie, this was not reasonable or appropriate. Polite inquiries into other people's political or social affiliations are not abusive by nature - this was over the line, an acusation and impeachment couched in polite wording.  Do not do that again.  We require all editors to assume good faith about each other's participation, edit in a manner which is collegial and respectful to others' participation, and not launch personal attacks on other editors.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:04, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I won´t ask again, but we can agree to disagree politely about your view on the situation. Please review the reporter´s recent comments and the rant left on my talkpage. I don´t want any sanction, but it seems a little Pot, kettle black, and my question was nothing like the comments these users have left.Die4Dixie (talk) 00:09, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * If you're looking for some communists to harass, Dixie, how about The Smurfs? Their leader ever wears red... Half  Shadow  00:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Then there's all those Republican states, colloquially known as "red" states. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 00:41, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I second that Die4Dixie's question was an inappropriate and weasely attack, though politely-worded. The response was more pointedly angry, but I'd be angry if such accusatory material were posted on my talk page. Die4Dixie also appears to be making accusations about another user's character and fitness to edit here, with conclusions made from their anger. I haven't reviewed the situation and therefore don't know on what basis Die4Dixie questioned Redthoreau's edits, but place to deal with another editor in that way is a RfC or 3rd opinion. Sneaky comments and smug assumptions are WP:ABF. Awickert (talk) 00:30, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Die4Dixie's question was a politely framed inquiry as to whether a particular editor who was editing communism-related articles was in fact a believer / adherent to communism. Wikipedians are not required to disclose their beliefs (or genders, or background, or nationality, occupation, age, etc), and suggestions that their editing is influenced by such factors are discouraged. So asking someone if they voted for Obama is also a little impolite. They can volunteer it, but they aren't expected to. Being a communist is not necessarily a scandalous thing, but in many countries it is more controversial than being a mainstream party member. The accusation here against D4D is that it was not a real question, but instead a dig or a politely worded accusation. He insists it wasn't. Are we in the business of deciding D4D's intention wasn't what he says it was? That just doesn't seem helpful. Let's just note that Redthoreau took exception to the question (although RTO was not the editor who filed this report. . D4D has already said he did not mean to offend.  Maybe he can also say that he won't ask Redthoreau if he/she's a communist again?  Maybe even an apology for having that misimpression?  I don't see much more to it than that.  Wikidemon (talk) 00:52, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I would mostly agree with that. The part at the end about subverting Wikipedia seemed a little too snarky. But I'm happy to see the issue dropped if the two editors are OK with things. Awickert (talk) 01:17, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Wikidemon, for the record, I did not personally report this incident, and would be more than glad to go back to editing articles without continuing interrogations from our resident political inquisitor. I am willing to move on, and hope that Dixie will heed others advice and refrain from similar actions in the future.   Red thoreau  (talk)RT 01:43, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Sounds fair to me. I am sorry if he was offended.--Die4Dixie (talk) 03:06, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Apparently now I'm a fellow traveler. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 18:08, 7 August 2009 (UTC):And now this. Die4Dixie's attacks continue. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:24, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Die4Dixie's implication that WTWAG is a homosexual communist, after this thread on his accusations and comments was opened, shows that he isn't about to stop. Were he simply contrarian, we could point to the value of having a functional, vocal opposition, but what we have here is a Birther describing everyone who he feels disagrees as unpatriotic, unAmerican, and a communist. His attempts to win disputes through bullying tactics, insults, and intimidation show what kind of person he is, and it's not the kind that's ever going to fit into this project. ThuranX (talk) 21:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Nice ad hominem. For the record, Obama was born in Hawaii. I haven´t seen any reference to homosexuals. My only desire has been that the article meets Wikipedia´s standards. Seems like there is are several who share my concerns on the article in question. Please find some diffs please, or retract. I imagine that any impartial admin who reviews this page could find justification for a nicely worded, similiar to the one left on my page, for ThuranX and WWTAG. In fact, I can´t remember a direct interaction with Thuran in over 6 months. Some diffs really would be appreciated. --Die4Dixie (talk) 18:00, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

User: Phoenix of9
Tendentious disregard of consensus and disruption of consensus-building process in Homosexuality and Talk:Homosexuality
 * Locus of dispute, or action in dispute

• (notified) • (posting editor, no notification needed) • (notified) • (notified) • (notified) • (notified)
 * Involved parties and confirmation they have been notified of the discussion

The behaviour of has been strongly and persistently uncivil, uncoöperative, tendentious, and combative at Homosexuality and its talk page. Following the very productive, drama-free, week-long development of a new lead for the article, in which Phoenix of9 himself participated, consensus developed to install the new lead in the article. Shortly thereafter, Phoenix of9 reverted the lead. This reversion was undone with a polite edit summary pointing at the talk page. (all such reversions of Phoenix' insertion of a lead unsupported by consensus have been accompanied by polite, courteous edit summaries: . Nevertheless, Phoenix has repeatedly defied consensus confirmed on the talk page, and continued to insert his own text which is not supported by consensus, with inappropriately belligerent MPOV edit summaries.
 * Description of the dispute and the main evidence

All other participants in the ongoing talk page discussion are coöperatively, calmly, civilly discussing how to optimise the lead, all attempts to bring Phoenix into that effort have been polite and courteous, and several participating editors have commented on Phoenix' unhelpful behaviour and tactfully pointed out factual problems with Phoenix' assertions (, etc.).

He's been offered a friendly cup of tea, and he's been counselled on his talk page. Despite these efforts at outreach, his tone remains strident, insistent, dismissive, judgmental, and unilateral:, with a persistent theme of combative insistence that he is objectively right.

I do not primarily see this as a content dispute; we have here a group of editors working consistently and collaboratively for the betterment of an article, and one editor seems intent on spoiling that effort by persistent tendentious behaviour. He may very well have some valid points about how the lead can be further improved, but he is actively sabotaging discussion and consensus-building by his absolute insistence on having his way and refusal to participate in discussion (other than to reiterate that he is right and everyone else is wrong, "stupid", a waste of time, etc.). It's very disturbing to see this kind of willful, deliberate disruption of what had been a really nice example of how to collaborate effectively and efficiently to improve an article about a complicated, delicate subject (full disclosure: I was awarded a barnstar by one of the other participants for my role in facilitating the coöperative effort on the lead).

Were it not for this tendentious disruption, it seems (by talk-page consensus) that most of the participants involved agree the remaining minor issues with the lead would be quickly and coöperatively optimised, without drama. As it stands, we are being held hostage by a single editor who seems intent on disregarding consensus. By the looks of his talk page, it appears he has something of a history of edit wars and uncivil behaviour, for which he's been cautioned and warned repeatedly. What can be done effectively to bring this editor in line with community standards of behaviour and coöperation? —<span style="font:bold 11px Arial;display:inline;border:#151B8D 1px solid;background-color:#FFFF00;padding:0 4px 0 4px;">Scheinwerfermann T&middot;C 23:56, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Phoenix is fiery and provocative. Yes, I just reverted him because it was necessary. Yes, has me personally in his sights. So what? Let´s not make a mountain out of a molehill. I am concerned that such an ANI process will further polarize things. Let´s all settle down, everything is workable. --Haiduc (talk) 00:12, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments by other involved parties (Please include diffs to substantiate your claims)

Recent changes made by Phoenix seem to be a bit too ambitious (i.e., making changes spanning the entire text of the lead section), but this may have been precipitated by the just-prior change of the lead following a long discussion on the talk page. Reviewing the history of changes, Phoenix has adjusted his text to account for criticisms of his version (e.g., the and/or squabble). The best way forward would probably be for Phoenix (and others) to introduce rewrites as a sequence of well-isolated changes, so that any controversial material can be identified, and reverted or discussed, as necessary.

Incidentally, is this the right place to be having this discussion? --Dhilvert (talk) 00:32, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, because edit warring/editing against consensus and wikiquette issues are all involved. Rivertorch (talk) 06:40, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The changes were discussed - why didn't he say something then? He seems to have waded in scornfully and dismissively rejecting what had been arrived at.  Not much more to say than that - this does seem a bit heavy handed, it should be talked through on the talk page (with a moratorium on editing the lead until the problems are sorted). Mish (talk) 01:24, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Phoenix's tone indeed left something to be desired; I guess I'm just inclined to ignore tone. The fact that I have the facility in English to occasionally state things precisely and unoffensively doesn't mean that everyone does.  More to the point, it should not be considered surprising that moving the lead text from the discussion page to the article would raise new objections (even following an apparent consensus).  Phoenix has had his edits reverted by two editors now.  Perhaps he'll get the idea and be a bit less ambitious in his changes.  --Dhilvert (talk) 01:35, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Sigh. I hate that it has come to this, but I believe that Scheinwerfermann is correct in bringing this to AN/I. As amply shown by Scheinwerfermann's diffs above, Phoenix has repeatedly edited against consensus and, while doing so, taken an insulting tone in his edit summaries and attacked the competence and trustworthiness of other editors on the article talk page. Despite receiving a friendly warning yesterday, he has not tempered his behavior at all. Rather, he has been dismissive of the civil requests made of him and has continued to ignore consensus (see same diff— Scheinwerfermann's edits were based on a very lengthy discussion that resulted in clear consensus). By engaging in this behavior, Phoenix has displayed a remarkable unwillingness to cooperate or collaborate or even listen, and his actions are not only poisoning the atmosphere but are threatening to derail what otherwise had been shaping up to be a highly productive and 100% civil period of teamwork on an often-controversial article. Rivertorch (talk) 06:33, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I consider myself uninvolved in this as I wasn't although I've certainly worked on that article and am presently working on these issues. While i think there is a lesson here for Phoenix of9 to chillax a bit I also want to point out the this historically vandalized and often negatively pointy and POV article was quite a mess before Phoenix of9 started a process at the end of March of this year to completely overhaul and improve the article by recruiting a handful of editors to start improving each and every section. The article has greatly improved ever since. I see this as a frustration for some sticking points that Phoenix of9 feels strongly about and finding the worst way to express their concern. Generally they have been cooperative and even when consensus has gone directly against them they have accepted it. Phoenix of9 should likely step back for a few days and see if some of their concerns aren't addressed without disruption. If not bring them up in order of importance and since there is a lot of discussion maybe one point at a time. To me this is an area of major social dispute so I'm actually surprised there isn't more disagreement. If an uninvolved admin would look to giving them a word of encouragement to play nice on their talkpage it may help the situation. I'm not sure if anything beyond that will be helpful, this thread should likely serve as a stern public warning against disruptive behaviour. -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b oi   16:33, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments by uninvolved editors


 * Remarks by closing editor

Inappropriate use of user pages
User:Otterathome has come to several users' attention due to his behaviour surrounding his user pages. First, on July 14, he redirected his user page to the Autofellatio article, supposedly in protest over the lack of application of WP:NOTCENSORED to the article, because he wanted to add more images to the article over consensus. Since Otterathome refused to undo the redirect, this ultimately resulted in his user page being protected, and it remains so.

Subsequently, Otterathome turned his attention to his user talk page, which he decorated with flashing rainbow graphics that obscure the left hand navigation links. Since July 22, several users have been asking Otterathome to remove these graphics which, among other things, make it impossible for some users to click the links they cover. He has consistently refused to address these issues, and a short time ago has added further graphics along the bottom of the window with the comment "I hope you all like the new changes, and am flattered you take have taken such an interest in to such a low profile wikipedian. And I thank you for all your patience unlike the admin who protected my user page." Clearly this, like the previous nonsense with his user page, is all about making a point. I'm not sure how he has done all this, possibly by modifying his css or whatever, but it seems impossible to remove them, and he continues to refuse to do anything about it. Clearly something needs to be done at this point: a block? A page deletion? I don't know what. Suggestions? Exploding Boy (talk) 06:36, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, apparently they're not impossible to remove: I just accidentally removed them while leaving him a note about this thread; we'll see how long it lasts. Exploding Boy (talk) 06:40, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 2 seconds. Exploding Boy (talk) 06:41, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't know what you are talking about. I made the changes so there aren't any links that are obscured. And why don't you WP:AGF? I like the rainbow graphics and they were on my user page long before people started complaining about anything on my user or talk page.--Otterathome (talk) 06:45, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * You don't know what I'm talking about? Exploding Boy (talk) 06:49, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Would you like a picture showing you how to click the left-side links on my user page?--Otterathome (talk) 06:54, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Otterathome is being deliberately disruptive, by his own admission, to make a point about Bjweeks protecting his userpage for the exact same issue. Remove the Jefferson Airplane decoration, block, and lock the talkpage until he agrees unequivocally via email that he will neither restore the images nor engage in any similar edits, broadly construed, until the heat death of the universe. Why waste our time? → ROUX   ₪  07:11, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Roux, once again, has it right. I've removed "trippin' the light fantastic". Using your talkpage disruptively to deliberately make a point is totally unacceptable. You could give someone a seizure with that inane graphic. → javért stargaze 07:21, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh so now it's seizure-worthy? If even look at the talk page history I have been addressing your concerns, but you just come up with new reasons to say it's not good enough.--Otterathome (talk) 07:22, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Jefferson Airplane? At least it's not those stupid Grateful Dead dancing bears! [[Image:718smiley.svg|20px]] &lt;&gt;Multi-Xfer&lt;&gt; (talk) 07:26, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * As a side note, the links work perfectly fine in my Firefox, which is the latest version. - ALLST✰R ▼ echo wuz here  08:17, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The issue really is that Otterathome has been directed to WP:UP and the guideline has been thoroughly explained to him, and multiple users have asked him multiple times to remove these decorations from his talk page for multiple reasons. We do not own our userpages, and the community has made itself clear: it does not want that content there.  Otterathome ignored the issue for 2 weeks, declined to address the points raised, and simply reiterated that he likes them and sees no reason to remove them.  Then, when another user told him the decorations would be removed if he didn't do it himself, he responded by simply moving the images around with the sarcastic comment "I hope you all like the new changes" and a reference to the admin who protected his userpage.  This is obviously disruptive behaviour which all appears to have begun because he refused to accept consensus at Autofellatio, as noted above.  I can't imagine how many person hours have been wasted by how many editors dealing with these utterly silly issues.  It's a shame, because he appears to have otherwise useful edits, but he seems to be heading for an entirely preventable block.  Exploding Boy (talk) 16:40, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, I wasn't "supporting" his graphics usage. Just pointing out that the links work for me, even with the graphics. I agree that with an overwhelming consensus by people here and at his talk page, he should have removed them himself. - ALLST✰R ▼ echo wuz here  18:56, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

If the issue of the links being obscured and there being too many images in the graphic have been resolved, what are the remaining issues? It seems to me that the userpage should be unprotected. If he redirects again he should be blocked since he's already been warned. But the editor seems to be willing to respond to concerns, albeit reluctantly, and has made modifications to their userspace to meet the rules. Self expression is allowed as long as it's within policy. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:51, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The issue with the excess decorations on the user talk page has been resolved by someone removing them. As for the user page, it remains protected; I would be fine with it being unprotected, however I would dispute the claim that the user has shown himself willing to respond to concerns; quite the opposite, actually.  User:Exploding Boy 21:09, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

AFDs
The following related AFDs are only being edited by what appears to be people offically connected to or fans of the subjects.
 * 1) Articles for deletion/Jackson Davis (2nd nomination)
 * 2) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LG15: The Last
 * 3) Articles for deletion/Katherine Pawlak
 * 4) Articles for deletion/Becki Kregoski
 * Any participation from uninvolved users would be greatly appreciated.--Otterathome (talk) 18:11, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I hope this isn't canvassing because that is discouraged. The closing administrator should carefully consider the notability of the article and decide. AFD is not a vote. If the closing administrator is closing solely by vote, whether the vote follows policy or not, this is not desirable. User F203 (talk) 18:16, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Admins are rarely that bold, as shown in the previous AfD of one of the articles. This isn't canvassing as I am simply asking for participation from anyone who wants to, and why we need more users involved.--Otterathome (talk) 18:30, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * In the future, I suggest you take the advice at WP:AFD (Step II) and attempt to add the AfDs to deletion sorting lists. That will help you generate more interest from a wider group of editors in a faster time, instead of only attracting people who would have the articles on their watchlists. --  At am a chat 23:53, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Skimming the AfDs and seeing no disruption, I think that no admin action is required and that this notice was posted to the wrong forum. As suggested, please use deletion sorting going forward; you may list these AfDs as long as they are open. Flatscan (talk) 03:13, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think limited participation from interested parties is reasonable concern. I echo the calls to use deletion sorting to post notices to the appropriate project pages as the best way to deal with it. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:37, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Legal threat by email for Kate McMillan
Kate McMillan
 * Locus of dispute, or action in dispute

User:216.65.186.200 ( notified)
 * Involved parties and confirmation they have been notified of the discussion

User:Jamesofur (notification not needed posting)

Ms. McMillan has a somewhat understandable issue with the article about her. However to counter the issues she finds she has resorted to adding commentary throughout the article to try and refute problems she sees. Because of this her edits are often reverted by multiple users. After (one such revert) I received an email threatening legal suit if the article was not taken down and if I continued as I had. I will be happy to post the email I received as well as the email address it came from (which appears to prove it came from the person it claims to be) but wanted to check before I did that. There are definitely issues with the articles neutrality and sources but I am concerned about the attitude and meathods that Ms. McMillan is using to try and get her way. Jamesofur (talk) 06:26, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Description of the dispute and the main evidence


 * Comments by other involved parties (Please include diffs to substantiate your claims)


 * Comments by uninvolved editors


 * Remarks by closing editor

Please email me the threatening mail - I will review and take appropriate action. We don't allow posting of emails on wiki without permission, but you can forward it to admins, arbcom, OTRS etc.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:33, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course, Emailed Jamesofur (talk) 06:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * IP is blocked.
 * I think that an awake, very patient admin may want to try constructive engagement with the IP on its talk page. I am not going to be awake much longer, however, so someone else needs to be it on this one...  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:55, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Should have been indefed per . MuZemike 16:01, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * IP addresses are not normally indef'd because they could be shared. I've seen them blocked for up to a year, though. 6 months ought to be enough to cool that character's jets. And if not, there's always another 6 waiting. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 16:22, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The closest they get to indef blocking an IP is in the case of proxy IPs. Half  Shadow  16:37, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Or if it's certain that the IP is static. But 6 months is a good stretch in wiki-poky. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 16:39, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah. I was non-observant that it was an IP. Six months is plenty. MuZemike 17:53, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * ...and the NLT-block template is always on indef for some reason. MuZemike 21:49, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Seems like it ought to be changed, although it might be protected from us peons. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 21:57, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Joseph Jackson (manager)
Moved from AN

Not a BLP expert, but would someone mind checking this page, specifically the comments of User:Jaxdave ("DIE JOSEPH DIE!", etc.)? Thanks. ▫  Johnny Mr Nin ja  07:01, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The issue isn't that exact line, there is a lot of junk from the same editor, about how this man abuses the children etc. Shortly after that text was removed, came Special:Contributions/65.190.201.132. Obviously this is someone with a bit of WP knowledge, probably logged out, maybe the same editor. ▫  Johnny Mr Nin ja  16:16, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The text has been removed as noted above. If there's anymore feel free to also remove it per WP:FORUM and WP:BLP policy. Cheers, <em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#6600CC">Nja <em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#63D1F4">247 18:51, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Block Evasion

 * Locus of dispute, or action in dispute

notified
 * Involved parties and confirmation they have been notified of the discussion

notified

Since the beginning of the year, the same vandalism has been committed by around ten different IPs, all from the San Luis Obispo, California area. The article was semi-protected in mid-July. Since the two-week semi-protection ended on July 30th, the same IP vandal has returned six times. After being blocked, the vandal evidently switched to another IP and continued.. I've brought this to WP:RFPP as well, but thought the block evasion should be dealt with here. Any advice around a long term strategy would be very welcome, as well. Thanks,
 * Description of the dispute and the main evidence

Celestra (talk) 17:11, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments by other involved parties (Please include diffs to substantiate your claims)


 * Comments by uninvolved editors

Do you have any idea who the primary account may be? We could either try range blocks or page semi-protection. Jehochman Talk 17:27, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I don't know that there is a primary account. The IP addresses that seem to be the same individual are:

66.122.76.188, 64.161.56.144, 99.146.223.111, 66.122.67.218, 63.196.195.66, and 99.177.104.141 (eight including the ones above, not ten, there were some unrelated IPs). That's eight different class C's to range block, I don't know if I'd try that. The WP:RFPP folk gave it a one month semi, so that helps. I just don't like the IP getting away with block evasion with no consequence. Any other options? Celestra (talk) 18:52, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I would note that Tiptoey has sprotected the article for a further month from this date. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:00, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Remarks by closing editor

There are too many IPs involved for a range block. We'll have to semi-protect until the malefactor gets bored with this game and moves on to another pastime. Jehochman Talk 22:17, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Question

 * Locus of dispute, or action in dispute
 * Burger King products
 * Burger King


 * Involved parties:

This is a content/3R dispute that I would like to have a third party look at. RaseaC deleted a section in the article, which I disagreed with and restored. He then deleted it again and I restored it requesting that she not delete it again and discuss it on the talk page before continuing. He then deleted it again and started a discussion. I replied to her stated my reasoning, implying his behavior was consistent with edit warring and requesting she restore the information until such time that consensus could be reached. He refused, claiming that he had consensus based on a previous discussion regarding an unrelated issue involving fair use and that he was in the right.
 * Description of the dispute and the main evidence

Lets add the Burger king lead discussion to this. Also the comment in the Burger King history that borders on a violation of personal attack, though it really doesn't bother me. It does point to an issue with his behaviors that I am having an issue with. I do apologize for the error of assuming he was a she.

Could an uninvolved admin look into this for me please?

--Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 20:20, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, I'm a he, not a she, and I will refrain from substantiating that particular claim. Secondly, the previous discussion mentioned was related, as two other editors clearly stated doubts that there was encyclopedic merit, hence, as far as I'm concerned, a consensus. I'll be back in a few minutes when he opens an ARI on the other page he owns.RaseaC (talk) 20:28, 8 August 2009 (UTC) Don't sweat about the gender thing. My response to the Burger King page was that there is no need for such an indepth paragraph regarding such a mundane issue, and I couldn't really find any basis for such from a handful of other similar pages, though reading through my response on the talk will clear that up. Not sure where the personal attack was, but it probably did happen, people often complain about my behaviour, but then we've got more important issues. RaseaC (talk) 20:43, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments by other involved parties (Please include diffs to substantiate your claims)
 * Comments by uninvolved editors

RaseaC, if people often complain about your behavior, please think about what you might be doing to upset others, and then modify your style for the better. It is a good sign that you recognize there might be a problem, and that you are able to respond civilly here. Jerem43, your complaint does not include specific diffs. Most editors here are unlikely to dig in unless they see diffs. You appear to have a content dispute. If you would like help from uninvolved editors, please try the new Content noticeboard. Jehochman Talk 22:23, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Remarks by closing editor

User:Wikifan12345's personal attacks on Talk:List of terrorist incidents, 2009
There has been a ongoing discussion on this talk page between myself, Wikifan12345, O Fenian, GeorgeWilliamHerbert, SeanHoyland and Seb az86556 about whether classifying incidents as terrorist without a supporting source is orginal research or not. I'll be honest -- I proposed significant changes that have been met with criticism (and some support); however I have continued to discuss the matter civilly and refrained from editing the article while discussions continue.

Wikifan12345, on the other hand, is disruptively repeating personal attacks against me. He keeps bringing up "Jews", arguing that I am a "manic" anti-Semite. I don't thnk my character or mental health is really relevant to the discussion.

Here are some excerpts: "Whether you believe blowing up Jews is somehow consistent with legal conflict and not terrorism is your POV "... "everything to do with his vendetta against Jews and Israel" ... "Or whether killing Jews in the Jewistan is justified under the ambiguous"..."Yes, you are manically obsessed with Israel and Jews."

Nobody else on the talk page seems to agree with his attacks and he has been repeatedly warned by GeorgeWilliamHerbert to stop the personal attacks. I am tempted to just erase the personal attacks myself, but I know he would just edit war against me. I did remove some Israeli incidents from the article in ONE revert, but to interpret that as a vendetta against Jews is nonsensical. Factsontheground (talk) 06:01, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * This unfortunately came to my attention after the HRW ordeal. I think Wikifan12345 is being extremely belligerent in the RfC on that talk page. But in some cases I don't think your behavior has been much better. I would suggest that both of you take a break for a little while as the "terrorist incidents" RfC looks completely useless for its designed purpose and more like a war zone. I am not an admin so I can take no action, but for the moment it seems that tempers are way too heated to be productive. Awickert (talk) 06:18, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm really not angry but I have no interest in edit-warring if that is what you are suggesting. I just hope FOTG won't follow me to the next article I edit. : ) Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:24, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Suggest speedy close. Moving legitimate content dispute to an ANI is dubious. FOTG has been following me around since last week, to BBC and HRW. I accused him of being "manically obsessed" with Jews and Israel because he edit-warred out almost all of the incidents in Israel without a single post in talk. 1 2, 3, 4, 5, and that is just a sample. History of edits at 2009.


 * The summaries were lacking, with rationales like "Source does not categorize incident as a terrorist attack." In fact, more than half of the sources explicitly referred to the acts as terrorist incidents. I mean, he removed a incident that involved an Al-Qaeda cell. Can we all agree Al Qaeda is a terrorist organization? :D


 * Then when I reverted the page back to a non-dispute state and ask that he explain his edits more thoroughly in discussion, he edit-warred again and accused me of original research.


 * Even after I posted the source and copied/pasted direct text, he still denies the sources referred to the incidents as acts of terrorism. Then he whipped out the civility card when I called him on it.

Real mature. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:21, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The content dispute is a separate issue. This is about a behavioral dispute. Anger or no, comments like "real mature" are vindictive, and likely to score you negative brownie points here. Now if you are suggesting that FOTG is being very WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and is wikistalking to push your buttons, that's another matter. The content dispute can stay on the RfC on the page, but I don't think I'll have any argument when I say it's going nowhere, so this is to handle the behavioral issues and get things back on track. Hopefully. Awickert (talk) 06:31, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

As a number of people have agreed on the talk page and elsewhere, the article should only list incidents that are described as terrorism by a reliable source. Although it may appear obvious to you that an incident is terrrorism, that is not how Wikipedia works. Addition need to be supported by a source or justified on the discussion page. And I can't believe you are still complaining about edits I made a week ago! They have long since been reverted (by you and others) and the discusssion has moved on.

You seem to think that instead of participating in the discussion you can derail everything by continually attacking me.

Factsontheground (talk) 06:29, 31 July 2009 (UTC) Also the so-called "Al Qaeda" cell was actually belonging to the Janud Ansar Allah organization as the reference [states http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1244371116416]. Factsontheground (talk) 06:33, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

They updated the posting, it originally referred to the group as belonging to a Al-Qaeda cell. Either way, it is still a terrorist attack as confirmed by the article. But when "Al-Qaeda" was painted all over the article last month, you still removed it. You simply did not read the article and deleted everything remotely Jewish. Also, The Jerusalem Post is a reliable source. Most of the edits you removed described the incident as acts of terrorism, and yet you continue to deny this. A couple hours ago I restored only some of the edits that were 100% confirmed and obvious, but there are a couple others but should be debated - not viciously warred out. It is rather odd for you to suddenly feel a sense of emotional distress when you've routinely cast me as a troll, pro-Israel warrior, POV-commander, etc...etc...Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:38, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't want to continue the content dispute here. It's not the place for it. All I want is for your personal attacks on the talk page to stop.

So far you haven't even admitted that your behaviour has been wrong in any way. I don't think you have any insight into why people find it offensive when you continually accuse them of being "obsessed with Jews". Factsontheground (talk) 06:45, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Are you for real? Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:13, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * This is not the place for this issue. AN/I is not a part of the DR process. IronDuke  14:22, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

From looking at the RFC on the article talk page it seems that FOTG's complaints about personal attacks have some basis (though some of the quotes would need diffs to substantiate them); and Wikifan's response seems to be aggression, not regret or discussion or understanding. Besides those FOTG mentioned, Wikifan repeatedly calls him a vandal and claims he "manically removed" sources, even bolding "manically". And his general attitude on the page is confrontational, rather than seeking a resolution. Rd232 talk 18:55, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, in case there was any doubt about what Wikifan meant by those comments about FOTG in relation to Jews and Israel, a week ago in relation to the same dispute he wrote "It is not a content dispute when an editor is clearly editing with a hateful and antisemitic agenda." (Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive553). Which WP:ANI let slide, despite the blatant violation of WP:NPA. Rd232 talk 19:04, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Nothing new apparently
I don't know anything about this particular dispute but this is not the first time Wikifan12345 has engaged in unacceptable behavior as part of such a dispute. Not long ago I was having a hard time dealing with this editor myself and tried getting help on another board. See Wikiquette_alerts/archive67. Perhaps both editors need warnings but Wikifan12345 may need mentorship or something similar.PelleSmith (talk) 11:48, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * AN/I and similar are littered with reports about this user, as any regular viewer of these boards can attest. Perhaps it is about time to consider larger sanctions, as polite warnings do not seem to be getting through. Tarc (talk) 15:30, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Pelle smith, like most of the users here, had a major content dispute and what warring CAIR beyond belief. He removed every single one of my edits, and then he accused me of being a troll for question his massive deletion of material with dubious summaries (OR, undue). I have since left the article. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:52, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment—Whether Wikifan was out of line or not, it is important not to give immunity to the editor who started this ANI, who has also been engaged in highly disruptive behavior, and has also tried to bring a content dispute into this ANI post (inappropriate). I suggest giving a more thorough examination of both users' editing patterns, instead of focusing on a single editor. —Ynhockey (Talk) 16:08, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Regarding the content dispute - I wandered over there as an uninvolved admin and at this point, we have multiple uninvolved admins reviewing, pushing back on both sides and looking for a best policy / best content solution.
 * I will leave to other admins a review of both primary parties' behavior here and there (and recommend both be reviewed). I prefer to either deal with a content / policy problem or a user / policy problem, but not both aspects of the same incident, to avoid COI on either side.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:00, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think its appropriate for a comparison to be made between these two users. Wikifan has a block log that is quite shockingly long for such a short time editing here and the use of personal attacks constitutes his primary mode of communication. Every time he is brought to the board, there are editors who try to deflect attention from his behaviour by calling for a more thorough examination of the complainant. Not right. Not right at all.  T i a m u t talk 20:56, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Almost all the blocks are from edit-warring, and mostly came to be as a result of involved parties reporting me. It really cannot be applied here IMO. ChriO has his sysops removed because he had a major COI and was blocking several editors at Israel and the apartheid analogy with little warning. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:52, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If you are the one who steps over the line, it doesn't matter who reported you; you were at fault for violating editing guidelines. And I believe ChrisO resigned the admin the bit in the wake of the Macedonia2 ArbCom case.  It had nothing to do with the article on Israeli apartheid. Tarc (talk) 23:29, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I would support trying to do something about Wikifan. His editing and use of sources is poor, he reverts constantly, and filibusters on talk pages, making normal editing close to impossible on whatever page he's working on. When thwarted, he reverts to insults. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 16:23, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It's been suggested more than once that there should be an WP:RFC/U on Wikifan's conduct (including here, less than two weeks ago - Wikiquette_alerts/archive67). Based on the history at ANI, and his block log, and my personal interaction with him in a couple of places, I think that's certainly warranted. Rd232 talk 18:55, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * They don't have grounds when FOTG mercilessly edit-wars out everything remotely Jewish/Israel exclusively with dubious summaries, then call me a POV warrior when I point out his summaries did not match the content of the source. FOTG has a serious issue with Jews and Israel and it is very very offensive. He's call me a troll, POV-warrior, and even implied I was member of the Israel lobby. Also, he is following me around to articles I've been editing and warring those additions too. Rd, I know you mean well but this is a COI because me and you have had serious content disputes before. Has anyone considered perhaps this is an an attempt to steamroll an unpopular user out of the List of terrorist incidents, 2009. The article has boiled down to me and FOTG, so if I'm gone he can once again remove all my edits at-will. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:43, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * So, you think that: "if I'm gone he can once again remove all my edits at-will". But then, if he isn't the sole editor left if you are gone, how come not a single other editor will defend your edits? Count Iblis (talk) 00:34, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Uh?


 * A) All the editors here have been involved in past disputes both content and personal.


 * B) None of these users except for FOTG are involved in the List of terrorist incidents, 2009 except for R2 who came much later.


 * C) You just dismissed everything else I wrote above.


 * D) FOTG reported me for edit-warring without even notifying me, and that went no where here I just discovered that today..


 * I also submitted an ANI on FOTG with similar complaints regarding his approach to the article. To say this ANI is genuinely about behavior is naive at best and dishonest at worst.

I suggest a speedy close and returning back to the content dispute at the original article. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:25, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * So all the editors commenting on your behavior here are just doing so in bad faith because they have been on the other side of a content dispute with you? Likewise any notion that the specific issue reported first above has anything to do with behavior is unfounded because really this is just a content dispute?  If you truly believe that version I strongly suggest mentorship at the very least because you really don't seem to get what about your behavior is inappropriate.PelleSmith (talk) 02:11, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Bad faith? No, but this is not unique for ANI Pelle. And considering I lodged an edit-warring report against you (one of my first ever), then you posted an etiquette notice (after you called me a troll), and now you are here endorsing sanctions against a user you've had considerable differences with....certainly does not resonate faith-wise. Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:40, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I may have come into this too late to see the build-up. I consider this genuinely about behavior. Wikifan may think that this is naive, that I am somehow furthering a conspiracy against him. I do not see it that way. Right now, the amount of non-content-related material on the talk page at "terrorist incidents" is unproductive and therefore intolerable. In spite of not being an admin, I would be in favor of, for fairness sake, week-long topic bans for both Wikifan and FOTG on Israel-related content so that real work can actually be done. As I see it there is waste-of-time drama unfolding there and here. (As for previous contact, I have only been involved in mediating HRW recently, so I can say I am pretty uninvolved overall.) Awickert (talk) 07:50, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Did I say conspiracy? No, I did not. I don't understand why you would be personally comfortable with a week-long topic ban when you admit being "pretty uninvolved overall." This is my impression: "Yeah, I don't know these two users and can't say I've been very involved but clearly something's up so let's just ban em' both." :D I would never call for such a punishing act if I didn't have at least a general experience beyond "uninvolved." Maybe it's just me. Wikifan12345 (talk) 09:39, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikifan, one of the main problems in the ANI has been that so many involved editors made comments about who should be blocked. We definitely need more uninvolved editors to comment, and whether or not you approve of Awickert's suggestion, it is a welcome step towards resolving this. Hopefully more uninvolved administrators comment here and give their opinions. —Ynhockey (Talk) 10:50, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * True that. I interpreted Awicket's "uninvolved" description as unaware. As if he simply skimmed through the complaints and applied natural deductive reasoning that unfortunately was not consistent with objectivity. Or perhaps I'm downright guilty and this is a zealous game of mental gymnastics - an argument that is easily made and difficult to refute. Wikifan12345 (talk) 10:59, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Formal mentorship
I have talked to Wikifan12345 about this ANI and it appears that he supports, in principle, formal mentorship. I therefore recommend that, whatever decision is taken on this particular ANI, an uninvolved user/administrator takes it up to mentor Wikifan. Any volunteers? —Ynhockey (Talk) 10:47, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * To be explicit, I strongly support mentorship as an alternative to sanctions or if need be, accompanying whatever potential "punishment" is applied. This, of course, assuming the punishment is not a totally unconditional topic-ban which would likely void the need for a mentor in the Israel/Palestine subject matter. Unless, of course, the mentor is simply for behavioral-improvements and not party to a specific genre of knowledge. Wikifan12345 (talk) 11:05, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * A 1RR restriction for a few months could also work. If you can revert only once, you have to argue more on the talk page to find support for your edits. Making other editors angry on the talk page would be counterproductive. Also, when editing in the article, your best strategy to get your edits stick shifts toward editing in texts that are likely to be acceptable to people with other POVs. Count Iblis (talk) 13:14, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how well that'll work, but at least it's easy and doesn't involve finding a mentor and taking up their time (and Wikifan is hardly a weekend editor). Rd232 talk 16:02, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I would support mentorship if one is willing to take their time. My suggestion above was preventative, not punative, as such bans are supposed to be. I actually spent quite a bit of time reading (not skimming) in detail the various back-and-forths. I suggested the short topic ban for both parties because I saw next to 0 productivity in what seemed to be dominated by a giant brawl, and I thought one way to increase the signal/noise would be to take a break. My only feeling is that the talk pages should return to effectiveness. If mentorship is a more acceptable way to do so, then that should work well too. 1RR may also work, though I'm not sure that it will end the talk page mess. I think that what is needed is a commitment from Wikifan (and others) to WP:NPA and to not respond to personal attacks but rather to continue forging ahead on the content. (As a side note, Wikifan above disqualifies all editors from commenting; those involved are too involved, and those uninvolved are too unaware; someone has to do something!) Awickert (talk) 16:50, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Alternatively FOTG and Wikifan could collaborate to rewrite the lede for Julia Set so that it's less hopeless. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 19:11, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 1RR without other remedies will only worsen what SlimVirgin aptly called "filibustering" on talk pages. In my brief and recent experience with Wikifan this is the worst part.  Repetitive arguments which usually amount to WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.  If one doesn't respond on the talk page it seems like an unaware onlooker might think one is mindlessly reverting.  Complete disruption and a total time drain.PelleSmith (talk) 19:21, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

In my (limited) experience of Wikifan12345, he has come across more as an aggressive, tendentious crank rather than a useful editor. We've seen this editor being brought to AN/I repeatedly; the same kind of issues come up again and again. He seems to have learned nothing from these repeated AN/I discussions. His unwillingness or inability to change his approach makes me think that mentorship is unlikely to be effective. I would suggest blocking him and moving on - he's taken up far too much of other people's time already. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:30, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * This is certainly constructive. Wikifan12345 (talk) 20:33, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Uh? -DePiep (talk) 21:27, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikifan's thoughts here read like a buy-out: apologise so as not to get a punishment. Great. -DePiep (talk) 21:40, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I mean, more correct: here -DePiep (talk) 21:44, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The thought of users who have a strong bias (outside of the one that is not "involved), users whom I have lodged complaints against and vice-versa, users who have taken part in bitter disputes involving teams of editors, and users who have demanded banishment before would no doubt express glee at the thought of removing an editor who they rountinly disagree with out of the equitation. Lest we forget, the fact that I submitted a similar ANI against FOTG not-so-long-ago about his wholesale removal of almost every Israel/Jewish incident at List of terrorist incidents, 2009 should raise suspicions over a counter-ANI. I have no problem with mentorship and collaborative process, but in my opinion this is nothing less than a bandwagon. Take me away I guess. Wikifan12345 (talk) 21:52, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikifan wrote: Yes, you are manically obsessed with Israel and Jews.". Why do ëven admins faal back to the "you-too" talk? —Preceding unsigned comment added by DePiep  (talk • contribs)  22:11, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, FOTG is manically obsessed with Israel and Jews. He unilaterally warred out almost every incident about Israel and Jews, even those that were clearly of terrorist-nature. And when I restored what I perceived to be vandalism or premature deletion, and ask that he provide a thorough reasoning for his wholesale deletion, he accused me of being troll, pov warrior, etc...etc...etc. This is consistent with his behavior in other articles. So fishing for diffs that users might interpret the wrong way if they aren't fully aware of the discussion is suspect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikifan12345 (talk • contribs) 22:34, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikifan: no one is to be accused of anti-Semitism freely. You wrote the offensife line. Go away. (To be clear: why do editors and even admins here always end up: second chance? After ten?) -DePiep (talk) 22:48, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Manically obsessed with Jews/Israel does not = antisemitism. Call a spade a spade. Viciously deleting everything Jewish/Israel with bogus summaries, then edit-warring to ensure that the content remains deleted, while continuing to deny wrong-doing in talk strikes me as a manic obsession that is not consistent with policy or reality. I'm sorry if that's "out of line." Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:08, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You wrote "manically obsessed" (with whatever). That's a disqualification beforehand. Then do not start reasoning afterwards. -DePiep (talk) 00:54, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I think if Wikifan wants/is willing to accept formal mentorship, the piling-on, especially by editors who have diametrically opposed POVs to Wikifan's, should stop now. IronDuke 22:45, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No offense IronDuke but this does not in any way sound like someone who "wants/is willing to accept formal mentorship." And then there is the fact that a fair amount of the commentators above also don't believe mentorship is going to solve the problem.  Wikifan's own attitude only makes one wonder if they aren't correct.PelleSmith (talk) 22:59, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * There is nothing inherently wrong with that post. I don't see how users who are active in on-going disputes (such as Pelle and R2), some of the disputes which have ended up pouring into noticeboards (OR noticeboard, edit-warring noticeboard, etiquette, etc...submitted by both Pelle and myself) should be allowed such a strong voice. I am very open to some kind of mentorship, but from my POV I'd say users like FOTG are in much dire need of assistance. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:06, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * "nothing inherently wrong" with your post??? You still don't get it. Your posts are wrong. Just stop insulting editors, and from there you may talk. Maybe other too -- but stop it yourself. Not a "strong voice", insulting is what I say. Stop it. -DePiep (talk) 23:11, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Criticizing an editors edits is not insulting. It is certainly that users can have a manic obsession with Israel and Jews, and unfortunately FOTG is one of those users. You aren't recognizing or even remotely addressing the actions of FOTG, for good reason perhaps.
 * No, criticizing is not insulting. Stating "manic obsession" is insulting, and personal only, and not relevant to the article at all. Drop it. -DePiep (talk) 01:01, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Coming from someone who believes that the Israel-Palestinian articles on wikipedia are dominated by a cabal of "organised, agendised Hasbara." FOTG has a manic obsession and whether or not you misconstrue that as "insulting" is of no importance. He has major issues and it is seen in his mindless reverting of everything remotely Israel. He follows me to articles I work on and reverts my edits, and then harasses me on those articles. So please, who is the victim here? I'm trying to be as cordial as I can be but FOTG has been given a free pass for far to long. And then posting an ANI to save face, well...that's not unique for wiipedia. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:12, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * No one can speak from experience about your behavior unless they have witnessed it. Isn't it odd that while many such editors think this behavior is a problem no one has come here to say that they are wrong and that you have been behaving as a reasonable Wikipedian?  The closest thing to support from a third party here has been "be fair and look at the other guy's behavior too," or "OK already Wikifan says he's willing to accept mentorship."  Despite this you continually act like the real problem is with the supposed "cabal" of editors whose are only related to each other because of their negative interactions with you.  Meanwhile people become less and less inclined to believe you will be able to change your ways at all.  Keep it up.PelleSmith (talk) 23:18, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Pelle, I lodged an edit-war report against you when you started owning CAIR (and ownership that has been confirmed by other users). I also posted a noticeboard incident requesting a fact-check on how you continually edited-out all my additions with "original research" when the content was thoroughly cited. I don't see why I should have to sit here and be lectured by editors who have a compromising history. I'm open to mentorship, but dismiss all of this bandwagoning as pure harassment. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:00, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * And your numerous disruptive reports at various noticeboards resulted in what exactly? Must be a cabal at work.PelleSmith (talk) 00:13, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * OR inquire was never responded because you hijacked it, and the edit-warring ANI should have succeeded but as several users confirmed, its lack of response can be sourced from the personal feelings of the over-seeing admin. This ANI is the poster child for disruption. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:30, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikifan, can I ask you, just for the next few posts, not to focus at all on other editors, but only on yourself? Is there anything you feel you have done inappropriately in the course of editing Wikipedia, either in terms of the way you handle content, or the way you interact with others? Where do you feel you could have done better? Which issues do you feel a mentor could usefully help you with? SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 02:23, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure, like every user on Wikipedia. A mentor could help me navigate through Wikipedia bureaucracy, as many editors are very skilled at doing. Avoiding blocks, relying on civil POV-pushing, moving content disputes to ANIs, etc..etc. SlimVirgin, remember when you edit-warred at 1948 Palestinian exodus, removed all my additions, and threatened to send me to ArbComb if I don't heed to your demands? Then I was blocked for a week after I unknowingly reversed your reverts when you submitted an edit-war report. That was a carefully crafted strategy and I've watched many users do it to each other, and it's rather depressing. But to answer your question with all sincerity, I would hope a mentor could help me cite policy in-talk more competently. Maybe carve a slightly better tactful approach to discussion, even in the midst of heated and hostile debate. Normal stuff I guess. It's difficult to assess myself under the current circumstances and what I consider to be an extremely bad faith ANI. If this were closed, I would feel a lot more comfortable discussion mentorship. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:07, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Mentorship won't work if you won't take responsibility for anything. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 06:41, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think this thread increasingly illustrates why 1RR probably won't work, and why a WP:RFC/U is needed (that structure would discussion room to breathe, without Wikifan responding to every comment by attacking somebody (generally the author)). Rd232 talk 08:48, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, if you haven't noticed this ANI has nothing to do with edit-warring, so hats to ya. Second, this bandwagon, a bandwagon started by a certified-troll as demonstrated in his approach @ the pertinent article and wikihounding - started the ANI. I'm more than open to mentorship etc. but you are asking for blood in a bad-faith and unfair circumstances. If you dismiss my assessments of this forum as "attacking" well okay. Also, for accuracies sake, the title should be changed to, "Reasons why Wikifan needs to go." Otherwise, the current charter is, for the most part, largely false.


 * Cliffnotes: FOTG made a dubious claim of personal attacks, but sifting through the discussion you will find just the opposite. Anyways, commence banishment! :D Wikifan12345 (talk) 12:20, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

If y'all need a totally uninvolved, experienced user for a mentorship, I'd be happy to help out. I only stumbled upon this conversation because I can't sleep and have no prior dealings with Israel related articles or any of the editors involved here. I do have experience dealing with conflict in my own areas of interest. Cheers, Gimme danger (talk) 08:19, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I haven't been on WP long enough to act as a mentor. However, if Wikifan needs an open ear he should know that he can call on me to provide a comment at any time and I will do my best to be as helpful as possible.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 08:03, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

More Uninvolved Admins
While I'm not sure it is necessary it might be nice to hear from an additional admin or two who have not had any run-ins with Wikifan yet.PelleSmith (talk) 23:18, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd like to see this ANI be led by users who haven't expressed a personal dislike or have been the subject of ANIS/reports etc. submitted by myself. Pelle has taken an unusually strong interesting in keeping this alive, perhaps because of our on-going dispute at Council on American-Islamic Relations. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:02, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This is truly odd. I'm asking for your sake, because you keep on claiming that everyone commenting here has a vendetta against you.PelleSmith (talk) 00:14, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not claiming that. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:27, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Pelle, I think it would be useful if you stopped antagonizing Wikifan here. You may not intend to, but it is obviously having that effect. You've had your say, more gasoline does not need to be poured on. IronDuke  03:15, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

A general comment
At the risk of straying from the immediate problem, I would like to point out that the kind of vicious conflicts we see here are inherent in the way the Wikipedia is edited and the way the Five Pillars are interpreted in conflict areas. This is a clear case of narrative war, with each side incapable of seeing neutrality as defined by the other side. In the Middle East, there is no neutral point of view.

What is more, the word "terrorism" is editorial wherever it appears. That a reliable source refers to an incident as terrorism does not make it so. Reliable sources have POVs just like everyone else.

Because of the way NPOV and RS are applied in Middle East articles, conflict of this type is inevitable. The warring parties are not to blame. The system is to blame.

To avoid these conflicts, then, requires a radical rethinking of how to apply the five pillars in conflict situations. I suggested such an approach in User:Ravpapa/The Politicization of Wikipedia, and would love to see a serious attempt to experiment with the ideas proposed there. --Ravpapa (talk) 12:22, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * All due respect Ravpapa, when the same user is having the same problems over and over it no longer is just "the system". Now Wikifan will likely say I am only here because of content disputes with him, but I do not plan on arguing for his banning. But a bit of history should be made clear. See Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive534, Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive33, Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive532, Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive515. Above he pretty much says he would like a mentor to teach him how to wikilaywer more effectively, I think that would be a disaster. What he needs is to keep from writing anything about others motives or beliefs. It really is that simple, if he does not keep trying to call others "manically obsessed with Jews" or "antisemites" or other such insults he would not be here over and over. I have no idea about FOTG, I didnt look at the talkpage in question. But WF needs to do one of 2 things at this point. Either stop making such allegations to other users, or provide some actual evidence of racist editing. One of the two editors should be blocked, either for editing in an antisemitic manner or for making repeated false accusations of antisemitism. But wikifan cannot be allowed to continue saying these things without proving them. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 15:07, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * All due respect Nableezy, it is pretty obvious that most if not all the editors speaking up against Wikifan are very active pro-Palestinian editors. Ravpapa has a very good point about the system not working well when you have a content/narrative war like in IP. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:18, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I have content/narrative disagreements/wars with a lot of people, but it doesn't lead to ANI. There is a pattern of consistent personal attacks and bad faith assumptions peppering most of Wikifan's talk page commentary, and an inability to acknowledge its problematic. People shouldn't be asked to overlook that because there's a raging ethnic conflict in the background.  T i a m u t talk 21:03, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Without talking about Wikifan specifically, it's pretty obvious that in this kind of dispute most of the people pushing for sanctions are those on the other side of the content/narrative war. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:48, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually what's pretty obvious is that even those who share Wikifan's views can't defend his behaviour; and can only defend him by attacking the motives of others and generally deflect away from the issue of Wikifan's behaviour. Rd232 talk 04:48, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * But this thread is "about Wikifan specifically" and not about some general IP narrative war (which I take no part in personally btw). So why are people incapable of speaking specifically in defense of Wikifan's behavior as opposed to simply trying to deflect the discussion?  To reiterate Tiamut's point, major disagreements, some of which are very deep and very old, are an everyday reality here at Wikipedia but they usually don't end up at AN/I.  When they do there is almost always a behavior problem that goes beyond content disputes -- whether the problem is with the person being grilled or conversely with the person abusing the noticeboards (or both).  Either way, a discussion here signals something beyond a content dispute.PelleSmith (talk) 22:05, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You don't take part in IP but you didn't arrive here clean of prejudice, did you? Anyway, Ravpapa made a general comment (see section header) and I was addressing that. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:32, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * As I've said, this ANI was posted by a textbook troll who warred out every incident he didn't like and when I called him on it, he went on and on and on about how I'm an agent of Zion. Seriously? Now FOTG has been hounding me at BBC and Human Rights Watch, and a couple other articles warring out all my edits with little reasoning. And now an ANI? No editor has recognized this. I said FOTG was manically obsessed with Jews and Israel several times - I meant it and it wasn't an attack but simply an accurate assessment of his editing approach. He removed 9+ incidents exclusively about Jews, reverted anyone who dared touch his edits, and then started a nice long dispute about how we should re-define what is a terrorist incident to exclude Israel. Yes I'm obviously partial here but he came off extremely combative and very, very offensive. I posted an ANI but it was assessed as a content dispute and not a behavioral problem. It's not like FOTG has been the nicest editor to ever exist. : ) Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:31, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The thing is, you don't get to decide what is or isn't attack. Calling someone manically possessed is a comment on the editor, not the editing. If they have a problem with it, you have offended them. Of course, "textbook troll" is much more clean-cut. Like before, I'm not saying that FOTG's hands are clean either, but you are certainly digging yourself into a pit. If you can leave diffs below (I made a space), perhaps this can go ahead with more sanity, and we can stop being "unaware" and start dealing with the full issue. Awickert (talk) 05:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay? Have you read through the talk discussion and looked the page history? He raided the article, maliciously axed out almost everything Jewish/Israel, warred any further attempts to add similar incidents, created long disputes that had little to no relevance, and accused me of being a member of the pro-Israel lobby, POV-pusher, troll, etc. He has a major issue with Jews and it is very, very offensive. If I were to go into Islam and remove every mention of "Mohamed," I'd expect a similar, or perhaps even violent reaction. So I sincerely apologize if I was out of line and will make an effort to be more tactful. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:01, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify, my comments were not meant as a defense or excuse for Wikifan. People need to take responsibility for their actions. I was only pointing out that where there is a leaky pipe, there is wood rot. You can cut out and replace the wood, but if you want to really stop the rot, you need to fix the pipe. --Ravpapa (talk) 05:41, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. I think Wikipedia should recognize that regular sources are not so reliable when it comes to this conflict. So, one can impose a restriction on the type of sources that can be admitted. E.g. one could decide that only peer reviewed academic articles written by historians can be used as a source. Count Iblis (talk) 13:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Uninvolved admins please comment
Uninvolved admins please comment on what sanctions may be appropriate.

OK, I've had enough. It's not enough that no-one is willing to defend Wikifan's behaviour, which encompasses comments such as "It is not a content dispute when an editor is clearly editing with a hateful and antisemitic agenda." (Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive553). Now Wikifan's continuing attempt to derail this ANI discussion by attacking others and doing everything except discussing his own behaviour (eg insisting that this discussion I hatted is constructive) demonstrates such a WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT behaviour that it makes me believe that a substantial sanction is required. I find it hard to believe that mentoring will be successful. I find it hard to believe that 1RR (which somebody proposed) will achieve anything either. Frankly, I'm rapidly reaching the view that Wikipedia - certainly on topics where Wikifan cannot play well with others - is simply better off without this particular 14-year old (User:Wikifan12345/About). Disclosure: I've had previous run-ins with Wikifan and we also have opposing views. Rd232 talk 15:15, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * We have to try mentorship or 1RR (or a combination) first. If that fails then we can raise that here again. If a 1RR or 0RR is imposed, then Wikifan will know that the only way he can edit wikipedia is by cooporating with other editors. If Wikifan insults someone, then he'll only hurt himself. So, there is no need to make a lot of fuss about that. Count Iblis (talk) 22:57, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the constructive criticism. So I guess that settles it? This certainly isn't an attempt to remove an editor you are currently in a content dispute with at not 1, but 2 articles. :D Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:22, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * AFAIK, I only reverted one edit to the BBC article by you a few days ago. I checked your recents edits to get an idea of the nature of the dispute and I saw an edit to the BBC article which had been vanadalized by an anon (not you). I also saw that your edit was problematic and I reverted that too because it gave far too much weight to a minor argument about Hamas.
 * Now, I don't care much about the wiki articles on Israel/Palestine anymore (I was involved there until 2 years ago), because they are not reliable anyway. So, I was not going to revert other edits by you that I found problematic. But I found to be BBC case to be different because I think the wiki article on BBC has more value than the Israeli/Palestinian articles. I stuck to one revert which more or less reverted to the consensus reached on the talk page. Count Iblis (talk) 13:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * CountIblis: The WP:NPA policy clearly states that nobody should have to put up with being insulted and vilified on Wikipedia. Wikifan12345's continual attacks against me have not only derailed discussions that I've been involved with, they have soured my whole experience of Wikipedia. So, no, Wikifan12345 _is_ hurting other people than himself as he continues his campaign of harassment. And, no, 1RR or mentorship is not nearly enough, particularly as he fails to admit he has done anything wrong and seems to think that being mentored is just an opportunity to improve his wikilawyering skills. Factsontheground (talk) 00:10, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Diffs
I would like to invite Wikifan and FOTG to place various annotated diffs that they find problematic in an orderly manner below. Having the two involved editors line up their complaints seems like the most straightforward way to comprehensively deal with the issue. Having the diffs lined up will also make it easier for uninvolved editors to comment comprehensively. Awickert (talk) 05:44, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Wait, so we are supposed to sift through the bloated talk discussion and post questionable diffs like this is a courtroom? This is must be a trap. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:50, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No, this is a way for us to actually come to a decision instead of being "unaware" or not seeing the big picture. This is me giving you the benefit of the doubt that there are things that FOTG did that were out of line before, that caused your uncivil reaction. Or, we can go the RfC route where the posting of diffs is formalized. Your choice. But for now, if the involved editors are not willing to put the work in to present their case, I don't see why anyone else should waste their time here. Awickert (talk) 05:59, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hm. Okay I've just seen this before and competing editors end up enumerating every diff to demonstrate cause of action. Diff's themselves can take issues out of context. I'm not on trial here Awickert, and as I've said the motivations for this ANI were bad and the context was abhorrent. I won't be on wikipedia for the next 3-5 days for travel-reasons but I'll try to sneak in intermittently. thanks. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:22, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Repeated personal attacks on User:Factsontheground by User:Wikifan12345 -- can an uninvolved admin please comment on this or take action

 * "all of his reverts revolved around Israel and Jews."..."The fact the FOTG edits were blatant vandalism and now he gets to dictate the rubric of terrorism is truly disturbing."


 * FOTG's wild deletion of every Jew/Israel incident under false summaries, and then refusing to concede after I copied and pasted the references that explicitly refer to the incidents as acts of terrorism. It was a gross abuse of editing privileges and to target all things Jewish is doubly offensive.


 * This is all totally irrelevant is avoiding the true fact that FOTG viciously and obsessively edited out ALL incidents on Israel and Jews with the same basic summary, 5 of which have proven to be false. The fact that he totally wiped out incidents because a source was dead instead of simply finding a new one proves this has little to do with terrorism and everything to do with his vendetta against Jews and Israel.


 * It is offensive that you targeted strictly Jewish-related incidents.


 * Whether you believe blowing up Jews is somehow consistent with legal conflict and not terrorism is your POV


 * Yes, you are manically obsessed with Israel and Jews.


 * FOTG aim was to remove everything Israel and Jewish, he doesn't give less of a #$#$@ about the terrorist rubric. Don't be an apologist for such a hateful user.


 * What FOTG has does defies logic


 * The discussion began because an obvious vandal decided to remove cited information and force a dispute.


 * So edit-warring out everything Jewish and Israel is totally cool and does not warrant administrator intervention. I guess antisemitism is protected then, sweet.


 * It is certainly that users can have a manic obsession with Israel and Jews, and unfortunately FOTG is one of those users.


 * Manically obsessed with Jews/Israel does not = antisemitism. Call a spade a spade. Viciously deleting everything Jewish/Israel with bogus summaries, then edit-warring to ensure that the content remains deleted, while continuing to deny wrong-doing in talk strikes me as a manic obsession that is not consistent with policy or reality


 * It is not a content dispute when an editor is clearly editing with a hateful and antisemitic agenda.


 * another one on this noticeboard - "certified troll"  untwirl (talk) 23:26, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * He has a major issue with Jews and it is very, very offensive.

Both blocked for a week

 * I invite uninvolved admin review, but I have just blocked both Wikifan12345 and Factsontheground for 1 week. The specific issues are:
 * Mutual stalking and harrassment on multiple wiki pages
 * Disruption on ANI
 * Both accounts are single purpose accounts
 * Miscellaneous incivility
 * I do not propose to include diffs; the thread above and the article talk pages referenced stand full of examples.
 * I would like to request independent review on 2 separate points:
 * Is the current block of each party appropriate.
 * Is the indefinite block penalty for disruptive SPAs appropriate, i.e. should we community ban these two at this point.
 * Thanks for any comments. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * FYI, Factsontheground is asking for a block review. Uninvolved admin should take a look at this and his request... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:48, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I understand why parity was applied to the sanctions here. I don't see parity in the community's complaints and levels of frustration with these two users.  I also believe that someone other than Georgewilliamherbert should have done the blocking.  George forshadowed FOTG's COI complaint himself during this very discussion.  Don't get me wrong sanctions should have been applied to both of them (perhaps not blocks of equal lengths of time), but they should have been applied by someone else.PelleSmith (talk) 02:42, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Admins are not supposed to gain advantage in a content dispute by admin actions - I am opposed to one of Factsontheground's policy positions on the one article this is focused around, but I have left multiple behavioral warnings for Wikifan12345. I commented on the policy dispute as an uninvolved admin and have not taken any admin or content actions on the article, and won't now.
 * Having been tangled up in trying to unwrap a multiparty dispute does not disqualify one from blocking party or parties to that dispute... Often, admins have to get somewhat involved to try and untangle incidents.  That doesn't mean that we can't issue warnings or block once we start to get involved.  If it is a content issue, or someone we have a personal disagreement with, we should stand aside for more uninvolved admins, but neither of those is in play here.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Following up PelleSmith's note about my comment above more specifically - yes, I stood back from the behavioral issues over the weekend, because I had been involved in a content issue on a page with these two users.  But there's a difference between "attempting to find a policy resolution for a content issue" and "trying to change content / edit a page with content specific point of view".  Admins involved in the first don't have to recuse from admin enforcement - admins involved in the second have at least the apparent conflict of interest between neutrality and their content issues.  I have not ever edited the article in question or related articles, and in the underlying issue (Israeli - Palestinean on-wiki conflicts) I remain an equal opportunity policy enforcer.
 * It's fair to ask about this - And I'm open to input if other admins strongly object - but I do not believe that I violated policy. Wikifan12345 is behaviorally a worse offender here and at least marginally worse on the article page.  Both sides are clearly harrassing each other way in excess of policy, now.  Factsontheground has been better at staying lower profile and more civil but has also poked in and provoked some responses; we have a more active interpretation of baiting behavior than we used to, and I believe that some of his actions fall under that.
 * Perhaps there's less than perfect symmetry to the provocations; if anyone wants to discuss reductions from the equal blocks, and believes that one side is significantly less at fault, feel free to propose it here. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:10, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear I am not saying you violated policy. I simply think after making the comment I linked to above you should have stepped back.  It also looks like your block only accounts for their incivility towards one another on the talk page of the entry you involved yourself in and not the volumes of text about Wikifan produced once discussion started.  You could have blocked them both prior to this discussion for been incivil to one another on the talk page and spared us all this discussion.  But now that we've spent days discussing Wikifan's history of problems, and several editors are calling for much harsher remedies this doesn't seem like a very appropriate solution anymore.  That's just my opinion.PelleSmith (talk) 11:42, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * As another user who has had problems with Wikifan, I would note that a fair number of administrators who have problems with him were once 'uninvolved administrators'. For example, Rd232 replied on Talk:Mohamed ElBaradei as an uninvolved admin and another uninvolved mediator was chased off by Wikifan. As with most of Wikifan's editing, the article went through an RfC, noticeboards, a third opinion, and an informal mediation. The result was a deadlock with Wikifan dissenting. How many uninvolved administrators does it take, and what happens when there simply aren't any left? Why does he have a problem with so many editors, let alone administrators?
 * In the interest of disclosure, I have interacted with Wikifan before, so my opinion may be completely tarnished.--76.214.144.81 (talk) 04:54, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * My one interaction with Wikifan indicated that he had problems at working collegially.  I'd say that his block should be longer than FOTGs here purely for the volume and quantity of incivility, but others may disagree (and no doubt will). I would suggest unblocking FOTG at this point; however I am not going to do it myself as I am going on holiday now and it wouldn't be the best idea to reverse another admin's block and then run away. <b style="color:black;">Black Kite</b> 09:50, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

i have avoided adding my two cents here, but seeing the repeated personal attacks by wikifan on this noticeboard (with no provocation or response in kind by fotg) forced my hand. when i saw that he called fotg a "certified troll" and no one batted an eye, i looked at the article talk page in question. not only did i not see more incivility by wikifan, i noted that fotg backed out of that conversation early on. unless the blocking admin provides diffs of fotg's offenses, i agree that he should be unblocked.

as for wikifan, his baiting, personal attacks, and tendentious wikilawyering were unacceptable. as a shining example, view this diff posted while this ani was in progress,where he responds to seanhoyland with drama-inducing hyperbole: "Whether you think the standard for terrorism is pioneer UAVs blowin up Taliban hideouts in West Pakistan or Jew Nazis blowin up Palestinians fetus's is of little relevance." sean wisely ignored it, but this editor should probably be topic banned at least if he cant keep his emotions under control. untwirl (talk) 18:36, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Is Wikifan12345 at or near the threshold for a community ban at this point? Does anyone feel that he or she would be productive in other areas with a topic ban on Israeli / Palestinean topics?  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:10, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * At or near? Well beyond, IMHO. However, a topicban from I/P issues would, given Wikifan's ...narrow... focus, essentially be a community ban anyway. That being said, it would give him a chance to redeem himself. I think we'd be on a hiding to nothing there, and the community would best be served by giving him a permanent invitation to the world, but people around here tend to prefer endless last chances. I guess basically a topicban would show whether this is a problem with Wikifan, or a problem with Wikifan+I/P. → ROUX   ₪  19:19, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I would support a 6 month topic ban from Israel/Palestine related articles. I think Wikifan might be more amenable to collaboration on articles not so close to heart. Kevin (talk) 00:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Having looked at some of the diffs presented in this dispute, it's clear this was a conflict over a well-known point (for the fun of it, I typed in WP:TERRORIST, & guess what I found!) that spiraled out of control. I can understand why FOTG was removing the word, & why Wikifan was insisting on restoring it -- but "terrorist" is one of those words that should only be used in very clear situations: as part of a quotation, or only where all parties concerned have agreed on a clear definition of the word. But to do this all parties have to talk to each other, not at each other or past each other. If you can't talk to someone you disagree with (& is otherwise an editor in good standing) about an issue, then walk away from that issue for a while; if you can't walk away either, then you're taking those first steps towards getting banned from Wikipedia. -- llywrch (talk) 19:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Although I agree with much of the foregoing, the policing and sanctions for breach of WP:CIVIL by individuals is inconsistent at best and unenforceable at worst. You sysops' inability to arrive at the same conclusion on two very similar cases (see below) perpetuates the perceived problems in the system. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:20, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Topic ban for User:Wikifan12345
I propose that we enact the following, note on Editing_restrictions and enforce as a community ban:
 * User:Wikifan12345 is prohibited from editing any article or article talk page related to Israel, the Palestinean territories, or nearby Arab countries, broadly construed, for the remainder of the 2009 calendar year. If violations occur any administrator may block immediately for a month, with escalating blocks for repeat offenses.


 * Proposed. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:03, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. Community sanction. Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:43, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Support, per my comments above and with a caveat. Namely that this will amount to a de facto community ban given his specific focus, but hopefully this will give him a chance to change. The caveat being if the same behaviour continues at non-I/P articles, this topicban be immediately changed to a permanent community ban that can be revisited in one year by appeal to ArbCom or its designate (if the Appeal Committee thing takes off). → ROUX   ₪  03:01, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Question Would it be possible to amend the language to say something like "related to Israeli political interests broadly construed" or something else of that nature. I ask this because my own run-ins with this editor were at two entries related to the Council for American-Islamic Relations which I am not sure are directly covered by the above language. To Wikifan these entries do relate to the problem area of editing since he (and others) consider CAIR to be part of the "Anti-Israel lobby of the United States".  If people think the existing language would cover entries such as these then that works for me.  Thanks.PelleSmith (talk) 03:11, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Anything related to Israel, includes Israeli political interests (and if they existed, Anti-Israeli articles). Ncmvocalist (talk)`
 * Thanks for the answer and for inserting "broadly construed". This seems like a fair remedy at this point.PelleSmith (talk) 11:29, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Support - Kevin (talk) 03:33, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Support This proposal, unfortunately, does not surprise me at all. Wikifan seems quite prone to make inappropriate slights about Arabs and accuse others of anti-semitism to support his points (e.g., ,). Add the information from his recent Wikiquette alert and it's quite clear this area of Wikipedia would be better off without Wikifan's involvement. --  tariq abjotu  06:19, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Wikifan12345 has sometimes behaved clumsily, no doubt. However, note that there are editors with an anti-Israel agenda who try to insert the most outrageous tendentious things into articles. They are very careful to stay clear of the bounds of WP's silly civility rules but beaver away tirelessly with apparently limitless time on their hands. Then when an editor blows up at them they immediately run to an admin asking for sanctions to be imposed. Please keep this in mind also. --Goodmorningworld (talk) 07:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I know there are people who edit in this area with an agenda, but that's really not the issue at hand here. Wikifan is, regardless, responsible for his actions, but in basically all of the situations mentioned here, he wasn't even provoked. --  tariq abjotu  08:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. Wikifan has much to learn about following the spirit and letter of WP policy, which he is much more likely to on less difficult subjects less close to his heart. If nothing else, it'll give him a chance to live up to his username. Rd232 talk 08:07, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Support I've held my tongue (actually finger I guess) for too long. It's not really his edits that I'm particularly worried about, but the very uncivil talk page interactions he undertakes and his general behavior on Wikipedia, despite numerous warnings. I think only a topic ban could finally settle this issue which is constantly(and annoyingly) surfacing on this noticeboard. Maybe after its expiration, he will change his attitude here. However, I prefer the topic ban to be limited to I-P issues versus anything that has to do with Israel (he might be able to contribute positively there). --Al Ameer son (talk) 08:26, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think that would be helpful, shifting focus from I/P to Israel. In fact it would probably be better if he stayed away from political topics altogether, at least for a while, but that's up to him. Rd232 talk 10:11, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Alternative. I have read over the debate. Wikifan blew up pretty quickly. IMO editing Wikipedia is a privilege that anyone should be able to have, but if one can't treat others with respect and instead causes drama, granting that privilege is counterproductive to the primary task of creating an encyclopedia. I would support a topic ban, not of a year, but indefinitely, until Wikifan decides to behave civilly. I would then support any re-ban if after declaring he will behave civilly, Wikifan behaves in an obviously uncivil way. Awickert (talk) 08:36, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If Wikifan shows that he can't play well with others on other topics, the topic ban should just become a general indef ban. The topic ban is his chance to learn and if it seems that he's learned, then it's fair he gets another chance. A simple declaration under duress is worth little. Rd232 talk 10:11, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If you're saying that if he plays well with others, his year-long topic ban may be reviewed and removed, then it is close enough to what I'm thinking that I will support. As for the "simple declaration": yes, I am the optimist, but I understand. Awickert (talk) 16:08, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Support - battleground mentality. PhilKnight (talk) 08:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Support - prying yet another warrior from the battlefield of the I-P topic area can only be a good thing. Let's see if he can find an area of interest to devote legitimate editing to. Tarc (talk) 13:16, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - everybody does realize that any uninvolved admin can impose this sanction, per WP:ARBPIA, right? This straw poll really is not needed. As somebody who has had heated arguments with Wikifan I wont comment on the proposal, but this (the poll) seems like a waste of time. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 13:19, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Nableezy, there's a possibility the scope of this ban is slightly wider than a WP:ARBPIA topic ban, however I think you're probably right. Regardless, the result is essentially the same. After this ban is enacted, I'll put a note in the WP:ARBPIA log . PhilKnight (talk) 13:24, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No, Nableezy isn't quite right. The difference is this. When an individual admin imposes a sanction under ARBPIA, appeals can go to either an individual admin, AE or ArbCom. For the sanction imposed here, appeals can only go to the community (either here or WP:AN), or ArbCom (though they'd be expected to bring it back here anyway, in light of the fact this sanction was not imposed under the ArbCom remedy, despite its existence). Effectively, this sanction should be logged at WP:RESTRICT - not at ARBPIA. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:55, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I see. Thanks for the clarification. But an admin could impose the same restriction, but the appeal process would be different, right? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 04:06, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed. To clarify, even if it's the same sanction, this one would run concurrently to the one imposed under ARBPIA. That is, even if the appeal was accepted by the imposing admin who used ARBPIA, another appeal would need to be heard by the community before the effect of the restriction can be lifted. Does that make sense? Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:20, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * As much as anything else that happens here, thanks :) <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 04:37, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Having decided that his behavior so far was unacceptable, we need to give Wikifan a chance to collaborate in an acceptable way. If you impose a topic ban right away for the rest of the year, then when it has expired, he won't have learned how to behave correctly (keep in mind that Wikifan is just 14 years old...). I think it would be far better to appoint a mentor who will watch over Wikifan's edits. Every time he violates, even in a very mild way, basic decency rules, he'll get strong warning. If the mentor concluced that Wikifan is not learning from these warnings, then a topic ban would be appropriate. Count Iblis (talk) 13:35, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * All we know is that he claims to be 14, but age should not be a factor here regardless. He was blocked for personal attacks and harassment soon after joining the project and once again about half a year later.  I'm sure he's had numerous warnings along the road as well.  He either knows the rules and is defying them, knows the rules and can't help himself, or sincerely has no idea he's doing anything wrong, in which case there is little hope.  People who sincerely believe he can be reformed should work with him during his ban as informal mentors. That way, if they are right, he wont take his second chance for granted.PelleSmith (talk) 14:38, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Count Iblis, would you like to be his mentor? :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:29, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Is there any reason not to AGF about the claimed age? If not, then the fact that he is so young is grounds for more optimism about him than some of the martyrs such as Malcolm Shosha and Jayjg he has recorded on his page. They were adults and should have known better. He is still at an age where people are learning about how to behave in society. Of course, one fo the first actions of a mentor will need to be to try to get him to understand why they, (let alone Tundrabuggy,) were not hard done by. If there is a mentor found then I think that the issue of a topic ban should be left in their hands. I would see learnign how to post to IP articles in a constructive way as part of what his being in mentorship would be about. Selective supervised posting to a small number of pages might be part of that.--Peter cohen (talk) 23:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Both Malcolm Schoscha and Jayjg were in fact "hard done by". Gwen Gale was gunning for Malcolm with a vengeance and would not stop, despite admonitions from senior admins, until she could do the victory dance on his skull. The weak-willed Arbcom caved to a slur&innuendo campaign (on Wikipedia Review) against Jayjg. --Goodmorningworld (talk) 07:51, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * How about a temporary topic ban and a formal mentorship during this time to help him develop?--76.214.144.81 (talk) 01:51, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Support, with disclaimer – I've been in a conflict dispute with this user; specifically, over the article 2009 Hamas political violence in Gaza. He seemed to adopt a battleground mentality in discussion, and was fiercely defensive of the content he was trying to insert. He had an obvious intention to push a view, and the article has been problematic ever since. This behavior is apparently part of a pattern. &mdash; Anonymous Dissident  Talk 13:45, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ban sounds reasonable. For those saying "no, wait, let's mentor", this suggestion doesn't make much sense. If someone wants to mentor, sure, they can go right ahead, but this needs to be done concurrent with a topic ban, not instead of a topic ban. We're primarily a project to write an encyclopedia, not a project to teach children to write an encyclopedia. Teaching is nice but content comes first. Friday (talk) 13:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * As usual, Friday is the hammer hitting the nail on the head. → ROUX   ₪  04:00, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment per nableezy. Is this really a vote? Very peculiar here how so many editors with opposing views of WF125 have showed up to annihilate him. Was this discussion published somewhere or canvassing done to verify his destruction? --85.250.122.62 (talk) 22:28, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, a cabal! Or perhaps he has been disruptive to a larger segment of the community for an extended period of time across multiple noticeboards?--76.214.144.81 (talk) 04:25, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Support. Clearly suffers from a battleground mentality; it would be better all round if he was given an involuntary "leave of absence" from this topic area. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:50, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Note - This discussion has reached the mandated 48 hr time period, any uninvolved admin can now review and close, taking both the comments here and the transcluded section below into account, etc. We aren't mandated to close immediately after 48 hrs or anything, if people feel more discussion will help feel free to leave it open for now.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:33, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Support...I agree with Editor:Friday but have a slightly different take than Editor:Roux. To me, WF125 is the Hammer and the rest of us are the nails. Until he rethinks his purpose here, WF125 will continue to look for opportunities to strike. A leave of absence is necessary.--Buster7 (talk) 00:50, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Alternative proposal
(Something went wrong when I posted this below, it now appears on wikifans talk page, but not here, so I'm posting this again here.)

Why not let Wikifan edit the articles on Israel/Palestine on one day of the week only? This will cause him to make edits that he thinks will stick without him being around to "protect" his edits. So, edit warring, being uncivil etc. etc. would be pointless and counterproductive. The days he can post on would be some fixed day chosen by wikifan, say, Saturday and the times are fixed in a 24 hour interval. Count Iblis (talk) 23:35, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Creative. And then he would be able to sandbox all he wanted in his userspace, right? I'm not sure what he'd think of it though. Awickert (talk) 00:32, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment section from Talk:Wikifan12345
This section is set up to allow Wikifan12345 to comment on the ANI discussion while blocked, per his request, and is transcluded from a subsection of his user talk page. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:10, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * To answer several of those questions: the ban phrasing clearly says until the end of 2009. It is temporary and the idea is that working on other topics you'll learn to respect WP policy (WP:NPA more than WP:CIVIL, but the spirit and meaning of other policies such as WP:CONSENSUS too) and fellow editors - as I wrote in my endorsement. Your response (continuing to attack one editor, and missing such key points) does little to inspire confidence. Incidentally, you ask "Are there not more appropriate and honest boards..." - yes and no. WP/ANI does this all the time. But a WP:RFC/U provides a better basis for a structured discussion of a user's behaviour, but when FOTG started one (I'd suggested it too), it failed to get an endorsement within 48 hours (possibly a stupid rule, but there it is), partly I guess because he didn't announce it here, or possibly because by then this ANI thread had evolved beyond that. Rd232 talk 05:53, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Botnet attack?
See the log for edit filter 3, multiple IPs attempting to add the same nonsense information and edit summary to Guestbook. I checked a couple of them and they don't appear at first glance to be proxies, but they sure look like a botnet of zombie computers. Should these IP addresses be blocked? Thanks, NawlinWiki (talk) 13:38, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the title of the article is a magnet for those who want to generate links to their own sites for search engine optimization. I've semi protected the article for a month.  Should the spamming resume at that point, I think we should permanently semi-protect.  You have to picture somebody following bad SEO advice to look for guestbooks where they can post to.  This Wikipedia page is going to be the first thing that shows up when they search for guestbooks. Jehochman Talk 22:31, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I checked some of these at the time, and they all looked to be non-open-proxies. The IPs also look quite dynamic. While a block would not be inappropriate, the question really is how long the block should be for. Since the edit filter is already stopping them, and is likely to continue to do so, I'd be inclined to just ignore them. -- zzuuzz (talk) 23:03, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Resident Evil: The Darkside Chronicles
User 70.190.210.142 has been making edits to this article since April 21, 2009, most of which have been changing the order the Resident Evil 2 protagonists are mentioned to "Claire Redfield and Leon S. Kennedy". Leon's character and scenario are mentioned first on official sites, in the manuals, game information, press releases and in the game itself. Therefore, me and other users (such as Geoff B and StarScream1007) think this is the order to go with for the Resident Evil 2 section of this article. Despite objections by trusted editors and requesting a reason for his edits on the talk page, the user keeps reverting the article and ignores community input. I therefore think this is to be considered disruptive editing and request a block of the user's IP. Prime Blue (talk) 00:09, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Wikifan12345's personal attacks on Talk:List of terrorist incidents, 2009
There has been a ongoing discussion on this talk page between myself, Wikifan12345, O Fenian, GeorgeWilliamHerbert, SeanHoyland and Seb az86556 about whether classifying incidents as terrorist without a supporting source is orginal research or not. I'll be honest -- I proposed significant changes that have been met with criticism (and some support); however I have continued to discuss the matter civilly and refrained from editing the article while discussions continue.

Wikifan12345, on the other hand, is disruptively repeating personal attacks against me. He keeps bringing up "Jews", arguing that I am a "manic" anti-Semite. I don't thnk my character or mental health is really relevant to the discussion.

Here are some excerpts: "Whether you believe blowing up Jews is somehow consistent with legal conflict and not terrorism is your POV "... "everything to do with his vendetta against Jews and Israel" ... "Or whether killing Jews in the Jewistan is justified under the ambiguous"..."Yes, you are manically obsessed with Israel and Jews."

Nobody else on the talk page seems to agree with his attacks and he has been repeatedly warned by GeorgeWilliamHerbert to stop the personal attacks. I am tempted to just erase the personal attacks myself, but I know he would just edit war against me. I did remove some Israeli incidents from the article in ONE revert, but to interpret that as a vendetta against Jews is nonsensical. Factsontheground (talk) 06:01, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * This unfortunately came to my attention after the HRW ordeal. I think Wikifan12345 is being extremely belligerent in the RfC on that talk page. But in some cases I don't think your behavior has been much better. I would suggest that both of you take a break for a little while as the "terrorist incidents" RfC looks completely useless for its designed purpose and more like a war zone. I am not an admin so I can take no action, but for the moment it seems that tempers are way too heated to be productive. Awickert (talk) 06:18, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm really not angry but I have no interest in edit-warring if that is what you are suggesting. I just hope FOTG won't follow me to the next article I edit. : ) Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:24, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Suggest speedy close. Moving legitimate content dispute to an ANI is dubious. FOTG has been following me around since last week, to BBC and HRW. I accused him of being "manically obsessed" with Jews and Israel because he edit-warred out almost all of the incidents in Israel without a single post in talk. 1 2, 3, 4, 5, and that is just a sample. History of edits at 2009.


 * The summaries were lacking, with rationales like "Source does not categorize incident as a terrorist attack." In fact, more than half of the sources explicitly referred to the acts as terrorist incidents. I mean, he removed a incident that involved an Al-Qaeda cell. Can we all agree Al Qaeda is a terrorist organization? :D


 * Then when I reverted the page back to a non-dispute state and ask that he explain his edits more thoroughly in discussion, he edit-warred again and accused me of original research.


 * Even after I posted the source and copied/pasted direct text, he still denies the sources referred to the incidents as acts of terrorism. Then he whipped out the civility card when I called him on it.

Real mature. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:21, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The content dispute is a separate issue. This is about a behavioral dispute. Anger or no, comments like "real mature" are vindictive, and likely to score you negative brownie points here. Now if you are suggesting that FOTG is being very WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and is wikistalking to push your buttons, that's another matter. The content dispute can stay on the RfC on the page, but I don't think I'll have any argument when I say it's going nowhere, so this is to handle the behavioral issues and get things back on track. Hopefully. Awickert (talk) 06:31, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

As a number of people have agreed on the talk page and elsewhere, the article should only list incidents that are described as terrorism by a reliable source. Although it may appear obvious to you that an incident is terrrorism, that is not how Wikipedia works. Addition need to be supported by a source or justified on the discussion page. And I can't believe you are still complaining about edits I made a week ago! They have long since been reverted (by you and others) and the discusssion has moved on.

You seem to think that instead of participating in the discussion you can derail everything by continually attacking me.

Factsontheground (talk) 06:29, 31 July 2009 (UTC) Also the so-called "Al Qaeda" cell was actually belonging to the Janud Ansar Allah organization as the reference [states http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1244371116416]. Factsontheground (talk) 06:33, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

They updated the posting, it originally referred to the group as belonging to a Al-Qaeda cell. Either way, it is still a terrorist attack as confirmed by the article. But when "Al-Qaeda" was painted all over the article last month, you still removed it. You simply did not read the article and deleted everything remotely Jewish. Also, The Jerusalem Post is a reliable source. Most of the edits you removed described the incident as acts of terrorism, and yet you continue to deny this. A couple hours ago I restored only some of the edits that were 100% confirmed and obvious, but there are a couple others but should be debated - not viciously warred out. It is rather odd for you to suddenly feel a sense of emotional distress when you've routinely cast me as a troll, pro-Israel warrior, POV-commander, etc...etc...Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:38, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't want to continue the content dispute here. It's not the place for it. All I want is for your personal attacks on the talk page to stop.

So far you haven't even admitted that your behaviour has been wrong in any way. I don't think you have any insight into why people find it offensive when you continually accuse them of being "obsessed with Jews". Factsontheground (talk) 06:45, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Are you for real? Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:13, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * This is not the place for this issue. AN/I is not a part of the DR process. IronDuke  14:22, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

From looking at the RFC on the article talk page it seems that FOTG's complaints about personal attacks have some basis (though some of the quotes would need diffs to substantiate them); and Wikifan's response seems to be aggression, not regret or discussion or understanding. Besides those FOTG mentioned, Wikifan repeatedly calls him a vandal and claims he "manically removed" sources, even bolding "manically". And his general attitude on the page is confrontational, rather than seeking a resolution. Rd232 talk 18:55, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, in case there was any doubt about what Wikifan meant by those comments about FOTG in relation to Jews and Israel, a week ago in relation to the same dispute he wrote "It is not a content dispute when an editor is clearly editing with a hateful and antisemitic agenda." (Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive553). Which WP:ANI let slide, despite the blatant violation of WP:NPA. Rd232 talk 19:04, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Nothing new apparently
I don't know anything about this particular dispute but this is not the first time Wikifan12345 has engaged in unacceptable behavior as part of such a dispute. Not long ago I was having a hard time dealing with this editor myself and tried getting help on another board. See Wikiquette_alerts/archive67. Perhaps both editors need warnings but Wikifan12345 may need mentorship or something similar.PelleSmith (talk) 11:48, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * AN/I and similar are littered with reports about this user, as any regular viewer of these boards can attest. Perhaps it is about time to consider larger sanctions, as polite warnings do not seem to be getting through. Tarc (talk) 15:30, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Pelle smith, like most of the users here, had a major content dispute and what warring CAIR beyond belief. He removed every single one of my edits, and then he accused me of being a troll for question his massive deletion of material with dubious summaries (OR, undue). I have since left the article. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:52, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment—Whether Wikifan was out of line or not, it is important not to give immunity to the editor who started this ANI, who has also been engaged in highly disruptive behavior, and has also tried to bring a content dispute into this ANI post (inappropriate). I suggest giving a more thorough examination of both users' editing patterns, instead of focusing on a single editor. —Ynhockey (Talk) 16:08, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Regarding the content dispute - I wandered over there as an uninvolved admin and at this point, we have multiple uninvolved admins reviewing, pushing back on both sides and looking for a best policy / best content solution.
 * I will leave to other admins a review of both primary parties' behavior here and there (and recommend both be reviewed). I prefer to either deal with a content / policy problem or a user / policy problem, but not both aspects of the same incident, to avoid COI on either side.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:00, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think its appropriate for a comparison to be made between these two users. Wikifan has a block log that is quite shockingly long for such a short time editing here and the use of personal attacks constitutes his primary mode of communication. Every time he is brought to the board, there are editors who try to deflect attention from his behaviour by calling for a more thorough examination of the complainant. Not right. Not right at all.  T i a m u t talk 20:56, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Almost all the blocks are from edit-warring, and mostly came to be as a result of involved parties reporting me. It really cannot be applied here IMO. ChriO has his sysops removed because he had a major COI and was blocking several editors at Israel and the apartheid analogy with little warning. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:52, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If you are the one who steps over the line, it doesn't matter who reported you; you were at fault for violating editing guidelines. And I believe ChrisO resigned the admin the bit in the wake of the Macedonia2 ArbCom case.  It had nothing to do with the article on Israeli apartheid. Tarc (talk) 23:29, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I would support trying to do something about Wikifan. His editing and use of sources is poor, he reverts constantly, and filibusters on talk pages, making normal editing close to impossible on whatever page he's working on. When thwarted, he reverts to insults. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 16:23, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It's been suggested more than once that there should be an WP:RFC/U on Wikifan's conduct (including here, less than two weeks ago - Wikiquette_alerts/archive67). Based on the history at ANI, and his block log, and my personal interaction with him in a couple of places, I think that's certainly warranted. Rd232 talk 18:55, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * They don't have grounds when FOTG mercilessly edit-wars out everything remotely Jewish/Israel exclusively with dubious summaries, then call me a POV warrior when I point out his summaries did not match the content of the source. FOTG has a serious issue with Jews and Israel and it is very very offensive. He's call me a troll, POV-warrior, and even implied I was member of the Israel lobby. Also, he is following me around to articles I've been editing and warring those additions too. Rd, I know you mean well but this is a COI because me and you have had serious content disputes before. Has anyone considered perhaps this is an an attempt to steamroll an unpopular user out of the List of terrorist incidents, 2009. The article has boiled down to me and FOTG, so if I'm gone he can once again remove all my edits at-will. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:43, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * So, you think that: "if I'm gone he can once again remove all my edits at-will". But then, if he isn't the sole editor left if you are gone, how come not a single other editor will defend your edits? Count Iblis (talk) 00:34, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Uh?


 * A) All the editors here have been involved in past disputes both content and personal.


 * B) None of these users except for FOTG are involved in the List of terrorist incidents, 2009 except for R2 who came much later.


 * C) You just dismissed everything else I wrote above.


 * D) FOTG reported me for edit-warring without even notifying me, and that went no where here I just discovered that today..


 * I also submitted an ANI on FOTG with similar complaints regarding his approach to the article. To say this ANI is genuinely about behavior is naive at best and dishonest at worst.

I suggest a speedy close and returning back to the content dispute at the original article. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:25, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * So all the editors commenting on your behavior here are just doing so in bad faith because they have been on the other side of a content dispute with you? Likewise any notion that the specific issue reported first above has anything to do with behavior is unfounded because really this is just a content dispute?  If you truly believe that version I strongly suggest mentorship at the very least because you really don't seem to get what about your behavior is inappropriate.PelleSmith (talk) 02:11, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Bad faith? No, but this is not unique for ANI Pelle. And considering I lodged an edit-warring report against you (one of my first ever), then you posted an etiquette notice (after you called me a troll), and now you are here endorsing sanctions against a user you've had considerable differences with....certainly does not resonate faith-wise. Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:40, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I may have come into this too late to see the build-up. I consider this genuinely about behavior. Wikifan may think that this is naive, that I am somehow furthering a conspiracy against him. I do not see it that way. Right now, the amount of non-content-related material on the talk page at "terrorist incidents" is unproductive and therefore intolerable. In spite of not being an admin, I would be in favor of, for fairness sake, week-long topic bans for both Wikifan and FOTG on Israel-related content so that real work can actually be done. As I see it there is waste-of-time drama unfolding there and here. (As for previous contact, I have only been involved in mediating HRW recently, so I can say I am pretty uninvolved overall.) Awickert (talk) 07:50, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Did I say conspiracy? No, I did not. I don't understand why you would be personally comfortable with a week-long topic ban when you admit being "pretty uninvolved overall." This is my impression: "Yeah, I don't know these two users and can't say I've been very involved but clearly something's up so let's just ban em' both." :D I would never call for such a punishing act if I didn't have at least a general experience beyond "uninvolved." Maybe it's just me. Wikifan12345 (talk) 09:39, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikifan, one of the main problems in the ANI has been that so many involved editors made comments about who should be blocked. We definitely need more uninvolved editors to comment, and whether or not you approve of Awickert's suggestion, it is a welcome step towards resolving this. Hopefully more uninvolved administrators comment here and give their opinions. —Ynhockey (Talk) 10:50, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * True that. I interpreted Awicket's "uninvolved" description as unaware. As if he simply skimmed through the complaints and applied natural deductive reasoning that unfortunately was not consistent with objectivity. Or perhaps I'm downright guilty and this is a zealous game of mental gymnastics - an argument that is easily made and difficult to refute. Wikifan12345 (talk) 10:59, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Formal mentorship
I have talked to Wikifan12345 about this ANI and it appears that he supports, in principle, formal mentorship. I therefore recommend that, whatever decision is taken on this particular ANI, an uninvolved user/administrator takes it up to mentor Wikifan. Any volunteers? —Ynhockey (Talk) 10:47, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * To be explicit, I strongly support mentorship as an alternative to sanctions or if need be, accompanying whatever potential "punishment" is applied. This, of course, assuming the punishment is not a totally unconditional topic-ban which would likely void the need for a mentor in the Israel/Palestine subject matter. Unless, of course, the mentor is simply for behavioral-improvements and not party to a specific genre of knowledge. Wikifan12345 (talk) 11:05, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * A 1RR restriction for a few months could also work. If you can revert only once, you have to argue more on the talk page to find support for your edits. Making other editors angry on the talk page would be counterproductive. Also, when editing in the article, your best strategy to get your edits stick shifts toward editing in texts that are likely to be acceptable to people with other POVs. Count Iblis (talk) 13:14, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how well that'll work, but at least it's easy and doesn't involve finding a mentor and taking up their time (and Wikifan is hardly a weekend editor). Rd232 talk 16:02, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I would support mentorship if one is willing to take their time. My suggestion above was preventative, not punative, as such bans are supposed to be. I actually spent quite a bit of time reading (not skimming) in detail the various back-and-forths. I suggested the short topic ban for both parties because I saw next to 0 productivity in what seemed to be dominated by a giant brawl, and I thought one way to increase the signal/noise would be to take a break. My only feeling is that the talk pages should return to effectiveness. If mentorship is a more acceptable way to do so, then that should work well too. 1RR may also work, though I'm not sure that it will end the talk page mess. I think that what is needed is a commitment from Wikifan (and others) to WP:NPA and to not respond to personal attacks but rather to continue forging ahead on the content. (As a side note, Wikifan above disqualifies all editors from commenting; those involved are too involved, and those uninvolved are too unaware; someone has to do something!) Awickert (talk) 16:50, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Alternatively FOTG and Wikifan could collaborate to rewrite the lede for Julia Set so that it's less hopeless. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 19:11, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 1RR without other remedies will only worsen what SlimVirgin aptly called "filibustering" on talk pages. In my brief and recent experience with Wikifan this is the worst part.  Repetitive arguments which usually amount to WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.  If one doesn't respond on the talk page it seems like an unaware onlooker might think one is mindlessly reverting.  Complete disruption and a total time drain.PelleSmith (talk) 19:21, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

In my (limited) experience of Wikifan12345, he has come across more as an aggressive, tendentious crank rather than a useful editor. We've seen this editor being brought to AN/I repeatedly; the same kind of issues come up again and again. He seems to have learned nothing from these repeated AN/I discussions. His unwillingness or inability to change his approach makes me think that mentorship is unlikely to be effective. I would suggest blocking him and moving on - he's taken up far too much of other people's time already. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:30, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * This is certainly constructive. Wikifan12345 (talk) 20:33, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Uh? -DePiep (talk) 21:27, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikifan's thoughts here read like a buy-out: apologise so as not to get a punishment. Great. -DePiep (talk) 21:40, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I mean, more correct: here -DePiep (talk) 21:44, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The thought of users who have a strong bias (outside of the one that is not "involved), users whom I have lodged complaints against and vice-versa, users who have taken part in bitter disputes involving teams of editors, and users who have demanded banishment before would no doubt express glee at the thought of removing an editor who they rountinly disagree with out of the equitation. Lest we forget, the fact that I submitted a similar ANI against FOTG not-so-long-ago about his wholesale removal of almost every Israel/Jewish incident at List of terrorist incidents, 2009 should raise suspicions over a counter-ANI. I have no problem with mentorship and collaborative process, but in my opinion this is nothing less than a bandwagon. Take me away I guess. Wikifan12345 (talk) 21:52, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikifan wrote: Yes, you are manically obsessed with Israel and Jews.". Why do ëven admins faal back to the "you-too" talk? —Preceding unsigned comment added by DePiep  (talk • contribs)  22:11, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, FOTG is manically obsessed with Israel and Jews. He unilaterally warred out almost every incident about Israel and Jews, even those that were clearly of terrorist-nature. And when I restored what I perceived to be vandalism or premature deletion, and ask that he provide a thorough reasoning for his wholesale deletion, he accused me of being troll, pov warrior, etc...etc...etc. This is consistent with his behavior in other articles. So fishing for diffs that users might interpret the wrong way if they aren't fully aware of the discussion is suspect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikifan12345 (talk • contribs) 22:34, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikifan: no one is to be accused of anti-Semitism freely. You wrote the offensife line. Go away. (To be clear: why do editors and even admins here always end up: second chance? After ten?) -DePiep (talk) 22:48, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Manically obsessed with Jews/Israel does not = antisemitism. Call a spade a spade. Viciously deleting everything Jewish/Israel with bogus summaries, then edit-warring to ensure that the content remains deleted, while continuing to deny wrong-doing in talk strikes me as a manic obsession that is not consistent with policy or reality. I'm sorry if that's "out of line." Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:08, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You wrote "manically obsessed" (with whatever). That's a disqualification beforehand. Then do not start reasoning afterwards. -DePiep (talk) 00:54, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I think if Wikifan wants/is willing to accept formal mentorship, the piling-on, especially by editors who have diametrically opposed POVs to Wikifan's, should stop now. IronDuke 22:45, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No offense IronDuke but this does not in any way sound like someone who "wants/is willing to accept formal mentorship." And then there is the fact that a fair amount of the commentators above also don't believe mentorship is going to solve the problem.  Wikifan's own attitude only makes one wonder if they aren't correct.PelleSmith (talk) 22:59, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * There is nothing inherently wrong with that post. I don't see how users who are active in on-going disputes (such as Pelle and R2), some of the disputes which have ended up pouring into noticeboards (OR noticeboard, edit-warring noticeboard, etiquette, etc...submitted by both Pelle and myself) should be allowed such a strong voice. I am very open to some kind of mentorship, but from my POV I'd say users like FOTG are in much dire need of assistance. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:06, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * "nothing inherently wrong" with your post??? You still don't get it. Your posts are wrong. Just stop insulting editors, and from there you may talk. Maybe other too -- but stop it yourself. Not a "strong voice", insulting is what I say. Stop it. -DePiep (talk) 23:11, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Criticizing an editors edits is not insulting. It is certainly that users can have a manic obsession with Israel and Jews, and unfortunately FOTG is one of those users. You aren't recognizing or even remotely addressing the actions of FOTG, for good reason perhaps.
 * No, criticizing is not insulting. Stating "manic obsession" is insulting, and personal only, and not relevant to the article at all. Drop it. -DePiep (talk) 01:01, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Coming from someone who believes that the Israel-Palestinian articles on wikipedia are dominated by a cabal of "organised, agendised Hasbara." FOTG has a manic obsession and whether or not you misconstrue that as "insulting" is of no importance. He has major issues and it is seen in his mindless reverting of everything remotely Israel. He follows me to articles I work on and reverts my edits, and then harasses me on those articles. So please, who is the victim here? I'm trying to be as cordial as I can be but FOTG has been given a free pass for far to long. And then posting an ANI to save face, well...that's not unique for wiipedia. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:12, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * No one can speak from experience about your behavior unless they have witnessed it. Isn't it odd that while many such editors think this behavior is a problem no one has come here to say that they are wrong and that you have been behaving as a reasonable Wikipedian?  The closest thing to support from a third party here has been "be fair and look at the other guy's behavior too," or "OK already Wikifan says he's willing to accept mentorship."  Despite this you continually act like the real problem is with the supposed "cabal" of editors whose are only related to each other because of their negative interactions with you.  Meanwhile people become less and less inclined to believe you will be able to change your ways at all.  Keep it up.PelleSmith (talk) 23:18, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Pelle, I lodged an edit-war report against you when you started owning CAIR (and ownership that has been confirmed by other users). I also posted a noticeboard incident requesting a fact-check on how you continually edited-out all my additions with "original research" when the content was thoroughly cited. I don't see why I should have to sit here and be lectured by editors who have a compromising history. I'm open to mentorship, but dismiss all of this bandwagoning as pure harassment. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:00, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * And your numerous disruptive reports at various noticeboards resulted in what exactly? Must be a cabal at work.PelleSmith (talk) 00:13, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * OR inquire was never responded because you hijacked it, and the edit-warring ANI should have succeeded but as several users confirmed, its lack of response can be sourced from the personal feelings of the over-seeing admin. This ANI is the poster child for disruption. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:30, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikifan, can I ask you, just for the next few posts, not to focus at all on other editors, but only on yourself? Is there anything you feel you have done inappropriately in the course of editing Wikipedia, either in terms of the way you handle content, or the way you interact with others? Where do you feel you could have done better? Which issues do you feel a mentor could usefully help you with? SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 02:23, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure, like every user on Wikipedia. A mentor could help me navigate through Wikipedia bureaucracy, as many editors are very skilled at doing. Avoiding blocks, relying on civil POV-pushing, moving content disputes to ANIs, etc..etc. SlimVirgin, remember when you edit-warred at 1948 Palestinian exodus, removed all my additions, and threatened to send me to ArbComb if I don't heed to your demands? Then I was blocked for a week after I unknowingly reversed your reverts when you submitted an edit-war report. That was a carefully crafted strategy and I've watched many users do it to each other, and it's rather depressing. But to answer your question with all sincerity, I would hope a mentor could help me cite policy in-talk more competently. Maybe carve a slightly better tactful approach to discussion, even in the midst of heated and hostile debate. Normal stuff I guess. It's difficult to assess myself under the current circumstances and what I consider to be an extremely bad faith ANI. If this were closed, I would feel a lot more comfortable discussion mentorship. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:07, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Mentorship won't work if you won't take responsibility for anything. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 06:41, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think this thread increasingly illustrates why 1RR probably won't work, and why a WP:RFC/U is needed (that structure would discussion room to breathe, without Wikifan responding to every comment by attacking somebody (generally the author)). Rd232 talk 08:48, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, if you haven't noticed this ANI has nothing to do with edit-warring, so hats to ya. Second, this bandwagon, a bandwagon started by a certified-troll as demonstrated in his approach @ the pertinent article and wikihounding - started the ANI. I'm more than open to mentorship etc. but you are asking for blood in a bad-faith and unfair circumstances. If you dismiss my assessments of this forum as "attacking" well okay. Also, for accuracies sake, the title should be changed to, "Reasons why Wikifan needs to go." Otherwise, the current charter is, for the most part, largely false.


 * Cliffnotes: FOTG made a dubious claim of personal attacks, but sifting through the discussion you will find just the opposite. Anyways, commence banishment! :D Wikifan12345 (talk) 12:20, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

If y'all need a totally uninvolved, experienced user for a mentorship, I'd be happy to help out. I only stumbled upon this conversation because I can't sleep and have no prior dealings with Israel related articles or any of the editors involved here. I do have experience dealing with conflict in my own areas of interest. Cheers, Gimme danger (talk) 08:19, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I haven't been on WP long enough to act as a mentor. However, if Wikifan needs an open ear he should know that he can call on me to provide a comment at any time and I will do my best to be as helpful as possible.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 08:03, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

More Uninvolved Admins
While I'm not sure it is necessary it might be nice to hear from an additional admin or two who have not had any run-ins with Wikifan yet.PelleSmith (talk) 23:18, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd like to see this ANI be led by users who haven't expressed a personal dislike or have been the subject of ANIS/reports etc. submitted by myself. Pelle has taken an unusually strong interesting in keeping this alive, perhaps because of our on-going dispute at Council on American-Islamic Relations. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:02, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This is truly odd. I'm asking for your sake, because you keep on claiming that everyone commenting here has a vendetta against you.PelleSmith (talk) 00:14, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not claiming that. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:27, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Pelle, I think it would be useful if you stopped antagonizing Wikifan here. You may not intend to, but it is obviously having that effect. You've had your say, more gasoline does not need to be poured on. IronDuke  03:15, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

A general comment
At the risk of straying from the immediate problem, I would like to point out that the kind of vicious conflicts we see here are inherent in the way the Wikipedia is edited and the way the Five Pillars are interpreted in conflict areas. This is a clear case of narrative war, with each side incapable of seeing neutrality as defined by the other side. In the Middle East, there is no neutral point of view.

What is more, the word "terrorism" is editorial wherever it appears. That a reliable source refers to an incident as terrorism does not make it so. Reliable sources have POVs just like everyone else.

Because of the way NPOV and RS are applied in Middle East articles, conflict of this type is inevitable. The warring parties are not to blame. The system is to blame.

To avoid these conflicts, then, requires a radical rethinking of how to apply the five pillars in conflict situations. I suggested such an approach in User:Ravpapa/The Politicization of Wikipedia, and would love to see a serious attempt to experiment with the ideas proposed there. --Ravpapa (talk) 12:22, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * All due respect Ravpapa, when the same user is having the same problems over and over it no longer is just "the system". Now Wikifan will likely say I am only here because of content disputes with him, but I do not plan on arguing for his banning. But a bit of history should be made clear. See Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive534, Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive33, Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive532, Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive515. Above he pretty much says he would like a mentor to teach him how to wikilaywer more effectively, I think that would be a disaster. What he needs is to keep from writing anything about others motives or beliefs. It really is that simple, if he does not keep trying to call others "manically obsessed with Jews" or "antisemites" or other such insults he would not be here over and over. I have no idea about FOTG, I didnt look at the talkpage in question. But WF needs to do one of 2 things at this point. Either stop making such allegations to other users, or provide some actual evidence of racist editing. One of the two editors should be blocked, either for editing in an antisemitic manner or for making repeated false accusations of antisemitism. But wikifan cannot be allowed to continue saying these things without proving them. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 15:07, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * All due respect Nableezy, it is pretty obvious that most if not all the editors speaking up against Wikifan are very active pro-Palestinian editors. Ravpapa has a very good point about the system not working well when you have a content/narrative war like in IP. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:18, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I have content/narrative disagreements/wars with a lot of people, but it doesn't lead to ANI. There is a pattern of consistent personal attacks and bad faith assumptions peppering most of Wikifan's talk page commentary, and an inability to acknowledge its problematic. People shouldn't be asked to overlook that because there's a raging ethnic conflict in the background.  T i a m u t talk 21:03, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Without talking about Wikifan specifically, it's pretty obvious that in this kind of dispute most of the people pushing for sanctions are those on the other side of the content/narrative war. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:48, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually what's pretty obvious is that even those who share Wikifan's views can't defend his behaviour; and can only defend him by attacking the motives of others and generally deflect away from the issue of Wikifan's behaviour. Rd232 talk 04:48, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * But this thread is "about Wikifan specifically" and not about some general IP narrative war (which I take no part in personally btw). So why are people incapable of speaking specifically in defense of Wikifan's behavior as opposed to simply trying to deflect the discussion?  To reiterate Tiamut's point, major disagreements, some of which are very deep and very old, are an everyday reality here at Wikipedia but they usually don't end up at AN/I.  When they do there is almost always a behavior problem that goes beyond content disputes -- whether the problem is with the person being grilled or conversely with the person abusing the noticeboards (or both).  Either way, a discussion here signals something beyond a content dispute.PelleSmith (talk) 22:05, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You don't take part in IP but you didn't arrive here clean of prejudice, did you? Anyway, Ravpapa made a general comment (see section header) and I was addressing that. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:32, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * As I've said, this ANI was posted by a textbook troll who warred out every incident he didn't like and when I called him on it, he went on and on and on about how I'm an agent of Zion. Seriously? Now FOTG has been hounding me at BBC and Human Rights Watch, and a couple other articles warring out all my edits with little reasoning. And now an ANI? No editor has recognized this. I said FOTG was manically obsessed with Jews and Israel several times - I meant it and it wasn't an attack but simply an accurate assessment of his editing approach. He removed 9+ incidents exclusively about Jews, reverted anyone who dared touch his edits, and then started a nice long dispute about how we should re-define what is a terrorist incident to exclude Israel. Yes I'm obviously partial here but he came off extremely combative and very, very offensive. I posted an ANI but it was assessed as a content dispute and not a behavioral problem. It's not like FOTG has been the nicest editor to ever exist. : ) Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:31, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The thing is, you don't get to decide what is or isn't attack. Calling someone manically possessed is a comment on the editor, not the editing. If they have a problem with it, you have offended them. Of course, "textbook troll" is much more clean-cut. Like before, I'm not saying that FOTG's hands are clean either, but you are certainly digging yourself into a pit. If you can leave diffs below (I made a space), perhaps this can go ahead with more sanity, and we can stop being "unaware" and start dealing with the full issue. Awickert (talk) 05:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay? Have you read through the talk discussion and looked the page history? He raided the article, maliciously axed out almost everything Jewish/Israel, warred any further attempts to add similar incidents, created long disputes that had little to no relevance, and accused me of being a member of the pro-Israel lobby, POV-pusher, troll, etc. He has a major issue with Jews and it is very, very offensive. If I were to go into Islam and remove every mention of "Mohamed," I'd expect a similar, or perhaps even violent reaction. So I sincerely apologize if I was out of line and will make an effort to be more tactful. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:01, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify, my comments were not meant as a defense or excuse for Wikifan. People need to take responsibility for their actions. I was only pointing out that where there is a leaky pipe, there is wood rot. You can cut out and replace the wood, but if you want to really stop the rot, you need to fix the pipe. --Ravpapa (talk) 05:41, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. I think Wikipedia should recognize that regular sources are not so reliable when it comes to this conflict. So, one can impose a restriction on the type of sources that can be admitted. E.g. one could decide that only peer reviewed academic articles written by historians can be used as a source. Count Iblis (talk) 13:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Uninvolved admins please comment
Uninvolved admins please comment on what sanctions may be appropriate.

OK, I've had enough. It's not enough that no-one is willing to defend Wikifan's behaviour, which encompasses comments such as "It is not a content dispute when an editor is clearly editing with a hateful and antisemitic agenda." (Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive553). Now Wikifan's continuing attempt to derail this ANI discussion by attacking others and doing everything except discussing his own behaviour (eg insisting that this discussion I hatted is constructive) demonstrates such a WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT behaviour that it makes me believe that a substantial sanction is required. I find it hard to believe that mentoring will be successful. I find it hard to believe that 1RR (which somebody proposed) will achieve anything either. Frankly, I'm rapidly reaching the view that Wikipedia - certainly on topics where Wikifan cannot play well with others - is simply better off without this particular 14-year old (User:Wikifan12345/About). Disclosure: I've had previous run-ins with Wikifan and we also have opposing views. Rd232 talk 15:15, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * We have to try mentorship or 1RR (or a combination) first. If that fails then we can raise that here again. If a 1RR or 0RR is imposed, then Wikifan will know that the only way he can edit wikipedia is by cooporating with other editors. If Wikifan insults someone, then he'll only hurt himself. So, there is no need to make a lot of fuss about that. Count Iblis (talk) 22:57, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the constructive criticism. So I guess that settles it? This certainly isn't an attempt to remove an editor you are currently in a content dispute with at not 1, but 2 articles. :D Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:22, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * AFAIK, I only reverted one edit to the BBC article by you a few days ago. I checked your recents edits to get an idea of the nature of the dispute and I saw an edit to the BBC article which had been vanadalized by an anon (not you). I also saw that your edit was problematic and I reverted that too because it gave far too much weight to a minor argument about Hamas.
 * Now, I don't care much about the wiki articles on Israel/Palestine anymore (I was involved there until 2 years ago), because they are not reliable anyway. So, I was not going to revert other edits by you that I found problematic. But I found to be BBC case to be different because I think the wiki article on BBC has more value than the Israeli/Palestinian articles. I stuck to one revert which more or less reverted to the consensus reached on the talk page. Count Iblis (talk) 13:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * CountIblis: The WP:NPA policy clearly states that nobody should have to put up with being insulted and vilified on Wikipedia. Wikifan12345's continual attacks against me have not only derailed discussions that I've been involved with, they have soured my whole experience of Wikipedia. So, no, Wikifan12345 _is_ hurting other people than himself as he continues his campaign of harassment. And, no, 1RR or mentorship is not nearly enough, particularly as he fails to admit he has done anything wrong and seems to think that being mentored is just an opportunity to improve his wikilawyering skills. Factsontheground (talk) 00:10, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Diffs
I would like to invite Wikifan and FOTG to place various annotated diffs that they find problematic in an orderly manner below. Having the two involved editors line up their complaints seems like the most straightforward way to comprehensively deal with the issue. Having the diffs lined up will also make it easier for uninvolved editors to comment comprehensively. Awickert (talk) 05:44, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Wait, so we are supposed to sift through the bloated talk discussion and post questionable diffs like this is a courtroom? This is must be a trap. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:50, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No, this is a way for us to actually come to a decision instead of being "unaware" or not seeing the big picture. This is me giving you the benefit of the doubt that there are things that FOTG did that were out of line before, that caused your uncivil reaction. Or, we can go the RfC route where the posting of diffs is formalized. Your choice. But for now, if the involved editors are not willing to put the work in to present their case, I don't see why anyone else should waste their time here. Awickert (talk) 05:59, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hm. Okay I've just seen this before and competing editors end up enumerating every diff to demonstrate cause of action. Diff's themselves can take issues out of context. I'm not on trial here Awickert, and as I've said the motivations for this ANI were bad and the context was abhorrent. I won't be on wikipedia for the next 3-5 days for travel-reasons but I'll try to sneak in intermittently. thanks. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:22, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Repeated personal attacks on User:Factsontheground by User:Wikifan12345 -- can an uninvolved admin please comment on this or take action

 * "all of his reverts revolved around Israel and Jews."..."The fact the FOTG edits were blatant vandalism and now he gets to dictate the rubric of terrorism is truly disturbing."


 * FOTG's wild deletion of every Jew/Israel incident under false summaries, and then refusing to concede after I copied and pasted the references that explicitly refer to the incidents as acts of terrorism. It was a gross abuse of editing privileges and to target all things Jewish is doubly offensive.


 * This is all totally irrelevant is avoiding the true fact that FOTG viciously and obsessively edited out ALL incidents on Israel and Jews with the same basic summary, 5 of which have proven to be false. The fact that he totally wiped out incidents because a source was dead instead of simply finding a new one proves this has little to do with terrorism and everything to do with his vendetta against Jews and Israel.


 * It is offensive that you targeted strictly Jewish-related incidents.


 * Whether you believe blowing up Jews is somehow consistent with legal conflict and not terrorism is your POV


 * Yes, you are manically obsessed with Israel and Jews.


 * FOTG aim was to remove everything Israel and Jewish, he doesn't give less of a #$#$@ about the terrorist rubric. Don't be an apologist for such a hateful user.


 * What FOTG has does defies logic


 * The discussion began because an obvious vandal decided to remove cited information and force a dispute.


 * So edit-warring out everything Jewish and Israel is totally cool and does not warrant administrator intervention. I guess antisemitism is protected then, sweet.


 * It is certainly that users can have a manic obsession with Israel and Jews, and unfortunately FOTG is one of those users.


 * Manically obsessed with Jews/Israel does not = antisemitism. Call a spade a spade. Viciously deleting everything Jewish/Israel with bogus summaries, then edit-warring to ensure that the content remains deleted, while continuing to deny wrong-doing in talk strikes me as a manic obsession that is not consistent with policy or reality


 * It is not a content dispute when an editor is clearly editing with a hateful and antisemitic agenda.


 * another one on this noticeboard - "certified troll"  untwirl (talk) 23:26, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * He has a major issue with Jews and it is very, very offensive.

Both blocked for a week

 * I invite uninvolved admin review, but I have just blocked both Wikifan12345 and Factsontheground for 1 week. The specific issues are:
 * Mutual stalking and harrassment on multiple wiki pages
 * Disruption on ANI
 * Both accounts are single purpose accounts
 * Miscellaneous incivility
 * I do not propose to include diffs; the thread above and the article talk pages referenced stand full of examples.
 * I would like to request independent review on 2 separate points:
 * Is the current block of each party appropriate.
 * Is the indefinite block penalty for disruptive SPAs appropriate, i.e. should we community ban these two at this point.
 * Thanks for any comments. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * FYI, Factsontheground is asking for a block review. Uninvolved admin should take a look at this and his request... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:48, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I understand why parity was applied to the sanctions here. I don't see parity in the community's complaints and levels of frustration with these two users.  I also believe that someone other than Georgewilliamherbert should have done the blocking.  George forshadowed FOTG's COI complaint himself during this very discussion.  Don't get me wrong sanctions should have been applied to both of them (perhaps not blocks of equal lengths of time), but they should have been applied by someone else.PelleSmith (talk) 02:42, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Admins are not supposed to gain advantage in a content dispute by admin actions - I am opposed to one of Factsontheground's policy positions on the one article this is focused around, but I have left multiple behavioral warnings for Wikifan12345. I commented on the policy dispute as an uninvolved admin and have not taken any admin or content actions on the article, and won't now.
 * Having been tangled up in trying to unwrap a multiparty dispute does not disqualify one from blocking party or parties to that dispute... Often, admins have to get somewhat involved to try and untangle incidents.  That doesn't mean that we can't issue warnings or block once we start to get involved.  If it is a content issue, or someone we have a personal disagreement with, we should stand aside for more uninvolved admins, but neither of those is in play here.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Following up PelleSmith's note about my comment above more specifically - yes, I stood back from the behavioral issues over the weekend, because I had been involved in a content issue on a page with these two users.  But there's a difference between "attempting to find a policy resolution for a content issue" and "trying to change content / edit a page with content specific point of view".  Admins involved in the first don't have to recuse from admin enforcement - admins involved in the second have at least the apparent conflict of interest between neutrality and their content issues.  I have not ever edited the article in question or related articles, and in the underlying issue (Israeli - Palestinean on-wiki conflicts) I remain an equal opportunity policy enforcer.
 * It's fair to ask about this - And I'm open to input if other admins strongly object - but I do not believe that I violated policy. Wikifan12345 is behaviorally a worse offender here and at least marginally worse on the article page.  Both sides are clearly harrassing each other way in excess of policy, now.  Factsontheground has been better at staying lower profile and more civil but has also poked in and provoked some responses; we have a more active interpretation of baiting behavior than we used to, and I believe that some of his actions fall under that.
 * Perhaps there's less than perfect symmetry to the provocations; if anyone wants to discuss reductions from the equal blocks, and believes that one side is significantly less at fault, feel free to propose it here. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:10, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear I am not saying you violated policy. I simply think after making the comment I linked to above you should have stepped back.  It also looks like your block only accounts for their incivility towards one another on the talk page of the entry you involved yourself in and not the volumes of text about Wikifan produced once discussion started.  You could have blocked them both prior to this discussion for been incivil to one another on the talk page and spared us all this discussion.  But now that we've spent days discussing Wikifan's history of problems, and several editors are calling for much harsher remedies this doesn't seem like a very appropriate solution anymore.  That's just my opinion.PelleSmith (talk) 11:42, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * As another user who has had problems with Wikifan, I would note that a fair number of administrators who have problems with him were once 'uninvolved administrators'. For example, Rd232 replied on Talk:Mohamed ElBaradei as an uninvolved admin and another uninvolved mediator was chased off by Wikifan. As with most of Wikifan's editing, the article went through an RfC, noticeboards, a third opinion, and an informal mediation. The result was a deadlock with Wikifan dissenting. How many uninvolved administrators does it take, and what happens when there simply aren't any left? Why does he have a problem with so many editors, let alone administrators?
 * In the interest of disclosure, I have interacted with Wikifan before, so my opinion may be completely tarnished.--76.214.144.81 (talk) 04:54, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * My one interaction with Wikifan indicated that he had problems at working collegially.  I'd say that his block should be longer than FOTGs here purely for the volume and quantity of incivility, but others may disagree (and no doubt will). I would suggest unblocking FOTG at this point; however I am not going to do it myself as I am going on holiday now and it wouldn't be the best idea to reverse another admin's block and then run away. <b style="color:black;">Black Kite</b> 09:50, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

i have avoided adding my two cents here, but seeing the repeated personal attacks by wikifan on this noticeboard (with no provocation or response in kind by fotg) forced my hand. when i saw that he called fotg a "certified troll" and no one batted an eye, i looked at the article talk page in question. not only did i not see more incivility by wikifan, i noted that fotg backed out of that conversation early on. unless the blocking admin provides diffs of fotg's offenses, i agree that he should be unblocked.

as for wikifan, his baiting, personal attacks, and tendentious wikilawyering were unacceptable. as a shining example, view this diff posted while this ani was in progress,where he responds to seanhoyland with drama-inducing hyperbole: "Whether you think the standard for terrorism is pioneer UAVs blowin up Taliban hideouts in West Pakistan or Jew Nazis blowin up Palestinians fetus's is of little relevance." sean wisely ignored it, but this editor should probably be topic banned at least if he cant keep his emotions under control. untwirl (talk) 18:36, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Is Wikifan12345 at or near the threshold for a community ban at this point? Does anyone feel that he or she would be productive in other areas with a topic ban on Israeli / Palestinean topics?  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:10, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * At or near? Well beyond, IMHO. However, a topicban from I/P issues would, given Wikifan's ...narrow... focus, essentially be a community ban anyway. That being said, it would give him a chance to redeem himself. I think we'd be on a hiding to nothing there, and the community would best be served by giving him a permanent invitation to the world, but people around here tend to prefer endless last chances. I guess basically a topicban would show whether this is a problem with Wikifan, or a problem with Wikifan+I/P. → ROUX   ₪  19:19, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I would support a 6 month topic ban from Israel/Palestine related articles. I think Wikifan might be more amenable to collaboration on articles not so close to heart. Kevin (talk) 00:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Having looked at some of the diffs presented in this dispute, it's clear this was a conflict over a well-known point (for the fun of it, I typed in WP:TERRORIST, & guess what I found!) that spiraled out of control. I can understand why FOTG was removing the word, & why Wikifan was insisting on restoring it -- but "terrorist" is one of those words that should only be used in very clear situations: as part of a quotation, or only where all parties concerned have agreed on a clear definition of the word. But to do this all parties have to talk to each other, not at each other or past each other. If you can't talk to someone you disagree with (& is otherwise an editor in good standing) about an issue, then walk away from that issue for a while; if you can't walk away either, then you're taking those first steps towards getting banned from Wikipedia. -- llywrch (talk) 19:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Although I agree with much of the foregoing, the policing and sanctions for breach of WP:CIVIL by individuals is inconsistent at best and unenforceable at worst. You sysops' inability to arrive at the same conclusion on two very similar cases (see below) perpetuates the perceived problems in the system. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:20, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Topic ban for User:Wikifan12345
I propose that we enact the following, note on Editing_restrictions and enforce as a community ban:
 * User:Wikifan12345 is prohibited from editing any article or article talk page related to Israel, the Palestinean territories, or nearby Arab countries, broadly construed, for the remainder of the 2009 calendar year. If violations occur any administrator may block immediately for a month, with escalating blocks for repeat offenses.


 * Proposed. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:03, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. Community sanction. Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:43, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Support, per my comments above and with a caveat. Namely that this will amount to a de facto community ban given his specific focus, but hopefully this will give him a chance to change. The caveat being if the same behaviour continues at non-I/P articles, this topicban be immediately changed to a permanent community ban that can be revisited in one year by appeal to ArbCom or its designate (if the Appeal Committee thing takes off). → ROUX   ₪  03:01, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Question Would it be possible to amend the language to say something like "related to Israeli political interests broadly construed" or something else of that nature. I ask this because my own run-ins with this editor were at two entries related to the Council for American-Islamic Relations which I am not sure are directly covered by the above language. To Wikifan these entries do relate to the problem area of editing since he (and others) consider CAIR to be part of the "Anti-Israel lobby of the United States".  If people think the existing language would cover entries such as these then that works for me.  Thanks.PelleSmith (talk) 03:11, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Anything related to Israel, includes Israeli political interests (and if they existed, Anti-Israeli articles). Ncmvocalist (talk)`
 * Thanks for the answer and for inserting "broadly construed". This seems like a fair remedy at this point.PelleSmith (talk) 11:29, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Support - Kevin (talk) 03:33, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Support This proposal, unfortunately, does not surprise me at all. Wikifan seems quite prone to make inappropriate slights about Arabs and accuse others of anti-semitism to support his points (e.g., ,). Add the information from his recent Wikiquette alert and it's quite clear this area of Wikipedia would be better off without Wikifan's involvement. --  tariq abjotu  06:19, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Wikifan12345 has sometimes behaved clumsily, no doubt. However, note that there are editors with an anti-Israel agenda who try to insert the most outrageous tendentious things into articles. They are very careful to stay clear of the bounds of WP's silly civility rules but beaver away tirelessly with apparently limitless time on their hands. Then when an editor blows up at them they immediately run to an admin asking for sanctions to be imposed. Please keep this in mind also. --Goodmorningworld (talk) 07:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I know there are people who edit in this area with an agenda, but that's really not the issue at hand here. Wikifan is, regardless, responsible for his actions, but in basically all of the situations mentioned here, he wasn't even provoked. --  tariq abjotu  08:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. Wikifan has much to learn about following the spirit and letter of WP policy, which he is much more likely to on less difficult subjects less close to his heart. If nothing else, it'll give him a chance to live up to his username. Rd232 talk 08:07, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Support I've held my tongue (actually finger I guess) for too long. It's not really his edits that I'm particularly worried about, but the very uncivil talk page interactions he undertakes and his general behavior on Wikipedia, despite numerous warnings. I think only a topic ban could finally settle this issue which is constantly(and annoyingly) surfacing on this noticeboard. Maybe after its expiration, he will change his attitude here. However, I prefer the topic ban to be limited to I-P issues versus anything that has to do with Israel (he might be able to contribute positively there). --Al Ameer son (talk) 08:26, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think that would be helpful, shifting focus from I/P to Israel. In fact it would probably be better if he stayed away from political topics altogether, at least for a while, but that's up to him. Rd232 talk 10:11, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Alternative. I have read over the debate. Wikifan blew up pretty quickly. IMO editing Wikipedia is a privilege that anyone should be able to have, but if one can't treat others with respect and instead causes drama, granting that privilege is counterproductive to the primary task of creating an encyclopedia. I would support a topic ban, not of a year, but indefinitely, until Wikifan decides to behave civilly. I would then support any re-ban if after declaring he will behave civilly, Wikifan behaves in an obviously uncivil way. Awickert (talk) 08:36, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If Wikifan shows that he can't play well with others on other topics, the topic ban should just become a general indef ban. The topic ban is his chance to learn and if it seems that he's learned, then it's fair he gets another chance. A simple declaration under duress is worth little. Rd232 talk 10:11, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If you're saying that if he plays well with others, his year-long topic ban may be reviewed and removed, then it is close enough to what I'm thinking that I will support. As for the "simple declaration": yes, I am the optimist, but I understand. Awickert (talk) 16:08, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Support - battleground mentality. PhilKnight (talk) 08:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Support - prying yet another warrior from the battlefield of the I-P topic area can only be a good thing. Let's see if he can find an area of interest to devote legitimate editing to. Tarc (talk) 13:16, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - everybody does realize that any uninvolved admin can impose this sanction, per WP:ARBPIA, right? This straw poll really is not needed. As somebody who has had heated arguments with Wikifan I wont comment on the proposal, but this (the poll) seems like a waste of time. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 13:19, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Nableezy, there's a possibility the scope of this ban is slightly wider than a WP:ARBPIA topic ban, however I think you're probably right. Regardless, the result is essentially the same. After this ban is enacted, I'll put a note in the WP:ARBPIA log . PhilKnight (talk) 13:24, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No, Nableezy isn't quite right. The difference is this. When an individual admin imposes a sanction under ARBPIA, appeals can go to either an individual admin, AE or ArbCom. For the sanction imposed here, appeals can only go to the community (either here or WP:AN), or ArbCom (though they'd be expected to bring it back here anyway, in light of the fact this sanction was not imposed under the ArbCom remedy, despite its existence). Effectively, this sanction should be logged at WP:RESTRICT - not at ARBPIA. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:55, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I see. Thanks for the clarification. But an admin could impose the same restriction, but the appeal process would be different, right? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 04:06, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed. To clarify, even if it's the same sanction, this one would run concurrently to the one imposed under ARBPIA. That is, even if the appeal was accepted by the imposing admin who used ARBPIA, another appeal would need to be heard by the community before the effect of the restriction can be lifted. Does that make sense? Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:20, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * As much as anything else that happens here, thanks :) <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 04:37, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Having decided that his behavior so far was unacceptable, we need to give Wikifan a chance to collaborate in an acceptable way. If you impose a topic ban right away for the rest of the year, then when it has expired, he won't have learned how to behave correctly (keep in mind that Wikifan is just 14 years old...). I think it would be far better to appoint a mentor who will watch over Wikifan's edits. Every time he violates, even in a very mild way, basic decency rules, he'll get strong warning. If the mentor concluced that Wikifan is not learning from these warnings, then a topic ban would be appropriate. Count Iblis (talk) 13:35, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * All we know is that he claims to be 14, but age should not be a factor here regardless. He was blocked for personal attacks and harassment soon after joining the project and once again about half a year later.  I'm sure he's had numerous warnings along the road as well.  He either knows the rules and is defying them, knows the rules and can't help himself, or sincerely has no idea he's doing anything wrong, in which case there is little hope.  People who sincerely believe he can be reformed should work with him during his ban as informal mentors. That way, if they are right, he wont take his second chance for granted.PelleSmith (talk) 14:38, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Count Iblis, would you like to be his mentor? :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:29, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Is there any reason not to AGF about the claimed age? If not, then the fact that he is so young is grounds for more optimism about him than some of the martyrs such as Malcolm Shosha and Jayjg he has recorded on his page. They were adults and should have known better. He is still at an age where people are learning about how to behave in society. Of course, one fo the first actions of a mentor will need to be to try to get him to understand why they, (let alone Tundrabuggy,) were not hard done by. If there is a mentor found then I think that the issue of a topic ban should be left in their hands. I would see learnign how to post to IP articles in a constructive way as part of what his being in mentorship would be about. Selective supervised posting to a small number of pages might be part of that.--Peter cohen (talk) 23:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Both Malcolm Schoscha and Jayjg were in fact "hard done by". Gwen Gale was gunning for Malcolm with a vengeance and would not stop, despite admonitions from senior admins, until she could do the victory dance on his skull. The weak-willed Arbcom caved to a slur&innuendo campaign (on Wikipedia Review) against Jayjg. --Goodmorningworld (talk) 07:51, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * How about a temporary topic ban and a formal mentorship during this time to help him develop?--76.214.144.81 (talk) 01:51, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Support, with disclaimer – I've been in a conflict dispute with this user; specifically, over the article 2009 Hamas political violence in Gaza. He seemed to adopt a battleground mentality in discussion, and was fiercely defensive of the content he was trying to insert. He had an obvious intention to push a view, and the article has been problematic ever since. This behavior is apparently part of a pattern. &mdash; Anonymous Dissident  Talk 13:45, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ban sounds reasonable. For those saying "no, wait, let's mentor", this suggestion doesn't make much sense. If someone wants to mentor, sure, they can go right ahead, but this needs to be done concurrent with a topic ban, not instead of a topic ban. We're primarily a project to write an encyclopedia, not a project to teach children to write an encyclopedia. Teaching is nice but content comes first. Friday (talk) 13:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * As usual, Friday is the hammer hitting the nail on the head. → ROUX   ₪  04:00, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment per nableezy. Is this really a vote? Very peculiar here how so many editors with opposing views of WF125 have showed up to annihilate him. Was this discussion published somewhere or canvassing done to verify his destruction? --85.250.122.62 (talk) 22:28, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, a cabal! Or perhaps he has been disruptive to a larger segment of the community for an extended period of time across multiple noticeboards?--76.214.144.81 (talk) 04:25, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Support. Clearly suffers from a battleground mentality; it would be better all round if he was given an involuntary "leave of absence" from this topic area. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:50, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Note - This discussion has reached the mandated 48 hr time period, any uninvolved admin can now review and close, taking both the comments here and the transcluded section below into account, etc. We aren't mandated to close immediately after 48 hrs or anything, if people feel more discussion will help feel free to leave it open for now.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:33, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Support...I agree with Editor:Friday but have a slightly different take than Editor:Roux. To me, WF125 is the Hammer and the rest of us are the nails. Until he rethinks his purpose here, WF125 will continue to look for opportunities to strike. A leave of absence is necessary.--Buster7 (talk) 00:50, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Alternative proposal
(Something went wrong when I posted this below, it now appears on wikifans talk page, but not here, so I'm posting this again here.)

Why not let Wikifan edit the articles on Israel/Palestine on one day of the week only? This will cause him to make edits that he thinks will stick without him being around to "protect" his edits. So, edit warring, being uncivil etc. etc. would be pointless and counterproductive. The days he can post on would be some fixed day chosen by wikifan, say, Saturday and the times are fixed in a 24 hour interval. Count Iblis (talk) 23:35, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Creative. And then he would be able to sandbox all he wanted in his userspace, right? I'm not sure what he'd think of it though. Awickert (talk) 00:32, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment section from Talk:Wikifan12345
This section is set up to allow Wikifan12345 to comment on the ANI discussion while blocked, per his request, and is transcluded from a subsection of his user talk page. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:10, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * To answer several of those questions: the ban phrasing clearly says until the end of 2009. It is temporary and the idea is that working on other topics you'll learn to respect WP policy (WP:NPA more than WP:CIVIL, but the spirit and meaning of other policies such as WP:CONSENSUS too) and fellow editors - as I wrote in my endorsement. Your response (continuing to attack one editor, and missing such key points) does little to inspire confidence. Incidentally, you ask "Are there not more appropriate and honest boards..." - yes and no. WP/ANI does this all the time. But a WP:RFC/U provides a better basis for a structured discussion of a user's behaviour, but when FOTG started one (I'd suggested it too), it failed to get an endorsement within 48 hours (possibly a stupid rule, but there it is), partly I guess because he didn't announce it here, or possibly because by then this ANI thread had evolved beyond that. Rd232 talk 05:53, 7 August 2009 (UTC)