Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive575

Request WP:KEEP
See Articles for deletion/Yaakov Teitel: conclusion Speedy Keep is reached. Request closing by an admin. Editor is notified-DePiep (talk) 17:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Not yet, no; only two people have asked for a speedy closure, one of whom was yourself. When and if it reaches that point, an admin or experienced editor will close it. Notices here aren't necessary. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 17:23, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The debate is no longer unanimous, either - one editor has recommended Deletion. UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 18:30, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The AfD has been closed as speedy delete. NW ( Talk ) 20:50, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * That was  equally wrong: the person is a confessed serial terrorist & multiple murderer, with excellent news sources.  and the deletes were based on the fact that he had not yet been convicted. BLP is important, but this was not an urgent case of do no harm, and time should have been allowed for debate.   I've removed the resolved tag here. Over-reaction. I've notified the closer.  DGG ( talk ) 22:28, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree with DGG. The whole point of BLP is that Wikipedia should never originate such material.  Anything that's carried in multiple appropriately reliable sources is fair game.  This is yet another example of why BLP remedies allow overreaction without providing appropriate protection to unexamined issues that no one catches. Jclemens (talk) 22:39, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to re-open it if there is consensus to do so, but an article on someone who hasn't even been charged, let alone convicted, seems very shaky to me. Surely better suited to WikiNews at the moment? Black Kite 22:45, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, the reason you first gave on your talk p. when asked was NOT NEWS-- where is that given as a reason for Speedy???  As for BLP, he has confessed, remember, a/c multiple irreproachable sources.      DGG ( talk ) 22:51, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * While Wikipedia is not the place to argue with the statements of what we consider reliable sources, irreproachable or otherwise, I would consider a confession extracted under police custody shady basis on which to support anything. Exceptional claims require exceptional sources, and moreover as this is not only a WP:BLP situation, but one dealing with allegations of terrorism, we should tread very lightly. One is reminded of Taner Akçam and similar situations. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 23:40, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * With the page being deleted, it is hard to tell what it actually said. However, I do not like the sources being based solely on notability that comes pre-trial. "terrorist" and "multiple murderer" would be sensationalistic to talk about, so it would be hard to separate what is actual news and what was written just to sell papers. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:53, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree, however given concerns, I have undeleted the page and re-opened the AfD. Will monitor. Black Kite 23:10, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Why is there any discussion of an AfD here? —Finell (Talk) 23:15, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think everyone knows about 'deletion review'. Now that I can see the article, I see why it was speedy-deleted. But before seeing it, I guess I can see why people would've been concerned. 72.88.55.196 (talk) 23:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Akuvar & Cold Stone Creamery discussion page
Could some one please interject themselves in the discussion at the Talk:Cold Stone Creamery page. A contributor,, is being obtuse, he has launched into a tirade of personal attacks and will not stop accusing me of vandalizing and adding false information to the article. I have repeatedly tried to explain to him what I did, why I did it, what has previously been to the article by other contributors and what he is doing is wrong and he simply will not stop. He is still a new user with less than 100 edits to his credit, and while I have left notes on his page, including a welcome template, my attempt at explaining my points has come to no avail.

At this point, I am done with him and his refusal to listen to reason; someone else needs to try to get through to him and explain what the proper way to go about doing things is. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 20:33, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You both behave impatiently, but I would hardly say that the level of animosity warrants admin intervention. You have to explain your edits point by point, in separate paragraphs, rather than in a long speech, so that you both see each other's logic. It is next to impossible to negotiate minor details by mising all them into a single paragraph. Item by item, please. Nevertheless,  the issue doesn't look like the admin's action. I would suggest you to follow the rules  of dispute resolution and concentrate on article content. If you are offended by particular phrasing of the other wikipedian, please say it plainly and briefly to him, what exactly you consider an offense and why. It is quite possible you will receive an apology.  - Altenmann >t 21:00, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I did, the first response was snappy but I explained why I he was mistaken in his assumptions. The second response was a six paragraph breakdown responding to each of his points of contention, telling why I did each thing and describing the reasons behind my edits and their relations to the various policies. I spent a good deal of time on the response, trying to keep the tone more level and giving clear answers that put forth the information as succinctly as possible and my points were still disregarded.

He responded with the same accusations while ignoring my examples and policy links. He is basically stating I rewrote the whole article, filling it with untruths and factually incorrect information. I have even removed said factual errors that were there before my edits and he still accuses me of vandalizing the article. I may have been brusque with him in my first response, but how do you respond to someone who keeps repeating the same false information and ignoring my counter arguments? --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 21:21, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I've given an opinion on the talk page. There are no conduct problems from either side of the dispute except for calling each other uncivil, which isn't necessary. It's a content dispute, that's all. --  At am a  頭 02:01, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I want to thank the editors who looked in on this dispute. I have been involved in several content disputes, although I am a "new" editor, and find that healthy debate inside the discussion page doesn't warrant people taking things personally.  I am not sure what happened here, but editor Jeremy escalated past that "healthy discussion" very quickly to a tone that I felt intimidated by, one of threats of administrative action if I didn't back-down.  That, to me, doesn't create a good atmosphere on wiki, especially from a veteran and well decorated editor like himself.  I still feel pretty beat up over this issue because of how this was escalated.  I don't mean to continue or prolong this, but every editor should have the right to call out another editor when they post something that is incorrect and not backed up by citations.  I don't think anyone, in any job they do in this world, should ever feel so veteran, so secure, that they can no longer take criticisms, even from the most novice in a field.  I think that is what happened here. Akuvar (talk) 22:44, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Whatiswrongwithwiki problematic edits
Somebody needs to take a look at the edits by. Already warned about vandalism, they've added to their User page that they originally intended to use the account for vandalism, but changed their mind, but the edits they've made since them are pretty problematic. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 00:45, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

The edits i made were to erase vandalism. I clearly stated that in my edit reports, and my user page was a joke. I consider this a personal attack, an very much against wiki love. Whatiswrongwithwiki (talk) 00:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The edits you made were to erase your own vandalism, which was made after the edit to your User page. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 00:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I see your point. But still, i erased the vandalism, an if i was serious, the vandalisms not only would have stayed, but went un-noticed —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whatiswrongwithwiki (talk • contribs) 01:00, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * QED. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 01:03, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I dont think a block is deserving yet, however I would advise Whatiswrongwithwiki to change they'r username per WP:USERNAME. And remember WP:AGF Lets see it the pattern of vandalism continues.-- Coldplay   Expert  01:04, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not asking for a block, yet, but what good faith am I supposed to assume when they explicity say they came here to vandalism, and then proceed to vandalize? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 01:06, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but what does QED mean? Whatiswrongwithwiki (talk) 01:06, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Q.E.D.. BencherliteTalk 01:14, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for defending me, coldplay expert. I have already filed for a name change. Whatiswrongwithwiki (talk) 01:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Its Coldplay Expert not that it really matters but... Well anyway I hope that you will live up to your promise and I must warn you that some editors will watch you for a while.-- Coldplay   Expert  01:26, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

OK. I will. I will stick to my areas of expertise, and i have sent Who then was a gentleman? a peace pipe. I will send a Cheezburgr to you too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whatiswrongwithwiki (talk • contribs) 01:31, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * You said "if i was serious, the vandalisms not only would have stayed"; so the vandalism was a joke, was it? Please make sure that there will be no more "jokes" of that type. You can't expect people to assume good faith with you when you edit like that, whatever your intentions are. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 01:34, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

understood. Whatiswrongwithwiki (talk) 01:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Hernando de Soto
Could we get a semi-protect for this page? Not sure whats going on, maybe he's in someones school project or something, but there has been a pretty fair amount of ip vandalism lately, just look at the history. Thanks in advance. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 02:14, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You need to make your request at Requests for page protection --  Phantom Steve  ( Contact Me, My Contribs ) 02:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Gotcha. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 02:26, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

File:Doug Hoffman promo photo.JPG
The image File:Doug Hoffman promo photo.JPG is under a disputed fair use claim, but the subject is a living person, which should be replaceable under Non-free content. Could a sysop review the situation and determine the appropriate action? This will be a touchy situation, because Doug Hoffman is currently running in the New York's 23rd congressional district special election, 2009--Blargh29 (talk) 05:54, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The same goes for File:Dede Scozzafava promo photo.jpg--Blargh29 (talk) 05:58, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Both are replaceable and should be deleted and replaced with File:Replace this image male.svg/File:Replace this image female.svg. This will hopefully motivate their campaigns to donate free images. If not, their loss.  Sandstein   06:29, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * They DID donate free images. They provided hi rez images for download and/or media use.  Notice that "media" is in the very name of the Wikimedia Foundation.  The only thing missing is associated legalese.  Another triumph over bureaucracy over common sense.Bdell555 (talk) 06:19, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * They are both tagged as such, but awaiting a sysop to delete them. I am not one, which is why I made this note here.--Blargh29 (talk) 06:40, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Wreid
Hi. Wondering if someone could look at the edits by User:Wreid. There has been admission of some kind of off-wiki dispute between him and Alexander Halavais (who edits as User:Halavais, and they had an edit war recently that has seemed to calm down. However, Wreid seems to have taken interest in Halavais's article (which I fear might be a COI), and also went so far as to include critical commentary about Halavais at Criticism of Wikipedia. I feel this most recent edit is quite problematic, and that their off-wiki conflict is spilling into this space. Thx. 130.132.143.49 (talk) 02:38, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Wreid has been notified of this thread. Basket of Puppies 02:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I tried my best to deal with this when it was on my talk page (section). I told both Halavais and Wried to stop editing articles related to their field (internet studies), but both of the users did not take my advice. However, Halavis made suggnifigant improvements to the article Internet Studies,  in the process adding a wikilink to his Center's wikipedia page. I felt that the wikilink was a good compromise to the external link that they both appeared to be debating. Tim1357 (talk) 02:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Terror threats
at Talk:Barack_Obama. Dr.K. praxislogos 03:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a clear terror threat, bust out the hammer.-- SKATER  Speak. 03:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Got it. This kind of thing can go to AIV in the future. —  Jake   Wartenberg  03:20, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I thought he had to get a level 4 for that. Thanks for the tip anyway. Dr.K. praxislogos 03:28, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh my. What is the thing to do in cases like this, other than revert? Basket of Puppies  03:34, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Not resolved just yet. Some admin, please expunge this item from the history, as was done with a similar threat a day or two ago that was posted in the OBL page's history. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:36, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Gonna need a steward for that one. Xavexgoem (talk) 03:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Needs not a steward, but Oversight. Beyond the reach of admins because the page is too large.  Needs an oversighter since the devs seem to be sitting on 21165. —  Jake   Wartenberg  03:58, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Revdeleted an Oversighter. —  Jake   Wartenberg  04:04, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

File:Doug Hoffman promo photo.JPG
The image File:Doug Hoffman promo photo.JPG is under a disputed fair use claim, but the subject is a living person, which should be replaceable under Non-free content. Could a sysop review the situation and determine the appropriate action? This will be a touchy situation, because Doug Hoffman is currently running in the New York's 23rd congressional district special election, 2009--Blargh29 (talk) 05:54, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The same goes for File:Dede Scozzafava promo photo.jpg--Blargh29 (talk) 05:58, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Both are replaceable and should be deleted and replaced with File:Replace this image male.svg/File:Replace this image female.svg. This will hopefully motivate their campaigns to donate free images. If not, their loss.  Sandstein   06:29, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * They DID donate free images. They provided hi rez images for download and/or media use.  Notice that "media" is in the very name of the Wikimedia Foundation.  The only thing missing is associated legalese.  Another triumph over bureaucracy over common sense.Bdell555 (talk) 06:19, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * They are both tagged as such, but awaiting a sysop to delete them. I am not one, which is why I made this note here.--Blargh29 (talk) 06:40, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Wreid
Hi. Wondering if someone could look at the edits by User:Wreid. There has been admission of some kind of off-wiki dispute between him and Alexander Halavais (who edits as User:Halavais, and they had an edit war recently that has seemed to calm down. However, Wreid seems to have taken interest in Halavais's article (which I fear might be a COI), and also went so far as to include critical commentary about Halavais at Criticism of Wikipedia. I feel this most recent edit is quite problematic, and that their off-wiki conflict is spilling into this space. Thx. 130.132.143.49 (talk) 02:38, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Wreid has been notified of this thread. Basket of Puppies 02:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I tried my best to deal with this when it was on my talk page (section). I told both Halavais and Wried to stop editing articles related to their field (internet studies), but both of the users did not take my advice. However, Halavis made suggnifigant improvements to the article Internet Studies,  in the process adding a wikilink to his Center's wikipedia page. I felt that the wikilink was a good compromise to the external link that they both appeared to be debating. Tim1357 (talk) 02:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Tim1357, I take exception to your characterization that "critical commentary" was atributable to me. I did not such thing. I provided links to comments the subject made himself about his own behavior. I expnded a topic that the previous author (someone other than me) wrote about the subject person. I carefully provided information without the color of my opinion. Halavais own words form the primary sources. Ommision of his self-disclosure misrepresents the facts. Wreid (talk) 22:31, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Terror threats
at Talk:Barack_Obama. Dr.K. praxislogos 03:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a clear terror threat, bust out the hammer.-- SKATER  Speak. 03:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Got it. This kind of thing can go to AIV in the future. —  Jake   Wartenberg  03:20, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I thought he had to get a level 4 for that. Thanks for the tip anyway. Dr.K. praxislogos 03:28, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh my. What is the thing to do in cases like this, other than revert? Basket of Puppies  03:34, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Not resolved just yet. Some admin, please expunge this item from the history, as was done with a similar threat a day or two ago that was posted in the OBL page's history. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:36, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Gonna need a steward for that one. Xavexgoem (talk) 03:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Needs not a steward, but Oversight. Beyond the reach of admins because the page is too large.  Needs an oversighter since the devs seem to be sitting on 21165. —  Jake   Wartenberg  03:58, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Revdeleted an Oversighter. —  Jake   Wartenberg  04:04, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Moreschi
User:Moreschi with the help of User:Grandmaster tries to merge the article of Radical Islamism in Azerbaijan while no any consensus (3v3) at the talk and no admin made any decision on merge. Using his admin privileges, Moreschi is supporting one-side actions at the Armenia-Azerbaijan enforcement area which is quite dubious and a neutral view on these actions could be very helpful! Gazifikator (talk) 10:29, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


 * it does look to me that he is abusing his privileges. maybe his administrator status should be challenged. 212.200.205.163 (talk) 10:36, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Gazifikator, if you want this to be able to stand on its own, you need to expand Islam in Azerbaijan to the point where summary style article is warranted if that article is not to become grossly swollen. Please read that guideline and abide by it, otherwise you are just disruptively content forking. Moreschi (talk) 10:42, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


 * so should we merge Fundamentalist_Christianity and Christianity or are those two separate things? 212.200.205.163 (talk) 10:46, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe you could read Summary style as well, and stop sticking your nose into areas where you patently have no clue just to piss me off. Shoo. Moreschi (talk) 10:47, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


 * man, are you unpleasant type. i'm going to "stick my nose" where ever i want. piss your self off as much as you want, i don't give a damn. Shoo you. 212.200.205.163 (talk) 10:51, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Moreschi, the policies regarding civility and no personal attacks apply to administrators even more than to other editors. Please observe them in the future.  Sandstein   10:52, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Sandstein, since when is "shoo" incivil? As to the rest, it was a factual description of what this IP is doing. He's pissed off because I blocked his friend Ludvikus, posted in this thread, not because he knows anything about the long-running armenia-azeri wars, but just to annoy me. Moreschi (talk) 11:01, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I know what it's like to do admin work in a highly contentious ethno-political subject area. Just keep your cool and try not to sink to the level of discourse preferred by the various ethno-warriors, is my advice.  Sandstein   11:06, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


 * i really don't need to have a harvard education to be able to make a distinction between radical islam and islam. it is quite obvious to me. no need to look into talk page archives for the "reasoning" behind their merge. (ps. i saw this thread only because it was right above my thread below -- i didn't "chase" you through this page to find you and "piss you off") 212.200.205.163 (talk) 11:07, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


 * p.s. Ludvikus is NOT my friend, nor do i know him/her. I simply don't like seeing unjustice, and i see it quite a bit here on wikipedia. 212.200.205.163 (talk) 11:10, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Harvard education or no, you have clearly not read Summary style, or, for that matter Content forking. If you had, you might understand why it is the correct style to treat "radical islam in X" as apart of "islam in X" until the "radical" section becomes too big and has to be spun off into its own child article. Which it probably will do in most cases, but clearly not here. Moreschi (talk) 11:12, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * you're right, 212.200.205.163! That's what we discussed with other users, while Moreschi preferred to merge the article with no explanation and in the same 'civil' manner he/she has. Admins with such a 'civil' language and no interest to discuss or even explain his views do not add any honor to Wikipedia! Like in our post-soviet semi-democratic countries where the government is less civil than the citizens. That's sad... Gazifikator (talk) 11:16, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You are being highly disingenuous. I quick glance at the talk page shows 5 users supporting a merge with 3 opposing, one of whom just said "per Gazifikator". Looks like ample consensus for a merge to me, particularly as all the actual content is retained at (you guessed it) Moreschi (talk) 11:22, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


 * your mention of Content forking shows that you don't understand the distinction between radical islam and islam. they are not POV's, they are different things. 212.200.205.163 (talk) 11:23, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


 * To address the original point made by Gazifikator, after looking at the history of it does appear that Moreschi has misused his admin tools to win a content dispute. After having revert-warred over the merger of the page to Islam in Azerbaijan previously, he protected the page in his preferred (merged) version . That is a very serious matter. I do hope there is a good explanation for this, because otherwise a request for arbitral removal of tools will be unavoidable.   Sandstein   11:20, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, please. Have you bothered to have a look at the history? 5 users support the merge, 3 oppose, all the content is retained at the target article, I do the merge as uninvolved admin. This is how consensus works, no? A couple of SPAS and IPs (presumably socks/meatpuppets of Gazifikator) revert, they are in turn reverted and the redirect semiprotected. Locked out because of the autoconfirm requirement, Gazikikator immediately logs back in to revert himself. The original consensus stands, so he is reverted and the redirect locked. This is in no way violation of tools, just administrative enforcement of legitimate talkpage consensus. The fact that I happen to agree with the merge is irrelevant, as I did not participate in the original talkpage discussion. Moreschi (talk) 11:26, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec) I assume you refer to Talk:Islam in Azerbaijan. It is not common practice to enforce a merger consensus with page protection, since consensus can change (and 5 to 3 doesn't look like a consensus for merging to me). Should there be edit warring about a contested merger, your duty as an uninvolved admin would be to sanction the edit warriors or protect the m:WRONG version, not revert to your preferred version first. It is also not clear from the history that you acted as an uninvolved administrator in this merger discussion, and contrary to what you say I can't see where you made the merger. Your contributions to Radical Islamism in Azerbaijan are limited to repeatedly reverting the unmergers of others, without discussion, and finally protecting the page in the merged version.  Sandstein   11:37, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Could you please bother to review the history? The merge was made (can't remember who by) Gazifikator reverted, I reverted back. By doing so I was signalling my approval as uninvolved admin that the merge should go ahead. Which it did with no dissent, apart from IPs, SPAs, and Gazifikator, who seems to have reverted to meatpuppetry. Gazifikator does not get to ignore a perfectly valid talkpage consensus (and, frankly, not only did the mergists not only have better numbers but also better arguments by far, and yes, we are supposed to evaluate that) simply by reverting back to his content fork. Edit warring, ignoring consensus, content forking, and apparently meatpuppetry. This is disruption. Moreschi (talk) 11:50, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You may be right that there's disruption going on, Moreschi, but (a) admins have no special authority in content issues, and (b) one can either act as an editor or as an administrator in a content dispute, not both. At no time during your reverts of the unmerger did you indicate that you were acting as an administrator to enforce a consensus (even if "enforcing consensus" was an admin job, which it is not). This means you acted as an ordinary editor, and can't later put on your admin hat to stop an edit war that you were a part of. I'm sorry, but I am very disappointed.  Sandstein   11:58, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Huh? I'm sorry: it is generally accepted practice that admins close contested merge discussions. We have a whole page for it. The only valid criticism to be made here is that, yes, I arguably should have explicitly stated on the talkpage "I am closing this merge discussion". Calling for an arbcom case just because I didn't fill out all the form is just bizarre. Why not just AGF that was I not trying to edit war, and was instead trying to close the merge discussion? Clearly it seems I should have posted on the talkpage, although no one seemed to complain at the time. FFS, I think dealing with disruption is far more important than making sure each microscopic step of process is followed to the letter, in triplicate. This is process wanksterism, and it's highly unconstructive. Moreschi (talk) 12:05, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The page you link to is WP:RM, which is about moves, not mergers. Maybe you meant WP:PM, but that page does not mention the intervention of admins anywhere. I am sorry, but I do not see you acting as an administrator trying to close a merge discussion. Had you wanted to, you would have actually closed it. Rather, you simply reverted to a redirect multiple times without any discussion whatsoever. That would be bad editing practice for any normal editor, let alone an administrator.  Sandstein   12:32, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Sandstein, why not AGF? Why are you assuming I am lying? The discussion had been done on the talkpage, and IPs, SPAs, and the article creator were trying to ignore it. Since we can assume the IPs and SPAs to be meatpuppets of the article creator, this is disruption in the form of ignoring consensus. While the vast majority of merge discussions need no admin intervention, it is common practice in nationalist disputes to get an uninvolved admin to help out (my talkpage archives are chockfull of such requests) as the parties realise any attempt to deal with a contested merge themselves will simply lead to a vast bout of revert-warring. Moreschi (talk) 12:42, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd very much like to see it your way, because I appreciate your work in these topic areas, and fully agree with your essay, User:Moreschi/The Plague. But what I see in the article history simply does not match your explanation. All I see are three reverts (1, 2, 3), with no useful edit summary or talk page explanation or anything. That is typical edit-warring behaviour, but more importantly, by repeatedly reverting to your preferred version (whether or not it has consensus behind it), you became an involved editor in the content dispute. That was why it was completely out of order for you to suddenly put on your admin hat after the last revert and protect your preferred version.
 * I would like to have a committment from you that you will not use admin tools again to enforce what you perceive to be consensus in content issues, and that you will more generally not use admin tools again while involved in a content dispute. If that's fine with you, the matter is resolved as far as I am concerned, and we can go ban a few nationalist trolls together.  Sandstein   12:58, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Reverting a single-purpose account, or a random one-edit IP address, is not edit-warring. It is responsible use of the revert button in accordance with maintaining encyclopedicity and consensuality. Yes, I should have posted on the talkpage, but since everybody concerned knew who I was and what I do, they understood perfectly well what was going on. You are wikilawyering, enabling trolls and forum-shoppers, and seem totally unable to understand that banning or blocking nationalist trolls is only a means to an end, not an end in itself. That end is encyclopedicity. You can either take this to arbcom or quit this thread. I am not going to change my methodology. I have used admin status and tools to nudge the nationalists towards WP:ENC for 2 years now. It has worked well, far better than any robotic enforcement of the rules, and is not going to be altered. Moreschi (talk) 13:21, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Sigh. I'll drop it here, if only because I have no intention of supporting whatever assortment of POV-pushers are on either side of this dispute, but I do believe your approach of involving yourself in content disputes with admin tools is profoundly mistaken, and very likely counterproductive.  Sandstein   13:53, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


 * (ec) Unfortunately, if admins have no authority in content issues, Wikipedia effectively has no way to enforce consensus. There's a highly mistaken notion out there that consensus will enforce itself just by the continued editing of the community. In areas like this one that are classic nationalist hotspots, this is more or less guaranteed not to happen due to the truth crusaders who will stop at nothing. This leaves us with a need for occasional bending of the rules (which, may I point out, is entirely accepted within policy). Also, Sandstein, your patronizing attitude is not helping anything. If you cannot see that Moreschi is trying to enforce Wikipedia's content policies, you're missing the point completely, and being patronizing toward someone like that is also missing the point completely. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 12:13, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I do not mean to be patronizing, but please show me the policy that says that admins have the authority to enforce consensus with administrator tools. The proper way to deal with truth crusaders is to ban or block them, not to take sides in their content disputes, as Moreschi did here.  Sandstein   12:33, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, lord. You just don't get it, do you? Our job is the maintence of encyclopedicity. Everything is secondary to that - everything. The nationalists actually understand that, which is why, by and large, my role as a neutral voice settling their disputes is largely accepted. The encyclopedia is the patient suffering from plague. Our role as admins in curing the plague consists largely of minimizing disruption, yes, but this dependent upon establishing which side of the dispute is most in accord with encyclopedicity. If we don't do that, we're doing more harm than good. Acting out of ignorance is worse than not acting at all. Encyclopedicity here means Summary style, incidentally. Moreschi (talk) 12:42, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That sounds good, but of course it assumes that we administrators are the judges of encyclopedicity. Wikipedia just does not work that way. Content is determined by consensus, not by decree, and we were elected as administrators, not as content moderators.  Sandstein   13:02, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Heimstern's post is correct, of course, but doesn't actually go far enough. People like Gazifikator are always going to revert as much as they can even when consensus is against them. They'll use up their 3rr allowance, and the other editors (Grandmaster, etc), if they are to "enforce consensus", have to revert as well. Of course, to people like Sandstein, this will look like nationalist gang warfare (as indeed it would be, to a certain extent). So everyone gets blocked and heaven knows what happens to the article.


 * This is clearly not sustainable, hence we have admins (that's me) dealing with disruption, closing merge discussions, and enforcing consensus. Yes, this may be skating on thin ice as far as WP:ADMIN is concerned, but the alternative is far worse. At the price of (arguably inflated, yes) sysop power, we get a massive reduction in disruption and drama (or we would do were it not for Sandstein stirring the pot here). A price worth paying? You decide. Moreschi (talk) 12:26, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


 * "..At the price of (arguably inflated, yes) sysop power.." You said it all with that statement. 212.200.205.163 (talk) 12:32, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Shrug. The disruption that caused 2 massive arbcom cases has not revisited arbcom since - and that's only in this topic-area, let alone the other areas I monitor. I'd say it works fairly well, given the passion of the editors at hand. Moreschi (talk) 12:42, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


 * While I accept Moreschi's explanation in principle, I agree it looks a little bit borderline; however, I too find that in light of relevant guidelines and on the basis of strength of policy-based arguments there was a valid consensus to merge, so I have removed Moreschi's protection and replaced it with my own, as an entirely uninvolved administrator. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:32, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The article was a clear POV fork littered with weasel words and original research, and note that at least four editors including Moreschi were redirecting, versus Gazifikator, an IP and a clear sock. Whilst in a perfect world Moreschi should've asked someone else to protect it, There's certainly no need to get all dramatic and start asking for an ArbCom case. There's nothing here that demands that. Black Kite 11:35, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Just an example of OR from the article, please! And could you explain, why the only 2 uninvolved users are supporting that "weasel worded OR"? Gazifikator (talk) 11:52, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


 * In fact the far more serious issue appears to be that Gazifikator has either been sockpuppeting or soliciting meatpuppets. It is certainly highly suspicious that the minute my semiprotection locks out the IPs and SPAs he reappears with his main account to revert again. This suggests either a highly improper degree of coordination or just plain socking. Moreschi (talk) 11:38, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Quite possibly, but that is a matter for a WP:SPI investigation. Though I am frankly tired of seeing Gazifikator and repeatedly involved in every one of these A-A wars; maybe both need a long topic ban.   Sandstein   11:42, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, yes, this is a tempting way to look at it. Unfortunately if I banned every single one of these people, they'd be replaced by a new crowd of nationalists within about six months (including some reincarnations). And we wouldn't get anywhere. We just have to deal with the disruption as it comes and keep things at a low leve, periodically blocking those who sock, edit war or violate WP:BATTLEGROUND too blatantly. It's a perennial problem that has to be solved by constant supervision. There is no way around this. Moreschi (talk) 11:55, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Once again we have this, so I prefer to not be called a SPA-user by Moreschi. He can't attack me using non-confirmed accusations! Gazifikator (talk) 11:50, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I didn't call you a SPA. Stop being silly. That comment was for the one-edit account who did a revert. Moreschi (talk) 11:55, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The only 2 uninvolved users voted 'oppose', and what's wrong if one of them preferred just to support my view. While you failed to express your views on support of under AA2 users (you know, I mean the Azerbaijani users who obviously dislike the existence of such an article: one of them vandalized the article previously and another was noticed for non-civil comment). And about "SPA"'s and IP's - they have no relation with me (I wasn't the only active editor), others also just see injustice in your unexplained actions! And FYI: there is still no admin's decision in your "5/3" Gazifikator (talk) 11:39, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I have blocked the for disruptive editing.  It also appears to be a duck test sock puppet of, or else somebody with an identical agenda as,, who is indef blocked. Jehochman Talk 13:01, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


 * IMHO, the IP's use of English was better than Ludvikus. Then again, I appear to have already made an blunder by WP:AGFing on Ludvikus for so long. ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 13:28, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Involved admin in topic areas shouldn't be using ops in any kind of regard. Ryulong was desysopped not too long ago with ArbCom making very clear statements to this effect. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:26, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Blocking of “A” “nationalists”  – looks like support of  “B” "nationalists" . May be such definitely not easy issues  better to be handled not by opera prolific editor with a big admin guns?94.179.181.178 (talk) 09:17, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm late for the party, but if you read the entire talkpage, there is 5v3, not 3v3 as indicated above. Hope, that says it all. Moreschi's actions are entirely justified, no need for a storm in a teacup. Brand[t] 21:22, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The blocking policy makes it clear that involved admins are not justified. By making such a claim as you do above, you do not benefit to Moreschi, but you undermine your future credibility in responses. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:29, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Ottava Rima, the majority of your response is quite counterproductive, and I think you appear to have troubles accepting that anyones opinion can be different to yours. This is highlighted by your choice to focus on Brand's last sentence which is his opinion on the merits of this, rather than on his first sentence which notes a useful fact that there were clear issues with the filing complaint to begin with. This is further problematic when you bring up a user's credibility - neither is it needed at this discussion (or by policy), nor is it appropriate. By contrast, your first sentence would have been both appropriate and sufficient, on its own. You really need to start taking on the advice you were given during your previous block (or when it was lifted): to change your approach in responding to others, particularly those you disagree with. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:52, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Blocking policy is rather clear. It is not "opinion" based. If you disagree, please look at many ArbCom cases with such individual desysopped. Ottava Rima (talk) 06:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't really understand why Moreschi is being criticized here. Let's have a look at the history of the article. The article was merged after the discussion at talk by User:NickPenguin, an editor, who has previously never been involved in AA issues. Gazifikator reverted the merge, and started an edit war, despite the fact that he was placed on 1 rv per week parole. Gazifikator got blocked twice for edit warring on this article, trying to undo the merge. First time he was blocked by Sandstein, and second time by Moreschi:  When edit warring on Radical Islamism became problematic for Gazifikator, it was suspiciously picked up by SPAs and anon IPs. First it was reverted by an obvious SPA :, and then twice by. This pretty much looks like meatpuppeting, as the sock and the anon were continuing the edit war led by Gazifikator. Note that once the article got semiprotected, and edit warring using anon IPs became impossible, Gazifikator resumed the edit war on that article: To me this looks like an off-wiki coordinated effort. And then when the redirect got permanently protected, Gazifikator took it here, complaining about the admin who protected it. I'm surprised that no one takes any notice of disruption by Gazifikator, of the off wiki coordinated edit warring with the use of SPAs, but the admin who tried to stop the disruption became a target of criticism. If someone is not happy with the merge, there are procedures for contesting it, but edit warring should not be tolerated and encouraged, especially when it involves violation of editing restrictions and apparent meatpuppeting. Grand master  06:36, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Legal Threat
Noticed this from a Wikiquette thread. User:190.25.80.226 has made legal threats (claims he is being discriminated against) on Talk:Involuntary_euthanasia. ---Irbisgreif-(talk | e-mail)-(contribs) 05:11, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Which specific edit are you referring too? It would help a lot if you provided a diff. Chillum  05:14, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I tried to get a diff, but the user makes many edits in succession, and I can't yet find it. ---Irbisgreif-(talk | e-mail)-(contribs) 05:17, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Got it. . ---Irbisgreif-(talk | e-mail)-(contribs) 05:19, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * There's a description of the "Euthanasia is murder" multiple IP spree disruption incident up a few incidents. I have blocked this IP for 48 hrs.  Please block any more IPs participating in this as well.
 * If they won't slow down generating new IPs, consider rangeblocks and/or semiprotection of pages. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:21, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Disruptive/warring editor (and perhaps definitely blockable on that alone), but not legal threat IMO. DMacks (talk) 05:23, 3 November 2009 (UTC) Tweaked after looking at previous discussion of this edit pattern. DMacks (talk) 05:26, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec)Disruption and whining, but I don't see a legal threat there. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I've protected the article for two weeks. Hopefully the block works, but he jumps IPs pretty often. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Why you protected the article? why you blocked me? It was not a legal threat, even the user who asked if that was a threat realized it was not a threat, that happened more than two hours ago, the thing was resolved and we continued discussing the article content!!! Now you blocked me saying that I was editing warring, but since we were discussing in the talk page two hours ago, I made no editions to the article. Should I think that this is a way to avoid the discussion because a lack of arguments and sources? 190.25.110.56 (talk) 05:49, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * ¿Cómo se dice "disruptive" en español? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:59, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * And involuntary euthanasia is defined as a crime, be it as a murder be it as a assited suicide, that is a legal fact, why do you think it is disruptive and a pretext to block me??? see the source. Actually we were not discussing if that was true but if it was pertinent to include that information on the article and where. 190.25.110.56 (talk) 05:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That's not what it says in the quote box you posted. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:00, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * To the anon - we will block any IP you use in this series of edits and protect any page, until you agree to stop vandalizing and inserting your own point of view into articles rather than relying on published sources, and agree to not use wikipedia to fight your external political or social battles.
 * What you are doing here is a gross violation of why Wikipedia exists and is offensive to our core goals and purpose of existence. Please stop.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:02, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Then what is the source saying? it is an example of the Netherlands, and says that euthanasia has not be decriminalized, it means it is still a crime. And I refered to the Netherlands because it is the only country were the involuntary euthanasia on new born has beeen declared not punishable and you can read that the definition of involuntary euthanasia in this wikipedia refers to that specific case!!!. 190.25.106.87 (talk) 06:10, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Stop this. We can block the entire IP range you're coming from if need be, and protect this page if necessary, along with all the others you're contributing to.  You're being unspeakably rude to us by behaving in this manner.  Stop now.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:15, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Instead discussing the thing you are just blocking me. Even although I'm not editing the article, and eventhough I'm providing the reliable sources and arguments anyone asks for. I'm just inviting you to the discuss page. Let us continue in the talk page of the article instead of threating with blocks. When you arrived with your blocks we were already discussing the thing there, and I was trying to reach a consensus, for example, I was asking and waiting for a reliable source which demonstrates that the legal definition of involuntary euthanasia is NOT relevant to define it as whole. Now I will also wait for a reliable source showing that involuntary euthanasia is not a crime in some country on the world. Asking for those sources is a violation of the wikipedia policies? 190.25.110.182 (talk) 06:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Your contributions to date, and your approach to "discussing this", have been unspeakably rude and abusive by Wikipedia standards. If you do not stop this behavior we will stop you by blocking anonymous editing on the pages you're discussing on and if necessary blocking the IP ranges you are editing from temporarily.
 * Please believe me when I say that both:
 * Your behavior has been unacceptable over the last day or so.
 * We can stop you, and we will if you do not stop behaving badly.
 * If you actually intend to discuss this in a reasonable manner and in the appropriate places we will not do either of those things. But your comments so far have been grossly unacceptable.  Please stop that behavior rather than force us to stop you.  What you have done is grossly counterproductive.  If you actually care about the topic and point you are trying to make, please look back at your behavior and think about it, and then change that behavior.
 * Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:30, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm just waiting for the sources and the arguments. You are the one accusing, threating and blocking. If you think you are right, it is not my ethical problem. Three hours ago when I was warned and invited to discuss in the talk page instead of editing, I understood the right proceeding, I went to discuss the thing and I stopped editing, and anyone can see that we were discussing, in fact I was waiting for the answers to my questions, until you arrived blocking me and the pages. 190.25.98.152 (talk) 06:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * This page has been semi-protected for the next six hours (or until another administrator judges that this incident is over). If you continue this harrassment behavior on other pages we will block your IP range.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:01, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 190.25.0.0/16 is soft blocked for 6 hours. Note that J.Delanoy had to do this on Sept 27 of this year over their earlier behavior - this user is intermittent but persistent.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:15, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Kurt Weber
has begun editing again, and asked on GlassCobra's talk page for his user and user talk pages to be unprotected. I have done so, and have also undeleted the histories of both those pages. I vaguely remember some drama around the time that Kurt left the community, so I would appreciate it if someone could look over my actions. Thanks, NW ( Talk ) 18:05, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed, the user vanished. Vanished means vanished; it's not the same as a wikibreak.  Majorly  talk  18:07, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


 * This was the state of the ban proposal during which Kurt retired. I don't think there was consensus to ban then and he seemed to acknowledge that his behaviour had been disruptive in a way that he had not intended, so unless there have been developments between then and now, I don't see why he does not deserve a wait and see approach. Skomorokh,  barbarian  18:17, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the consensus to ban was pretty apparent, but was made moot by the retirement of Kurt. If Kurt wants to edit again, then the obvious thing to do is to make a new account; if he stays away from the type of interaction that got people so exasperated then there will be no reason for the accounts to be linked. I don't know why Kurt is so keen to reactivate the old account, and am afraid that is indicates that Kurt still does not "get it" why people previously complained about him. That said, I would not be adverse to the content editor that previously edited as Kmweber returning. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:30, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't understand why you would want him to create a new account. We should encourage him to stick to the old account if anything.  Whether or not he should be allowed to edit is another matter altogether.  And he did not vanish, he left.  That's not the same thing at all.  He left, he can come back, if he wasn't banned, he can edit; if he was banned (or would have been) then he can edit only if we let him.  BTW, protecting his talk page was out of process.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 18:53, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Doug is right. Creating a new account would make it look as if he tried to trick the community into thinking he was a new user. Just let him edit from the old account, if he does exhibit a problematic editing pattern again, we can act upon it when it happens. It's not as if he does not know that. Regards  So Why  19:09, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * And looking back at the discussion, I do not see a consensus for an outright ban. A topic ban restricting him to article and article talk space does appear to have been getting solid support but I concur that we should let him edit and wait and see what he does.  Has anybody talked to him about his choice to come back?--Doug.(talk • contribs) 19:15, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I just notified him of this thread on his talk page. I note that he returned on the 9th with four edits in the article/talk space and two edits yesterday, one in article space and one requesting assistance from an admin with a deleted page.  That plus the request for unprotection don't give me a whole lot of concern yet.  I think we can close this thread as resolved in that no one has suggested that NW's unprotection was improper.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 19:27, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I unprotected the talk page to let him do what he needs and so the tabs look right for other editors. Mitch 32(The Password is... See here!) 20:19, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know about the community ban part, but it's certainly clear that there are a lot of people who would be happy if he refrains from posting in WP:RFA indefinitely. If he wants to prove to his detractors that he is interested in making good faith contributions to Wikipedia, I strongly advise him to stay far away from there. -- llywrch (talk) 20:50, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The rfa stuff is fine; there's a fucking huge slab of text there now about ignoring some votes. anyone running for admin who doesn't even read the rfa rules doesn't deserve to pass.  anyone who thinks he's trolling shouldn't be feeding his.  anyone who thinks his point needs rebuttal can e pointed to the fucking huge slab of text, and reminded that closing vote counters ignore his votes.  He's a lot less disruptive than many other editors. (eg most frequent poster here) Remember Civility (talk) 22:30, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * With a name like that & all of those f-bombs in your post, I figure you live under a bridge yourself & have nothing to contribute here. -- llywrch (talk) 07:13, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * A general comment. Please stop recommending that past banned users should start up new accounts.  Apart from the fact that such an action is technically possible (thought see Durova for an argument that evasion is eventually futile), it does us no good to suggest that obscuring account history is valuable.  We have this bizarre community hallucination about the ideal banned editor who starts up a new account and edits productively outside a narrow topic area that got them banned.  That either describes an exceptionally narrow band of editors or stems from rampant wishful thinking on the part of a community known for wishful thinking.  I'm not disputing that some bans are de facto topic bans and that circumventing those bans may actually result in a net-good, just arguing that the track record is pretty shitty.  The blanket suggestion should look like this: for bans imposed hastily or unilaterally, some unblock or unban without conditions should be considered (or with a topic ban as a sole condition).  For bans imposed after some time (as KM's was), the standard offer should be extended.  Not this garbage about starting a new account. Protonk (talk) 08:38, 1 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Also a specific comment. Linking to the most recent ban for KMW obscures the fact that prior bans and topic bans had been enacted.  Full disclosure, I supported one of the ban proposals after he left a particularly nasty comment to a new user on AN.  But if he is back and wants to act like an adult, then welcome back. Protonk (talk) 08:41, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I was going to make a rather snarky addition to this discussion, but re-wrote my comment here because Protonk is 100% correct. The Wikipedia community has an amazing capacity for giving people second chances and AGF in the rehabilitation of formerly-former editors.  If Kurt is willing to stop doing the things that nearly got him banned last time, then welcome back.  — Kralizec! (talk) 15:23, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree, let's give Kurt a chance to show us what he can do, and hope that he knows enough to stay away from RFA. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:32, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm no fan of Kurt's, and I never have been, but he's been away for almost a year, lets at least give him a chance to prove that he's changed his ways. He can easily be banned if he starts up with the same stuff as last time, but I think that the potential good if he just sticks to contributing in the mainspace is too tempting to just pass up.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 08:28, 3 November 2009 (UTC).
 * Weber was facing a total ban for months of trolling and harassment, and there was finally a consensus forming to get rid of him, and we allowed him to vanish on the proviso he wouldn't come back. However, I'm showing him some good faith, because he might have grown up over the past year (although, if he's still an Objectivist...). So I support allowing him back, on the provision that this is absolutely his final chance. If it even looks like he's going to start trolling or harassing people, he's gone and won't be back. Sceptre (talk) 13:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Ill-considered article moves
We have a bit of trouble with an editor who on three occasions has moved articles about fairly notable athletes to names under which they are not commonly known. According to the edit summaries this was done in order to make room for the creation of articles about other persons. The first two moves were undone by administrators, but now he is at it again. The third move is in fact a repeat of the first one. The editor has been notified that such moves are not appropriate, but this does not seem to have had the desired effect. Favonian (talk) 09:45, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Bose products deletion redux
A recent multi-article AfD was less than cordial, with warnings for off-wiki canvassing, allegations of being a corporate flack, WQA, socks / SPAs, the works.

As it hardly surprisingly closed non-consensus, the same nominator, Snottywong, has now (quite properly) put forward a merge proposal (effectively the same goal as the multi-AfD, but without the visibility). They then canvassed a partisan selection of those who'd commented on the AfD in support of their position. I would however see their recent bulk deletion of content across these articles as prejudicial to a consensus merge process and beyond a GF action. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

IP posting about blocked user FrancisLightHouse
The IP 74.99.83.3 (contributions) is posting all over the place with demands that all "content" about User:FrancisLightHouse should be removed from Wikipedia. No actual legal threats, but needs to be nipped in the bud all the same, I think. It's probably a sock of the user. --bonadea contributions talk 16:29, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Left a stern note/final warning. If they post again, they'll be blocked. TN X Man  16:43, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Not having read this message, I have blocked the IP 6 months for block evasion as well as deleted and salted the previously-recreated user talk pages. If any other admin desires to undo my block and/or deletions, I am open to that. However, I know that everytime this vandal comes back, he is up to no good (just like a similar vandal that deals with courthouses). MuZemike 17:29, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Tnxman, for going over your head. MuZemike 17:32, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No worries here. TN X Man  18:38, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Didn't see this thread until now. Reviewed an unblock request, then found the IP refactoring my comments, adding their own unblock accepted template, and other, similar shenanigans - so I locked the talk page. I think we're done here. UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 15:58, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring over 30 Seconds to Mars
I already reported it at WP:AIV and even told this admin and even tried to settle it myself through discussion but this IP has continuously edit warred regardless of the fact that this is fully sourced content and doesn't even have a valid reason to what edits they have been making. Their edits have been continuously reverted (since ysterday and not just by me). There's absolutely nothing I can do, I've tried everything, I'm now at this point leaving the IP address warnings for the disruptive edit wars. -- GunMetal Angel  18:09, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I personally don't care one way or the other, but the IP has made almost no attempt to open a discussion concerning their changes beyond screaming about it on the talk pages of the article in question and then deciding that they'd 'discussed' it. I'm only reverting because he appears to be doing this without consensus. HalfShadow (talk) 18:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * All Music Guide says post grunge and neo prog. if A Beautiful Lie is an emo album, under the heading "Styles" there was written "emo". So, there aren't the sources thay say "30 Seconds to Mars is emo". Please, read the review.--151.49.225.4 (talk) 18:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd like to thank the IP address for pointing this out, the source that they are referring to is being misinterpreted. Let me explain; the "styles" section are not genres and do not warrant what is written on a Wikipedia article's genre section. Either way or another, this still would have "emo" stated, because emo is mentioned at the end of the allmusic review for 30 Seconds to Mars' A Beautiful Lie album. This IP address continuously denies this, and continuously edit wars, I've left this IP address already four warnings and should be blocked. -- GunMetal Angel  18:36, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

To GunMetal Angel: Please don't use WP:AIV for content disputes. 99.166.95.142 (talk) 19:40, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that's kind of my fault; I wasn't sure exactly where he should being this up. AIV seemed the best place. HalfShadow (talk) 20:09, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * At this point, on the content dispute, both parties appear to be in a 3RR violation on the page. I've posted warnings to the talk page of both  and . This needs to be resolved on the talk page, not endless reverts. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:47, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: A new IP, which is demonstrating an interest in the same articles, is now also editing the 30 Seconds to Mars article. A checkuser would be needed to confirm; but the quack test suggests the new IP is being used as a sockpuppet to attempt to circumvent the 3RR warning. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:25, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

If the review says that the album is emo, it was referred like here. Please, discuss on the talk page.--Loverdrive (talk) 14:51, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Muntuwandi violating the terms of his probation
--RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 17:30, 3 November 2009 (UTC) In July, the user Muntuwandi was unbanned from Wikipedia under the condition that he follow 1RR and avoid engaging in disruptive behavior. However, over the past three weeks he has been violating these conditions, and multiple attempts to resolve this issue with him on his userpage have been futile.

Most of Muntuwandi’s disruptive behavior has been related to the Race and genetics article, and his desire to remove a certain from it. Each time that he tries to remove it, he’s cited a different Wikipedia policy that he claimed it was violating; justification he’s given for removing it include original research, unreliable source material, that it’s “misleading”, and the availability of a better image. He’s also at Wikimedia commons based on based on the claim that it violates its source material’s copyright. Since none of these claims from him are rule violations per se, I don’t think it’s necessary to provide diffs for them, but the relevant point is that his desire for this image to be removed is not based on any one specific policy. Each time that one of his efforts to remove it based on a particular policy has failed, he’s begun a new attempt to remove it based on an entirely different policy; I don’t think he disputes this fact.

The important point here is the one reason for removing this image that Muntuwandi has brought up again and again, which is based on a personal attack and nothing else. Muntuwandi has found some of what I’ve written about this topic at a website outside Wikipedia, and based on what he’s inferred about my motives from what I’ve written there, he’s come to the conclusion that my motive for editing this article is not acceptable. Several of the times that he’s removed this image from the article, it has been because he dislikes my motives and for no other reason, such as this diff—he did not explain this removal on the basis of anything wrong with the image itself, but only that he believed me to have been intending to push a POV when I added it to the article.

WP:NPA states that in content disputes, arguments for the removal of content should be based on what we think is wrong with the content itself, not based on attacks against the editor who added it. Since Muntuwandi has been arguing for this image’s removal based on my motives for adding it, in some cases to the exclusion of all other reasons, I think this is a pretty clear violation of NPA policy.

Here’s a brief history of Muntuwandi’s use of personal attacks as a justification for this image’s removal:

Oct. 24: (1): “Occam on his talk page and blog has stated that he believes that there is a "biological basis for the concept of race".”

Oct. 25: (2): “On your blog, you state that this image proves that there is a biological basis for race. You have introduced the very image into the article race and genetics. It is pretty clear to me that you are trying to use this image in the article to prove that there is a biological basis for race.”

After the first two examples of this, I warned him on his userpage that this behavior from him was a violation of NPA policy. However, his behavior did not change.

His next personal attack, on October 28th: (3): “Occam stated on his blog that he believes that his image proves that there is a biological basis for race, though the authors of the image make no such proclamation... Occam has been insisting on using this image and he would like the community to pretend that the comments on his blog don't exist.”

At around the same time as this comment, his violated 1RR on the Race and genetics article, with two removals of the image (1) and (2), which were a little less than 21 hours apart. Because of this violation as well as his continued personal attacks, I warned him about this behavior on his userpage a second time.

Here is his latest personal attack, from earlier today: (4): “Naturally I don't expect you to care about such, since the most important thing for you is to show an image that you believe proves the existence of biological races.”

As can be seen from his response to me on his userpage the first time I warned him about this, Muntuwandi has tried to justify these personal attacks based of the fact that I linked to my DeviantArt gallery (it’s not actually a blog, but he can call it that if he wants) in a discussion with someone else in my user talk. However, this is irrelevant to the problem I have with his behavior, because my problem is not that I mind anyone knowing about what I’ve written elsewhere. As I’ve explained to him multiple times, the way in which he’s violating Wikipeda’s policies is by trying to get this image removed by attacking the contributor who added it, rather than the content itself. As pointed out by Tendentious_editing, everybody has a bias, and the fact that any particular editor is biased does not matter as long as their contributions follow Wikipedia’s policies. But despite how many times I’ve pointed this out to Muntuwandi, he is continuing attack my motives as a reason why my contributions to this article aren’t acceptable, regardless of whether he can find a policy that my contributions violate or not.

There’s no end to this in sight. Neither of my attempts to resolve this issue with Muntuwandi on his userpage have made any difference, and neither does the fact that of the four editors currently involved in this article, (him, me, Varoon Arya and David.Kane), he is the only one who wants this image removed. His repeated attempts at this, citing a new Wikipedia policy after each of his earlier attempts based on another policy has failed, have filled more than half of the article’s total discussion—that is, including all of the archives—which could be considered a disruption even if it weren’t for his violation of 1RR and his repeated personal attacks. I think some admin intervention is necessary at this point. --Captain Occam (talk) 21:45, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

User notified per WP:NOTIFY. - 2/0 (cont.) 22:09, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * FWIW, and not the central point, that image is from 1994, and there ought to be a more accurate one available, considering all the work that has been done in the following 15 years on genetics of human populations.     DGG ( talk ) 22:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * There might be, but the section of the article that currently includes this image is discussing the research of one specific person--Luigi Cavalli-Sforza--and this image is one of the most frequently-reproduced representations of his results. The current reason for including it is just as an illustration of Cavalli-Sforza's research in particular.


 * In any case, I'd rather not debate about the content of the article here, since a content dispute wasn't my reason for posting here. --Captain Occam (talk) 22:46, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Not sure where to begin so as to add as little to the WP::DRAMA. What Captain Occam fails to mention is:
 * Captain Occam has been reverted on this by several other editors. One of the main objections (raised by at least 4 editors that I'm aware) was that the graph was not taken from Cavalli-Sforza, but from Jensen, who has been criticized for misinterpreting Cavalli-Sforza's results for his own ends.
 * Muntuwandi in his objections has always relied on content policies (he's cited more than one, true) and not on Captain Occam's words on his own site.
 * I fail to see how most of Muntuwandi's observations can be construed as personal attacks (personal attack = "you're an idiot" or something similar), although I can understand that Muntuwandi's guessing about Captain Occam's motives may have irritated him.
 * Captain Occam's behavior, both on that page and on Race and Intelligence, has in fact benn called tendentious editing in its own right.
 * In conclusion, all I see here is basically a bitter content dispute, and little in the way of sanctionable behaviour. I'd say let the drama end here and point this dispute back to its talk page where it belongs.--Ramdrake (talk) 23:09, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I was thinking of raising this issue at ANI as well. To start with, there is an essay at WP:TLDR regarding long threads. There has been a recent surge in editing activity on a number of race related articles. Much this recent activity can be accounted for Captain Occam's edit, which at present are consistent with WP:SPA. Captain Occam made this image file:populations.png, and uploaded it to the article Race and genetics. Captain Occam also placed a link on his talk to his personal blog in which Captain Occam states about the image
 * This image can be considered a visual representation of my argument against the claim that there’s no biological basis for the concept of race, which is a popular belief among sociologists.
 * It is not unreasonable to think that Captain Occam is insisting on using this image, because he believes that "it proves that there is a biological basis for race" as stated on his blog. I have therefore suggested that Captain Occam may be violating WP:NPOV by WP:ADVOCACY. This is because the author of the original image, Cavalli-Sforza, stated that this image should not be interpreted "racially". Captain Occam's racial interpretation of this image is his own original thought and personal opinion, and it would appear that he is trying to use this image as a way to skillfully advocate his opinion on wikipedia. Wapondaponda (talk) 23:18, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Ramdrake, I’m not sure why you’re getting involved in this issue, since you’re no longer participating in the discussion about this article. Probably because of your unfamiliarity with it, most of what you’re claiming here is simply false.


 * “Captain Occam has been reverted on this by several other editors. One of the main objections (raised by at least 4 editors that I'm aware) was that the graph was not taken from Cavalli-Sforza, but from Jensen, who has been criticized for misinterpreting Cavalli-Sforza's results for his own ends.”


 * Not anymore, it isn’t. When this objection to the image was raised originally, I found Cavalli-Sforza’s original study online, modified the image to be based on the original source material, and cited it to Cavalli-Sforza rather than Jensen.  It no longer uses any information from Jensen and is no longer cited to him, and this has been pointed out on the article talk page.  After I fixed this problem, Muntuwandi was the only editor who continued trying to get this image removed.


 * “Muntuwandi in his objections has always relied on content policies (he's cited more than one, true) and not on Captain Occam's words on his own site.”


 * If you look at the diffs I’ve linked to, as well as the explanations Muntuwandi has provided in his edits themselves, you’ll see that this is false also. Several of the times that he removed this image, my motives for adding it were the only justification he provided.


 * “I fail to see how most of Muntuwandi's observations can be construed as personal attacks (personal attack = "you're an idiot" or something similar), although I can understand that Muntuwandi's guessing about Captain Occam's motives may have irritated him.”


 * Actually, Muntuwand’s behavior is a perfect example of the description of an “ad hominem” attack at WP:NPA.


 * “Captain Occam's behavior, both on that page and on Race and Intelligence, has in fact benn called tendentious editing in its own right.”


 * Yes, primarily by you and Muntuwandi, and several other users have said the same thing about you. Let’s not distract the administrators by bringing up irrelevant issues here.


 * Muntuwandi: continuing your personal attack in this thread is probably not the best way to defend yourself here.  Everything you’re saying here has not only been addressed, but is a further example of what I’m talking about.  But just to summarize:


 * The current discussion about this image is whether, as an illustration of Cavalli-Sforza’s results, it belongs in the section of the article describing Cavalli-Sforza’s research in this area. The image does not mention race, and neither does the section of the article which includes it.  For this reason, the image is being used in a way that is consistent with how its author intended it.


 * However, whether there is anything wrong with the actual content of the article does not appear to matter to you, because you believe that my motives are unacceptable, even if there’s nothing wrong with my edits themselves. You are supposed to criticize edits on the basis of the edits themselves, not the motives of the editors who made them.  This has been pointed out to you multiple times, but each time you ignore it. --Captain Occam (talk) 23:38, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * User Mutuwandi has clearly broken his 1RR condition by repeated removing the graph. Off2riorob (talk) 23:46, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is a semi-formal community, one cannot make comments off-wiki and expect wikipedians to switch off and pretend that those comments were not made, especially if they relate to a wikipedia article. I have cited many policy issues regarding the image but this has mainly because Occam has shown little interest in the surrounding text and the article in general, which I believe is consistent with WP:ADVOCACY. Apart from introducing the image, Occam has made no effort whatsoever at integrating the image with the surrounding text, as a result the image improperly sourced. The image is from one publication, History and Geography of Human Genes and the surrounding text is from another, Genes Peoples and Lanuguages. Simply inserting an image from one publication into text based on another creates WP:SYNTH issues. I have removed the image for this reason. I have further stated that if indeed Occam had good faith intentions with using the image, then he or Aryaman, should write up text that is consistent with the source of the image and include it in the article. Occam or Aryaman have yet to do so but are claiming that I am edit warring when I have suggested what I believe, and hope others will too, is a reasonable compromise that an editor acting in good faith would definitely consider. Wapondaponda (talk) 00:10, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * As I stated earlier, this isn’t the place for a content dispute. It also isn’t the place for making allegations against me that aren’t relevant to the topic of this report—although your claim about what contributions I’ve made to this article is false, I also know that debating about this will only serve to distract the administrators from the topic of this report. What this thread is about is your personal attacks and your violation of 1RR.


 * Once again: I am not expecting anyone to pretend that my comments elsewhere were not made.  What I am expecting, as I have explained both on your userpage and on the article talk page, is for you to only point out problems with the content of the article itself, rather than with the editors who added it.


 * Claiming that the article has synthesis issues is acceptable, although Varoon Arya has addressed this point the previous time you made it, and I suppose we can discuss this issue on the article talk page after this report is resolved, if the resolution doesn’t involve your ban being reinstated. But you’ve already made it clear that the reason you keep searching for new policies that you think this image violates is because you don’t approve of my motives for adding it.  That’s the one point that you won’t stop bringing up, and as such it’s what I’d like to discuss here. --Captain Occam (talk) 00:36, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Muntuwandi has removed this image, which was added on July 4th with (as far as I can tell from the history) no negative response from any of the other involved editors, at least 5 times:
 * October 16 with the edit summary: "image meant to push a POV".
 * October 24 with the edit summary: "removed misleading image"
 * October 27 with the edit summary: " caption says "one of eight genetic groups to which all human populations belong", not what Cavalli-Sforza says"
 * October 28 with the edit summary: "replaced image with dendograms related to genetic distance matrix"
 * November 1 with the edit summary: "some reorganization especially human genetic variation"
 * Muntuwandi is fully aware that his/her actions are considered unwarranted by at least three other editors, and yet persists in removing the image with the apparent approval of one other editor (who has also removed the image at least 3 times . The reasons Muntuwandi provided for his/her actions changed every time s/he removed the image, and even when Occam made efforts to satisfy his/her concerns, Muntuwandi persisted in having the image removed.
 * I tried to diffuse the situation by suggesting a compromise between Muntuwandi and Occam in the form of an entirely new image, and began trying to discuss the issue with Muntuwandi in a rational manner. Just when the discussion seemed to be moving in a positive direction, Muntuwandi performed this edit, which not only removed the image yet again, but which also made substantial unilateral changes to the very section under discussion. Now he refuses a compromise, and instead insists that his preferred text and image be presented along side what other editors are proposing.
 * I was only recently made aware of the fact that Muntuwandi was formerly User:Earl J. Redneck III and was banned for disruptive behavior. I have tried hard to help resolve this dispute, but I find Muntuwandi unreasonable on this point. -- Aryaman (talk) 00:28, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe that you have cherry picked your diffs
 * Image removed on 22 October by Ramdrake
 * Image removed on 25 October by Wobble
 * Image removed on 25 October by Ramdrake
 * So please don't give the impression that I have been unilaterally removing the image, or that there is near unanimous support for the image. I am no saint, but Aryaman is not exactly a saint either. I have seen some grumblings from other editors about Varoon Arya and Civil POV pushing . His introduction on his user page is quite provocative. I believe he is entitled to his own opinion, but one wonders whether he can be neutral party in a dispute. Wapondaponda (talk) 00:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, a prime example of Muntuwandi's weird style of argumentation. This incident report is about Muntuwandi's behavior, not about the article, and not even about the image. I limited my comments to the appropriate scope accordingly, but he criticizes me for "cherry-picking" my diffs, ignoring the fact that such a thing in this context is expected. And what does my personal opinion on another, tangentially related topic have to do with Muntuwandi's behavior? Only Muntuwandi knows. -- Aryaman (talk) 01:31, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Muntuwandi, I think it’s worth pointing out that since October 26th—that is, for the past week—you have been the only person who’s continued to remove this image. You’re removed it a total of three times since then; this can be seen from the last three diffs that Aryaman posted, as well as the article’s edit history.  You may not be the only editor who had issues with this image at first, but now that I’ve addressed some of the concerns that were originally raised about it, it appears that at this point you really are the only editor who still wants to remove it. --Captain Occam (talk) 01:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I've just noticed that no decision was ever made in response to this report from September about Muntuwandi edit warring on another article.  Since that report apparently remains open, I encourage administrators to consider it in addition to this one in whatever decision they make. --Captain Occam (talk) 03:15, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Let's make this easy for you...
 * You're both edit warring over the image. I don't care to delve into correctness of the content issue.
 * Rather than pick one of you as "at fault" here I am simply imposing the following - you are both on 0RR (may not revert, in any way) on the article Race and Genetics, for the next month (as you've been doing this for at least that long so far). You both should have known better than to do this, and could have handled it in another nonconfrontational manner.  Both of you are playing the abusive edits game - and you're both on time out.
 * If you can edit the article without reverting anyone over the next month, feel free. I don't see any sign you're being disruptive other than with the edit warring.  But revert and be blocked.
 * Cc'ed at ANI, User talk:Captain Occam, and User talk:Muntuwandi Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:09, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, and:


 * WHACK!
 * Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi George, I understand that you have tried to create an "easy solution" to the crisis. But I have to disagree because this is not an necessarily an "easy problem". Captain Occam has been described by other editors as clearly "belligerent". He has already racked up two blocks for edit warring within the last month per his block log. He has openly asserted that he will engage in edit warring and he has also stated that he intends not to engage in consensus building with myself because there is no need since I am on a 1RR probation, he will simply revert my edits . Per his blog, Captain Occam has stated on his blog that he has a particular point of view, and that he intends to advocate it on Wikipedia. I have no demonstrable point of view regarding this article and I am simply interested in improving it. I don't know whether removing the image 5 times over a period of about 3 weeks is intense edit warring, I recall Occam having made about 10 reverts in a single day. My removal of the image may in fact help to improve the article. Occam stated on his blog that he hadn't read the original paper in which the image was published, stating Since I haven’t read Cavalli-Sforza’s original paper, this image is based mostly on Arthur Jensen’s analysis of Cavalli-Sforza’s results in The g Factor. After others had pointed out that Jensen is not a specialist in genetics, the general consensus was that the image could easily be misrepresented. Since then Occam has said he has read Cavalli-Sforza original paper and changed the sourcing from Jensen to Cavalli-Sforza. Lastly I have not said that I oppose the images that Aryaman and Occam propose under all circumstances. I have suggested that they can use their image if the cited correctly WP:Citing sources and if they avoid WP:SYNTH by not combining information from several different sources, all of which are Wikipedia guidelines. All this is on Talk:Race and genetics. Should I therefore have restrictions placed upon me for following wikipedia's guidelines to try to improve the article. Wapondaponda (talk) 06:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Man, what’s the point in even responding to you about this anymore? Apart from the things you’re saying that are completely irrelevant (such as my content in unrelated articles), it’s been explained why the rest of what you’re saying here is false in this thread.  But you aren’t attempting to address my or Varoon Arya’s explanations of what’s wrong with your claims about this, or why these kinds of personal attacks don’t belong on Wikipedia at all; you’re just repeating them.


 * What will it accomplish if I explain all of this again? This has been explained to you so many times before that I don’t think it will change very much as far as your behavior is concerned.  And it will make the discussion even longer, and confuse the administrators into assuming my report is about topics that have nothing to do with what I wanted to discuss here.  Your use of this tactic so far has already apparently made this topic look like it was about a content dispute, despite my efforts to avoid that, so I suppose this is working.


 * There is one thing you’ve said here that I simply can’t ignore, though: “Per his blog, Captain Occam has stated on his blog that he has a particular point of view, and that he intends to advocate it on Wikipedia.”


 * That’s a pretty serious accusation, but it should be easy for you to support if it’s true. If I’ve specifically said not only that hold this viewpoint, but that I actually intend to engage in WP:ADVOCACY about it, it should be easy for you to provide a quote in which I said that.  If you can’t, then you’re in direct violation of this part of WP:NPA:


 * What is considered to be a personal attack?


 * Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki. Sometimes evidence is kept private and made available to trusted users.


 * But you wouldn’t be violating that policy, now would you? --Captain Occam (talk) 06:49, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I don’t think this is the best decision. The relevant point here wasn’t the edit warring; it was that Muntuwandi was violating the 1RR that he had been placed under when he was unbanned.  Since I didn’t have this restriction, the fact that I was reverting this article as often as he was shouldn’t have been the same type of problem in my own case.


 * This isn’t a content issue, and I’ve been trying to avoid the content disputes that other editors have been bringing up in this thread. It’s just an issue of whether Muntuwandi’s conduct has been violating the terms of his probation.


 * The fact that he’s been making personal attacks isn’t a content issue either, and that was the most important issue I wanted to resolve here, since both of my attempts to resolve it on his userpage have been unsuccessful. Is no one going to respond to this aspect of my report? --Captain Occam (talk) 05:57, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * You are both misbehaving in a very public manner and place. The fate of editors who do that is usually short and unfortunate.  Would you both please accept the Trout of Shame and knock it off, before I or another admin takes sterner action?  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I’m willing to accept your 0RR decision, but I’d like you (or someone else) to do something about the original topic of this report, which is Muntuwandi’s continued personal attacks. 0RR will not do anything to stop him continuing to make these attacks against other users on talk pages.  The newest one in Muntuwandi’s last comment here is probably his most serious so far—claiming that I have specifically stated that I intend to engage in WP:ADVOCACY.  I’m quite certain that I’ve never said this, and that Muntuwandi does not have any evidence to support his claim that I have.


 * Because of ongoing nature of this issue, and the fact that resolving it with Muntuwandi on his userpage has been impossible, I’ll probably need to file another AN/I report about it if it can’t be addressed in response to this one. Since this issue was intended to be the primary topic of my report, though, I would prefer if it could be resolved here. --Captain Occam (talk) 07:01, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I (FWIW) support Georgewilliamherbert 0RR on the disputed article on both editors for a month, this still means that you can add as much cited content to the article as you like, and can join in or start discussion on the article talk page. This editing restriction will hopefully help to reduce the tension between you two. Off2riorob (talk) 13:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if this is the perfect solution because Captain Occam and Varoon Arya work in tandem while Muntuwandi seems to be working alone and will likely suffer more with a 0RR restriction but, short of delving into content, I can't see anything better. Muntuwandi, if you remain unsatisfied with the compromise being worked out on the talk page you can always consider an RFC to attract wider input. Meanwhile, I guess this thread can be closed. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 17:30, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Socialist Alternative (Australia) and IP conduct in relation to the inclusion of office holders in Student Unions.
User:118.138.192.123 has been slow edit warring on Socialist Alternative (Australia) over the inclusion, or non-inclusion, of various student union office bearers. The problem isn't the content dispute; but, rather, that the IP has stated they will continue removal, and has ignored Talk: and User talk: discussions on the point, and warnings. What do you do with an otherwise well behaved IP who has a bee in their bonnet and won't discuss?

Discussion attempts: Talk:Socialist_Alternative_(Australia) User talk discussion attempts and warnings to discuss: User_talk:118.138.192.123 Example of stated willingness to continue without discussion: User_talk:Fifelfoo Edit history of nine reversions without discussion since September: Special:Contributions/118.138.192.123

Advice, help? Fifelfoo (talk) 00:33, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment from a non-admin: Notability_(people) does not specifically mention student union office bearers. It mentions alumni, but says that "only those with verifiable notability" should be listed. It also says "On the other hand, a list within an article of past school presidents can contain all past presidents, not just those who are independently notable" - but whether this would include Student Union office bearers is debateable. My take on this would be that Union Office bearers should only be included if the appointment is for more than a year. Some offices are for a few years, others for one year. I would say that any President/VP/General Secretary could possibly be considered notable, whereas "Education Officer", "Welfare Officers" and the like would not be. But that is merely my take on this - the policy does not appear to be clear-cut in this particular case, so I would be interested in what admins would say. --  Phantom Steve  ( Contact Me, My Contribs ) 01:51, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Steve, I don't know if you know the Australian union systems, but usually the President, General Secretary and Education officer (due to disposable budget) are significant local positions. VPs tend to be sinecures in non-militant student unions (cough cough).  The other context is that Australia's relatively unitary student unions system means that holding local yearly positions influences the weight a faction exerts on the National Union of Students (Australia).  Fifelfoo (talk) 02:06, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that, Fifelfoo - but as I said, I'm not an admin! I'd be interested in seeing what an admin will have to say about this though - this is a learning opportunity for me to get to know policy better. Regards, --  Phantom Steve  ( Contact Me, My Contribs ) 02:17, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * User:118.138.192.123 advises that they can't edit this page to comment here. They've noted their opinion at Talk:Socialist Alternative (Australia) Fifelfoo (talk)
 * In my defence, I am only removing irrelevant information. The people are not notable, they are student representatives within a group. Why not mention in the Labor Party's page people from Labor aligned groups who are office bearers? Or members of other groups who are also? I'm making the article concise, and contain only relevant information. The people are not noteworthy, and thus do not need to be mentioned on wikipedia. The only reason it seems these people would want their names to remain on the page is to gain some form of recognition by the public, which shows they'd only be using their positions as a way to become known and get somewhere further in life. (Career Politicians?) Either way. I will not remove the information until I've been given the go-ahead to do so, but I do not see why these people require their names up there, nor how they'd be considered 'notable' enough to be mentioned anyway. The NUS people, yes, I understand why they're notable, they represent the australian student population at large, but office bearers of individual universities do not and thus do not seem as noteworthy. Either way, as per what was said, these people do not meet the "only those with verifiable notability" criteria. 118.138.192.123 (talk) 15:02, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

This is primarily a content dispute, and administrators aren't "super-users" in the sense of possessing extra authority in content disputes. Whilst there may come a time when administrative action against one or other party is required for edit-warring, I don't think that point has been reached yet. So I don't think there's really a need for admin intervention; the solution will hopefully come if participation in the discussion can be broadened in an effort to reach consensus. The suggestion of a Request for Comment on the issue is a good idea; neutral messages inviting participation could also be left at the WikiProjects with tags on the article, as well as WP:UNI and WP:BIO. BencherliteTalk 15:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Threat of Violence
Can someone ask the foundation lawyer if there's specific action we need to take if there's any death threat against the US president, even if those threats aren't particularly credible? I think the feds take all such things seriously, and want them to be reported. I don't know if not reporting them is a problem or not. Please could that be clarified, by the person responsible for WP legal stuff? Remember Civility (talk) 14:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Such things are almost always reported, for two reasons - first, to stop the harm from occuring, if it's indeed going to occur. Second, we're not equipped to judge which threats of violence are credible and which are not - so if someone threatens to kill someone, and we ignore it, and they actually do kill someone, the project and the foundation are placed in a tricky legal situation (and, obviously, we have the tragedy of someone dying as well). So, both to discourage such things, and to prevent harm, we report them. Reported or not, do you have the diff or article where the threat is? UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 15:44, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * In general, the way it works is:
 * A diff or user is reported here; they get blocked.
 * If necessary, a checkuser finds a general location for the user making the threat so that law enforcement can more easily pinpoint the perp
 * A user in the area will contact local law enforcement (or in this case, anyone in the US can call the FBI). If a checkuser was needed, the checkuser can provide limited information to the user calling the cops to assist in their investigation.
 * Cops take it from there. <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold  (t/a/c) 16:07, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * That sounds reasonable. I agree we should not leave it up to our volunteers to decide which threats are credible, pass it on to someone whose job that is.  Chillum   16:14, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the answers. Sorry for the odd placement of my question and lack of heading.  I'd meant to add it under a relevant AN/I report, where it seems like stuff was just being blanked without authorities being informed.  Remember Civility (talk) 16:49, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism on my user page
Could some one please delete the record of the recent IP vandalism on my user page from its history? Thanks, --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 08:07, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

TYVM sir. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 17:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

IP User:65.204.124.131 making legal threats
This IP is repeatedly throwing around the word "libelous" in edit summaries and on talk pages. Since I could be interpreted as involved in a content dispute with him/her, I don't want to do an NLT block myself. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  15:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC) (Yes, I have templated them about the NLT policy.) -- Orange Mike   &#x007C;   Talk  15:20, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Since that address belongs to Extended Stay Hotels and only edited for a few hours, we have probably seen the last of it. Looie496 (talk) 15:28, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:NOTWEBHOST, some think we are..
Seems an Assistant Professor, is using wikipedia as a webhost. Has a few edits outside his userspace (back in 2007), however the last 2 years seem to be userspace exclusive.

--Hu12 (talk) 02:47, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * User:Htw3/1:10 PM Section
 * User:Htw3/9:10 AM Section
 * User:Htw3/Autumn 2008 Projects
 * User:Htw3/Digital.projects.2009
 * User:Htw3/Early Projects
 * User:Htw3/GP.Projects.2009
 * User:Htw3/GP Projects 2009
 * User:Htw3/Group Processes
 * User:Htw3/Internet, SE Asia, and cross cultural comparisons
 * User:Htw3/Intro to Sociology
 * User:Htw3/ResourcesGreen
 * User:Htw3/ResourcesOrange
 * User:Htw3/ResourcesPurple
 * User:Htw3/ResourcesTemple
 * User:Htw3/Sociology of the future in Rainbows End
 * User:Htw3/Spring 2008 Contributors Page
 * User:Htw3/Spring 2008 Project Page
 * User_talk:Htw3/ResourcesOrange
 * User_talk:Htw3/ResourcesTemple
 * User_talk:Htw3/Spring 2008 Contributors Page


 * Informed editor of the discussion here . -- B figura (talk) 02:54, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * There's a bit more to this than meets the eye at first glance. The editor (claimed to be a college professor) appears to be using these pages to coordinate teams of his college students while they are working on pages in the Sociology Wikiproject in return for credit. As the pages may *potentially* be in the service of the overall project, I'm not certain they are absolutely violations of WEBHOST. (This is not my final opinion by the way, just an mild caution that we should not be overly hasty). Manning (talk) 03:02, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * From the user page, it seems that the last school project was in 2007. Netalarm   talk  03:05, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * There is some coordination of class projects for Wikipedia (which isn't a problem - see WP:SUP). However, this may be going towards some WP:WEBHOST problems. For example, User:Htw3/Spring 2008 Project Page is being used as a host for a school project where students are told they have the option to work on Wikipedia or an option to do a YouTube and/or Flikr project. I would call that borderline. User:Htw3/Digital.projects.2009, on the other hand, is for a school project that doesn't even contemplate the use of Wikipedia. That is definietly beyond the scope of Wikipedia-related school project.


 * Ultimately, I think it's important if we explain to User:Htw3 the policy of WP:WEBHOST, and that we welcome him using Wikipedia as a school project, as per WP:SUP, but that we can't host his school projects that are unrelated to Wikipedia. Singularity42 (talk) 03:16, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Sounds ideal. Manning (talk) 04:07, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Person has not edited in 2 weeks and this ANI thread may very well be archived by the time he sees the ANI template Bfigura left him pointing to it. I will leave a permalink and some advice about migrating the pages off-wiki. 69.228.171.150 (talk) 04:09, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I've left some starting advice for the user at his talk page here. Hopefully that will lead to resolving the situation. Singularity42 (talk) 04:23, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * A good deal of this material is specific course syllabi. Unless Wikipedia is the subject of very major component of the course, this is not appropriate. If no response is forthcoming, I shall be taking those ones to MfD and asking for a snow closing. But I hope we can persuade him to ask for their withdrawal.  DGG ( talk ) 04:48, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It would be nicer to not ask for a snow closing. Let it run the full week pro forma, so that he has an opportunity to show up again and move the stuff. 69.228.171.150 (talk) 05:09, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Htw3 as not been online since 14 October, so I sent him an email to get his attention. EdJohnston (talk) 16:33, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Hello folks.  Your comments and concerns about possible webhost issues are appreciated and well taken.  I believe that some of the pages that I have created and encouraged contributions to are borderline to the overal mission of Wikipedia, though I think also that additional context might help establish how my efforts are more clearly within proper use expectations that it would seem.


 * 1)   *User:Htw3/Internet, SE Asia, and cross cultural comparisons   This page is clearly outside the wiki-project.  However, this page was simply an illustration for the group of scholars I work with, designed to convince them that we should create a wiki elsewhere that would allow us to coordinate our efforts.   They were convinced, a Wiki was established for members of the VOSON project.   I should have gotten rid of it already, but basically I had been distracted from the task of cleaning it up.
 * 2)  The vast majority of the user sub pages were created as organizational tools to help student groups coordinate around projects, primarily wiki projects, and are no longer needed.   I don't know what the procedure is to delete pages (separate from editing the content to nill and removing links to them).
 * 3) Along those lines I would be happy eliminate much of the pages.
 * 4) What is the role of Wikipedia, and contributing to Wikipedia in my courses?   And why might it be legitimate to use a Wikipedia user page to describe a course and to integrate course materials?
 * 5)  I see my role in Wikipedia primarily as a recruiter of contributors.  While I may have some of my professional time to devote to making edits directly, I can, by virtue of my institutional role, potentially benefit the mission of the project in far more profound ways by bringing others into the role of Wikipedia editors.
 * 6) When I first started these projects, I had a very simplistic notion of what it meant to contribute to Wikipedia, and how to encourage participation:  require all students to make improvements to existing pages in the Sociology Project, or add pages related to important concepts in sociology that did not yet have entries.
 * 7) I think that strategy made more sense when I began a couple years ago than it does now. The quality of many of the pages that the students encounter have improved to a level that edits from the lowest common denominator student are likely to be counter-productive rather than helpful.
 * 8)  In short blanket assignments where all students are required to be contributors are less helpful now.
 * 9) Now, my strategy is to raise awareness of Wikipedia as a community, to encourage students to develop basic editing skills, and to turn them on to pages related to their interests.  This is why I, for the first time this fall, presented the syllabus as a Wiki page.  My goal is to normalize the notion of making small helpful edits in the context of Wikipedia.  Now, of course there are other Wiki platforms that could be used.  However, I am very interested making the connection to the actual Wikipedia concrete.  I am less interested in students learning a bit of mark up than I am in the notion of cultivating identification with the role of becoming a contributor to Wikipedia.
 * 10) What sorts of contributors are needed in Wikipedia now?   From my observations, I can see two main paths that are most needed.
 * 11) First, are Wiki-gnome like contributors.  Basically people who a capable of making small contributions on a variety of types of pages, performing relatively simple edits.   This is why I wanted students to get normalizing experience editing a small part of the real Wikipedia.
 * 12)  Second, are contributors that have high expertise in an area and can help pages that are 90% good get the rest of the way to a top quality page.   There are still many pages in the Sociology area that would benefit from that last 10-20% improvement.
 * 13)  To summarize---  I feel like my use of Wikipedia userpages in relation to my courses are consistent with my ongoing role of trying to encourage productive contributions from others.  My strategy has shifted from blanket required projects to one where I try to encourage awareness, basic skills and role familiarity and ultimately adoption.  I hope that because of my current course treatment Wikipedia will benefit from a host of new Wiki-gnomes, and hopefully from one or two dedicated contributors.   Only time will tell.
 * 14) Finally--  I could clearly move my entire presence away from my Userpage.  My university has hosting capability and Black Board offers a version of a wiki related to courses.  However, I would view this as a loss for Wikipedia, since those systems, though they have equal or even better affordances for the class related functions, would not have the role socialization benefits that I have been trying to cultivate. Best, Ted Welser   --Htw3 (talk) 17:17, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I was just talking to my wife about this business. She had just made me a lovely cheese sandwich with chilli sauce and mustard, which is one of my favourites, and in between mouthfuls I described the situation on-wiki. After I had polished off the lovely sandwich, we came to the agreement that if the pages are being used, both by someone who contributes to wikipedia and encourages their students to do so, with some inoffensive pages in userspace, then why shouldn't they be there? People have much more unusual and pointless things in userspace - I say keep the lesson plans. Would removing them make Wikipedia a better place? Bravo, Ted! Bravo! (the second bravo is from my wife). See you guys around, Hands of gorse, heart of steel (talk) 18:57, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Wikiversity actually hosts several userspace projects like this for active classroom use. If they are seen as problematic on Wikipedia, the creator(s) can always be noitfied and the pages imported.-- SB_Johnny &#124; talk 21:35, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I have pulled the above thread out of the archive for further discussion, since it technically hasn't been resolved yet. Htw3 commented on my talk page that he would appreciate a final answer from administrators of whether he provided a satisfactory reply above. Thanks! Singularity42 (talk) 16:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * With not much googling you can find services that provide free wikis to people. They are just like Wikipedia except that they don't have the limitation of scope that Wikipedia has. For $11 a month you can rent a simple server and install mediawiki on it. E-mail me if you want details, as it could be seen as advertising services if I posted the details here. I run a few mediawikis to manage my personal projects, I did so because I knew my userspace on Wikipedia was not an appropriate location for projects unrelated to the encyclopedia. That being said, as long as the papers they are drafting are released to GFDL and they are using reliable sources then it is very possible they the encyclopedia can benefit it. My suspicion is that some of the pages are useful to our scope, and others go beyond it.  Chillum   16:19, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict with Chillum) I, for one, feel that Htw3's response was more than satisfactory. If he/she could tag the unneeded pages as G7 using the tag, that would be appreciated.  Tan   &#124;   39  16:23, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I find the explanation surprising but totally convincing. I fully agree with Tan. Hans Adler 16:46, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your kind attention to this discussion. I have followed Tan's recommendation and placed a  tag at the top of all of the pages that I do not have any use for.  I kept a couple of the pages I used to organize past student projects as models, so that I can copy aspects of the structure for an upcoming course.  I will house the organizational structure of much of the sign-ups for my upcoming course on an internal Wiki, but I would like to keep some of the pages as instructional examples.  I would like to keep the pages that I have not tagged active (for instance my current syllabus page), as they continue to contribute to my pedagogical goals in Wikipedia role socialization.  I only have 18 students this quarter, and prior to my course only 3 of them had ever made an edit in Wikipedia before.  In class today we discussed my research on social roles in online community, and highlighted the role of Wikignomes.  I am not sure how many will chose to act on their awareness of Wikipedia editing roles.  I hope that one of them will make it a topic of discussion on the course blog, but that is their choice.  Finally, if you wanted to know more about me and my research and teaching, I have a google profile page under the name Howard(Ted)Welser.  Cheers and thanks for your efforts --Htw3 (talk) 18:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Attacks at AfD

 * ''Request for arbitration filed at Arbitration/Requests/Case. Please comment there iff you feel your comment will increase the signal to noise ratio. Protonk (talk) 20:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Various articles in Category:Technocracy movement have gone to AfD recently. Pro-technocracy editor User:Skipsievert has attacked many of those who have initiated the AfDs or have spoken against the articles; these editors include myself, User:Lawrencekhoo, User:John Quiggin, and User:Beagel. I am concerned that Beagel in particular has today been drawn into this, see  and, as he is a very hard-working editor who is always civil and considerate to others. I am also concerned that the situation is escalating and that SS is discouraging editors from airing their views at the AfDs, and that a distorted outcome may result. The AfDs in question are:


 * Articles for deletion/Technate (2nd nomination)
 * Articles for deletion/Urbanate (2nd nomination)
 * Articles for deletion/Energy Survey of North America
 * Articles for deletion/Technocracy Study Course (2nd nomination) -- Johnfos (talk) 22:55, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * There was an aborted mediation attempt between many of these users. I recommend a conduct RfC. Xavexgoem (talk) 23:16, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I've not been involved in any aborted mediation attempt; could you provide details please. Johnfos (talk) 23:44, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * here's the abortive mediation attempt, with some context for why it ended here. I don't really recommend spending much time on it if you weren't involved. C RETOG 8(t/c) 23:54, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. My main concern here is that many editors are being subjected to repeated personal attacks at Technocracy AfDs and so are being warned off registering their views and comments at AfD. Johnfos (talk) 23:59, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I also received attacks from Skipsievert accusing me of tandem editing and have already set up a discussion at WQA. The Four Deuces (talk) 00:19, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Skipsievert causes grief with other groups as well, but Wikipedia seems to have no procedures for countering an editor like this. Some administrators enable him. For example, this admin offers him protection and tutors him on how to play the system, while this admin blocked an attempt to seek community redress. Apparently all is well, and we should just let him get on with it. --Geronimo20 (talk) 01:22, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Inform me on my talk page for future violations of conduct. I'll see what I can do... before this hits arbitration, which seems otherwise likely. I hope this sounds OK. Xavexgoem (talk) 01:33, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Skipsievert's conduct is a frustrating problem for numerous groups. Regarding Geronimo20's problem with User:Protonk, I couldn't follow the dispute in detail, but I'm confident Protonk was acting in a good faith attempt to make the procedures work. JQ (talk) 06:23, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Clearly something needs to be done. There is also this very recent ANI discussion regarding this editor: Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive571. Rd232 talk 08:32, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, this has been dragging on, and obviously there are bigger issues about SSs behaviour to be considered here. But what are we to do with the AfDs where SSs intimidation has derailed the process? What about the hard-working editors who are getting innocently caught up in all of this nonsense? Johnfos (talk) 19:43, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


 * But that is the whole point John, that probably nothing will be done. Wikipedia processes seem broken, and without oversight, when it comes to an editor like this. Yet another thread on Skipsievert has been started at Wikiquette alerts, but I doubt anything will come of it. We bluster impotently on various noticeboards while Skipsievert marches happily on, leaving behind an ever enlarging trail of discouraged editors. --Geronimo20 (talk) 22:08, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

As I mentioned on my talk page, Skip has consistently refused to compromise and listen to other people, and he's spinning out of control into paranoia, wasting a lot of people's time. I'm one of the very few people who was able to work with him in a few times, but even I can't handle it anymore. He's using Wikipedia to preach Technocracy and thermoeconomics, and when people call him out on he says they're all in a conspiracy. Harassing people who disagree with you is disruptive and shouldn't be allowed. II | (t - c) 22:31, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I ran into Skip in Representative money and you can read my complaints in sections 5-8 of Talk:Representative_money, total POV misuse of sources, deleting WP:RS info in favor of WP:OR, etc. I haven't been involved in the AfD issues mentioned above, but have seen the accusatory pattern. Skip is the first editor I ran into who got me so frustrated that he alone made me want to quit editing - and I'm someone who constantly has been drawn into various Israel-Palestine related disputes over the years. At least one knows the opponent's motivation for policy violations in those cases! Wikipedia can't have credibility if this sort of chronic violation of Wikipolicies is allowed to continue. It just drives editors away. CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:24, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

In my view, the only workable remedy for Skip's conduct is a ban from editing Wikipedia, for a period long enough to discourage him, and with the prospect of a permanent ban if he does not reform. Is there an admin willing to implement this?JQ (talk) 07:31, 1 November 2009 (UTC)


 * See also Reliable_sources/Noticeboard where editors who don't agree w/ Skip are lumped into a collection of "mainstream economists" with a COI who can be treated as "one voice". This appears to be the default mode of disagreement for Skip.  Anyone against him is a solitary POV pusher until more than one person is against him, then it is a conspiracy. Protonk (talk) 22:53, 1 November 2009 (UTC)


 * There has been another personal attack reported here. But apparently nothing can be done because WP processes are broken? Certainly Wikiquette alerts, ANI, User conduct RfC, and Mediation have so far failed as far as Skipsievert is concerned, although they have provided some opportunity for editors to share their views. Johnfos (talk) 08:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Is the next step an RFC/U??


 * Haven't we already tried that? JQ (talk) 11:41, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah yes, RfC. Isn't that the board especially designed so nothing happens, and people just vent? Perhaps you are right, John, and the admin boards are broken for cases like this. Surely SS is the most intransigent and destructive editor on WP at the moment, wreaking havoc among many content editors across several different topic areas. Please, anyone, correct me if that is not the case. The recent An/I called for a topic ban in one of those areas, with 13 agreeing (mainly the affected content editors) and one opposing admin. Now you would think that was a fairly strong consensus, yet nothing happened. The An/I was left to drift off into oblivion, with no action taken by an admin, and worse, no concluding comment by an admin that could have allowed us miserable content editors to make any sense of it.


 * Later, I discovered SS had asked an admin for guidance, and was advised thus. Apparently a consensus among affected editors is called a "tag team" by admins, and that is something that "most admins should see through". So now we know, there is a tacit rule, understood by admins, that nothing will happen in a case like this if there is consensus. When I tried to ask another admin for some guidance on how to best proceed, I just got the bums rush.


 * With the failure of this An/I, the sustainability project has attempted to regroup. There are nine committed editors (plus skip). However, the project seems bogged in a somewhat stunned state. This is the end result of a year of aggravation and attempts at mediation. And still nothing. SS is effectively still in control, with what is, in effect, the blessing of the admin community.


 * My impression is that there are a relatively small number of admins who patrol a given board, and effectively control what happens on it. Over time, they build tacit agreements among themselves about how and when they will proceed. So they operate background rules, not always made explicit, and which you can be privy to only by following the activity on a given board for some time. Now that is precisely what dedicated content editors do not do, and do not want to do. Their interest is in contributing to WP, and they should not be expected to be privy to every quirk on the various admin boards. But I know for myself, that lately I've stopped adding serious content to WP, and instead scan the often strange stuff that goes on at the various admin boards, trying to understand their failure to protect content editors. I wonder how many other editors have recently become unproductive as a result of our inability to reign in SS, and what the collective cost is to WP.


 * Is there a graph that shows the content added to WP over time, comparing it with the volume of text added to the various admin boards. Are we nearing the crossover point, when wiki dramatising on admin boards exceeds content contributions? I started out with the idea that the role of administrators was to provide a workable environment for content editors. Now I'm not so sure what they are about. It seems, often, that content editors just get in the way, and at times like the one in this thread, content editors are just left to wither on the vine. Anyway, I charge the admin community with a failure to address situations like this one, and invite them to consider whether a better approach can be found. --Geronimo20 (talk) 14:00, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Skip Sievert is the most disruptive editor I have ever had the mis-fortune to encounter. I've taken a partial wikibreak from editing because he gives me stomach cramps. I've seen him drive other editors away as well, something which his style of passive-aggressive comments and 'warnings' seem designed to do. If any admin is reading, can you advise on how this large group (I would guess more than 20) should proceed with this complaint? LK (talk) 14:39, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * It seems like this large group, which I could consider a faction that edits together toward mainstream views, in my opinion is using the thread here as mostly an attack post blog/forum. I see no diffs that back up points given, and I think a large point of what this may be about is related to editors that prefer a certain viewpoint as being weightier in regard to editing practice on Wikipedia. Mostly this chain of events with LK above leading it, started here, when I thought he was being unfair to another editor on the Wiki econo project page here. Then a group of these editors that edit articles in a similar way, in the sense of mainstream presentation having weight started organizing and making a series of personal attacks such as this by Cretog8 that edits with Lawrence Khoo and John Quiggin often on economics articles, both of whom have gone from page to page inciting people such as this which points out related problems. Also Lawrence Khoo was warned to not remove cited information for various reasons on the main economics article which he and Cretog8 and John Quiggin were doing as noted here.


 * I am a neutral pov editor. And try to stick with r.s. and generally do not bring personalities into things, but the general un-diffed attack stuff above is not really appropriate, and there probably is a larger issue of a faction with a pov... being a desire to consider some things fringe or not mainstream enough and a desire to make some sources more weighty connected with so called mainstream, that may motivate negative comments on another editor, rather than actual conduct. No, I am not a conspiracy person, mostly it seems that conflicts of interest toward a certain viewpoint regardless of reliable sourcing to other viewpoints is at issue, and possibly some people that are uninformed as to some related viable information. Mostly I have tried to explain and defuse aspects of this, but have been met with a lot of negative commentary. More information on this issue here :::here's the abortive mediation attempt, with some context for why it ended here -


 * So, this may point out larger issues connected with factions editing to a pov... maybe equaling conflicts of interests in some cases, in my opinion, on some article topics, mostly related to energy and economics by people regarding themselves as expert editors that seem to be editing toward weight being determined by in their view mainstream. as expert editors expert editors which seems problematic in regard to issues here now. Both L.K. and J.Q. are known economists and appear also to be on a tangent to edit to a pov in regard to conflicted in regard to other information that is viable and reliably sourced. Also the person that started this thread has a long history of following me around and making negative commentary such as this, which are just the older ones. - Sorry about the length of this. - skip sievert (talk) 15:53, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * As requested, here are some diffs:
 * Skip posts elsewhere about a possible topic ban for LK, in spite of it being an informal discussion with no support beside Skip.
 * Skip again posts that LK "is currently under consideration for being topic banned". Accusations of "tandem editing" and wikihounding.
 * Skip responds to editors weighing in on the "topic ban" by implying those editors are part of the problem.
 * One of several places Skip refuses to accept consensus on the reliable sources discussion, at the same time accusing several editors of being so compromised that they should be judged a single entity.
 * Talk:Economics_and_energy, where I had gone through several additional hoops to get Skip to recognize the consensus.
 * , Skip accuses me of wikistalking and tells me to "Go elsewhere".
 * Weighing in on a user talk page notification which was on a completely different topic with accusations involving the posting editor and others who were not involved.
 * another accusation of wikistalking.


 * After I had attempted a rancor-free discussion of the substance of some material causing conflict, one editor responded productively, and then Skip responded with an attack . —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cretog8 (talk • contribs) 16:44, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Good lord I have no specialist knowledge in economics, but focusing on this guy skips behavior it's just... godawful. Topic ban him from economics articles, broadly construed and be done. Until a firm line is taken on stuff like this, tendentious game players have the upper hand over well-meaning editors.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:07, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I am not a tendentious game player. You probably ought to do some research, and not add to disinformation for an editing faction here without knowing some background. Notice the way the editor above has treated me in the past. You want to ignore that Bali ultimate,? and disregard others opinions? Think about the bigger picture here and how a group of people, with an ax to grind can use an attack mode on others here. skip sievert (talk) 17:24, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, everyone's out of step but Johnny. I get it. That people get fed up with this kind of endless BS is natural, and I don't blame them. Hopefully you'll be dealt with appropriately soon.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:28, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * No, but coming here to make an attack is pointless, you maybe should comment about the actual issues here, comment on content, not on contributors. Maybe you should read the related material instead of pontificating. skip sievert (talk) 17:33, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I think this speaks louder than my words here as to your approach toward me Cretog8 making an extreme personal attack. It seems to me that an effort to confuse normal editing and, and trying to bring out issues in regard to actual Wikipedia policies and guidelines is happening. - skip sievert (talk) 17:27, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * As someone who has attempted to work with Skipsievert on the Sustainability pages without success, it is distressing to see that this pattern of personal attacks not only continues, but intensifies. A block would be in order, IMO. Sunray (talk) 17:11, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Sunray and L.K. edit together in a group and Sunray has gone from article to article with an accusation that I am a sock puppet. among other things. This proved false. Sunray edits with Lawrence Khoo here and is part of other efforts in regard to attacking me in general. Mostly this thread is a poor excuse for an attack. This editing team to faction aspect is now piling people here again. The person that started this thread also edits there user Johnphos. - skip sievert (talk) 17:24, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

This is one of those conflicts that leads people to avoid -- for good reason. It's hard to tell whether the problem is Skip Sievert's behavior itself, or he's behaving this way because he's championing an opinion the folks at this WikiProject disagree with. (I say this as someone who has little exposure to contemporary currents in economic thought, & was surprised at some of the answers in the mediation over what is "mainstream" vs. "heterodox" & "fringe" theories.) The simplest solution here, IMHO, would be for Skip Sievert to concede some ground here in order to show good faith to those who aren't experts on economics. Stay away from economics-related topics, & edit other articles & show us that you are capable of working with other people. (Free clue: people often start resorting to name-calling when they are frustrated & see no way towards working out a compromise or understanding.) The alternative would be for an uninvolved party to perform a thorough study of this conflict & state her/his findings -- as Bali ultimate has. And a second investigation might just confirm B's opinion -- although perhaps with different words. -- llywrch (talk) 18:00, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Maybe llywrch, but there is an ongoing effort to attack an editor instead of the actual issues involved, so that to my mind is the real issue. I edit a wide variety of things on Wikipedia now besides Economics articles. Also Bali showed no indication of being familiar with any aspects of the actual background issues concerning this, but seemed to be going completely by others opinions that are editing in a faction aspect in my opinion mostly. You at least seem to understand the actual background issue in regard to this and I appreciate that. Note the kind of canvassing going on at page after page concerning an attempt which is pointed, to bring people here. I will concede some ground, as I normally do when reliable sources are used and ordinary editing practices. I try to stick with reliable source and n.p.o.v. - I do see a larger problem of faction editing and then that steam rolling in attacking another editor as I think this may show. I do believe this is the larger issue and connected with weight and fringe aspects according to some editors, that some disagree with, and those discussion have turned into a hunting down of people that dissagree. For this reason I think this boils down to a content issue, and probably this larger issue of weight to mainstream and Fringe issues needs addressing more than anything. Thanks. - skip sievert (talk) 18:17, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

This stuff sickens me. Seriously. One user has been been holding up efforts for months. Literally, months. Many places. For better or worse? I don't know your subject matter, so I can't comment on that precisely. It's really this simple; Skip is of the opinion that 1 person alone can be consensus and is the ultimate truth to the world, even in the face of literally very other involved (and some uninvolved) persons on Wikipedia. It's not because it's Skip, but anyone who tried to get away with stuff like this I'd be disgusted by. I'm not going to pretend to know anything about all your projects so I literally have no opinion of the content. Seriously. I've tried to read some of it and kind of spaced out for awhile :) Does not matter who, though. Some of his regular "foes" in editing don't look like saints, either, but they're at least speaking with consensus, and that means a lot on Wikipedia. Skip-- just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they're out to get you. It just means they can't find any logic in how you think Wikipedia policies and guidelines work, since it's clearly not the view that anyone else shares. Putting a WP:DGAF box on your userpage isn't an excuse to force conflict. Consensus is consensus. You go with it. That's how it works here. Period.

No type of dispute resolution on Wikipedia has ever worked, all the way up to mediation which Skip walked away from. No ANI is ever actually closed in favor of Skip's position (5+ of them, but rather the entire complaint and discussion are clogged with text from the solitary conflicted person and point of view and no admin seems to be able to jump in to render a decision before it gets too large to follow it all. Literally, canvassing discussions with Skip's own user to shove everyone away. Literally! Sixteen edits to this page over the course of 2 hours just to try to put static into the consensus of everyone else. Ironically, Skip complains of canvassing quite often, just in the opposite direction. I can't seem to ever see Skip actually answer someone's question with anything other than "yes", "no", or "u tandem". Messages in left in good faith get deleted with harassment warnings sent back. Oh, then there's the whole matter of Skip replacing large sections of text in articles with 100% new content, then complaining after it gets reversed for "see talk page" because there "wasn't consensus to stop him"? Very rarely does Skip actually ask in advance about making changes. Results as pathetic as this and here show where Skip seems to think it's okay to add text cited from the NY Times and leave it infallible in the article even if it's seen as fringe and not related-- just because it's the NY Times means you can't remove sourced into! Really. This is not cool to look at from any angle. No one is blameless, and levels of frustration from "mildly peeved" to "holywtf?" that I have of persons dug far deep into this. Sorry Skip, but as the sole outlier you makes the situation far too obvious even if the hubris of many is open to interpretation. Everyone involved seems to be at least a little insane, but at least most will pause article changes to discuss at least at least. Anyway, I'll just sit back and wait for Skip to come around a yell at me for ... I don't even know what. I'm just some freaking loser lowbie editor who that responds to misc help and comments in posted discussions. I bet s/he'll claim everything has been a neutral view from his point so s/he is infallible, then forget that an overwhelming consensus decided a source Skip used was not reliable and is very literally continuing the discussion on WP:IDONTHEARYOU. Sigh. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 19:47, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * S.S. almost singlehandedly motivated me to come up with a list of fixes for the MetaPolicy Taskforce advertised on top of pages maybe 6 weeks ago. Now I can't find the link. Anyone know where it is now so I can give them the list of things to do to get more editors in to help out in these areas?? )(Beside of course just becoming an editor who opines more on the various Notice Boards!!) Thanks!!! CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:58, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Skipsievert has said above: "I am a neutral pov editor. And try to stick with r.s. and generally do not bring personalities into things...", but what has happened in relation to the Technocracy articles over a period of several years demonstrates that this is simply not the case. My opening post in this thread shows that SS is regularly bringing personalities into things, and judging from my own experience and from what others have said here, SSs repeated personal attacks have resulted in much time-wasting and in some editors leaving WP (or at least thinking of leaving) and others taking wikibreaks. Moreover, I have never seen such a blatant case of POV-pushing and poor sourcing, across a whole suite of articles as in Category:Technocracy movement. POV pushing was an issue that was discussed at SS's 2008 user conduct RfC, see Requests for comment/Skipsievert.

I am concerned that SSs own brand of pro-technocracy views have unbalanced articles such as Technocracy movement, Technocracy Incorporated and Energy accounting, and SS's agressive promotion of his own agenda and personal attacks have resulted in many hundreds of posts from him to the Technocracy movement talk page. There are many scholarly books written on the issue of Technocracy but these are not being referred to, and the WP articles typically rely on the slanted views of a few self-published and wiki sources. One of these dubious sources is Encyclopedia of Earth, which was discussed here: Reliable_sources/Noticeboard.

There is a lot of overlapping content in the Technocracy articles (ie., particular paragraphs and chunks of text appearing in several articles), see Talk:Energy accounting and, and it appears that repetition of content across articles has been used by SS as a way to blatantly push technocratic ideas. And there are many separate articles on individual jargon words used in Technocracy, such as Urbanate and Technate, which again represent repetition and just seem to serve to increase the footprint of Technocracy issues on WP.

I would also mention that I first became aware of Skipsievert and Technocracy issues when SS posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Energy in February 2009, requesting help with the Energy accounting article, see. And I responded to that request in good faith and offered advice. Previous to reading the Energy accounting article I had never heard of Technocracy Incorporated or the Technocracy Study Course. So I don't have anything against Technocracy per se, but there are many problems with the way the subject is being presented and dealt with on WP. Johnfos (talk) 20:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I am not pro anything or pushing anything, and I find the above disturbing. Wikipedia is only about sources and verifiablity, not truth. See also the disclaimer. I also have not canvassed anyone to come here or to other pages, and do not plan to. The person that started this thread has on multiple pages... one example of many, I could list many. Here is another place you have canvassed called Please see, here. There are multiple other ones connected with yourself and a couple of others here that have gone from page to page to solicit people to come here. Since you started this thread this maybe should be known that you are beating the bushes for contributors. Also noted again from user User:Johnfos, that you have trailed my editing negatively in the past Johnphos past connection. - skip sievert (talk) 00:09, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I think this whole thing should be thrown out as it is noted that the main contributors here have almost all canvassed each other to come here for a negative attack... another canvassing action from a poster here. I could give other multiple examples of this. - skip sievert (talk) 00:39, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * At the very least could an admin speak to him about using 'it has been noted' and 'it is noted' to preface his own personal opinion? They imply a consensus (or at least a plurality of opinion) that is not there. In almost every single one of his edits it should be appropriately replaced with 'I feel that'. Everytime I see that phrase used dishonestly by Skip, it gives me a stomach ache. LK (talk) 04:33, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * All this business from SS about "canvassing" is nonsense. The instructions at the top of this page clearly say "You must notify any user that you discuss", and that is what I did following my opening comment on this thread.


 * SS, you need to be aware that you are highly visible on WP now. Many users know who you are and they watch what you do. There is no need to follow you around or canvass, because the disruption you cause is highly visible. Johnfos (talk) 04:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Here we have a case where a single editor is having a disruptive impact across multiple articles over a period of years. The community's response? Discuss this user at length, not noticing that this attention seems to be precicely the thing he most enjoys.  The process itself is broken, but there is an opportunity to discuss the process and how it could be improved here  [].  It seems completely clear that nothing will happen as a result of this notice unless through some wider review of the whole process.--Travelplanner (talk) 08:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * New Topic? With Skipsievert holding up discussions from being closed on 3 different comment/incident areas at the same time, something new is going to need to be put up somewhere. Really, I don't see what's stopping closure. How many other times have admins been brought in over and over again like this and zero action was ever taken? Lack of action is pretty much admitting that someone can WP:GAME his or her out of any trouble. Things like this are why some aspects of Wikipedia lose credibility or stop new editors from coming in. I seriously have no idea whatsoever if what Skip is standing up for by himself in article content is correct/proper/worth it or not, but it is never acceptable for someone to hold up anything so much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Datheisen (talk • contribs) 13:30, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Rangeblock for University of Maryland vandal?
For the last six months, an IP user from the University of Maryland, College Park (UMD) has been vandalizing articles, primarily inserting defamatory information about Wikipedia users. We block the user's UMD IP address, and then they show up again at a different UMD IP. Most recently, they were blocked at 128.8.73.83. This user has abused their user talk page when blocked, impersonating UMD staff in their unblock requests. A sampling of this user's work:

Selected contributions histories:
 * Special:Contributions/128.8.193.130
 * Special:Contributions/128.8.73.77
 * Special:Contributions/128.8.73.61
 * Special:Contributions/128.8.73.76
 * Special:Contributions/128.8.73.72

User talk page abuse (impersonating UMD staff):
 * User talk:128.8.79.2
 * User talk:128.8.193.115

I've discussed this matter with Mentifisto at User talk:Mentifisto, and with Arjun01 at User talk:Arjun01. The discussion with Mentifisto included an opinion about notifying UMD of the abuse (which I haven't done, since this seems better handled in-house), and then Arjun01 suggested a rangeblock. I was a little wary of rangeblocking because it would affect a large chunk of innocent users, but considering that legitimate users could still request accounts and log in through the block, I've warmed to the idea. What do others think? SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:33, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Rangeblock them and notify UMD, providing diffs of each abusive edit so that they may be able to discipline the wayward student. - Jeremy  ( v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!! ) 05:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Should I also notify the Wikimedia Foundation, or do you think that is a shade over the top? SchuminWeb (Talk) 15:31, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * A courtesy e-mail wouldn't hurt, as there may be PR concerns if UM (or the student community) flips out about it. If nothing else, it would give them a starting point if questions are raised later on. UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 15:51, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. I'll get all my ducks in a row, fire off the necessary notifications to UMD and the Foundation, and then execute the rangeblock.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 16:58, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

It seems I'm not smart enough to actually put a rangeblock into place. I've notified UMD and the Foundation via Email, and in my messages, indicated that the entire 128.8.x.x range would be blocked until January 1, 2010, blocking anonymous users only and preventing account creation. Would someone who is more competent with rangeblocks please help implement this? SchuminWeb (Talk) 20:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅  J.delanoy <sup style="color:red;">gabs <sub style="color:blue;">adds  20:30, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much. SchuminWeb (Talk) 20:46, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Glad to see this got sorted out, thanks to all involved. Good job! ~ Arjun  22:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Vicious Personal Attacks by Dubbawubba (moved from WQA)
An SPA by the name of Dubbawubba (talk)(contribs)has been posting extremely offensive and threatening personal attacks on my user page. I have followed procedure in responding to the attacks, leaving NPA templates 1-3 on their user page already, to no avail. The last attack was particularly vicious and violent with talk of celebrating my death etc. Please intervene. This user needs to be blocked ASAP. Rhode Island Red (talk) 06:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

NO NEED to block me as I came here only to update simple information to update wiki and make it accurate to the minute, but RED will have none of that!, but please do block me to appease Red, as that's his game. He pisses editors who disagree with him off, till they explode and then he reports them. It's his MO with many more than me, that's a fact. It would take a brain dead moron not to realize that I meant to and wanted to be out of line, over the top and make a point in doing so. I KNEW where this would lead.

Rhode Island Red has been allowed to hijack the Juice Plus page for over 5 years, he has chased away people wanting to take part in this article. He clearly thinks he "owns" the article and refuses to stick to the NPOV(if over 3000 edits doesn't shout this to someone of authority here, NOTHING will!) Countless people have tried to reason with him and he exhausts everyone who will listen, says they are attacking if they dare to disagree with his stand point. Celebrate his death? We all die, and this ass wipe will too someday and yes, hope to be around then and figure out his identity by cross referrencing every death in the world on the day after his last edit because the ONLY way this person will EVER stop owing the juice plus article and acting like a jerk is if he is dead and buried. he drives anyone to this point. READ his history if you want to see why someone would act like I did.

Block me, ban me. but of the love of God, would someone look into this whack job and get real. He has NO business doing anything on what is suppossed to be a NPOV resource article site. He is more prejudice than Al Sharpton.the all knowing 06:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC) the dubber!
 * Yeeeeah, I'm going to go out on a limb here and call WP:DUCK. I'd just go ahead and take this to WP:SPI and find out who the sockmaster is. Soxwon (talk) 06:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that Dubbawubba is probably a sock based on behaviour and apparent familiarity with the page in question; but I don't know if that is sufficient for WP:SPI. A block certainly seems appropriate. Issues at Juice Plus appear to be engaged in talk as appropriate. I've read the history a bit; and there is long standing bad feeling between active editors. However it does not appear to warrant the behaviour of User:Dubbawubba. There has been a RfC on Rhode Island Red now over two years old where issues were able to be aired. It is clear that the issues involve multiple editors, not just one. &mdash;Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont)  11:59, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

This was moved to ANI from WQA by User:Looie496. All the content above was originally at WP:WQA. I am not sure if this kind of transfer is kosher, and as yet no notice of the move to ANI has been given to Dubbawubba. I am not sure what is best to do next. If this alert is still here half an hour from now I'll go ahead and add a notice in his user page. &mdash;Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont)  15:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I left a note at the WQA section saying that I had moved it; I don't see why more is needed. This case obviously requires admin action, and WQA doesn't generally get that, so a move was necessary. Looie496 (talk) 15:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

This user is clearly not here for any constructive purpose. I have blocked them indefinitely and, except for any possible sockpuppet investigations, we should probably just wash our hands of the situation and move on. <b style="color:#0000FF;">Sher</b><b style="color:#6060BF;">eth</b> 15:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Sounds good to me. I was simply concerned about the requirements for prior notification in the case of a move like this; but as you say it's pretty clear what is going on so its all good. Adios &mdash;Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont)  16:00, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Dubbawubba was already participating in the WQA thread. The tag  had been added to the thread in WQA, and therefore Dubbawubba was theoretically aware.  Back in my days in WQA, I wouldn't move the text - I would open a new case here as an escalation, referring to the old one in WQA so that it was archived with the rest of the cases. ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 16:15, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Sincere thanks to all for your prompt attention and expert assistance. There are lingering sock/meat puppet, SPA, COI, and DE concerns, so user conduct issues on this article might end up back on the ANI radar again someday. Any suggestions for prevention and future action would be appreciated. Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:28, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Repeated violations of WP:OWN on Mallika Sherawat
Since quite some time, User:Shshshsh has appointed himself the judge of what to include and what not to include in various articles related to Bollywood, with the user removing everything he does not agree with. While this is repeated on several pages, the most recent conflict concerns Indian actress Mallika Sherawat. Starting months ago, the user has removed almost every addition, as can be seen from the articles editing history. The user's reason for editing comes very close to censorship. It is a well-known, and easily sourced, fact that the age of Mallika Sherawat is controversial. This has been discussed extensively on the talk page, and is often added to the article, yet consistently removed by Shshshsh. The user, obviously being a fan of the actress, has decided that we should give her birth year as 1981. When an IP added a comment about the age controversy, it was immediately removed by Shshshsh. The user's argument that the source is not reliable may seem credible, but the user has removed four differeny sources claiming that non of them are credible. What makes this almost comical is that his prefered source is a gossip article about buying condoms. In other words, his version is if anything even less sourced by WP:RS. His main argument for removing virtually everything added to the article is that we should "respect her privacy" and, ,. In short: Since months, user Shshshsh removes almost everything added to Mallika Sherawat, especially material he thinks is unfavourable to her. This violates WP:OWN and reeks of censorship. He gladly removes four different sources about the age controversy, yet insists we should accept his source, a gossip article, as the only credible source. The user is well aware of the rules, as I've warned him about it and he has a history of blocks for similar actions.Jeppiz (talk) 16:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:OWN? You cite santabanta.com, apunkachoice.com, imdb.com - all unreliable sources, you are warned for edit warring even after being asked to reach consensus, and after all that you accuse me of owning this page? This is quite funny, more because I cited a fair reason to the reversal. After that I asked another editor to interfere on the talk page and stepped out.
 * For the record, Mallika Sherawat is on my watchlist and is mostly vandalised by users. Most of the time the page is highly filled with gossip, and yes, I was the one who did the most edits to the page. Nothing WP:OWN here. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  17:10, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * And one important thing: "a gossip article about buying condoms"?? It's an interview by Rediff.com - one of the best known and most reputed sites in India. Get your facts right before trying to mislead people because of a title. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  17:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * A couple of points.
 * I most certainly accuse you of trying to own the page. Your repeated claims that we should not add this and that because we should "respect her privacy" speaks for itself.
 * Where in that article does it say that she is born on October 24 in 1981? Nowhere, so it's useless as a source. You know as well as I do that her age is controversial, yet you want to ignore it and use a date for which we don't have a single source while other users and I want to mention that several alternative birth dates have been given.Jeppiz (talk) 17:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Jeppiz, Can you provide diffs for specific edits by Shshshsh that you find problematic ? All the edits you point to in your original post, are perfectly fine and consistent with wikipedia's policies on biographies of living persons. Abecedare (talk) 17:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC) PS: Is there a source for her being born on October 24, 1981; the rediff interview only says that she was 21 in 2003. If we don't have a reliable source, the data should be excluded. Abecedare (talk) 17:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Abecedare, thank you for the observation with which you treated the case.
 * Jeppiz, of course I know her age is controversial. Did I deny this? No. She does not even look like 28 years old. But my opinion does NOT matter. It's just that your sources are not reliable and Rediff is. Additionally, I remember watching an interview in which she said she was born in 1981. She may be lying, but it's her own thing. Rediff.com does support that she was born in 1981, as she was 21 in June 05, before October. The fact that you removed it only goes agains you because it shows you have an opinion you want to enforce. I don't. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  17:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * If there is a reliable source that explicitly mentions her birth-date or year, feel free to add it to the article (with attribution if needed), but make sure not to extrapolate from sources. I'll watchlist the page, although I don't plan to contribute content.Abecedare (talk) 17:51, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Is rediff a reliable source? I think a discussion about that should be taken to WP:RS.  It doesn't look exactly like a peer-reviewed site.  99.166.95.142 (talk) 19:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a news site; as such the criterion to use is reputation and editorial control, not peer review. In my estimation, it is an ok source for such information, on par with celebrity and entertainment magazines, that are likely to be the only alternatives available for such topics. Of course, RSN would be the right venue to discuss this in greater detail, if somebody is interested. Abecedare (talk) 19:38, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Even Rediff gives different birth years for Mallika in different articles. In the one Shshshsh mentions, she was described as being 21 years in in 2003. In this article, also from Rediff, she was described as being 36 years in [2008.http://specials.rediff.com/getahead/2008/aug/25slide1.htm]. Given this, Rediff cannot used to claim her birth year as 1981 while ignoring other articles in Rediff giving different birth years.Jeppiz (talk) 19:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Apparent promotional editing/linking -- User:Tdl185
Tdl185 has made more than 100 edits today, always to musician biographies, in each case adding a link to a minor artist-specific promotional page on the Sony Music UK website. This is, I think borderline spam at best, but it isn't clear vandalism and the username isn't overtly promotional. The editor has very few edits before today, most of which were similarly promotional. In every case I've checked, the article already includes a link to the artist's official site, while the newly linked pages consistently include prominent links to the artists' retail "stores" on Amazon and to the artist download-retail pages on iTunes. Does anybody disagree that these are inappropriately spammy links, failing WP:ELNO #5, and should be removed? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * A retail page is not a WP:RS and fails WP:EL. Take'm away! ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 18:19, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Already on it, before I saw this. 107 removed, a handful remain. We may want to assess those; they are used as references, but given the spammy way this was done other sources may be warranted. Thoughts? --Ckatz <sup style="color:green;">chat <sub style="color:red;">spy  18:57, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Blocked user, spam only account--Hu12 (talk) 19:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Blocked user, spam only account--Hu12 (talk) 19:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

legal threats via email
Just received this via my wikipedia email (I've added the wiki links) from Management Lifelike.

(redacted content of personal correspondence per WP:COPYVIO; context should be clear enough from editor's description)

Not sure what we do about legal threats received via email? I would presume other editors got the same. --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I've gotten lots like this; I just ignore them (and I certainly don't reply to them, giving them my email address). I don't think posting that email here was a great idea... Tan   &#124;   39  18:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * why? --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You can respond if you want, or ignore it. Posting it here was neither a good nor bad idea IMO, doesn't really matter. Prodego  <sup style="color:darkgreen;">talk  18:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Feeding the trolls, undue attention, GFDL, etc... Tan   &#124;   39  18:57, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't he be blocked if not for legal threats, under the username policy?--Unionhawk Talk E-mail Review 18:59, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. Tan   &#124;   39  19:01, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Is there a good reason that article exists? No prose, no WP:N ... I've released a bunch of remixes too... that is, if you've ever heard me at karaoke! ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 19:15, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The relevant notability guideline is WP:BAND. Mjroots (talk) 19:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Redacted content of email posted above due to licensing issues; nominated Articles for deletion/Lifelike. Durova 355 20:07, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I also received a legal threat via email from the same user. In fact, the first was was addressed to "Cameron," and the second email had my actual username. Don't think this role account quite knows how to deal with people. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 20:34, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

The article itself has been snowball deleted. Shall we mark this resolved? Durova 355 21:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Sounds good. What about the suggestion of salting? Mjroots (talk) 21:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Resigned the bit at this project; all I do now is add spice. ;) Durova 355 22:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Procedurally withdrawing the request to mark resolved; the original editor notified via Twinkle created a redirect, not the article. Learned about that after deletion and left a non-automated note at the creator's user talk. Durova 355 22:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Legal threat, and personal attack by an IP.
User:217.203.157.248 is threatening to sue Wikipedia and User:MS over a forum-ish talk page post that was reverted by MS.. He has also personally attacked MS in the same edit... 217.203.157.248 has been notified of this thread. Until It Sleeps Talk •  Contribs 19:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Blocked for a week. If someone knows more about how dynamic that IP is, feel free to adjust the block length. Someguy1221 (talk) 19:45, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

File:Amanita daucipes 18186.jpg
There is currently an unprotected image on the English Wikipedia's Main Page (the DYK section). I couldn't believe it myself at first, but I tested it myself and I was able to overwrite a new version.  Jolly  Ω   Janner  20:36, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The image is at commons, so an dmin there needs to protect it or someone needs to upload a local copy and protect it (I'd do that, but someone more familiar with the procedure may be able to do it faster). Abecedare (talk) 20:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I would've done it myself, but I need sysop status to upload it locally under the same file name for some stupid reason.  Jolly  Ω   Janner  20:45, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * You need a sysop bit to upload/edit the local copy because of the cascading protection applied to images/templates displayed at mainpage. Thanks for bringing this up at ANI! Abecedare (talk) 20:51, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I couldn't do before the image was put on the Main Page. Even though the image is not protected you cannot upload a file to English Wikipedia that has the same name as a file on Commons, unless you're sysop. I raised the issue at User talk:SoWhy, where he checked it on his non-sysop account to confirm my theory.  Jolly  Ω   Janner  21:38, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, I didn't know that! Abecedare (talk) 22:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

proposed topic ban for User:AurangzebMarwat
See: Administrators' noticeboard Thanks, tedder (talk) 21:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Umm, this is a circular link...it leads right back here...is it supposed to go somewhere else? Frmatt (talk) 21:31, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed - see WP:AN. (link hopefully corrected). Mjroots (talk) 21:46, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

User mcjakeqool's block was unfair and disproportionate
I am rasing the concern that User mcjakeqcool's block was unfair and disproportionate, and it should be investigated by Wikipedia Administrators noticeboard/Incidents. In my opinion the biggest flaw was not letting User mcjakeqcool have his/her say at Wikipedia Administrators noticeboard/Incidents, I have other concerns but I am not certain they are appropriate for Wikipedia Administrators noticeboard/Incidents. Also may I state that I have taken on board the unsolicited comments User Guyinblack25 has made on User mcjakeqcool's talk page, and I have taken on board what he/she has said or typed to be more acuate and I will work from NOW on with User Guyinblack25 and other users & may I state I have already worked with him. As I said above, the block was unfair & disproportionate, User mcjakeqcool should have had his/her say & finally I am working with user User Guyinblack25 other users, aswell as already doing so. mcjakeqcool Mcjakeqcool (talk) 17:37, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you seriously referring to yourself in the third person? Jauerbackdude?/dude. 17:42, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The block has expired. Learn from it and move on. Under Preferences > Editing there is a box marked "mark all edits minor by default". Make sure it is unchecked, that way you will have to fill in the check box to mark an edit as minor. If you forget to do that when making a minor edit no harm will be done. Mjroots (talk) 17:47, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * And yet, every edit, including this complaint is still being marked as minor. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:06, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Jauerback - yes, he pretty much always refers to himself in the third person. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:11, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

McJ - as far as I can see you've never 'worked with' GuyinBlack, or me, or Tim Song, or anyone else who has offered to help you. Could you define what you mean by 'work with'?--Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:14, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * IIRC there was substantial support for indef at the last thread, but I was of the view that Tan's one-week block might have some effect so as to avoid the need for indef. I think it is now apparent that he has no intention to follow WP norms, even after Guyinblack's detailed explanation on his talk page, and after Tan's warning that continuing his behavior may result in an indef block. As such, per Tan et al. and my comments on his talk page here, I'd support an indef block. Four ANI threads later, his presence is still not a net positive. Tim Song (talk) 20:04, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Uh, Mcj, it was the folks at WP:AN/I who imposed this ban on you. Any reasonable person would assume that any investigation by WP:AN/I will simply confirm that decision -- especially with the lack of evidence you have supplied to show that this decision was "unfair and disproportionate". (see this archived thread for further details.) -- llywrch (talk) 20:11, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * As I said on his talk page, McJackqcool has obviously learned nothing and refuses to edit according to how the community wishes, as such he's left us little choice. I support an indef.--Crossmr (talk) 21:36, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I would have to agree with those above who find Mcjakeqcool's actions bothersome. They have received multiple warnings and comments on his talk page to not mark non-minor edits as such and even received a one week block of editing privileges for it.   What is the first thing Mcjakeqcool does when the block is lifted?  Create a new section here at ANI and marks it minor.  This is the fourth ANI discussion about this editor (admittedly, they opened it on themselves this time.)  Mcjakeqcool does not get it, does not listen, does not cooperate.  This has gone on too long.  I'd support an indef block of editing privileges.  --TreyGeek (talk) 12:09, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The only reason I haven't opened a thread to discuss a community ban about this user is that maybe he is actually working with Guyinblack. (It's what Mcj claims on his talk page.) So the moment Guyinblack reports here that mentoring Mcjakeqcool failed -- or he has not even heard from this alleged Brit rapper -- we should take that step. -- llywrch (talk) 16:48, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I've asked Guyinblack if he cares to comment. Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:27, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I must admit, I'm a bit confused by Mcjakeqcool's comments. My communication with them has been very minimal. Though I've posted comments to their talk page, I have only gotten two responses back: first to "deny" adoption, and second to enlist my help. However, Mcjakeqcool have never come to me after that for help on articles or discussions.
 * So I can't say that we've ever worked together. Not like how I regularly do with WP:VG members. I would welcome a collaboration with Mcjakeqcool, but no such discussion has occurred on or off the Wiki to lead to that.
 * The only conclusions that come to mind are:
 * This user is not a fluent English speaker and has a limited and different understanding of many English words used here.
 * This user is just trying see what havoc they can cause and attention they can get.
 * I hope it's the first one. Either way, not being able to communicate with someone because they are unable to or unwilling to gives us few options. (Guyinblack25 talk 19:51, 30 October 2009 (UTC))
 * Agreed. But I'd rather exhaust all reasonable options before we resort to a community ban. The grounds for one would be, to put it bluntly, he's too stupid to edit Wikipedia. We should use that rationale as rarely as possible due to endless opportunities for misuse. -- llywrch (talk) 21:36, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't use the term "stupid" but WP:COMPETENCE is sometimes cited with certain editors. A person who is absolutely brilliant but can't type well enough to be understood, or a person whose poor grasp of the English language precludes any positive contributions to the project are examples of people who aren't stupid at all but are still incapable of properly editing the encyclopedia. It's seems cruel but just because anyone can edit the encyclopedia, that doesn't mean everyone should. --  At am a  頭 23:20, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * We've exhausted all reasonable options at this point. He's been blocked twice, he's had several editors reach out to him, his behaviour is evident elsewhere on the internet as I pointed out before and goes well beyond wikipedia. Wikipedia isn't reform school. The only willingness he's shown to "work" with the community is when facing an indefinite ban and so far that has proven rather fruitless. I cannot see any compelling reason to keep beating our head against the wall here.--Crossmr (talk) 00:30, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) According to off-wiki sources, McJ is born and raised in the UK. Now we do have a few communities where children are raised in a native language and start school without a full grasp of English, but McJ doesn't appear to belong to one of these communities. This is what McJ says himself about his grasp of english: ''I can speak in english, however I can only speak politically correct jargon, think of a MP and the houses of parlament, medical communication, police delacet etc. And also I do have poor english skills, and I am not reluctant to admit my english teacher gave me a F- in english. Also this is wikipeida, so we are MEANT to speak in jargon! This was in response to Chocobogamer and myself both asking him what this meant: I have seen proof that it exists with my own eyes, however I still it's existence and it is therefore orignal research''  In reply, he copied the text, and reposted it below our queries, as if we hadn't heard him. If you try saying his comments, and imagine a dub beat of some kind behind them, you can almost hear him speaking, so I think it's fair to say that his problems aren't just because he is being asked to use written English -he may be hard to follow when he is talking as well.

For me, he is more a nuisance than disruptive. Even the thing about the minor edits is just a nuisance - he never actually says anything on talk pages that make much sense. As I said before, he made a mistake a year ago about minor edits and promised at that point to do it properly, but for some reason when he made the error more recently, he decided that he was right and Wikipedia was wrong. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:15, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Which is the rub. There have been a few people who make good faith edits, yet just not capable of contributing to Wikipedia. We shouldn't ban them unless we are sure we are doing the right thing. -- llywrch (talk) 05:46, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * But once again, wikipedia is not reform school. If he is incapable of editing and yet persists, then there is little choice. He shouldn't be banned, he should be blocked. If at some future point he can demonstrate that he can write an article or contribute positively, then he can be unblocked. Beyond his nonsensical talk comments, he has had issues with article creation and other main space problems. So long as that is an issue and he fails to recognize what is wrong, we can't force him to edit properly. I don't think anyone expects Elen to go to his house and stand behind him and watch him edit and barring that, I can't see how we're going to make a change here.--Crossmr (talk) 06:40, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I think I'll pass on that. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:24, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Blocked
I've read the discussion above and the recent contributions of, and agree that the lack of quality in his contributions, which mostly create cleanup work for others or are meaningless talk page comments, is a serious concern. I'm blocking the user indefinitely until he can prove to an administrator's satisfaction that he is competent enough to contribute productively to Wikipedia.  Sandstein  07:29, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * He has requested an unblock, but added the request to that interminable blog of his at the top of the page, instead of using the unblock template - which he previously used correctly (ie he managed to add it to it to the page with the words he wanted to say in the proper place) but unsuccessfully (because he never gave a reason why he should be unblocked). --Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:39, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Which is, of course, part of the problem. I've never liked WP:COMPETENCE for a number of reasons, but Mcjakeqcool is practically a walking advertisement for it. was indef blocked for being systematically incapable of following the norms of interaction here IIRC and he was a far more productive contributor. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:52, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Good block. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 13:54, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


 * To the best of my knowledge, Sandstein has not been involved in this matter previously, & his block is the judgment of a disinterested party. In other words, a decision has been made & the matter resolved. If Mcjakeqcool wants to be an accepted member of Wikipedia, he's got some larnin' to do. -- llywrch (talk) 20:27, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I am of the opinion that User mcjakeqcool, should be unblocked, ONLY if he can follow wikipeida guidelines. 86.21.66.162 (talk) 12:52, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

He has posted another unblock request It is addressed to me, and in that wretched blog. This is what it says

Would an admin like to look at it? Should I post it into an unblock template for him (I have a feeling that will bugger the template up and the admins will think it is me making the request). Should I take up Crossmr's suggestion and stand over him until he gets it right? I feel involved because it's addressed directly to me. Advice would be appreciated. Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:23, 1 November 2009 (UTC)


 * He's been told what he needs to do. He's not a child.  If he cannot (or will not) follow simple directions, nobody else should help him and we should just leave him be.  He's not the first and won't be the last editor who demands that we change the entire encyclopedia for their ego, so I say ignore him and move on.  He's not worth the energy and in my mind, further help just tells him he doesn't have to follow any rules to get what he wants because someone will always be there to follow him around.  Besides, he's acting like it's some sort of negotiation where if he promises to do one thing, we'll get the benefit of his help here, not that he'll do what's needed to continue the privilege of editing here.  -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:25, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree, while he's amazingly not marked those two edits as minor, he has continued his ability to create more work for other editors as it necessitated elen posting here, or creating the unblock request for him. Unless he can demonstrate, completely on his own that he is a competent editor, I can't see the point of spending any further time here.--Crossmr (talk) 01:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I feel because User mcjakeqcool has changed his tactics in a postaive way, he should be unblocked. 217.204.11.196 (talk) 16:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Jake. HalfShadow (talk) 16:24, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * WHAT?! 217.204.11.196 (talk) 16:25, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * A geolocate lookup assigns the IP address 217.204.11.196 to the National Autistic Society in London, England. If this actually Mcjakeqcool, that would explain a lot. Doesn't excuse his behavior, though. -- llywrch (talk) 17:00, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Edits aren't consistent with Mcj - for one thing this editor identifies and corrects typos and poor spelling. Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:18, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not quite sure what you are talking about, Elen; this IP has not edited in more than a month before suddenly coming out of nowhere to defend McJ. The old edits are of very limited value here, as this is probably a shared IP address. No, this is most likely a sock. The ducks are quacking loudly. Tim Song (talk) 01:26, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Tactics gives it away.--Crossmr (talk) 12:51, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * D'OH! Should have spotted that the first post here has a typical McJ spelling error. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * No comment. User mcjakeqcool should still be unblocked though. 217.204.11.196 (talk) 15:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * and that more or less cements it. I don't even think a CU would be needed at this point. The IP should be blocked for a week for block evasion.--Crossmr (talk) 21:36, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 21:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

If you guys want another neutral, uninterested admin to process that "unblock" request above, I'll be happy to do it and take whatever flak comes as a result. Given the history on this guy, that unblock reason is not even close to adequate to show that the user will not continue to be troublesome once he's unblocked. &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 20:11, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I for one would appreciate that. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:50, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I've interacted with MJC, notably when I patched up an article he created, and I was involved with the 2nd ANI thread. Back at that thread, I proposed a course of action which was adopted, designed to mend MJC's ways before resorting to indef. I also said, though, that if he showed no sign of improvement, I would support indef. MJC, I think, has not generally been out to cause trouble (though the whole minor-edit thing does seem disruptive), but his edits on the whole have been counter-productive as demonstrated. MJC does not seem to have the ability to be a productive Wikipedian. I support indef, but it's right we leave the door open for him to appeal in the future when he might be more suited to editing correctly. HonouraryMix (talk) 23:38, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Suspected Bambifan sock
Please see, I'm not quite sure this fits the exact pattern however it does seem suspicious.  Triplestop  x3  22:27, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Not an admin, but I'm curious as to how exactly you can discern a pattern from two mainspace edits, one of which was reverted and marked wrongly as vandalism, and one which appears to have simply been a name correction and can be easily verified (I know IMDB doesn't qualify as WP:RS, but I checked it there...and the edit was accurate). I'm going to ask that an admin close this as no issue.  Also, I've left a note at the talk page of the user who marked this user's first edit as vandalism about "biting" newcomers, and asking for an explanation about why they marked that edit as vandalism. Frmatt (talk) 23:48, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Nothing biting about it. Pure vandalism. Either from Bambifan, or the pain in the butt sequel vandal who has repeatedly thrown a ton of fake and incorrect sequel claims on a ton of these b-movie articles. As noted below, I suspect more Bambifan just trying to be annoying. Further reply on my talk page. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 23:54, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * There is already a new SPI checkuser being done. That one I'm less sure of if he is Bambifan or the sequel vandal User:A4d49f4a, but from his creating Scatte and his name, I'm inclined towards the former. Unfortunately, one of Bambifan's fun ways to try to get my attention is repeating another vandals vandalism. The CU will help clear which it is. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 23:54, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed, the bad grammar fits BF101's pattern well as well.  Triplestop  x3  00:01, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

On a semi-related note, Pe De Chinelo is back, too. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 00:03, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I have left an apology for User:AnmaFinotera on their talk page because I didn't notify them that I mentioned them here. Frmatt (talk) 00:08, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * So that's his name!!! He's been driving us nuts at Green Mile and Shawshank too! Already had like 2 IPs blocked today-- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 00:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I left a note at User_talk:Tiptoety. He/she's been good at swatting all the socks. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 00:14, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately I think Tiptoety has retired; he last edited in August. -- <B>Soap</B> Talk/Contributions 02:09, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * To Frmatt - It's amazing how easily some administrators can identify a sockpuppet after they've blocked so many of them in the past. I suppose that when you see so many of them what may not be apparent to people like us would be obvious to them. --  At am a  頭 02:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Tiptoety went on a wikibreak shortly after his application for checkuser failed. (Sorry, I've no idea whether these two events are related, or whether he intends returning, I just recall the event). Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:17, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Rude anon
Nope, I'm not talking about myself! I could use a little help: 24.148.0.83 (talk) 13:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I warned the IP with a NPA template. Syrthiss (talk) 13:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * ...and since they blanked my warnings with abusive edit summaries, they are now blocked. Syrthiss (talk) 13:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - I'll keep an eye out, although this user seems to have created a sockpuppet to continue reverting. 24.148.0.83 (talk) 00:51, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Arbcomknowswhothisis
User:Arbcomknowswhothisis looks like a single-purpose account intended for conducting either a breaching experiment or merely testing the boundaries of Wikipedia's tolerance. -- The Anome (talk) 21:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * My guess is something related to Scientology. MuZemike 21:39, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Out of curiosity, what makes you think that? I don't see any edits related to that subject matter in the user's contribs. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:50, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The best thing would be to ask arbcom if the do, indeed, know who this is. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 21:55, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Isn't this user blockable under the username policy even if xe never edits anything other than their user page? The username is certainly intended to cause disruption... MirrorLockup (talk) 21:58, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeffed as a disruptive sock. I will bring it up to the appropriate folks on the oh so very slight chance that I got this one wrong.--Tznkai (talk) 21:59, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I've confirmed with an Arbitrator that this block as appropriate.--Tznkai (talk) 22:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

IP Ban?
This IP has been warned a few times before []. Now the editor from this IP has removed sourced information without any explanation []. Maybe some administrator may deem it fit to ban this IP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.193.240.57 (talk) 01:45, 4 November 2009 (UTC) Another example of this editor removing sourced information without any explanation [] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.193.240.57 (talk) 01:57, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Last edit was over 2 months ago. DMacks (talk) 02:16, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Last edit was over 2 months ago. DMacks (talk) 02:16, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Severe Wikihounding and Disruptive Editing by Arthur Rubin
I first crossed paths with Arthur Rubin on October 30th while making my first ever edit to the page on New World Order Conspiracy Theory at 19:00 Oct 30 Diff1. My attempted contribution was simply to add an entry to the book list, Windswept House, and this included a wiki link to the book title as well as the ISBN number, and I left an edit summary that reads, "addition of one of the most well-known and important books on this topic that is strangely absent." A mere four minutes later at 19:04 on Oct 30, Arthur Rubin reverted my edit, and rather than asking for more information (which I would have been happy to provide) or stating a valid reason, he identified it as vandalism, and marked his revert as a "minor edit", Diff2. A mere three minutes after this at 19:07, Arthur Rubin visited the page on "faction (literature)" and reverted a change I made, a page where he had again no previous editing experience faction (literature) Diff3. I had changed the page on "faction" to redirect to the page on "roman a clef" because I believe the literary device of faction is equivalent to that used in a roman a clef and the second page was more developed, with "roman a clef" being the much more well-known term. Arthur Rubin notated his edit summary, identifying it as vandalism and marking it as a "minor edit." A mere one minute after this at 19:08, Arthur Rubin did a batch reversion of my contributions at the "roman à clef" page, another page where Arthur Rubin had no previous editing experience Diff4. He removed the aforementioned book from the book list, and removed the term "faction" that I had added to the page as a related term. Rather than give reasons for his edits or requesting talk on the discussion page, he marked his reversions as "minor edits" and identified my contributions as "vandalism" in the edit summary. A mere one minute after this at 19:09, Arthur Rubin did a batch reversion of edits I made to a recently created and rather undeveloped Wiki page for Windswept House, a page where Arthur Rubin again had no previous editing contribution Diff5. His edit summary stated that, "Changes appear not to be helpful." For example, one these changes I made was a conspicuous correction of a spelling error for a character in the book, "Maestroianni". Another change I made that he deleted was a switch of the descriptor of "Irish writer" for the author and substitution of "Catholic priest", since he was actually a U.S. citizen and lived and did all of his writing in the U.S. during the last 35 years of his life, and this "roman a clef" book was about the Catholic Church's role in a New World Order Conspiracy. He made no other edits to the page except to revert "my" contributions.

I'd like to point out the timespan over which all of the above occurred. It occurred apparently over a span of around 9 minutes. I posted a simple addition of a book to a list on the New World Order Conspiracy page, not exactly something that should cause alarm, and over the course of the next nine minutes, Arthur Rubin not only reverted this edit and labelled it as vandalism, but hounded me by visiting multiple other pages I had contributed to where he had no previous editing experience and did batch reversions of my contributions calling them also vandalism or "not helpful", even if it included the fixing of spelling errors.

I did make limited attempts to undo the reverts that Arthur Rubin made to most of my edits, as can be seen in the history of the aforementioned pages after October 30. For convenience, my attempts to undo his reverts can be seen on one screen at my user contribution page. If you take a look at the history page for faction (literature), you can see where Arthur Rubin initially reverted my edit and labelled it as vandalism. This was followed by my undo of his revert with an explanation to him that it wasn't vandalism coupled with a request for him to open discussion on the talk page if he had other reasons to revert my edit. Rather than do this, Arthur Rubin again reverted, and again labelled it as "vandalism" calling his revert a "minor edit." When reverts are labelled as "minor edits" for vandalism, I believe this keeps other editors from bothering to investigate when they have pages in their watch list.

I have made efforts to reconcile this directly with Arthur Rubin on his talk page, and also included multiple warnings in edit summaries as can be seen in my contribution page after October 30. Despite this, Arthur Rubin continues to block and frustrate any attempted contribution I try to make to any page, and he'll make successive excuses to keep me from contributing to any page. If you look at the history page for roman à clef, you'll note that Arthur Rubin made three reverts of my contributions that included my inclusion of the book "Windswept House" to the list of roman à clef books. The first time he called it vandalism(1). The second time he called "Windswept House" a "film" even though it's a book, and this was after he reverted multiple edits of mine on the Wikipedia page for this book (2)! The third time, on November 2, he took out the book again and noted in his edit summary that, "still NOT notable."

After all this, Arthur Rubin also posted warnings to my talk page telling me I was coming close to violating the 3RR rule. Notice of this complaint has been posted to Arthur Rubin's talk page. MeSoStupid (talk) 01:02, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * It would be more impressive if you had made a correct, constructive, edit. Perhaps we could have a discussion on the relevant talk page, noting that WP:BRD suggestion you should not reinsert your preferred version until you obtain consensus.  Windswept House is not very notable, whatever medium it's in, and is clearly not appropriate to any New World Order article.  Whether Windswept House fits Roman a clef and/or faction is a separate question, but it's not particularly relevant to either article.
 * It might be noted that your addition of Windswept House to New World Order (conspiracy theory) was removed by two or three established editors.
 * Some of your edits to Windswept House may have been appropriate, but it seems clear that none of your other edits in the field have been appropriate. To the extent that your edits were corrections of errors in fact, I apologize for reverting them.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 01:24, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I have previously [ suggested] to Arthur Rubin that the use of the word "vandalism" in edit summaries and reversions for edits that are not clear vandalism is more harmful than helpful. I'm disappointed to [ see] that it [ continues.]
 * (I'd also suggest to User:MeSoStupid that his concerns are more likely to be addressed if they're described a bit more concisely. :) ) kmccoy (talk) 02:10, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * What kmccoy said. I also happened to notice Rubin's rather inflammatory blanket use of the term 'vandalism' in edit summaries, and have left a message with a few diffs where I hope he can see for himself that he's been using the term inappropriately although the underlying edit may be supported by one of our policies and guidelines. Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 04:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I feel no need to post a rejoinder to Arthur Rubin's response. I'd only like stress that I believe my particular case extends beyond inappropriate use of tagging good faith edits as vandalism, and into the realm of Wikihounding and Disruptive editing. MeSoStupid (talk) 04:45, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I can see why you as a new user might be taking it personally, but what he did is not hounding or disruptive so far. Please focus on editing - if you make good content edits nobody will be bothering you about it.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. In my opinion, it's a clear case of Wikihounding, and the core summary of my complaint as to this can be found in the second paragraph of my original complaint, with the tedious details and proof noted above and below this. Thanks. MeSoStupid (talk) 05:30, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I respect how you feel about this, but as I said, I don't think his actions rise to that level. Could he have handled this better?  Sure.  But it's not the sort of thing we typically sanction anyone for.
 * You have had feedback on the issues with your edits, and I think that you can succeed at editing articles going forwards if you listen to the good advise above and try to focus on content. That's what the encyclopedia is all about, after all.  Thanks.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm a littled bit bothered, georgewilliamherbert, by your suggestive comment in this context that "if you make good content edits nobody will be bothering you about it", as if the real problem is with quality of my editing, and if I had simply made good edits in the first place Arthur Rubin would have never bothered me. That's not what the problem is here, and even if my good faith edits were poor in quality, which they're not, it would have no effect on the abusive pattern of behavior I outlined above. In my opinion, you're coloring this dispute in a fashion that it should not be colored, and then based on this false coloring suggesting that this isn't the type of behavior that's usually sanctioned, which is false. I've been looking at case histories. I'm not going to take the bait and fall into the trap of letting this turn into a quality of contribution dispute. That's not why I'm here. MeSoStupid (talk) 07:49, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

In your last edit here, georgewilliamherbert, you noted your edit summary as "redirect towards content. we're an encyclopedia 8-)." This isn't a venue for arguments over content.  This is a forum to report abuse. If you want to contribute your opinions as to the quality of my edits, feel free to voice your opinion on the relevant talk pages; I look forward to your contributions. Thanks. MeSoStupid (talk) 07:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:TLDR. But from what I can read, it's a simple case of a disputed edit from a new wiki account being reverted (which is okay) zealously by an editor who is on article patrol (which is common) with an unfriendly edit summary accusing the edit of being vandalism (not okay, but also common).  It looks like Arthur Rubin was engaging in what some editors consider vandalism fighting... a fairly thankless task of patrolling the encyclopedia looking for problem edits and simply reverting them.  Most of the time that's just fine, and they pick up where the bots leave off.  Occasionally, as here, in their hurry they flag a good faith edit as vandalism.  Perhaps he's using a semi-automated tool or something.  It's also fairly normal, common, and desirable, for people when they see what they consider a bad edit from a new account, to check in and if necessary correct the other things they've been doing.  That's not hounding, it's only common sense.  Problem edits often are made in groups.  When you see a new account adding a book to a list of references, then edit warring over it, it's fairly normal to suspect the person is spamming or on some other kind of agenda.  The best thing is for Arthur Rubin to slow down a bit and avoid calling things vandalism, and for the OP, MeSoStupid, to calmly explain the edits and be ready to talk.  Escalating with this long thread, and the indignation over people who are commenting here, is not going to make matters any better.  How about just hitting the reset button, engaging Arthur Rubin politely, then moving on?  - Wikidemon (talk) 15:28, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

You write above, "When you see a new account adding a book to a list of references, then edit warring over it, it's fairly normal to suspect the person is spamming or on some other kind of agenda." If you read even the first three sentences my original complaint, you'll discover that that's absolutely NOT what happened. There was no edit war before this. I made a simple addition of a book to a reading list and four minutes later he reverted for vandalism and in the next five minutes chased me to other pages and did batch reversions there over a course of five minutes labelling as vandalism or not helpful, even spelling errors or correction in biographical errors. I provide evidence on the book for example, that not only did he not know what the book was about, he didn't even know it was a book at all, labelling it as a film in his edit summaries, and this was after he reverted multiple edits of mine at the book's webpage! The content wasn't what this was about. And then he continued with disruptive editing after I engaged him in conversation explaining to him that his original reverts for vandalism weren't appropriate; he's blocking any attempt of mine to add anything to any page, making successive and new excuses each time. This isn't a content dispute. I only mentioned content to the bare extent necessary to show that he didn't even know what it was that he was reverting, and that content quality wasn't the reason for his reversions. Then you also write, "The best thing is for ... MeSoStupid, to calmly explain the edits and be ready to talk." That's exactly what I did as I again explained in painstaking detail, and I've contributed to the talk pages for each topic. I'd be happy to consider your input after you read my original complaint. I explained all of this in painstaking detail in my original complaint with all of the diffs; I'm not going to list it again down here. Everything I wrote here was already above. Thank-you for you consideration. MeSoStupid (talk) 20:33, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Some of us have had a look at the situation and you have not been wronged in the way you think. Several above have commented that Arthur Rubin should not be using a "vandalism" tag in edit summaries for the cited cases (and I would argue, per WP:DENY, that "vandalism" is probably never useful). You are correct to point out that your edits should not have been reverted with that tag. However, your claims of hounding are simply wrong: as explained above, is it is standard practice (and common sense) to check other edits made by an editor you have just reverted. Your first edit six days ago was to replace an article with a redirect with no explanation. You were bold; you were reverted. It's time to move on. Johnuniq (talk) 22:46, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

That's not accurate -- at all. Who is the "us" that you start your reply with? I would like to request that you speak for yourself only in your reply. And I haven't seen any evidence that multiple persons have actually gone through my original complaint and tried to understand it. Rather, I found clear evidence to the contrary. And he didn't originally check my other edits over that course of the nine minutes I detail in the first paragraph of my complaint. That's whole point of my complaint. He wasn't doing this to monitor content quality. Checking involves checking the content. Had he checked, he wouldn't have reverted spelling error corrections and errors in biographical information that I corrected. Had he checked the book that I originally added to a simple book list, he would have found out what the book was about, or at least asked about it. And you know what, he didn't even know it was a book at all, despite the fact that he had reverted multiple edits I made at the book's wiki page. After reverting multiple edits I made at the book's web page, he again removed the book from reading lists, where he called it a quote "film" in his edit summaries (1). Then after I corrected him on it being a film, he removed it because he says it wasn't "notable". And as far as the redirect I made that you say was my first edit, why don't we look at the history of that since you brought it up. Click here to see the page history. You'll see I first redirected, noting where I was redirecting to. Then Arthur Rubin marked it as vandalism and reverted. Then I undid Rubin's revert, explaining that it wasn't vandalism and inviting him to have discussion about it. Rather than enter into discussion or enter an alternative reason for the revert followed by discussion, Rubin instead again reverted the page and again marked it as vandalism with a "minor edit", something that keeps other editors from taking notice. And this is only part of the story. It's the big picture that counts, and I meticulously explained all of that in my original complaint. The big picture reveals a very provable clear case of wikihounding and disruptive editing. It was until after reporting him that Arthur made comments to a discussion page or two as if he's genuinely interested in the content. And I'm not really saying anything new in my respones. In all of my responses here, all of the information is in my original complaint. Thanks. MeSoStupid (talk) 00:48, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Again - I (and the other admins and editors who have reviewed and responded here) have reviewed the case and your claims. We aren't ignoring what you said, we listened and checked.
 * There seems to be a general consensus that what happened to you wasn't entirely right. You aren't misjudging that point.
 * However, "wikihounding and disruptive editing" is a judgement call and depends on the wider Wikipedia context and social and ethical standards. There's also a general consensus among experienced admins and other editors that the incident does not rise to the level of wikihounding or disruptive editing.  He did something somewhat wrong - but didn't harrass you elsewhere, file false reports, make a personal attack, etc.
 * If you haven't worked on Wikipedia for a long time, not knowing the context or expectations of editors, bringing the incident here was fine and you did so appropriately. But the system works by uninvolved administrators and interested users reviewing reports and making our own judgement, based on experience.  I know what you think this amounted to, you've stated that since your first post.  But the system doesn't work that you get to accuse and convict someone in making the report.  Someone else has to review it and make up their own mind.
 * As I said - This was unfortunate, but not in my opinion serious abuse at the level you felt it was.
 * We do care about civility and how people respond to each other. Someone else already left a note for Rubin about that.  But not every incident is serious, and not all incidents require or justify any sort of official response.
 * It's important that people who feel abused be able to come make reports here, and you had justification for feeling abused. I am not blowing your complaint off at that level at all.  But the severity was, by our standards and policy, not that serious.  The informal note that someone else left is about all we typically do in situations like this.  We want people to be adult and communicate responsibly and respectfully - but we know that at times people fall short.  Most of the time that's not that severe.  Sometimes we have to leave official warnings, or if it's very bad or repeated a lot block someone.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:10, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi - I'm surprised you posted another response after what happened the first time you responded. I thought maybe you would have chosen to recuse yourself after that. Anyway, at this point I'm leaving Wikipedia because this has soured my interest in this project. Thanks. MeSoStupid (talk) 02:58, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Because of what that happened? That you objected to my characterization of the situation?  That doesn't form any sort of conflict of interest.
 * You appear to be playing some sort of legalistic game here rather than intending to work on improving encyclopedia articles anymore. If you don't intend to improve encyclopedia articles, then perhaps leaving is for the best - that's why the project exists.
 * If you do want to work on encyclopedia articles, you're doing so in the context of a project full of other people. We have policies and guidelines, a social environment of sorts, etc.  The project is not perfect, as you have seen - but it is what it is.  The project not being as friendly and open to new users is a known and unfortunate problem, which is going to get more attention over the next few months if I have anything to say about it.
 * All of that said - and again, acknowledging that Rubin was pushing too hard - you don't get to dictate how we review and what we conclude about abuse cases. The process is, you bring the issue to ANI, experienced users and Wikipedia administrators review it, we draw our own conclusions and respond and/or act.  You made your case clear, but your judgement on the situation was out of whack with the level of severity by our policies and community standards.
 * Rubin was wrong - but wrong in the "friendly warning" level, not even the speeding ticket, much less murder charges sense. Wikihounding and disruption are fairly serious felonies by our internal standards - this case wasn't that severe at all.
 * If you still do not want to participate - that's your right. But the rules exist to protect everyone.  You could just as easily be the victim here - and new users often commit some sort of transgression, and are often pursued for rules violations.  The policy and process we have, and our community, is intended to try and avoid persecuting people for ignorance or exuberance.  If we overreact, we end up driving a lot of people away who are imperfect but still very good for the encyclopedia.
 * Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:29, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Not quite 3RR
Could we get some more eyes on Thomas Suozzi? There appears to be some concerted vandalism in the last couple days by at least two users who reverted right up to 3RR (but didn't technically break it...yet), as well as some vandalism by some IPs. I know that this isn't the greatest place, and a request has been put in at AIV and an RFPP will be put in shortly, but some more eyes would be helpful. Thanks! Frmatt (talk) 06:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

The RFPP was declined, but there is now a third user making the exact same edits to this article, all three of them appear to be single-purpose accounts, specifically to vandalize this particular article. Frmatt (talk) 06:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Never mind, taken care of...ignore this section! Frmatt (talk) 06:44, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Note. Sockpuppetry by has gone underway to violate 3RR and I've filed a report at WP:SPI, if there are any interested uninvolved admins to issue blocks quickly. —  ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  06:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Socks confirmed, blocked, can someone mark this as resolved? Frmatt (talk) 19:11, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Ottava Rima "community" sanction
--RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 03:41, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Original thread
--RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 03:38, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Editing restrictions indicates that was sanctioned by the community, with Jehochman imposing the sanction in this ANI discussion. Ottava Rima has since claimed that there is no sanction as deemed by the community, and that imposed it himself unilaterally, without a community consensus, and that Jehochman was involved. . The sanction, which requires immediate review, is: "The user may be blocked if they make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith."

The following other recent discussions and diffs are clearly relevant to the conduct of the user in question: Nov '09 ANI, Oct '09 ANI, May '08 ANI, Aug '08 ANI - blocked, May '09 ANI.

Should make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be disruptive or unseemly (including personal attacks, assumptions of bad faith, or incivility), he may either be blocked, or banned from the affected set of pages for a specified duration. Any page bans will take effect once the administrator has posted a notice to his talk page and logged it at Editing restrictions/Community sanction/Ottava Rima. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:17, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Does the community believe this restriction should be in force, and should therefore stay listed at Editing restrictions?
 * Would the community prefer adopting an alternative, which would allow for page bans - including user talk and Wikipedia pages as appropriate:

Support alternative as first choice, support original as second choice. I was not a fan of such a lightly worded proposal, however, we might as well do more than just reinforce current policy - probation meaning something more than a mere block option. If it so happens that there is no consensus for either, then at least this discussion can clarify that. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:17, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Support alternate as first choice- -- SKATER  Speak. 17:20, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: I would suggest replacing "an administrator" by "an uninvolved administrator". Count Iblis (talk) 17:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Support alternate as first choice, support current restriction as second choice... I don't see any particular need to make Count Iblis' proposed change - if the incivility is clear enough to block, it's not going to matter whether Ottava has ticked off the blocking admin or not. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:29, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Ncmvocalist is clearly forum shopping and operating inappropriately. He made multiple disruptive comments on the page as in violation of WP:TALK. Two arbitrators were already directly contacted and this will go up before RfAr if the restrictions are not taken down as not having any appropriate sanction to begin with, and thus an abuse of an administrator of an ArbCom related board. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:30, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose both "alternatives" - There are already civility rules. Either enforce them, or don't. No special rules are needed for individual users. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:31, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * (several ec's) Procedurally opposing the first because it put the cart before the horse; individual administrators simply don't have that power except in in the rare context of arbitration enforcement. Unsure about the alternate; would like to hear from Ottava Rima before deciding.  Without opining on the rightness or wrongness of his opinion in the most recent issue, it was exactly the sort of matter that ought to be handled with discretion and decorum.  These pages are public, other sites do discuss what happens, and some of them go out of their way to discover and publicize real names when a dispute arises.  In the long run it doesn't serve the project's best interests if people become fearful that volunteer work for this website would damage their employability.  Ottava Rima's content work is outstanding--absolutely outstanding--so here's hoping an appropriate balance is possible.  Durova 355 17:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Ottava, would you prefer arbitration? Durova 355 17:36, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * As per what has been stated on that page, an appeal can go through Request for Arbitration/Clarification. I think it would be optimum to have the ArbCom rule on the matter on if Jehochman's actions were appropriate to begin with. As per how the page operates and the statements by Carcharoth on the talk page (and even Jehochman's), there was nothing following protocol in placing my name on that list. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't quite understand; why would this go to clarifications requests? It doesn't appear to be an outgrowth of any arbitration case's discretionary sanctions.  Durova 355 20:10, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Both suggestions are silly, added to which who's going to trust a drive-by administrator to act fairly and honestly? Certainly not me. The "definitions" of personal attacks, incivility and the rest are routinely twisted by administrators to justify their high-handed actions in doing whatever it is that they please in a misguided attempt to exercise some grudge they have against another editor. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a broad-brush attack which is mostly false, but is sometimes true, unfortunately. And is not helped by admins admitting claiming to being under substance influence. (That might be funny in some circumstances, but not when coupled with enforcing the rules). ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a realistic view of what actually happens. I would not trust a single administrator to be imposing such blocks as are being proposed on anyone. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:44, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * PS. I don't mean that there isn't an administrator that I'd trust, I mean that I wouldn't trust an administrator acting alone to impose such blocks. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:46, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Bugs, were I under the influence of psychoactive substances like pot or acid, the last place I'd want to be is on Wikipedia: that would make for a truly bad trip. ("Acidhead Wikipedian freaks out over AD/CE edit war, claims it proves the remaining Tuesdays have been mailed to last month.") -- llywrch (talk) 21:30, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose both. Admins are incapable of evenly and appropriately enforcing the civility policy. Such restrictions will just cause more drama. Regarding the suggestion for Arbitration, it would most likely be rejected. Lara  17:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Support either Remove Ottava's immunity from sanction. --Folantin (talk) 17:59, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment (ec) This is an issue; period. I highly admire O-R's article work. However, their actions when confronted are not community-minded. They have a unique take on what WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL are, and claim that their actions never violate their take on them. As such, the violations of the spirit of the policies in question are extremely problematic. How does the community deal with someone who seems so anti-community? Prolific article work is not a "Get out of Jail Free" card. They cannot ever be immune. ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 18:00, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * My statements on NPA are 1. to always talk about an editor's actions as I never make any comments regarding race, sex, sexual preference, etc and 2. I ask that people provide diffs when making accusations, which, per NPA, is a requirement. These are traditionally held and orthodox interpretations. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * At no point do the definitions in NPA and civil ever try and mimic those for "hate crimes", nor is it at all related to harassment - and nobody "holds" your "interpretation" as valid; only you (it appears). No personal attacks means not attacking anyone in any manner: this includes "idiot", "moron", "inept", etc.   ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 18:49, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The policy makes it clear that it is about -personal- attacks. It spells out clearly "comment on edits, not editors". Furthermore, what you claim as "attacks" is spelled out at WP:NPA as clearly being within the realm of complaints about inappropriate actions, which is perfectly acceptable. Furthermore, I don't comment on people's intelligence, but it is nice of you to accuse me of doing so without proofs and in direct violation of WP:NPA. The standard is really, really clear and you are violating it. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:57, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no doubt at all that the following falls under WP:NPA: "You bully, threaten, and what state of mind are you even in? You lack the capacity to be an effective admin, and your inappropriate attacks verify that." (From WP:NPA: "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence." You provided no evidence for bullying, threatening, or for an altered state of mind at the time. You provided no evidence for lack of capacity... or for inappropriate attacks. And this was not an isolated attack. You harassed Chillum over several hours.) Hans Adler 20:01, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I provided you with about 15 diffs and User:Hans Adler provided you with another 10 to demonstrate. In both cases you shoved them off the table, in my case actually accusing me of personal attack with this edit. You actually managed to claim i didn't provide any diffs while there were 15 above your comment. Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 18:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * At no time did those diffs show any incivil comment or attacks of any sort. This was explained to you and you kept going on. You have yet to provide anything. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:57, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The only person refuting my diffs was you Ottava, while User:Ks0stm and User:SqueakBox supported my conclusions. You are suggesting that because just you state there was no incivility evidence there was none? Also, for the record, "I just kept going"? For someone demanding that everything has to be proven with diffs i find this rather amusing, seeing i just made 1 comment (The initial one) in that entire ANI thread? So for now i demand a diff showing that A)i kept going and going, and B) that someone else then you refuted the diffs i provided. Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 19:19, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * As for the disruption; making a large amount(unjustified) accusations against 9 other people (More by now actually) is what i call disruptive and assuming bad faith. Yet having read trough your entire recent comment history i doubt that any words i say could per sway you to think otherwise - not because they are wrong but because you just don't seem to listen. Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 19:19, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose As Baseball Bugs said, why do we need special civility rules for a particular user when the current ones are perfectly applicable? Master of Puppets  18:07, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: In my opinion, what should or should not be done with Ottava depends entirely on what what kind of encyclopedia we think we are building. If it is an encyclopedia that relies primarily on a few content builders, then it makes sense to ignore the drama, give an occasional rap on his knuckles, and either grit your teeth or smile in an avuncular fashion each time he goes off the rails. If, on the other hand, we are building an encyclopedia that relies on huge numbers of editors, each contributing a little to the knowledge base, then it makes sense to put sanctions on any disruptive editor immediately. Personally, I think that project will only succeed with a large and diverse body of editors because that is what distinguishes us from the dedicated content editors that define traditional encyclopedias, and, unless incivility is addressed immediately, people will continue to be turned off from editing here. Is it surprising, one asks, that the number of people who edit wikipedia is declining if we tolerate gross rudeness from some individuals but are quick to block even the smallest infractions of others? The question each one of us should ask ourselves, which is more important - an encyclopedia with a few strong content editors who can be as disagreeable as they like, or an encyclopedia that is a welcoming place that discourages gross incivility and strives to create a collegial and collaborative atmosphere? That question is far more important than the fate of an Ottava rima for which the only two meaningful choices are, IMO, an outright ban or letting him continue editing with an occasional off-the-rails episode. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 18:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It isn't a coincidence that the same group of people who complain against me have a long record of tag teaming, edit warring, POV pushing, having discussions skewed by their members using socks, etc. That isn't building an encyclopedia, and the single common denominator there is not me. The problem existed before I was here, and would exist after I go. Until Jehochman, Moreschi, Folantin, Akhilleus, Antandrus, Bishonen, etc, and all of their supporters are kept from editing Wikipedia, there will always be these major disruptions by them. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh here we go. It's a conspiracy. You forgot to mention WikiProject:Georgia. I'm sure Stalin is after you too. --Folantin (talk) 18:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You are rather open about targetting me. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:58, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Support both, with alternative as first choice; Count Iblis' modification acceptable but not necessary. I don't remember ever seeing a single conversation involving Ottava Rima in which he wasn't absolutely, over the top uncivil. I haven't seen a single instance where he reacted to the fact that someone disagreed with him (let alone when someone warned him about his misbehaviour) with anything but strong personal attacks. Often they lack any foundation, and often they are accompanied by conspiracy theories.
 * Moreover, while a lot of people say very positive things about his contributions, I am not going to trust that before I have checked some of his articles (which is probably going to take a huge effort). I often get the impression that he is making up things on the spot all the time in disputes, trying to pass off his personal, sometimes eccentric, opinion as verifiable truth. If the impression is correct there may also be very serious OR and POV problems in his articles.
 * I would also like to point out an important difference between Ottava Rima and another prolific content creator with civility problems: Ottava is showing no signs of emotional intelligence whatsoever, it appears to me that he is looking actively for ways in which he can disagree with other editors in order to start huge disputes out of nothing, and it seems he is never willing to let a dispute end before a new front has been opened somewhere else. Hans Adler 18:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * PS: Here is a permanent link to my dialogue with OR where I present diffs and he denies there is any problem at all. He also denies having bullied Chillum to answer a question, followed in the next sentence by a complaint that Chillum didn't answer. Hans Adler 18:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Support, or just block now. I'm getting sick of the accusations that I'm part of a vast conspiracy to destroy Wikipedia. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:24, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Akhilleus, you have posted on multiple talk pages defending actions and speaking for others. You have tagged teamed at the Persian Empire page, and involved yourself in discussions with the same group of people ranging on many different topics, including Ludovico Ariosto. The range and constant backing up of the same people is in direct violation of our standards. This has been pointed out to you by multiple people for quite a while now. Do you intend to destroy Wiki? Who knows, but you do have a proven record of meat puppetry. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:29, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * "a proven record of meat puppetry"? Really? This is news to me. Where was this proven? And how was I sanctioned? Or does this exist only in your own mind? --Akhilleus (talk) 18:36, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * There have already been diffs showing where you have backed up the same group of people on multiple topics. It isn't coincidence that you never disagree with Folantin, Dbachmann, Moreschi, etc, but you have appeared with them at dozens of pages all in areas you were never involved in previously and chiming in support of them. That is clearly not accepted by our policies. And yes, three Arbs publicly stated there was a concern. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:01, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Support Either. I have no preference in which, but some steps must be taken to prevent this from happening again (Par my summary regarding this issue in a previous topic, and my investigation into the nature of the previous bans). Normal civility guidelines are apparently not enforced well enough as i deem it highly uncivil to cry WP:NPA against other editors who caution or warn, while also threatening them with reports to ARBCOM or ANI. Similary O.R seems convinced of complete innocence and shoves of any diffs against her as personal attacks. Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 18:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * General comment without taking a position wrt Ottava specifically. I disagree with Baseball bugs that "No special rules are needed for individual users", and find RegentsPark comment wrt disruptive editors who make otherwise good contributions to Wikipedia (" ... then it makes sense to put sanctions on any disruptive editor immediately") highly ironic considering his part in a similar "mentorship".  ArbCom has taken recently to trying to mediate rather than arbitrate via sanctions intractible behavioral problems from editors who make otherwise good contributions, so that it's apparent that the community must take these matters into our own hands.  Clearly, special rules are needed in some cases.  To that extent, I'm glad the Community restrictions page exists (I wasn't previously aware of it), but I also caution that it not go the direction of the now defunct WP:CSN, where individual admins held court in cases in which they were involved because the board didn't receive wide readership.  In terms of Ottava specifically, I have always opposed bans of any editor from FAC or FAR, unless ArbCom specifically finds those editors disrupt FAC and FAR, so I hope the board will not be used to ban anyone from those pages; all feedback in those processes is useful, and the delegates can sort any disruption without outside interference.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you develop further why you disagree that "No special rules are needed for individual users"? What special rules are needed for which users? Leaky  Caldron  18:33, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I won't. Anyone can follow ArbCom cases; this case is about Ottava. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think there is anything particularly ironic about my views expressed here and my willingness to mentor Mattisse (and do note that the irony cuts both ways). I realize that my opinions are just opinions, are not particularly well-formed, and that I have no particular claim to being right. Color me wishy-washy but I would be equally willing to mentor Ottava if that was what the community concluded was the right approach. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 19:17, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't find it very helpful that you introduced her name into this discussion, but do wish to point out the difference between "advocate" and "mentor". She has one mentor.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 19:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No worries Sandy. We obviously differ on both the definition of irony as well as when incivility is acceptable but I can live with that. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 19:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Of all the mistaken memes that surrounded the dismantling of WP:CSN, that's the oddest one yet. Please post examples; I don't recall such a thing ever happening there.  Durova 355 20:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry you don't remember or weren't aware, but no, I don't think we need to introduce another tangent here. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:24, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Was very aware, thank you. Also coauthored the disruptive editing guideline and argued vigorously for the retention of the guideline's uninvolvement clause; got overruled and had a monstrous time with the board afterward.  Filed several arbitration requests procedurally in order to manage the involvement issue at CSN.  It's gross distortion to assert that the editors there actually fostered such a problem.  We did all we could to prevent it.  Durova 355 20:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment Only an uninvolved admin should allowed to rule on an sanction - on any editor. And then another uninvolved should review the case. Note the comments from Baseball Bugs (17:42, 3 November 2009) and Lara (17:53, 3 November 2009) However, Ottava is a terrific editor and can also be very tactful, he gets far too involved in whatever content he's currently working on, and this keeping wearing. --Philcha (talk) 18:30, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It does, huh? Will the irony never cease ... Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:33, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec) I submit that, when an editor is involved with as many articles, as many editors, and indeed as many incidents as Ottava, it becomes difficult to find an uninvolved admin. UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 18:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * And I countersubmit your submit :) When an "otherwise good editor" has a corp of advocates who facilitate the disruption, admins can be afraid to block (as recently occurred in a sockpuppetry case, where the blocking admin admitted he did so with fear).  I submit that this is an important test of whether the admin community can enforce Wiki policies when ArbCom hasn't.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 19:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I tried, but Deacon reversed me without discussion. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Clarification I was not referring to Ottava or Sarek. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 19:24, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You previously edit warred closed a thread that was perfectly valid while being an involved user, then, involving yourself again, you decided to make threats and apply blocks in direct violation of WP:ADMIN and WP:BLOCK. There was no discussion necessary. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Any sanction that keeps Ottava's repeated and bilious accusations off my back is welcome. I am fed up of being accused of being part of some grand conspiracy of drive Ottava off the wiki. Nothing could be further from the truth. All I and others want is for Ottava to abide by our traditions of compromise and consensuality, instead of instantly calling for bans, desysoppings, blocks etc the minute he gets into any sort of dispute, and then holding grudges from those disputes for long after everyone else has stopped caring. His forum-shopping on #wikipedia-en is also highly unsatisfactory, where he has recently called for editors in good standing to be banned, and has remorselessly attacked his so-called opponents in a forum where they cannot respond. Moreschi (talk) 18:33, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Anyone can take a look at Moreschi's indef block with Bishonen's ban proposal following my successful DRV when Geogre deleted a page of mine. They can then look at multiple pages and disputes surrounding Talk:Ludovico Ariosto, Talk:Pesian Empire, Talk:Oscar Wilde, etc. And not trying to drive me off wiki? "If he had the same treatment the average editor gets then he would have been banned long ago." You already tried to ban me quite a few times so far. What else would this be called? Ottava Rima (talk) 19:09, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose - I agree with Bugs and Lara.  iMatthew  talk  at 18:39, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment It looks to me like a lot of the editors voting above are those who have personally had run-ins with Ottava in the past, and I don't know if community sanctions should be imposed for vendettas; I too have disagreed with Ottava before, but I wouldn't support sanctioning someone now because of something I didn't like months ago. I am refraining from comment here because I don't really know what circumstances led to this particular dispute and, to be honest, will probably not read the whole background. I do think, though, that Jehochman's sanction is not a "community-imposed" sanction but is one editor's interpretation of a community discussion, and is probably not the only possible interpretation. No sanction like that would be legitimate unless the wording of the sanction itself were determined by the community (through a discussion like this one) rather than just made up to try to summarize a different discussion. So if this discussion yields a unified result then maybe that can be called a "community sanction", but the one in place now holds no water. <b class="Unicode">r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 18:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Support, either option. While Ottava's dedication to adding content to Wikipedia is above reproach, his approach to interpersonal disputes is disruptive and inflammatory.  I hope that this particular parole will encourage him to focus on the work that he does best. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:46, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose No, I have no idea why a superset of the existing civilty rules imposed on a single user makes any difference, given that the existing civility rules are perfectly applicable im the vast majority of situations. Of course, the way they're applied is inconsistent, but that logically means that these rather vague options would be as well.  Pointless. However, I agree with Moreschi and others, and Ottava - making completely unfounded accusations such as the meat-puppetry one against Akhilleus above is really not a good idea at all. <<b style="color:black;">Black Kite</b> 18:51, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Ottava can be annoying, but this is a disproportionate response.  Also, rewarding attention-seeking behaviour with attention isn't always wise.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  18:57, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Support either, but if this doesn't work, we should proceed with the RFC Lara suggests above. Have to start somewhere.  It should be obvious to all observers that Ottava has some special immunity from sanction and block. Antandrus  (talk) 19:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Support either, with Alternate preferred. The editor's behavior has been incredibly disruptive. His responses in this thread have lacked both good faith and civility. --4wajzkd02 (talk) 19:45, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Could you provide a diff to said lack of civility or claims made by myself about anyone's motives (as that is what "good faith" is about)? Ottava Rima (talk) 19:58, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * This should be enough:
 * non-WP:AGF:


 * assume that those who complain here are tag teaming, edit warring, … socks, … have things in common but "not me", … should be "kept from editing". (Note: I'm no sock, and have no prior interaction with you nor with the editors who've brought your behavior to the attention of the community): It isn't a coincidence that the same group of people who complain against me have a long record of tag teaming, edit warring, POV pushing, having discussions skewed by their members using socks, etc. That isn't building an encyclopedia, and the single common denominator there is not me. The problem existed before I was here, and would exist after I go. Until Jehochman, Moreschi, Folantin, Akhilleus, Antandrus, Bishonen, etc, and all of their supporters are kept from editing Wikipedia, there will always be these major disruptions by them. Ottava Rima (talk) 11:18 am, Today (UTC−7)


 * non-WP:CIVIL:
 * ill-considered accusations of impropriety (proof of your 3 assertions is where?): Ncmvocalist is clearly forum shopping and operating inappropriately. He made multiple disruptive comments on the page as in violation of WP:TALK. … an abuse of an administrator of an ArbCom related board. Ottava Rima (talk) 10:30 am, Today (UTC−7)
 * lying to mislead, including deliberately asserting false information (nowhere does WP:NPA require diffs): Furthermore, I don't comment on people's intelligence, but it is nice of you to accuse me of doing so without proofs and in direct violation of WP:NPA. The standard is really, really clear and you are violating it. Ottava Rima (talk) 11:57 am, Today (UTC−7)
 * ill-considered accusations of impropriety ("Do you intend to destroy Wiki?". Plus where is the proof you demand of others of a record of meat puppetry ?): You have tagged teamed at the Persian Empire page, and involved yourself in discussions with the same group of people ranging on many different topics, including Ludovico Ariosto. The range and constant backing up of the same people is in direct violation of our standards. This has been pointed out to you by multiple people for quite a while now. Do you intend to destroy Wiki? Who knows, but you do have a proven record of meat puppetry. Ottava Rima (talk) 11:29 am, Today (UTC−7)
 * lying to mislead, including deliberately asserting false information (this is not proof</U> of meatpuppetry): It isn't coincidence that you never disagree with Folantin, Dbachmann, Moreschi, etc, but you have appeared with them at dozens of pages all in areas you were never involved in previously and chiming in support of them. That is clearly not accepted by our policies. And yes, three Arbs publicly stated there was a concern. Ottava Rima (talk) 12:01 pm, Today (UTC−7)
 * both (A&C):
 * (As) Assume lessened future credibility & (Ci) ill-considered accusations of impropriety: The blocking policy makes it clear that involved admins are not justified. By making such a claim as you do above, you do not benefit to Moreschi, but you undermine your future credibility in responses . Ottava Rima (talk) 6:29 pm, 1 November 2009, last Sunday (2 days ago) (UTC−7)


 * Support either. The disruption is seriously hurting collaboration.  user: J  aka justen (talk) 19:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Support either. Ottava's communications with me were uncivil, and s/he failed to assume good faith.  Ottava's edits on an article that I was working on were arrogant, verging on bullying.  Over the past three years on Wikipedia, I have found that editors who are certain that they are right, in the face of counterarguments from multiple editors, are the most difficult editors, and unfortunately, Ottava felt certain s/he was right.  I hope this discussion will help Ottava to work harder to collaborate with, rather than push around, editors who are working in good faith to improve articles.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:02, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * We've only worked on 12 articles together, and checking from the history, there was no communication. Can you be more specific? Ottava Rima (talk) 20:11, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, I found it here, where it was pointed out that Ssliver was applying original research and was refusing to have it removed or have a link that actually connects the two together. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Discussion can be found here, with claims like "I disagree, and I don't think you know what WP:OR is about." when I have a strong record of spotting original research and plagiarism. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Support either. Ottava continues to act in an uncivil and tendentious manner, fails to assume good faith, and wiki-lawyers over the enforcement of basic Wikipedia standards. The account has been blocked repeatedly for such causes, and has occasionally been unblocked with promises to reform. This editor needs to comply with community standards or find another project. Since other means have not convinced him, that leaves blocks or topic bans as the only available remedies.   Will Beback    talk    21:23, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Support either Support the first, not the second Malleus and Lara, above, both point out that encouraging admins to block Ottava is problematic because admins misuse or abuse blocking power. But that's less of a problem than Ottava continuing to burden so many people with his repeated bad behavior. In this case, a little encouragement or authority to block is helpful because it's more likely to make a block stick. I'd rather not see admins topic ban him, because I think there's more potential for admin abuse there and blocks of increasing severity should be able to fix the problem one way or the other. Disclosure: I had one run-in with Ottava (that I can remember, anyway) here. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 21:46, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I've changed to "Support either" because while it's not the best option, it's acceptable to me and I don't want to stand in the way of a consensus on this. JohnWBarber (talk) 02:51, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Support either. I note people pointing out Ottava's positive contributions, but that doesn't excuse his behaviour. An effective Wikipedian has to be both a good contributor and a team player - not one or the other. The current pattern of behaviour is wasting everyone's time, unnecessarily raising tensions and is generally disruptive. Ottava needs to change his direction but I see no evidence that he's willing even to acknowledge that there's a problem with him rather than everyone else (this is a case in point). -- ChrisO (talk) 22:33, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Support either. They will probably do little good, but they can do little harm.  In my view, OR has a tendency towards both belligerence and grandstanding.  Sometimes he is right about the point in hand; sometimes he is wrong.  It doesn't matter: whatever the circumstances, such posturing is good neither for him nor for the encyclopedia.  I support any measure that has half a chance of encouraging him to take a few deep breaths and perhaps walk away from the keyboard when he starts to get worked up. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 23:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Support either. Just because he is a good content contributor does not mean that he can act the way that he has been. He does have a good side at times, and I do respect him as a content contributor, but his uncivil comments cannot be excused. That's akin to simply getting a slap on the wrist for multiple instances of unsportsmanlike conduct while being the best player in the sport... there needs to be repercussions for his actions, whether positive or negative. Until It Sleeps  Talk •  Contribs 23:55, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose But consideration should be given to the need for blocking the drama mongers and trolls promoting and continuing this disruption. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:59, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Support either, as it is about time to put an end to this endless and pointless disruption by a single user. As it has been said before, good editing does not excuse bad behavior.  And we could also do without CoM's usual shtick of railing against those who try to propose or enforce sanctions at AN/I, but that is another can of worms that will hopefully be dealt with down the road. Tarc (talk) 00:09, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Support either; prefer the first as it seems simpler. --John (talk) 00:14, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Support either - preference to the first one though. The sooner that Ottava's immunity to sanctions is bought to an end, the better. Jeni  ( talk ) 00:41, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Support either - first looks simpler. A good balance between reigning in the incivility, avoiding the need for long tedious process in doing so, and allowing him to continue to edit productively.  This appears to be in place already, and questions of legitimacy from the sanction target or others should not require us to establish consensus anew.  Additionally, it would be helpful to make clear as an implementation note, as with most Arbcom general sanctions, that prior consensus is not required for an admin to block under the sanction, and any proposed early unblock should require a consensus to do so, not a single admin's decision to undo the sanction enforcement.  - Wikidemon (talk) 00:52, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Applying normal civility Guidelines
I cannot help but notice that the majority of the oppose votes (Currently 5 our of 5) mainly focus on the matter that we should enforce normal civility guidelines, rather then creating a new set of them specifically for one user. From my perspective none of the opposes currently argues that no action should be taken - but rather that a community sanction is not the right way to go. If i am correctly interpreting this, what would the "Normal" sanction be? And should the "Normal" civility guidelines be utilized instead of new ones? This to prevent a fragmented discussion where one group focuses on the nature of a community sanction, while the other group seems to focus solemnly on this specific case. Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 19:02, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I am sure there are only two reasons why OR isn't blocked for a long time yet: (1) Most admins are afraid of this bully. (2) Almost all admins who have met OR have been declared a mortal enemy by him because that's his usual modus operandi. Therefore our best admins, who are not afraid of him, feel they are involved.
 * Ottava's two 1 week blocks in October were ended (very) prematurely. It appears that this was a mistake. Perhaps we can get a strong consensus here, instead of the restriction, for 1 week block that will not be followed by an unblock without a previous consensus here. Hans Adler 19:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No one is afraid of me. The reason why no one has blocked is because I don't give them an excuse. My comments are impeccable and I make sure not to have anything that could result in a block. This is why when the blocks do come they are reversed as completely inappropriate. It is harassment to keep this up. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I am afraid of you, every time I have attempted to enforce community standards towards you I have been attacked for it by you, sometimes for weeks afterwards. Your reaction to my attempts to enforce policy has made me consider leaving this place.  Chillum   22:21, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * "My comments are impeccable" -- oh, you mean the ones like "", "", and ""? SarekOfVulcan


 * You think it is "Gang Harrasement?". You poor victim. You warn, threaten, and what state of mind are you even in? You lack the capacity to be an effective debater, and your inappropriate actions verify that. Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 19:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Excirial, you clearly don't understand. OR wanted to know if they were done wasting his time, so he asked. How could you consider that incivil? OR wanted to know if they did anything worth while, so he asked. How could you consider that incivil? OR wanted to point out that the person obviously had no legitmate argument and pushed absurdies - perhaps they were unaware that they were wrong and absurd, and needed to be told, so he told them. That's obviously civil - especially compared to such tortures as "Next time you post on this subject of another editor's alleged drug use, you should be blocked for harassment and personal attacks." Hipocrite (talk) 19:34, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Accusing 9 editors of personal attacks, threating two with reports on ANI and ARBCOM, and accusing a load of editors of "Conspiracy" is what qualifies as bad faith in my opinion (Actually, those numbers are higher by now). I do not deny Ottava the right to ask anything, but i do deny the right to shout "Personal attack", "Warning" and "You will be reported" at every editor who seems to disagree. Would you honestly argue that 9 editors among who several admins don't know the rules, even though their comments overlap on a large section? Besides, "Wrong and absurd" are opinions. By now i actually share them, but from an entirely different perspective. Also, to get things straith, would you deem my above comment on gang harrasement to be uncivil?  Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 19:50, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * OR, may I remind you of this dialogue.
 * You previously to Chillum: "You bully, threaten, and what state of mind are you even in? You lack the capacity to be an effective admin, and your inappropriate attacks verify that."
 * Me to you: "You bullied Chillum to answer a question which he made very clear wasn't going to answer. You threatened him with various things (don't remember the details, something like RfCs or ANI reports). I wonder in what state of mind you were when you did all that. It's a good thing you are not an admin, because you would lack capacity to be effective as one, and your inappropriate attacks verify that. // I know that you don't like being criticised and tend to accuse people of using personal attacks etc. To make absolutely sure I don't accidentally insult you I phrased everything in a way that you just explained is OK. I hope you appreciate that."
 * You to me: "Bullied to answer a question? How? Furthermore, he refused to answer and people claimed he was joking. If he refuses to admit it to being a joke, then he is aiding in disruption. Hans, your understanding of policy is completely flawed and your accusations have crossed the line."
 * You are either the most stupid bully I have ever met in my life, or you are roleplaying. I don't care which, but it must stop. Hans Adler 19:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for calling me either stupid or someone who is playing games. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:59, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You are welcome. I can do this safely because, according to your strict reading of WP:NPA, it's not a personal attack since the evidence is on this page. Hans Adler 20:03, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The term "stupid" deals with myself, and not my actions. That is clearly a personal attack. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:07, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I said you are either stupid or roleplaying. Actually I think it's more likely that you are roleplaying. That's a claim about your personal behaviour, and the evidence is on this page. Hans Adler 20:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * And "stupid" wasn't in isolation. Saying you are a "stupid bully" amounts to saying that you are a bully, and a bad one too. By allowing the possibility that you are roleplaying I intentionally left it open that your apparently obsessive behaviour is just behaviour, as opposed to a manifestation of a personal characteristic of yours. Hans Adler 20:29, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * So, you are either stating I am dumb (personal attack) or I am purposefully disruptive (lack of good faith). Most people would be warned or blocked for such things. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:44, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Not when saying this to a habitual bully of epic proportions such as you. Because then the admin would have to block you as well for symmetry's sake. Hans Adler 20:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * What purpose do you think hyperbole serves? Ottava Rima (talk) 21:08, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If it was hyperbole I wouldn't bother. Hans Adler 21:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If that is true, why has no one else agreed that my "bullying" is of "epic proportions"? Ottava Rima (talk) 21:21, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Warning a lot of editors and threating with ANI and ARBCOM reports is in my eyes bullying, so yes i would say that it is, or rather i deem it, outside acceptable tolerance levels; Epic is just a buzzword trying to make things look astronomical. But seriously, do we really need to start a stupid "He did, She did" style of debate on this topic? The above section isn't exactly the most helpful to actually solving the problem. Rather it just makes it worse. Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 21:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * How would stating that you want to have something go to ArbCom for oversite of an action be "bullying" if they did nothing wrong? Furthermore, seeing as how there has been constant forum threads opened on me by the same group of people after each one is closed definitely meets bullying per your standards. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:50, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Ottava, unless you support that claim with diffs i cannot really judge on that. I do not know who had negative interactions with you before this case started, thus i cannot say if this is would qualify as hounding or bullying. I am not saying i don't believe you outright, but i need to see the evidence myself before i can say if something is suspiciously close to "Bias".


 * My main issue with your behavior is the incredible ease with which you seem to accuse people of personal attacks. Ill take RxS as an example: He stated he deemed it a ridiculous questions, and you accused him of being uncivil. Then you gave a warning for incivility followed by an ANI report threat. My question is, why so incredibly harsh? What would it cost to ask "And why is it a ridiculous question then?". Just that line would probably have turned the discussion an entirely different way. You are, in all due rights, incredibly direct in your wordings, with little nuances to take the, lets call it venom, out of them. What is the use of immediately calling the uncivil policy, followed by one liner about warnings and ANI reports? Why the heavy language and the one line threat with sanctions? The only thing that results from this is that people directly go onto defensive which will result in the current results.   Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 22:29, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Straw poll: Is Ottava's bullying of epic proportions?

 * Closing this discussion. I don't see anything coming out if this than some epic drama. As mentioned before numerous times, WP:RFC/U is just down the hall. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 03:01, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

<div class="boilerplate metadata" style="background-color: #edeaff; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #8779DD;">
 * The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.  No further edits should be made to this discussion.


 * Yes
 * Hans Adler 21:24, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No
 * Don't be silly


 * This particular section is an embarrassing display of why AN/I discussions generate more heat than light. We are discussing here editing restrictions on an editor who has written many FAs and is a productive reviewer at FAC.  How 'bout some decorum here from our fine admin corp?  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 02:39, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree. JohnWBarber (talk) 02:46, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Incivility in this discussion
Is without providing diffs in an appeal for a civility restriction blockable under the current editing restriction, or just really really... um, unwise? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it falls under irony ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 19:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * There was an Rfar which Akhilleus was aware of and participated in about his and their meatpuppetry. The result was 3/3 and closed because there was not enough arbitrators around to respond. It was closed without prejudice. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:19, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Diff of Akhilleus's participation in the Rfar verifying that he has seen the evidence against him. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:20, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * In what universe does "seen the evidence" = "proven meatpuppetry"? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:28, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Why would they have to be the same? I could say in what universe does "in what universe" = "without providing diffs". Taking two different statements from two different sentences and complaining they do not equate is like complaining about 2 not equaling three. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

The appropriate diffs of my "participation in the Rfar" are probably and. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:38, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I assumed you would prefer the -last- entry by you on that Rfar so people can see all of your statements in order to ensure that I was not "hiding" your comments there. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I should have explained myself more, then. I thought the Rfar was absurd, you presented nothing coming even close to evidence, and my comments there only show that I think your accusations are total nonsense. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, your contempt of my posts, and just about all of my posts, is well-known. That does not mean that you haven't been shown to have a long history of interacting with the same users, in varied topics, and never do anything but agree with them and side with them in debate. Why do you think such a thing is appropriate on Wikipedia or how it helps in the spirit of collaboration in which you have an "us vs them" mentality? Ottava Rima (talk) 19:51, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I have trouble seeing your last post as anything but ironic self-commentary--especially the part where you say "Why do you think such a thing is appropriate on Wikipedia or how it helps in the spirit of collaboration in which you have an "us vs them" mentality?" --Akhilleus (talk) 19:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Please provide evidence where I have joined with one or more users on multiple pages backing up their statements and never disagreeing with them, while also making talk page statements about them and other such things. All of the people I have majorly collaborated with have been individuals which I have had disagreements with on many issues. As such, there cannot be claims that I have meat puppeted for anyone. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:02, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Sound and fury, signifying nothing. Either take it to Arbitration, or shut up. There is far too much discussion of Ottava here that never gets anything accomplished. 99.166.95.142 (talk) 19:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Archiving
I am astounded by the archiving (now reverted) of this thread. A community sanction is in place, and the community needs to decide if it stands. An important discussion about admin ability to enforce Wiki policy needs to be held. Is this the usual admin-brush-it-under-the-rug and push it over to RFC or ArbCom, where nothing is solved? Keep it open: deal with it! Sandy Georgia (Talk) 19:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Sandy, I archived the thread, because I believe that it (like others before) is not going to help resolve the issue, and an RFC, where the evidence can be better collated and presented, would be a better venue. I still believe that, but realize that I am in a minority (of one ? ), and won't re-archive. Hopefully, my original action won't be a yet another distraction from the central debate. Abecedare (talk) 20:01, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification; my concern is that a sanction is in place, and kicking this over to RFC or ArbCom won't resolve the status of that sanction. We need time for admins to weigh in.  It's a personal pet peeve of mine because I once was involved in an ArbCom, after I announced I would be busy for two hours, and then involved parties archived the thread and kicked it up to Arb in my absence.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * It has been pointed out that a community sanction is not in place via the standards for making a community sanction. The above was Ncmvocalist trying to start a new community sanction to replace the one that was clearly inappropriate. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:38, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Um, no. It's in place. Just because you "pointed it out" doesn't make it invalid. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:50, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * "could we have some discussion of whether the person logging the restriction here could be the person (hopefully an 'uninvolved' admin) that both assesses consensus at the community discussion, closes that discussion, and records the restriction at a user subpage (if needed) and on the user's talk page? This seems to be how things are done at the moment" Carcharoth (talk) 18:30, 16 August 2008. That makes it clear that it is invalid because of 1. not an impartial admin, 2. never was closed, and 3. lacked consensus. Furthermore: "The list is a convenient index; nothing more. Any editor in good standing can fix what is written here if it is not correct." Jehochman Talk 00:30, 17 August 2008 Ottava Rima (talk) 19:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Another good one: "As suggested above, Wikipedia:Editing restrictions is nought but a convenient index. When the thread surrounding the ban proposal is closed, meaning that no further comments may be made and hence the consensus at that instant is what is to go into effect, the sanction is considered to be in effect. Anthøny 01:46, 17 August 2008 (UTC) " Ottava Rima (talk) 19:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Indeed, i deem the previous discussion largely invalid because it was open only 6 hours - which is incredibly short seeing the magnitude of the discussion. Similarly this provided issues with geographic locations among users as i, for one, was not capable of being online at that time simply due to my timezone. Yet currently we have a 10-6 consensus to actually impose the sanction. Similarly 5 of the oppose votes are made because this should be dealt with trough the regular civility guidelines, rather then trough separate measures. Only 1 oppose vote is currently stating that this should be closed as "a disproportionate response" which essentially means no measures taken. Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 20:03, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, so it seems best to keep this open for another 12 hours or so or until discussion has died down, and then either implement the restriction or discuss an immediate block, as appropriate. Hans Adler 20:07, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You do realize that meat puppetry and revenge posts are not acceptable in a community discussion, and that this thread has already been closed as inappropriate continuation of previous matters that the community as deemed to be closed? Ottava Rima (talk) 20:15, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Irrelevant, as the discussion is now open, and this is an appropriate location for discussion of a community sanction. Continuing accusations of "meatpuppetry" and "revenge posts" may get you blocked, even without taking the community sanction into account.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Irrelevant? Officially, you have entered into harassment, since this has been the same group of people trying the same stuff that has constantly been shot down as inappropriate. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Ottava, wouldn't it be best to get this entire thing done for without having the risk it just acts like a phoenix and resurrects again? We had multiple discussions being closed and yet they opened up again and again - i doubt that would demonstrate the community deemed it closed. Also, please get it out of your head that everyone is just here to take "Revenge" on you. For one i opened one of the threads and as far as i could trace back the only "Interaction" we has is that we both voted "Oppose" on some proposal without further discussion. I cannot speak for every editor but i highly doubt that the only thought for the majority editing here is vengeance. I


 * So i say please. Can we handle this thing like a sour apple that has to be eaten entirely to prevent it from sparking another apple tree with more sour apples? If we let this entire thing run its course and finalize it properly this time it can be archived and we can be done with it. Otherwise we will just end with a lot of friction that kept this issue going for three days now. Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 20:36, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Excirial, your statements are inappropriate. "everyone is just here to take "Revenge" on you." - I never said that, you did. I have pointed out people who have attempted to have me banned since March 2008, and they constantly attack me on their talk pages, follow me to other pages, and the rest. To say that they have not done it would be inappropriate. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * My apologies for that Ottava, i should have made more clear that this was a personal perception. What i meant to indicate was that you should be aware that not everyone here is someone you dealt with before. In this thread you raised the issue of other editors biases towards you several times, which i translated as them being biased to you because of previous interaction (EG: Negative bias against you, so out to take "Revenge". I have never said that this did not occur. The message i tried to relay was that i don't think every editor is just here to bully you away. For one, that is at least not my intention here. Again, my apologies for this misconception caused by my wording. Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 20:55, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec re to Excirial) For gosh sakes, the thread has been open for less than three hours, which doesn't give most admins a chance to weigh in. Anyone who thinks three hours is too long to decide if a sanction stands might benefit from a walk on the beach. Must we always close discussions prematurely and shuffle them off to another page, or can the admin community be relied on to make decisions? Must everything be kicked over to a busy ArbCom or useless RFC? Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Sandy, just as a question, was this above reply incorrectly indented or attributed? You seem to state that i think that the thread has been open to long without a discussion, yet your reply seems to go along the same lines as i was reasoning. What i stated was that the previous discussion in which the sanction was invoked was closed after 6 hours which means that the chance for people to actually reply was very slim, thus not indicating any real consensus.


 * Perhaps you were thrown of by the wording of the second part i wrote? That was a response to Ottava's line "When the thread surrounding the ban proposal is closed, meaning that no further comments may be made and hence the consensus at that instant is what is to go into effect, the sanction is considered to be in effect". I interpreted that line as a reason to close the current discussion as we already had a currently closed no consensus vote - to which my reaction was that we were currently busy establishing some form of concensus that would not be based upon a prematurely based thread, and therefor prevent the lack of user input or true consensus in the previous discussion. Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 21:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Excirial, my apologies for the delay. Yes, I was caught in several edit conflicts and was working on a dinosaur laptop while I was getting the abominable Windows Vista replaced (success, yea!), and my threads were incorrectly indented.  I believe you and I are agreeing, I was making a general comment and later added on my ec re, and I apologize for any misundertanding.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:07, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree. There is absolutely no reason to close this early. It's strange how most ANI threads involving Ottava are closed prematurely. Let's lay this suspicion to rest and let it run. If it gets too long it can always be moved to a sub-page. --Folantin (talk) 20:50, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It is suspicious how most ANI threads involving Ottava have posts from the same people such as Folantin. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Sandy, an ArbCom case would be good because it would slow down the mob attacks, would have a neutral committee analysing actual evidence instead of unsubstantiated claims of "incivility", and would be able to desysop the many admin above who have shown direct violations of our policies. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Addendum: there's currently a useless RFC/U underway because no uninvolved editors can be bothered to come by and weigh in; if this is kicked over to there, the same people responding here will weigh in there, and it will just be a waste of time. Admins are supposed to know blocking/banning/etc. policy. This is an admin decision: make it here! I'm not an admin, so I don't have an opinion, other than asking that no one be banned from FAC or FAR unless by ArbCom. Ottava, if you think an ArbCom case can slow down mob attacks or is conducive to impartial input, you aren't paying attention.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:57, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Sandy, the restriction proposed is that they would instant block me for long term for anything they claim as "incivil" or the rest, even if its not as the last three blocks were shown. And ArbCom did redeem the Russavia guy who was being treated in the same way. I am confident in an equal decision, and the people involved will finally be stopped, which can only help the Wiki. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The question here is whether there is consensus for a restriction, as currently lodged. That has to be solved, or that board becomes like CSN was.  If the restrictions are upheld, then you can appeal to ArbCom.  If there is no consensus here, then AN/I doesn't work, and we have admins screaming at other rather than deliberating over solutions.  We'll see. I'd like to think the admin community can find it within themselves to deal with issues constructively.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:29, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If you feel there is no solution, you have another option as per this. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:36, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Nope. I don't have or want that power; I do want this board to stop being so childish.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 00:00, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Well fine, you can pick a proxy if you want. :P But seriously, if you wanted me gone, I would go. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:05, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Someone mentioned a useless RFC/U because no uninvolved editor was willing to chime in. It might have been Sandy. I have never had a conflict with Ottava. I have never edited an article that Ottava has been involved in. I’m from a different world to Ottava. A small, insignificant, quiet part of Wikipedia, away from the GA’s, the FA’s, the cabals and, hopefully, most of the drama. I’m “uninvolved”. As Caesar said to Anthony about Cassius, “He reads much; He is a great observer and he looks Quite through the deeds of men: he loves no plays, As thou dost, Antony; he hears no music; Seldom he smiles, and smiles in such a sort As if he mock'd himself and scorn'd his spirit”. So I read what goes on here and other places where the great and the good meet and ply their trade - daily. I observe many names – daily. Ottava is a regular here. Ottava IS the regular here. He possesses the forensic knowledge of policy as that of a barrister, the skillful conniving of a politician and the righteousness of a bishop. Why, he even has his own cult following! To many he is the BSD of Wikipedia – forget Jimbo. “Why, man, he doth bestride the narrow world Like a Colossus, and we petty men Walk under his huge legs and peep about To find ourselves dishonourable graves.” Nothing will ever stop Ottava (short of a total ban). Only Ottava will know when the time to stop the vitriol, incivility, warring, baiting, bullying and insensitive attacks that everyone has commented on. Just remember though, Wikipedia is not a High Court, not a legislature and not a place of worship. It doesn’t need barristers, politicians or bishops. It does need lots of genuine people contributing as best they can, without the drama, and without fear of being driven away. So if all this drama concerns only those who thrive on drama let it continue unabated. If it affects the general wellbeing of editors at large you need to act, soon. Just a thought.... Leaky Caldron  22:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * My comment was about another, unrelated RFC/U that is getting no feedback. RFC/U doesn't work for the same reasons CSN didn't; the involved go there, the uninvolved don't, and there is little outside input, so we'll get more of the same.  Might as well deal with it here.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:09, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

No consensus for sanctions at this time - more discussion needed
As a passing note, I would argue very strongly that there is no consensus for a sanction against Ottava - those in opposition to sanctions specifically oppose anything additional to the present civility guidelines, and sanctions are to be imposed based on a consensus of uninvolved editors (see WP:BAN - will check this is the right link), with many of those favouring a ban expressly indicating that they have had negative interactions with him. This clearly needs more discussion with those uninvolved in prior disputes with Ottava - and please spare me the cries of "he's interacted negatively with everyone", because that is patently not true. I do think Ottava needs independent advice about his manner and portrayal thereof, and would thus recommend we adjourn to Requests for comment/User - but there is no consensus satisfactory under policy to ban Ottava from anything at this time Fritzpoll (talk) 20:30, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * This is getting ridiculous. We keep moving from one forum to another. And what does WP:BAN have to do with this? We are talking about a restriction involving blocks. Hans Adler 20:36, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The fact that you keep moving from one forum to another is evidence of forum shopping harassment because you can't stand the community consensus. If an admin was doing their job, they would have warned and/or blocked every single person who has been in all of these discussions and continues to push for things that the community says no to. I am working on articles, who else here can say that they are? And if they are, why are they bothering this over what? Nothing. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * When I get the time I, too, work on articles. It takes a lot of time, especially when I am initially not a specialist, such as in the case of Apothecaries' system of weights or Pigeons in aerial photography. Not everybody who avoids FA stuff is afraid of articles, you know. Some merely want to avoid the negativity of the place. Hans Adler 20:50, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Why not spend all of your time working on editing articles? You seem to have a fascination with my edits. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Why not spend all of your time working on editing articles? You seem to have a fascination with attacking others. Hans Adler 21:04, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Check my contribs. I spend the majority of my time working on articles. I am working on 7 right now - plus a 9 part set at DYK and 2 pages at FAC. I don't attack others. I don't go out of my way to interact with people or deal with anything but myself. This all comes to me and is constant trying to disrupt and cause problems. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:07, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh yes, I forgot. It wasn't your fault that you asked Chillum the same question dozens of times over several hours. He forced you by not responding. He didn't give you a choice. Since you didn't get a chance to stop harassing him it's unfair that people take you to task for your actions. Because you are not responsible for your actions in that case. Chillum is. At least you are convincing yourself... Hans Adler 21:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Because we are talking about restrictions, the violation of which would lead to blocking. That is, in essence a series of restrictions imposed by the community that fall under BAN.  Regardless of the kind of restriction, uninvolved editors are required for a consensus to implement.  That was the main thrust of my argument Fritzpoll (talk) 22:11, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * As a truly outside opinion to this mess of a topic: Would all of you kindly shut the fuck up, please? HalfShadow 21:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * +1 Seriously. Protonk (talk) 22:44, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * +1 here too. I've tried weighing in my opinion on this a lot earlier in the piece, but this is just getting beyond ridiculous. SMC (talk) 01:17, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

ANI is useless
Things move too quickly on this board. It is not conducive to a patient, thoughtful discussion. Unfortunately some WP:CSN haters decided to delete that board without providing a suitable replacement. I think we should reinstitute that page, and place an index of the ongoing discussions there on ANI and AN for all to see, to help increase participation. It is utterly hopeless to try to conduct a sensible discussion here in this forum. Jehochman Talk 21:29, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Or, maybe alternately, create Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Community sanctions instead. It does sound like a good idea to me, because I tend to think these sorts of discussions get the most attention, and that keeping them on this page distracts attention from the other matters. John Carter (talk) 21:38, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree in general - ANI generates more heat than light, and proper, specific processes could be instituted in another location to separate those involved in a dispute from those who are neutral commentators. Fritzpoll (talk) 22:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If ANI generates more heat than light, then some admins may need to grow up and learn to discuss reasonably. Isn't that why we choose them? Who decides community restrictions if not the community? Why doesn't someone go over to the 'crat board and ask one of them to close this in 12 hours and determine if there's consensus here? Isn't that what they do on RFAs? Or would that be too unsensible? Sandy Georgia (Talk) 23:57, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 00:13, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

In what way is Ottava Rima different than Jeff Merkey here?
Belligerent and "my way or the highway" attitude. Constant allegations of victimization backed up with no evidence. Just sayin' 64.139.4.129 (talk) 20:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Basing myself on your contribution history i would assume that you are a registered user editing under an IP address. If so please log in and sign your comment. If you wish to accuse someone of something please do so in person and don't accuse without the ability to be tracked back trough normal means. My apologies if i am mistaking a pure IP user here with a registered editor though. Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 21:14, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You would be incorrect, but that's ok. I watched the Merkey wars unfold and was a key player in them. I see very clear analogues in OR's behavior and I just wanted to point that out. In my experience, people who fit this profile rarely change their approach to other people. Take my views for what you will. 64.139.4.129 (talk) 21:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Your views have the value of the views of any other admitted sockpuppet. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * To answer the question on its merits, please search for "Ottava Rima" on this page. Durova 355 22:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Start an RfC, or get off the pot
Aside from the creation of yet another round of epic lulz, this "discussion" is going nowhere. Frankly I was torn between just closing it or posting a comment.

I find it absolutely ridiculous that Requests for Comment/Ottava Rima remains a redlink while there are apparently so many people willing to bitch about him ad infinitum. WTF is the issue? If you all have so many things you want him to change about his behavior, why not just open a doggone RfC and let him know? Are you scared of him or something? You needn't be.

Ottava either (a) doesn't understand why people get so frustrated with him, or (b) he's a very creative and skillful troll. Whether you believe (a) or (b), it's obvious that this discusion ain't gonna get where you want it to. -- SB_Johnny &#124; talk 22:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I posted this to offer him a non RfC venue. Now, if anyone wants to start an RfC, I will personally wave any "requirements" for the RfC. You can start one on me and say anything - I won't hold lack of evidence, trying to resolve matters, etc, against anyone. If people I've never seen before want to start one, feel free. I abide by the community decisions, and the last time Moreschi and Bishonen pushed for my indef I said my goodbyes and was quite ready to accept it. I am here mostly to work on the encyclopedia and many people feel the need to take away from my time and attack me. Either let me work, or get rid of me. I don't like being Sisyphus. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * This seems to be sufficient. My only concern about an RfC would be that folks would spend the majority of time lawyering over "certifying that the dispute exists" and garbage like that.  Let's expose the criticism to the light of day in a venue that is less mad-cap than AN/I. Protonk (talk) 22:46, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I have stated that I wave any such "certifying". I hope that would be sufficient. However, my opinion holds little water. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:49, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I know. That comment obviates what would have been my only concern.  I think an RfC would be good, and definitely more fair to you than being dragged back to the stocks every month or so. Protonk (talk) 22:50, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Since Geogre was desysopped, I've been dragged to a noticeboard or been blocked approximately once ever 3 days. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Or another possibility might be that nobody believes an RfC is going to have any effect in changing/moderating Ottava's behaviour. Has he even acknowledged the validity of the criticism? If so I must have missed it... -- ChrisO (talk) 22:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I am a loyal dog. When Jimbo approached me and others about problems of some people at Wikiversity that I considered friends, I accepted the project bans that was put forth. When Cary Bass ever has a concern about me, I listen. When Arbitrators make declarations to me, I abide by them. Raul, YellowMonkey, and SandyGeorgia are three people that I listen to and would defend over myself. If any one of the above asked me to stop, to leave, or to never bother with this place again, I would. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:51, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) This discussion is so complex I'm not sure where to put it. Ottava is constantly asking for diffs to his incivility, well, here is one. I wrote this at Talk:Linguistics. Ottava responded with this insult not just to me, but to the university where I received my doctorate. My comment was backed up with this, this, this, and this from other professional linguists. Even after being insulted by Ottava, my own response remained civil. After all the linguists supported my position, Ottava then responded again with this further remarkable insult to the collective professional linguistic opinion, claiming to have more educational expertise in the field than anyone else speaking (several of whom are professors of Linguistics at major US universities) (here he admits that his expertise is not really linguistics, but philology). And even with that, the linguists' responses to Ottava's insults remained civil and respectable. Despite the linguists' continued civility, Ottava continued to hurl insults here and here at our credentials and academic integrity. This discussion at Talk:Linguistics continued on, but the actual linguists in the discussion began ignoring Ottava and he continued throwing insults despite the linguists' continuing civility as here and here. Towards the end of Ottava's contribution, s/he became less insulting, but there was a stretch cited above where his/her behavior was insulting and definitely uncivil. (Taivo (talk) 22:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC))


 * Why waste time on RFC/U? If Ottava makes trouble, he's simply upset about something. You could then simply offer him some cake and forget about it. Count Iblis (talk) 22:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know what your university is, but I apologize if you believed I was mocking your university. I was merely pointing out the standard background on Derrida and his critique of Saussure as being standard discussion within graduate linguistics. I apologize again as I am sure you went to a decent school. It was quite over the top of me to phrase it in that way. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Ottava, I have stayed away from this one because no good can come of it. I suggest you do the same and be quiet. Only a fool broadcasts that he takes illicit drugs on the internet, there is no need for you to belabour that point. As a result of his edit Chillum has dug his Wikipedia grave, and probably, ultimately, his own real grave, so there is no need for you to try and bury him in it. That edit will be used against him every time he makes a controversial decision - as a respected Admin, he is finished. There's no need for you to say anything -  Hush up and let nature and Wikipedia run its natural course - and as for you Chillum - do try to edit like a responsible adult - or go. I shall not be commenting further on Chillum or Ottava's conduct, both are self evident. The sooner this matter is dropped by all the better - it will solve itself. Giano (talk) 23:04, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * If you think anything I have done one Wikipedia is not "responsible" or "adult" you are welcome to draw attention to those edits. If your only basis for that comment is that I do drugs, well then I am not going to put much stock in it.  Chillum   23:09, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Maybe Giano is of a different generation than I, but anyone who posts "I am under the influence of acid" has to be joking. Someone attempting to write under the influence of LSD would be lucky to write a coherent statement longer than a few dozen words, let alone remember to click "Save page" at the end. That is what makes me shake my head over this entire drug-related thread: it was a joke. Get over it. After all of this dramaz, I'd be surprised if anyone jokes about personal drug abuse on Wikipedia again. -- llywrch (talk) 00:12, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I really fail to see why editors like yourself are blind to the facts as admitted by Chillum. What Chillum actually said was "This editor is on acid. Please take any strangeness in stride." Chillum himself had admitted that this was not a joke, so why do you insist that it was? Just to make another excuse for the appalling behaviour of Beeblebrox? --Malleus Fatuorum 03:32, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * It's great you mention this here, Taivo. This was one of the incidents that first brought me on the line of thought that he may be an impostor who uses his bullying to hide obvious gaps in his knowledge and scare away experts. Unfortunately it would be very painful for me to check his featured article work because his topics are so far removed from my main interests. Hans Adler 23:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Since the vast majority of his work here is in literary criticism and not linguistics, I am not able to comment on his Wikipedia contributions--only on the single interaction at Talk:Linguistics where he was dismissive of the linguistics professors and linguistics doctoral candidates who regularly contribute there. (Taivo (talk) 23:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC))
 * ArbCom and WMF have my personal information and credentials. All of my personal identification information was outed back in last September. I also use my real email as my wiki email. I have never hid my identity and most people here know it. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:14, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * My concerns aren't about your identity or degrees (which I don't know and shouldn't know) but about your knowledge and abilities. Your behaviour is not something that I have ever observed in a competent scholar. The confidence of a real expert usually makes them react coolly even to real attacks on their authority. They tend to like it when someone intelligently disagrees with them, because it gives them an opportunity test and, if necessary, correct their professional opinions. Hans Adler 00:32, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Then it may surprise you that most academics have had some of the worse fights and there is a tradition dating back hundreds of years. Everyone from John Hawkings to Ludwig Wittgenstein have been involved in petty fights over academia and opinion. Academia is primarily based on reputation, and reputation provokes the greatest emotional response possible. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:39, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Re concerns that an RFC would be useless as OR wouldn't listen: Then go straight to AC and convince them the case is already ready for arbitration. If you can't do that, then go ahead with the RFC. ANI's not going to solve anything: even if the above civility restriction were to pass, those restrictions are so vague and difficult to enforce that it wouldn't do much good. And it doesn't look like consensus is possible here, anyway. If there is to be sanctioning, it will have to come from a binding AC decision, so I suggest we cut directly to AC or RFC or, if unwilling to do that, drop the matter. There's nothing productive to do here, mark my words. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 23:38, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree with Heimstern Läufer, and leaning toward RFAR as the better venue for minimizing potential outing/reputational damage to one of the parties: relevant diffs or whatever could be sent to the Committee via email and clerks would be available to deal with inappropriate posts promptly. Would start RFAR procedurally for that reason, except that one other individual who recently involved himself in this believes I hold a personal grudge against him and accuses me of wikihounding.  So it's best to defer actual action to other editors whose impartiality is unquestioned.  Durova 355 00:26, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

My view
I already waived any requirement for an RfC, but not one has yet appeared. I've waived one for a long time, and also offered for people to take me to ArbCom. I also have a page connected to my talk page for complaints and yet no one bothers to post there. If people want me gone, then ban me. If people want me to stay, then let me edit like a normal person. For a very long time, I have not had the liberties as most people here. If I ever thought of making two reverts in a row, called someone "stupid", or anything like what has happened with many people above and in other posts, I would have been blocked. The standard for "incivility" has been incredibly low since Moreschi originally tried to ban me last year. This low standard means that most people above take advantage of it, threaten me, bully me, attack me in some of the nastiest ways without any thought or care about reprisal. I have been known as the Wiki Satan since August 2008.

Anyone paying attention would have seen that my name has been dragged into multiple noticeboards non-stop for quite a few months. The same group of people follow me to dozens of discussions and make it impossible to work. Yet I was still able to produce over 100 DYK, 8 FAs, and over 50 GAs. How? Who knows. It is impossible to work and concentrate with the constant attacks, criticism, following to pages, and just outright harassment. Any "restriction" is part of that whole battleground mentality of "ha, I beat you, and now I will let you know more that you are defeated". If you want to get rid of me, get rid of me. Don't put forth a systematic bias that is only permission to bully, belittle, and get in my way when trying to work. Most of the people wanting me to be restricted already said I provide nothing. If that is so, get rid of me. If not, stop. All the above does is constant draw things out and for what reason? To inflict pain? To be "better" than me? To "win"?

Is it really that important to "win"? And is winning this way even really winning? If you really think you are better than me, then please, constantly write articles, constantly work with people who disagree with you on pages, and put non stop works through DYK, GAN, and FAC. I only have 200 DYK, 50+ GA, and 10ish FAs. That isn't hard to beat. Anyone with a few months could easily pass that. You want to show you are smarter than me, put forth some great articles. You want to show that you contribute more to the encyclopedia? Start typing away. You want to prove that I am just an idiot? Out do me and show how great you are in comparison.

But if you want to just get rid of me, do it already. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:23, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't want to "win." I just want you to stop calling me a meatpuppet, accusing me of trying to destroy Wikipedia, and calling for my desysopping. That's a low bar to meet. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:31, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I want you to stop appearing along side of Folantin, Moreschi, Antandrus, and Dbachmann at various debates and issues echoing what they state and sometimes responding for them. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:36, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Akhilleus, have we worked together? If we have, I certainly do not remember doing so.  I'd love to, though, as you seem to be a fine editor.  Ottava, stop lying.  Really.  You need to stop making shit up.  Thank you, Antandrus  (talk) 00:53, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Antandrus, I have already pointed out various discussions in which you and Akhilleus were on the same side. Regardless, if I am lying then this is a simple request and will be processed quickly. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:01, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Ottava, I have read three threads now, all of which have said pretty much the same thing: you react disproportionately to any comment about you. Every response that I have read from you contains no statement where you say that you understand why so many separate users have made these statements...in fact you continue to have disproportionate reactions to everything that is said against you. As an un-involved editor I am shocked that you haven't already been banned, and can only assume that it is because you have made so many excellent contributions. I am still new here, but losing someone of your skill because you can't control your reactions would be an incredible loss, and I would hate to see that. So, as someone who is still learning the ropes here, and who needs people who can show how to write FAs, GAs, DYKs, and the like...Here is my request. Tone it down...take yourself off of "attack" mode and put yourself into "compromise" mode. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean that they are attacking you personally. Listen to their points of disagreement and find some neutral compromise that is acceptable to both of you. WP is not about having an article be your way or not at all, and yet you seem to not only see that in yourself, but in everyone else. My experience has been that most editors are willing to compromise, if you can find a reasonable point of compromise (as well as meet the assorted policies), but no one will want to work with you, no matter how good you are if you keep attacking instead of compromising. Frmatt (talk) 02:23, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If that is true (that it is shocking that I have not been banned), as you say, then why is it that I have not been banned? It seems obvious with the amount of threads on me and the countless warnings and blocks that people are not afraid of bringing up the issue, right? Ottava Rima (talk) 02:33, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You missed his point entirely. user: J  aka justen (talk) 02:36, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I've reopened the archive box, reverting Xavexgoem. There is a reason for this discussion. Let it run, please. JohnWBarber (talk) 02:45, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * What's the outcome of protracted discussions at AN/I? This will run, but it will not run its course. Not here. AN/I regulars know that. The best course of action for an admin on this thread is to close it. Xavexgoem (talk) 02:48, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * "Support" in the "Original thread" subsection has what? about 30 participants, with more than 20 supporting the proposal. Seems like a consensus is forming. JohnWBarber (talk) 02:54, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, I agree. But I don't think any admin is going to say "OK, I've made my decision"; I agree with Sandy that maybe a 'crat would be better, but I've not known crats to do that.
 * If you'd prefer, I could make a decision. Shall I? Xavexgoem (talk) 02:57, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, now I'm getting shy. I'm not a regular around here. I won't object if you do, but I don't want this to end as a "no consensus" if a little more time might get us to consensus. That's my only concern. Consensus and a "resolved" check should be noted at the top, IMHO. JohnWBarber (talk) 03:06, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * A little more time, and we have another cupla kilobytes to sort through (and we'll still need this discussion). If I act now, we'll get to see what happens when an admin (and a completely uninvolved one, at that) makes a decision. I don't predict it ending well, but I'm fine with being a sheep to that slaughter. Xavexgoem (talk) 03:09, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I always thought that the person who put up the box was the one who indicated the resolution. I think we have a consensus and the resolution should come soon, and I'd rather not see the box without the resolution. But I've reverted once and won't again. I've gotta go now. JohnWBarber (talk) 03:21, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * JohnWBarber - when you determined consensus, which way did you place HalfShadow (21:18, 3 November 2009), Protonk (22:44, 3 November 2009), and SMC (01:17, 4 November 2009) as they have stated "Would all of you kindly shut the fuck up, please?", which suggests that the topic should be closed and ignores any desire to put forth anything? How did you also rate the other people that didn't "oppose" but made it clear that they disagree with this whole thing? Ottava Rima (talk) 03:27, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes Ottava, and "all of you" that that "shut the fuck up" was directed at included you too. Yet here you are arguing again, and I fail to see how the hell this is going to help you. This sort of pointless arguing by everyone is exactly the reason why we can never establish consensus for something like this, and you end up being dragged into ANI every two weeks or so. I agree with Xavexgoem that closing now would be the sensible thing to do. But we wikipedians don't do the sensible thing, and like to stand about talking bullcrap that has the remotest connection to the topic at hand. You can't develop consensus when we do that. From the way things are going now, I personally don't think that any decision made here would last for long and would probably be overturned just as soon as it's applied. So, we'll just have to let some more drama develop before closing this and someone will probably start over again in a few more days, until we get tired of it. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 03:36, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If questions are arguments, how do you propose I am to find out what someone else says when they have not immediately provided that information? Or should I not know that information? Ottava Rima (talk) 03:45, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Either a troll or a sock of Dubbawubba
Based on these diffs, is either a sock of  (see the section above) or a troll. Looie496 (talk) 02:44, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

User:7107delicious - seeking attention
I'm sure that has nothing but the best intentions leaving unwarranted username warnings, "clerk" notes, and now oversighted messages on Jimbo's talk page, but perhaps they could use a mentor? They are apparently the same user as "retired". Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:08, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The user name warning appears to be a good faith edit - possible suggestion of paedophilic tendencies. Agree re the clerk note though. That template should not be used by anyone except clerks. Mjroots (talk) 12:16, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


 * (interjecting) No, what 7107delicious said is that "Kidshare" "matches the name 'Rapidshare', which is a promotional username". Given that "share" is a common word, this comment doesn't make sense. —Finell (Talk) 17:56, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I took off the bad use of template from User talk:Kidshare ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 12:40, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Another unusual behavior of User:7107delicious is that this user's displayed signature does not in any way resemble the actual user name and this user changes the displayed signature frequently. This, in effect, disguises who is posting and also makes it appear that the posts with different signatures are by different users. However, I have not seen this user use different signatures in the same discussion, which would be a new form of socking. —Finell (Talk) 17:56, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


 * You have never read the username change request page. On there, it specifically recommends changing one's signature in lieu of changing a username: "As an alternative, please consider changing your signature. This will change your "public appearance" on talk pages and other places where you sign your username with ~ ." In situations such as votes in an AfD, an Admin would look carefully at the sig links.  Pretending to garner consensus through multiple sigs (making it look like more people) would be bad. Some links to where this might have happened would be beneficial.  ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 18:03, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


 * But to change it so often? Why? Also, I specifically said above, "I have not seen this user use different signatures in the same discussion", so I don't understand your request for diffs. —Finell (Talk) 18:31, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I tend to WP:AGF, so let them "personalize", as long as they don't disrupt. My comment about posting diff's refers to "if you ever actually see a violation in the future".  Sorry if it was not clear. ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 18:40, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I asked 7107 recently about this and he did say he thought he'd settled on something he liked. Kidshare could potentially be a promotional username   , so a little more AGF wouldn't go amiss. Also 7107 reported here Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive573 that he was having problems with a user who appears to be definitely bad faith templating editors (sticking on half a dozen vandalism templates without any vandalism reverts......what's going on there then?) Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:45, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


 * OK. I did not say that 7107 did anything in bad faith. Again, I explicitly said in my first post here, "I have not seen this user use different signatures in the same discussion". Nevertheless, I'm satisfied, and I'm done with this issue. —Finell (Talk) 19:07, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, my mistake. You certainly didn't.  Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:20, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


 * That's OK, thanks. —Finell (Talk) 19:27, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The user changed their name, and deleted the userpage at the old name, because they wanted to move away from a warning template on their page. (See their edit history for the conversation.  )  I don't think they'll accept mentoring, but someone could try. Remember Civility (talk) 22:24, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


 * No, I was only changing due to the fact that I can't seem to change my username. Again, the username is less frequently changed. And would you explain why your thoughts are thinking of incivility and WP:SOCK? I have never stated that I expected this account for any disruptive contributions, or for any incivilitized activities. Do you guys mean that I am following the bad faith duites of Mikhailov Kusserow?--One moment, Reciever | Thank you for your instructions. 12:30, 1 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok, ok, ok, so I see that this all began with WP:CHU, the Kidshare issue, and my signature. First off, what's a clerk? If anyone joins a CHU discussion, other than a 'crat, who could that be? Next off, I just took a look at the link, and I see that this username (Kidshare) is something from an educational link. Thank you for the help, but why should the template be removed? I am concerned of the username given. And, to finish today's "script", I liked unique signatures. Then what signatures should I use? 7107delicious|Spricht mit mir?--One moment, Reciever | Thank you for your instructions. 12:46, 1 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the angry-expressed posting, BTW.--One moment, Reciever | Thank you for your instructions. 12:50, 1 November 2009 (UTC)


 * WP:CHU is not a discussion - unlike say ... where we are now. CHU is the technical process.  A Clerk is someone (usually an admin) who understands the related policies and has volunteered/been assigned the task of pre-vetting the requests for completeness, etc.  A Bureaucrat then performs the actions. ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 12:59, 1 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. --One moment, Reciever | Thank you for your instructions. 14:17, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I just picked a few recent examples, but there are plenty more where those came from. They have now declared as an alternate account but it has no contributions yet. They also appear to be connected to   which is a school IP. If I wasn't brimming over with good faith, I'd suggest blocking the IP for persistent vandalism with account creation disabled and being done with it. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:27, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

No, I am not using Das Sicherheit (in which I am currently logged on) for sockpuppetry activities. I have never used this IP for a single month. And I am not committing to sockpuppetry.--Das Sicherheit SPRICHT MIT MIR, ODER... 02:34, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * FWIW user 7107delicious has been above board with his changing of accounts, and his asking permission for a new account. Hopefully he will stick with his latest signature, as it is getting a tad confusing... LOL! Anyway, I have had a fair few interactions with the user over the past couple of months (both old account and new), and my general opinion is of someone who is very keen to support Wikipedia, but a bit too keen to respond to others on someone elses talk page (which is why I think Mikhailov Kusserow responded the way he did).  With a bit of nudging in the right direction when required, he will make for a fine editor. Stephen! Coming...
 * After posting a notice that they are on "wikibreak" until 15 December, they subsequently left some a note for a newly banned user which doesn't seem very helpful. When does the "nudging" begin? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I've just looked back over the edits of the user since he went on this wikibreak. It looks very much like he is still adding comments to people's talk pages which might not be adding value.  I did talk to him about it a while ago, but I suspect that a bit of reigning in on his edits on peoples talk pages wouldn't go amiss.  I am not sure of the motivation behind some of his edits are, in particular this one.  At a guess, I would say that he is trying to behave like an admin, to prove that he is ready for the mop (his recent application did not succeed).  Unfortunately, he appears to be stepping on toes rather than getting on with the job of proving himself.  Also, the disparity with the notices on his user page and what he is actually doing does appear to be causing concern.
 * If anyone has any ideas as to how he can be nudged in the right direction, please suggest it! Stephen! Coming... 17:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Still adding "clerk" notes despite the earlier discussion. Just block the accounts and school IP already... Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:39, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, seeing as he hasn't been given any warning (other than general cautions), I would say that is a bit harsh. I would like to hear his explanation as to why he is adding comments that amount to little more than "I agree" and add no value whatsoever. I did drop a note last night on his talk page asking him to come back to this discussion.  Hopefully he will (although I recognise that the clerk notes happened after I dropped the note). I'm still holding out on WP:AGF to explain his edits! Stephen! Coming... 09:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * First off, I must ask you guys. Should I be an administrator to be a clerk on WP:CHU? And second of all, I decided to call my Wikibreak off (again, I did this on my old account), since I can't seem to take my mind of Wikipedia. As for you, Delicious carbuncle, why block both of my accounts? Am I using absuviely, and that I am a sockpuppeter and must be blocked?

Back to the topic. I just edited Indonesian National Police and some Indonesian articles, and went back to the general discussions of Wikipedia-related articles. And I apologize, but I had a blackout last night and couldn't seem to respond to your discussions, and to explain my previous edits.Boeing7107isdelicious 10:03, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * See WP:ADMIN for info on being an admin. You will need an good understanding of wikipolicy, and even from the posts you made at WP:CHU you have a long way to go.  Based on the fact that you only have about 140 edits, you have a real long way to go. ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 10:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Sure I am. Infact, I only made 362 (to say the least) edits, not 140, in these times. However, I am currently active in the Indonesian Wikipedia, which unfortunately will affect my work on enwiki.Boeing7107isdelicious 09:26, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Threats
Editor warned, looks like an isolated event so no further action needed unless it is repeated. Mjroots (talk) 08:41, 4 November 2009 (UTC) Look at the recent edit summaries of starting at 18:17, 3 November 2009 and going before that time. It looks like to me he is treating users with profanity, don't you think? <span style="padding:1px;font-size:11px;border-radius: 1em; -moz-border-radius: 1em; -webkit-border-radius: 1em;;background-color:green;border: 1px solid;"><span style="border-radius: 1em; -moz-border-radius: 1em; -webkit-border-radius: 1em;;color:#FFFFFF; padding:1px;font-size:11px;background-color:green"> Btilm 06:20, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Notified. Netalarm   talk  06:30, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I've issued a uw-wrongsummary and pointed the editor to WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. If the hint isn't taken, then a block is in order. Mjroots (talk) 06:37, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you! <span style="padding:1px;font-size:11px;border-radius: 1em; -moz-border-radius: 1em; -webkit-border-radius: 1em;;background-color:green;border: 1px solid;"><span style="border-radius: 1em; -moz-border-radius: 1em; -webkit-border-radius: 1em;;color:#FFFFFF; padding:1px;font-size:11px;background-color:green"> Btilm  06:40, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

User:CharlotteGoiar
(moved from WP:AIV) Retaliatory vandalism to Andrea James. Permanently blocked on Spanish Wikipedia recently. User promotes her fake disease "Harry Benjamin Syndrome" on multiple Wikipedia projects; disrupts Wikipedia when that fails. Engages in sockpuppetry. Clearly a single-purpose account violating numerous policies. Recommend block or ban. Jokestress (talk) 07:10, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Indef blocked for disruption - coming back and vandalizing related articles after the article deletion was not acceptable, given the history and socking.
 * However, you didn't notify them when you posted that, please do so, so that they're aware it was brought up here... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:07, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

*sigh*

 * Folks, I would like to begin by apologizing to anyone who has been reading this noticeboard of late for what I am about to do, but here it is nonetheless: User:Malleus Fatuorum, apparently unsatisfied with amount of drama that came of his issues with certain editors suggesting they might be "on acid, " came by my talk page today to poke me with a stick as well . I gave a very brief response which I felt made it clear that we did not see the situation in the same light . Then he proceeded to edit war with me over the content of my talk page:and the last time going back to the tired drug related accusations in the edit sumarry . This is sooo lame. That is all I have to say on the matter. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:26, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Don'cha love it when other editors conduct a fight on your talk page? There's an important point to be considered, though. This is the second time in recent memory that an admin has made some stupid comment about being under the influence of something and as a result all hell broke loose. Some weeks or months ago it was an admin claiming he mistakenly indef'd a user because he was drunk. And then this recent stuff about an admin being on LSD or something. Comments like that guarantee a firestorm of uncivil yet theoretically justifiable remarks. Admins need to try to keep their personal lives out of the discussion. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but edit-warring on someones's talkpage in a manner that can only be described as trolling isn't helping either. Soxwon (talk) 05:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * For sure. And Beeblebrox could have protected his talk page if necessary, but sometimes it's better to let the trolls combatants run their course. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Let me put my foot down on that point. Calling someone who is genuinely working for the betterment of Wikipedia a troll is a personal attack, and not OK.  Even if you see someone who is a longtime editor do something like that, please do not personalize it in that manner.  When used in behavioral or content disputes where neither side is being intentionally provocative or disruptive it just lowers the conversation level and makes it harder for anyone to resolve it or let it go.
 * That said - Malleus earns himself a civility warning for the sequence. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Let me ask a totally ignorant question, which is one thing I know how to do: What practical effect does a civility warning, or any kind of warning, have on anything? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:02, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The above was a fair question. Where does Basket of Puppies get off deleting my comments here, including reverting my striking of my uncivil comment about trolls? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:34, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * To answer the question:
 * Civility warnings are a mirror held up to your behavior. Sometimes people look at their own behavior and change it.  That's the goal.
 * If they do not, the warning serves the same purpose as other behavioral warnings do - put it on the record, and if the behavior continues past multiple warnings, leads to a block.
 * There's no template for civility warnings because they're impersonal, which is the exact opposite of what we want to do with civility warnings (hold up the mirror and ask people to be reasonable and human and adult). See Civility warnings - my essay on this point.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It occurs to me that the second point would be far more effective if users weren't allowed to delete them. Currently the only restriction is that they can't delete their own unblock notices while they're blocked. Otherwise, anyone looking for such warnings would have to look through the history. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:50, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * What, you don't check the talk page history before leaving warnings? For shame...
 * Seriously, though - you have to do that. The current policy on talk pages explicitly allows removing warnings, and that's considered a feature (although with the downside you noted).  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:57, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, yeh, that's the point. Perhaps there needs to be a way to formally log warnings along with actual blocks? In response to your semi-rhetorical question, I seldom issue warnings to established users, and only when necessary to IP's and redlinks. They all pretty much know what they're doing. The one thing admins could do, in the absence of a separate log, would be to HIGHLIGHT such warnings in the edit summaries. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It's easy to want to force users to keep warnings and such on their talk pages as a sort of record of their misdeeds, to warn others of their past, etc. But this really isn't all that beneficial.  It places more focus on punishment and labelling of "wrongdoers" rather than encouraging positive contributions.  It's no accident that the tone of so many of our principles is about redemption and assuming the best rather than the worst and allowing people to recover from previous mistakes.
 * Edit warring with users on their own talk page is also especially distasteful because of the generally wide latitude that users have over their userspace. And it just starts to seem petty, forcing this user to fight over every edit, over an attempt to no longer be seen as incivil or whatever.  People have pride, and many of us use our user space as a place to show off a bit, within the context of encyclopedia building, preferably.  If someone wants to remove warnings from their talk page, then let them.  The encyclopedia will continue.  kmccoy (talk) 07:09, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * George's argument is that the warnings serve as part of the user's record, like demerits on a report card or something. But unless it's easy to track, it's really of no value... unless it's mentioned in the edit summary IN ALL CAPS, or in some yet-to-be-determined style, contained within the edit summary so admins can see it. Otherwise it just gets buried. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:39, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * But, au contraire Bugs, there are plenty of editors who will have that diff ready and will produce it at the exact moment their wiki sense goes off that the particular editor has been called upon again. That is its purpose.  I'm quite impressed at people's ability to pull random diffs out from the wiki-space. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Then why the exception for the unblock notices? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * This is really silly. It's already a bad idea to replace another editor's comment on your talk page by a picture, while leaving the signature, and then edit war in order to keep the fake on your talk page . But then you run to ANI complaining about the other editor's lameness and provide links to your own? What are you trying to accomplish? Hans Adler 10:39, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Colour me confused, but I don't see anything in the provided diffs that warrants administrative action against User:Malleus Fatuorum. Categorising this post as "[poking] me with a stick" comes across as somewhat thin-skinned. Whether or not Beeblebrox disagrees with the post, I'd still class it as little more than a correction of a seeming misconception. And the evidence of Malleus' "edit warring" seems to be a couple of attempts by him to remove a borderline-abusive refactoring of his previous post by Beeblebrox to ... what, call Malleus a troll? As such, I strongly disagree with Georgewilliamherbert's hasty issuing of a "formal warning" for "atrocious" behaviour to Malleus before any consensus had been reached here, and suggest he removes it until it is. Steve  T • C 12:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * There is clearly very little honesty here, and more than a little gleeful handrubbing that Malleus is going to get what many think he deserves. The facts of the matter are very clear for anyone with eyes to see them. Beeblebrox accused me of starting yesterday's shitstorm over Chillum's admitted drug taking, and I made a posting on his talk page correcting his misconception. He subsequently deliberately and abusively altered my posting and then edit warred to keep his abusive version. And I'm the one who's being accused of being incivil? Sheesh! --Malleus Fatuorum 13:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * It is inappropriate to alter someone else's comments to change the meaning of their comments in this way, regardless of where the comments were made. If Beeblebrox felt the post did not belong on his talk page, he should have removed it entirely.  Replacing it with this type of image while leaving Malleus's signature was wrong and served only to escalate the dispute.  I find the edit summary to be incivil as well. An adminstrator should know better; it saddens me that so many don't. Karanacs (talk) 15:01, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * And out of fairness, I've left a warning for Beeblebrox . His behavior, in my opinion, was worse than Malleus's, so if Malleus deserves a warning, Beeblebrox does as well. Karanacs (talk) 15:08, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I replied to the warning on my talk page, but I'll sum it up here: I acknowledge that blanking the message instead would have been a better, low-drama route to take, but the idea that Malleus was simply trying to "correct a misconception" is ridiculous. He came to yell at me, and to drag out the drama that he stirred up with Chillum. The fact that he succeeded is probably my fault, but his insulting, condescending posts on my page saying I was "clearly confused" and "can't read" were trolling. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I take very strong exception to this repeated accusation of trolling, which is completely inappropriate and inaccurate. That you persist in making the accusation does you absolutely no credit whatsoever, but your attitude is all too common amongst administrators sadly. The fact of the matter, like it or lump it, is that you accused me yesterday of having started the Chillum fiasco, and I was merely pointing out to you that you were incorrect in that belief. You then went on to alter my posting, which is completely unacceptable. Frankly I think that you're a disgrace as an administrator, and your childishness in initiating this report simply beggars belief. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:03, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Karanacs has said the same thing I was going to. Beeblebrox, removing Malleus' comment would have been ok, and putting up an image would have been ok, but leaving his signature attached to the image as you did here wasn't; that makes it look like modifying another user's comment, and thus Malleus had the right to undo it. No comment about the messages before that, but as for the "edit-warring" that's that. <b class="Unicode">r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 19:46, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe I have pretty clearly conceded the point that simply blanking it would have been a better idea. However, I stand by these two points: that Malleus did indeed throw the first stone that started the prolonged discussion about Chillum, and that his posting to my talk page were trolling, in that they were insulting, condescending, and intended to cause problems rather than solve them. His remarks were no more an innocent attempt at explanation than his remarks to Chillum were an innocent question. As for me being a "disgrace as an administrator," I don't see anything anywhere in any of these threads that remotely relates to any of my admin actions. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:02, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Not admin actions per se - however, admins have a higher expectation of proper behavior, due to the position of trust in the community. Even if you're being abusive in normal editing interactions with people, never threatening or misusing admin powers, it's still more of an issue than for normal users.
 * It's hard not to poke back, but the job requires that we respond to provocations in a professional and polite manner. One can be firm and act decisively without being rude or abusive.
 * I had a long go-around with Ottava on my talk page last night, who insisted that your actions were the worst part of the series of incidents. I disagreed with that - I warned the one person I felt I had to, on seeing the series of events and incidents - but I think that your response was not in keeping with the expectations that we set for admins and not entirely civil.  It's bad enough when normal users do that sort of thing.  When admins do it, it creates a perception of "them vs us" and lowers community trust in admins as a whole.
 * I don't want to belabor the point too much. I hope you don't do that again, and if you start doing it all the time it would legitimately be a Big Deal problem requiring some sort of action.  But in the spectrum of events over the last few days it was only notable not excessive, IMHO.  But every little bit of drama adds up.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:58, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Admins make plenty of mistakes, nobody's perfect. But I can't think of any mistake worse than an admin openly stating that they are under the influence of something. Unless it would be being caught socking. Those two scenarios undermine an admin's credibility far more than mere bitterly-exchanged words as we have in this discussion. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:06, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Clearly it's not allowed to draw attention to that fact though. Another lesson learned; wikipedia's governance is even more corrupt than I'd imagined. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * A rather disingenuous rewriting of history GWH. Beeblebrox accuses me of starting the Chillum shitstorm; I correct his misconception; he alters my posting; I revert his alteration to my posting. You warn me, but you don't warn Beeblebrox. Enough said. Your credibility is zero as far as I'm concerned. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:17, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Dbachmann abusing Admin rights at Telugu article
I want to report Dbachmann for making this page semiprotected against IP editors without any explanation. Here is the story. Yesterday I found two issues, that I had corrected. The first one was, that somebody turned the language ranking by speakers from "Telugu is the third most spoken language in India" to "second most". Later I found a headline of "Lexical traces in Prakrit epigraphy" and turned it to "Early Telugu epicgraphy", because this article is about Telugu, not Prakrit, a completely different set of languages. Dbachmann reverted my first edit, which was referenced and sufficiently explained in the summary. I put a warning template on his user page. Now he basically reverted again, with "third most language" being kept in the article. Now, the problem is, that he had also protected the page against me with no reason given. The intention was obviously, that I shouldn't remove his Prakrit edit. Please take action against this disruptive behaviour. --91.130.188.8 (talk) 10:04, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You reverted one of his edits as "vandalism" and templated him for disruptive editing? Look, I'm all in favour of "do template the regulars", but wasn't there a little more poking rather than following the be bold, revert, discuss process? ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 10:08, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * But he reverted a perfectly sourced statement. Who wouldn't consider this as vandalism? --91.130.188.8 (talk) 10:15, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Read the definition of vandalism and WP:BRD ... let me know the answer :-) ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 10:21, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I couldn't identify any good faith in his edits, since he reverted everything without explanation on talk page or in the summary. --91.130.188.8 (talk) 10:36, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment According to the cited source, the 5 most spoken languages ("mother tongue") in India are:
 * Hindi 257,919,635
 * Bengali 82,462,437
 * Telugu 73,817,148
 * Marathi 71,701,478
 * Urdu 51,533,954
 * Going by the "Language", which includes various mother tongues grouped together, we get:
 * HINDI 422,048,642
 * BENGALI 83,369,769
 * TELUGU 74,002,856
 * MARATHI 71,936,894
 * TAMIL 60,793,814
 * Just my 0.02 --  Phantom Steve  ( Contact Me, My Contribs ) 10:48, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * This is not disputed here by anyone. --91.130.188.8 (talk) 11:06, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * It was one of the issues raised by you above, so I thought I'd leave this comment (the comments about "third" being kept didn't appear until after I wrote the comment). --  Phantom Steve  ( Contact Me, My Contribs ) 11:38, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Dbachmann may have an explanation, but it looks like less than exemplary adminning on this page. He made a content edit ; then the IP made an edit reverting that (with appropriate edit summary) and making another, sourced, change. . Dbachmann rolled back that edit, and when the IP undid that and referred to "vandalism", he incorporated some of the changes made (the change from "second most" to "third most") and then semi-protected for two weeks. At no point was the article talk page used, or the IP user talk page. The vandalism template given by the IP to Dbachmann has already been noted, and unlike Bwilkins, I think WP:DTTR is important - but the response to that seems to have been lacking WP:AGF. If there's a prior history that would justify that, fine, but otherwise, it looks like a bad hair day, notably on the apparent violation of WP:SEMI. Blocking should have been preferred, if justified, if it's based on this IP's behaviour alone (and I don't see a history of vandalism by others). Rd232 talk 10:50, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Looking at the history, it seems that the removal of the "third most spoken" language reference was Collateral damage - the aim seemed to revert the "Lexical traces in Prakrit epigraphy" comment. I notice that the last revert Dbachman did (where protection was made) left the "third" statement, but changed the "Lexical traces in Prakrit epigraphy" statement. --  Phantom Steve  ( Contact Me, My Contribs ) 10:54, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Pending Dbachmann's explanation, the semiprotection seems disproportionate to what was happening on the page. However, I feel that we should allow Dbachmann the chance to respond here. Incidently, with regard to the warning that 188.8 put on Dbachmann's page, although I think that sometimes it is OK to Template the Regulars, this was a level 3 warning! Threatening a regular with a block is maybe more than would be acceptable! --  Phantom Steve  ( Contact Me, My Contribs ) 11:02, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Should I use the "Welcome to Wikipedia" template instead? --91.130.188.8 (talk) 11:04, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * No, try "discuss" from the Bold, Revert, Discuss process. A template is not a discussion. ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 11:22, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Don't shout at me. I have made my point in the summary. The discussion here is aimed to make me the guiltiest person of wikipedia, I guess. --91.130.188.8 (talk) 11:26, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Who's shouting? Talking in ALLCAPS is shouting, I simply bolded the important word.  Nobody is aiming for anything but to have all sides involved and understanding policy and the situation as a whole.  You know, teach a man to fish ... blah blah blah. ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 11:30, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Being thin-skinned and claiming persecution is rarely an effective way of presenting one's argument. Perhaps, instead of lashing out at those who are discussing the matter with you, you could instead state more clearly what specific issues you disagree with them on, and why.  It seems a very valid point was raised as to the appropriateness of the template you used.  Your response to that point did not help your case that the admin in question was acting erroneously.


 * None of this is intended to insult you, but rather to help you represent yourself better and better convey your thoughts on the issue that you feel is important. Throwaway85 (talk) 11:36, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I feel, no admin should be allowed to semi-protect an article without any clear reasoning. I wrote this in my intial posting. However, people here don't discuss this issue at all. Instead, they prefer to lecture me about life in wikipedia. --91.130.188.8 (talk) 11:57, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I think we are all waiting for Dbachmann to give us his explanation before commenting one way or the other. I don't know what their hours of Wikipedia-ing are, but I think they have the right to explain why they semi-protected the page before we go further.
 * Incidently, you complained about them removing sourced information (the "third most spoken language" statement) - well, they made sure that went back into the article before protection. The other editing you did wasn't sourced, was it? As I say, with regard to the protection of the page, I'll await Dbachmann's comments. --  Phantom Steve  ( Contact Me, My Contribs ) 12:59, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No, the "Welcome to Wikipedia" template wouldn't have been appropriate, neither would level 2 ("please experiment in the sandbox"). Yet a threat of a block is also unsuitable! That is why the general advice is not to template the regulars, as none of the templates are suitable - you need to hand-code the warning, or discuss it, rather than using a template which is not suitable. --  Phantom Steve  ( Contact Me, My Contribs ) 11:38, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Incidently, BWilkins is referring to the essay BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, as mentioned in their first reply to you --  Phantom Steve  ( Contact Me, My Contribs ) 11:44, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I think, that the template was very suitable as evidenced in his reaction by semi-protecting the page in his favour. So, how do you respond to that? --91.130.188.8 (talk) 11:57, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It seems that you have taken the feedback you've received here personally. That is not what is intended.  Rather, those with whom you are discussing this matter are attempting to illustrate the inappropriate nature of the template you applied.  A level 3 template, such as you applied, is generally only applied after a user has received multiple warnings, and usually only to new users.  A seasoned user is likely to feel offended by such a template, and is likely to view the editor who applied, rightly or wrongly, as a vandal.  None of this is in any way meant to reflect upon the admin's actions, as that is a separate matter, and one I will leave to those more qualified to comment than I. Throwaway85 (talk) 12:33, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * If you had not brought this up here, I would have suggested that you just went to Requests for page protection and asked for it to be unprotected - or preferably, left a polite message on Dbachmann's talk page (not a threat to have them blocked), asking them to explain why they have protected the page. As you have brought this to ANI instead of RFPP, I will give Dbachmann a chance to explain why he semi-protected the page. Until I have heard from them, I will refrain from commenting on the right- or wrong-ness of his protection of the page. --  Phantom Steve  ( Contact Me, My Contribs ) 12:54, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

What is this doing on AN? I am, of course, happy to discuss my edits, with people interested in working on the article, on the article's talkpage. What we have here is a logged-out editor edit-warring, wikilawyering and posting bogus warnings to my talkpage. All of this, mind you, without bothering to make a single comment on the article talkpage. I have semiprotected the page to stop the anon's misbehavior. Let them use their account, or come to talk and make an actual point. --dab (𒁳) 13:10, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I sufficiantly described my changes in the summary. You have no point of semi-protecting, violating WP:SEMI. You're only motive was to block my edits in your favour (without reasoning). I will bring this up again and the administrator who "saw no abuse". --91.130.188.8 (talk) 13:29, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Vandalizing sinple-purpose IP editor
This should be fairly straight forward. Here're the edits in question. I contacted the BC legislature (where the IP resolves to) and they said it belonged to a school district. Not too sure what that means in terms of corrective action. Blocking 1 IP wouldn't stop the particular user, but would prevent other users from using that computer/network. Does anyone have any ideas as to how to address this? Currently it looks like the vandalism has stopped, but it'd be nice to know how these things are usually dealt with. Throwaway85 (talk) 11:19, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I've put a shared user template on it for 'Province of British Columbia' which was all I could verify. They should have been given a warning at the time, but no warning was placed. If they'd continued the warnings could have been escalated and if they didn't stop they would be normally given a block - probably a 'schoolblock'. Dougweller (talk) 11:55, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * This is the reply I received to my original email:

Good morning [Redacted],

That IP address [142.35.61.59] is assigned to School District 37. I have forwarded your email to the appropriate group with the request that they investigate and address as appropriate.

[Redacted] Senior Security Specialist Investigations Unit IT Security Operations Branch Shared Services BC - Workplace Technology Services Ministry of Citizens' Services Phone: 250-387-8833; Fax: 250-387-3240

Hope that helps, although the problem is, at this point, dormant. Throwaway85 (talk) 12:10, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Constant vandalism and disruption

 * This was just posted on my talk page, however I am running late for an out-of-town meeting and will not have internet access most of the day. If another admin could check it out, I would appreciate it.  Thanks, — Kralizec! (talk) 13:00, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand why you admins turn blind to when he goes around use sockpuppets in your faces and vandalize pages after pages. Is Wikipedia some type of gang related website? User:Tajik is removing sourced material from articles, this is vandalism and you admins allow it. He uses the excuse "falsification and POVs" but it's really him doing those if you concentrate on his edits. These are only few examples:, , , , He and  (sockpuppet of Anoshirawan) pops up as a tag-team and usually at the same time, I believe that account is shared by him and someone in USA who's English is not so great. It's so strange that he comes everyday but only edit very little, so it's very likely that he's using sockpuppets to evade his 1 RR restriction. Tajik pretends that he is against POVs but it's he that is a POV pusher."The author - in this case al-Biruni - is referring to the Suleiman Mountains. In that case, it is highly probable'' that he was referring to Pashtuns, because he had described them as a "Hindu people" before.... Tajik (talk) 01:10, 26 June 2009 (UTC)". It's very clear for readers here that Tajik hates Pashtuns with great passion so he wants to give them a new history which would make them being Hindus when all the scholars, history books, encyclopedias, and the Pashtuns themselves, disagree. There is "zero traces" of any Hindu culture among the Pashtuns. Anyway, Tajik was blocked 17 times and banned for a whole year but he doesn't seem to care about any of that, he just wants to remove things from articles that he doesn't agree with or doesn't like. This is a serious problem and you guys should put an end to it. I also believe is him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.73.0.122 (talk • contribs) 07:49, 4 November 2009


 * I'm not sure that the IP's spamming two fistfuls of administrators is the right way to get us to investigate his concerns. I'm half tempted to roll them all back, especially since it is now HERE. Syrthiss (talk) 13:06, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

AbdulHornochsmannn
Can someone please do something about User:AbdulHornochsmannn? I could do it but I'm not uninvolved. This editor has never done anything except harrass and insult other editors. Highlights: Sorry about the length of this list, but this is all from quite a short period and is a large fraction of all the edits by this editor. Zerotalk 10:35, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Insulting or mocking responses to polite comments:
 * Describes polite attempt to reason as "Irreslevant discussion with an irrelevant person":
 * Rude response to warning:
 * Insulting reply to editor who did not write and didn't even defend the text he doesn't like:
 * Rather than helping to fix the article, prefers to attack the editors who are working on it:
 * Deliberately vandalises article to "make a point":
 * Pretends to add content but somehow the sources stayed the same.
 * Original research
 * Inserts commentary into article text:
 * Adds obviously unacceptable text:
 * Deletes relevant sourced text:
 * Adds text, pretending it comes from a source that in fact does not have it:
 * Adds text irrelevant to article:
 * Edits another editor's Talk page comments and adds insults "Couldn't you have at least TRIED...":
 * Makes completely false claim about another wikipedia article:
 * Fatuous reply to reasonable request:

Not sure though what the whole Muslim Invasions vs. Muslim invasions edit was all about. (...Vandalism?) I tried a RfC, but that was deleted. Each and every possible attempt to introduce the fact that JEWS EXISTED PRIOR TO 1948 has been thwarted.

Res Ipsa Loquitur —Preceding unsigned comment added by AbdulHornochsmannn (talk • contribs) 10:52, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Judging by this editor's name ("Hornochse", in German, is a euphemistic word for "idiot"), this guy is probably not here to please. Perhaps a disruption-only account?
 * Cheers, <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> pedrito  -  talk  - 11:13 04.11.2009
 * Nice catch Pedrito. I would also mention that "Abdul" in Arabic, means "servant of". His Wiki name therefore translates as "Servant of idiocy"-mann. I will let others determine if the moniker is an apt description for his editing contributions to date.  T i a m u t talk 11:20, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Best of luck to the editor in question on his travels elsewhere on the internet. Clearly does not belong here. It's a touchy subject, bound to attract all types, but his editting style is merely that of a bored and uncouth teenager.  Permaban. Throwaway85 (talk) 11:25, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * And judging from the name Zero, it would appear that you mean nothing.
 * Cop out.
 * Are Jews a Semitic People or are we not? AbdulHornochsmannn (talk) 11:22, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Apparently Pedrito is a Spanish football player. This guy is probably here to play football.


 * Non-sequiturAbdulHornochsmannn (talk) 11:30, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Once again:Are Jews a Semitic People or are we not? AbdulHornochsmannn (talk) 11:30, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Such silence to such a simple question. Perhaps I should rephrase it in a more objective form.
 * Are Jews a Semitic People or are they not?AbdulHornochsmannn (talk) 11:33, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Still nothing. (Nice try to cover up the "i" "I" thing Zero, but it's all still in the diffs.)AbdulHornochsmannn (talk) 11:39, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I now ask Zero DIRECTLY: Are Jews a Semitic People or are they not?


 * Indeed, such a touchy subject. Yet such a simple question.


 * Are Jews a Semitic People or are they not? How uncouth a teenager can one be to avoid such a simple question?


 * Are Jews a Semitic People or are they not?


 * Your silence speaks volumes.


 * Perhaps I do not belong here in this village of idiots and/or anti-semites who cannot answer the simplest possible of questions. AbdulHornochsmannn (talk) 11:50, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Either way, I suppose this little attempt to "do something about me" is going nowhere.


 * (You people actually don't know who I am, do you! Fascinating!)


 * Jews are a Semitic people. That has nothing to do with this discussion at all. What is in question, is your disruptive and aggressive behaviour and your inability to follow Wikipedia policies and guidelines, even when you are directed to them with politeness.  T i a m u t talk 12:02, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that engagement is the wisest course of action here. Throwaway85 (talk) 12:07, 4 November 2009 (UTC) Throwaway85 (talk) 12:05, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Dude, I filed an RfC that you deleted offhand.


 * Zero has actually sunk to VANDALISM


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Al-Bassa&diff=323615218&oldid=323576081


 * The article alleges that Jews ``stole`` land from poor little innocent villagers.


 * I suppose I was being aggressive and disruptive indeed! I was trying aggressively to disrupt the absurd POV of an article that paints my people as nothing but evil, cruel alien demons taking land away from innocent villagers! Hey! Can`t do that! Won`t let you! We`ve been through that before! Won`t let it happen again! Not on your god-damned life! —Preceding unsigned comment added by AbdulHornochsmannn (talk • contribs) 12:20, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I've indefblocked AbdulHornochsmannn. There's a strong suggestion above that this editor has been here under before other guises, and in this incarnation they've achieved little other than to disrupt articles and antagonise other editors. I see no net benefit in allowing them to continue in this vein. Block review welcome as always. EyeSerene talk 12:51, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately the only appropriate course of action. Their comments to my user page  led me to believe that they were simply looking for a fight.  Good block. Throwaway85 (talk) 13:27, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not really sure what else you could have done. It's not like s/he wasn't offered a chance to discuss it on a normal level playing field like a talk page and was asked for sources just like anyone else trying to make a statement. Even after ignoring a few warnings, you showed a whole lot more patience than a lot of admins seem to have (which is good, of course). ♪ daTheisen(talk) 16:48, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism from Sycamore Community School District / Hamilton-Clermont Cooperative Assn
IP 204.10.221.32 was blocked from February to August 2009. Anonymous users from this school district continue to vandalize multiple articles, and frequent warnings have been posted on its talk page. Njsustain (talk) 15:31, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * * COUGH* HalfShadow (talk) 17:56, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Problems with duplicate image
A while ago, User:Dan Pelleg made a change to File:EpitrochoidOn1.gif but instead of updating the image he created a new one File:EpitrochoidOn1b.gif on the commons. I am now trying to get these merged with the proper attributions to conform to WP:GFDL. As a first step to this I uploaded the original file to the Commons and submitted a deletion request for the duplicate file with a note to merge the histories so neither the creator of the original file or Dan Pelleg lose their attributions. The deletion request was denied however so there are still duplicate files and some versions violate the GFDL. What there should be is the current version of EpitrochoidOn1b.gif on the commons with the name EpitrochoidOn1.gif with the an upload history listing User:Sam Derbyshire as the original uploader and listing User:Dan Pelleg as uploading a modification. There shouldn't be any duplicates of this file other than the mirror of the updated EpitrochoidOn1.gif on Wikipedia. I have discussing this with Dan Pelleg on his talk page and have asked him to re-upload his edit to the original file in order to get a step closer to the goal, but it would probably be much easier for an admin to merge the histories and remove the duplicates.--RDBury (talk) 17:16, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Since GDFL images on en-wiki are mirrors of the Commons files, you'll need to speak to admins on commons about this. Admins here can't merge, delete and the like on commons unless they are also commons admins. Ironholds (talk) 17:34, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll repost on the commons, thanks.--RDBury (talk) 17:39, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Accusing of Sockpuppetry orn troll
user:Looie469 (Or something weird like that) has accused me of being a sock puppet of User:Dubbawubba, which I am not, or a troll, which I am not either. I think it might be because I was trying to put a picture on a article, but I couldn't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BuckyBKatt (talk • contribs) 18:47, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Westbang
I added multiple reviews to Westbang, but it was speedied. There is also no speedy criteria for it. Can one of you restore it? Joe Chill (talk) 20:14, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The criteria was "notability not asserted" (which would be |A7 No indication of importance (individuals, animals, organisations, web content)) --  Phantom Steve  ( Contact Me, My Contribs ) 20:18, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Deletion review is --> this way. – ukexpat (talk) 20:21, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I know. I added three reviews in reliable sources to the article and there is no speedy criteria for iPhone applications. Why should I go through DRV when there is no speedy criteria for this? Joe Chill (talk) 20:23, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm going to undelete it, but I think it's probably worth to have a real discussion on what kind of coverage iPhone apps need for notability, thus I'll pass it on for wider input in an afd discussion. henrik  • talk  20:30, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * After you undeleted it, I added four more sources. Joe Chill (talk) 20:37, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * And now I just added a PC World review. Joe Chill (talk) 20:43, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Harassment/possible stalking issues
Many users here, including myself, are being stalked/harassed by someone on the 69.171.160.X range, and the person is somehow finding people's real life names posting them on the user talk pages. I've contacted the ISP via telephone, and they informed me that they only take action if law enforcement or the government is involved. Currently I have an informal complaint filed with the Division of Consumer Services at the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services in hopes that the issue can be settled without the need to file a sheriff report or FBI report, but it could take few weeks for the case to be settled through the Division of Consumer Services as that involves the complaint being read by the division, the division sending a letter across country to the abuser's ISP in San Diego, the ISP taking action (or not) and a letter being sent to me with the result of the complaint. In the mean time, I'd like to semi-protect User:PCHS-NJROTC, User talk:PCHS-NJROTC, and Port Charlotte High School, and maybe put a soft block on the range with a "have your ISP help desk contact me or an administrator" note on the range block. Also, if an oversigher is reading this, would you please oversight http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:PCHS-NJROTC&diff=prev&oldid=323857164. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 20:45, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I've deleted that revision -- still needs attention from oversight to remove it properly. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:55, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * And semi-ed your user and talk pages. Left the high school page alone for now, as the vandalism seems manageable.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:59, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I just updated the LTA entry for someone that might be responsible; I've been meaning to do that for the longest time now. Perhaps if they actually read that they'll go away knowing that their smear campaign won't work anymore? PCHS-NJROTC  (Messages) 21:15, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Harassment by ChildofMidnight
I feel that with this series of aggressive accusatory postings to my talk page: ,, , , , has stepped well over the line into block-worthy harassment. CoM doesn't agree with an administrative decision I took in blocking another user the other day; I myself brought this block for review at WP:AE; this review was closed as fully endorsed today. Of course, CoM is free to express his disagreement with my decision, but he has been expressing it with repeated, totally bizarre and fabricated defamatory claims about there having allegedly been an outside admin consensus that my actions were "out of line", "abusive", "disruptive" and whatnot. (As everybody can see when reading that block review, there was no such thing: there were some mild questions about whether the block could be shortened, but – apart from the usual partisans – nobody seriously arguing that the block as a whole was inappropriate, and not the slightest hint from anybody but CoM himself of anything like misconduct on my part.)

I told CoM in no unclear terms and more than once that accusatory and harassing postings in this style were unwelcome on my talk page, , , and he was told clearly by a neutral outside administrator to heed this request ; nevertheless he continued in the same style.

At this point, I feel seriously harassed by this and want C.o.M blocked. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:18, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Harassment of good faith editors by Future Perfect at Sunrise
This is a vicious and abusive attack on me by an administrator who objects to my questioning their month long block of a good faith contributor. It's chilling.

I haven't harassed him but I have expressed my concerns over a month-long block doled out without any discussion or mediation. I find it exceptionally abusive and am uninvolved in the dispute itself. Numerous editors and admins have commented that both disputants made mistakes, but that a month-long block is exceptionally punitive.

It is most certainly appropriate to post concerns about an admin's actions on their user talk page. He's free to remove anything he doesn't care for. That said, I find Future Perfect's unwillingness to discuss the issue unbecoming of an admin.

At this point I feel seriously harassed by this aggressive and atagonistic ANI posting. Admins should not be encouraged to intimidate good faith contributors in this way. I stand by my statement that admins who engage in abusive behavior and block good faith editors are a real problem. I have no interest in picking fights, but it's important to speak out when the project and our collegial editing environment are being damaged by abusive unilateral action.

Lots of uninvolved admins and editors have suggested that Future Perfect's actions were inappropriate and over-the-top. He hasn't been any more responsive to them than he has been with me. Numerous admins, who usually back each other up, have noted that he was has acted punitively and suggested that he fix this problem so the damage and disruption can be stopped. I don't have any involvement in the dispute, but civility and collegiality require that admins repects their fellow editors. The failure by Future Perfect to do so is very damaging to our project and that he's come after me now with this aggressively titled thread is more evidence of his lack of fitness for administrative duties. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:46, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

In my view ChildofMidnight only expressed his disagreement with Future Perfect's erroneous decision in a wider discussion on his talk page (wider in the sense that many people participated). I don't see any harassment. Since Future Perfect also based his block of Jacurek on a not correct asumption that Jacurek was harassing Varsovian it seems to me that Future Perfect has some trouble understanding the concept of harassment. As such there are no grounds for blocking CoM but rather FP should be advised to stop making bogus accusation of "serious harassment". Loosmark (talk) 21:44, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * This seems to be becoming a bit of a trend. An editor disagrees with some action or another of an administrator and tells that administrator so, attempting to open a dialogue with that administrator. The editor is then accused of harassment, and threatened with a block. Future Perfect ought to be looking into his own behaviour, not the behaviour of others. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:50, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If CoM had "disagreed" in a reasonable manner, it wouldn't be a problem. Those diffs linked by FPaS aren't "attempting to open a dialogue", they're just slinging accusations without any evidence. This  diff on its own contains allegations that FPaS is "abusive", "disruptive", "uncivil", "aggressive", "arrogant" and "drama-mongering", all without a shred of evidence. That's not how you conduct a dialogue in any situation. <b style="color:black;">Black Kite</b> 21:55, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Presumably your idea of "dialogue" would be more like "an earnest and humble supplication to a superior". --Malleus Fatuorum 21:59, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * FPaS, you're an admin. Deal with it.  Getting abused is part of the job.  Just erase the content from your talk page if it is uncivil.  CoM, stop drama mongering, baiting, stirring the pot, and feeding the flames.  Loosmark, EE battles should not be imported to this page.  Nothing good will happen by continuing this discussion.  You all should go edit an article. Jehochman Talk 22:02, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * "Getting abused is part of the job" is perhaps a bit extreme, though de facto it does seem to be that way. Still, that doesn't mean repeated abuse should be tolerated. I can't see being ready to block CoM unless he edit wars to keep adding his comments to FutPerf's talk, which hasn't happened yet, so I don't think there's much to do here now, but I do think GWH below is right that something ought to be done if this continues. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 23:38, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I have unarchived and wanted to add 2 things:
 * 1. There is a pattern of behavior here: see User talk:Georgewilliamherbert, where CoM did the same thing to me recently.
 * 2. Admins should expect, and be prepared for, a certain amount of upset user complaint activity, and a sufficiently thick skin should be considered a job requirement. That said:
 * 2.a. Being an admin does not mean you are required to put up with unreasonable abuse and attacks.
 * I didn't bring the incident on my talk page to ANI because I have a thick enough skin and he walked away from the confrontation after two posts, presumably off to editing articles again.
 * However - if this is to become CoM's standard response to admins doing things he does not like, then this is a problem, and is going to have to be dealt with. The emerging pattern exceeds reasonable limits.
 * I agree that everyone going off to edit an article is an appropriate response. But IMHO, if CoM does this to a third admin, he should be warned, and a fourth offense would rise to blockable.  If other admins severely disagree with this opinion you should probably say so now...  I am all for encouraging dissent and constructive criticism, but there's a limit.  One being a dissenter or critic does not entitle one to violate WP:CIVIL or WP:NPA.  The most effective critics are extremely polite, and more persuasive for it.  Merely attacking people when you feel they've done you wrong is not acceptable.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:59, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I just wanted to say that if you clearly ask an editor to stop posting on your talk page that the request is final and after being asked not to post on a users talk page you should not post there again without permission. Off2riorob (talk) 23:06, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I absolutely agree and was very frustrated when my own requests for an end to pernicious harassment were ignored repeatedly for months with no assistance from these same admins.(I am happy to report that while the worst offenders were finally stopped after many months of abuse, though the trolling and baiting by Tarc and others continues.) As far as communicating with an admin about their tool use is concened, however, editors must be able to express their objections and questions. It's simply not appropriate for an admin to block someone for a month and say: "I don't want to discuss it." ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:13, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * GWH, don't you think you're being disruptive reopening this thread to rehash some kind of grudge over having your one-sided and uncivil admin enforcement pointed out to you? If you want to discuss why you shouldn't be going after good faith contributors and defending an admin who was refactoring other editor's comments on their talk page then by all means let's discuss it. As far as I can tell the policies are quite clear that refactoring another editor's comments to change their meaning is unacceptable. And that's exactly what was done repeatedly. Do you have a different take on our policies? And where are you and your admin brotherhood when Tarc and an editor who is banned from interacting me are trolling my article contributions and trying to pick fights? I'm sorry that Future Perfect at Sunrise objects to having his admin actions questioned and that he doesn't care to discuss or explain himself. Perhaps he will think twice next time before abusing his tools to issue a punitive month-long block where there is no ongoing disruption and where he has made no effort at mediation. One can only hope. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:13, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It was one-sided at the time, because I felt that after the first most glaring offense there were a bunch of people who equally deserved lesser warnings, but I didn't have time to spend another couple or three hours doing properly written up polite warnings to the next dozen or so people. The next day when it came up on ANI I did make another comment about another involved party, which Ottava even came to my talk page to note and thank me for.  One-sided enforcement at a particular instant does not mean that one has concluded that only one side was involved in causing a problem.  Admins are required to be impartial, but we're not required to spend all night responding to every aspect of a problem just because we responded to the first most glaring (in our opinion) aspect of it.
 * You (still) have not explained how it was uncivil. If you did think it was really uncivil, you should have reported me to ANI - I certainly hope and expect to be held to the same civility standards I am promoting for everyone else.
 * It appears that you decided to do a variation on "Template the regulars" - in this case, civility-warn an admin - in a situation where even if you disagreed with underlying aspects of the uninvolved admin enforcement action there was no civility issue and no abuse issue.
 * I have no problem with you or anyone else asking about my admin actions or challenging them. The format of the challenges in this case (and with FPaS) were abnormal, improper, and abusive.  You could have made your point perfectly politely and civily - Ottava and I had a very polite conversation about it on my talk page.  He could have taken it to ANI for further review and it would have been fine with me as well.  What you did was different, and not ok.
 * As I said - being a critic, and being concerned about admin actions, are fine. But they're not a license to go abusing admins.  Usually you don't behave in an abusive way towards admins.  But the last couple of days you're doing so.  It's not ok.  You have to stop that aspect of it.
 * Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:34, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Further this - you just described my comments here as "Disruptive drama mongering" on my talk page - accused me of bullying, harrassment, and intimidation, and claimed I was pursuing a vendetta against you -
 * This is exactly the behavior that you're doing right now which is not OK, and is going to get you into trouble. You can express concern and pursue discussions on issues which concern you about admins (and editors) without using such personal attacks.  If you keep doing it, it's not ok.  Please stop now.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:37, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Your notion of what is civil seems very distorted to me. When I have a question or a problem with an editor or an admin I try to discuss it with them on their talk page. I do not immediately run to ANI or issue antagonistic and uncivil warnings the way you do. That you object so strenuously to having your incivilities pointed out to you on your own talk page is beyond ironic. Do unto others GWH, did no one ever teach you that? Please try to practice what you preach in the future. That it required such a long explanation to justify why you acted the way you did indicates there was a lot that needed justification. Here again you've taken my comments out of context in order to attack me. That's very uncivil and you should be warned for it by your own standards. Here's my comment in full "Could you please explain why you're reopening a closed ANI thread to pursue some grudge you have against me because I object to your bullying, harassment and intimidation of good faith editors? If you'd like to discuss why your behavior was inappropriate in going after an editor whose comments were being refactored inappropriately by one of our admins I am happy to do so. But your pursuing of vendettas against me is very problematic GWH. Your recent behavior is very concerning." ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:51, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You still have not explained how I did anything uncivil with the warning I left initially. You're repeating the charge without explaining or linking to any evidence, and I am frankly mystified.  What, specifically, did I say, in what edit, that you believe was uncivil?
 * Your last on my talk page, which you quoted above, exceeds reasonable commentary and at least approaches blockable personal attacks. Again - you are welcome to criticize me.  You've done so before, as have a lot of people.  But what you've started saying in the last 2 days to myself and to FPaS is of a different character and tone, violates WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL, and is not helping the situation.  That - specifically - is not OK.  Again - please stop that.  Continue the conversation in a friendly (or at least, normal ANI standards) manner if you want, and we'll have no problem.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If you want to discuss your civility issues I am happy to do so on your talk page or mine. This thread, which you pointily and disruptively reopened after it was closed by an admin who doesn't even agree with me on the underlying block made by FuturePerfect, has absolutely nothing to do with that issue. So it's acts like that that are abusive and disruptive in prolonging the drama. Other examples of your problematic behavior include your one-sided interventions you tried to explain in the lengthy section above and your use of antagonistic warnings rather than engagement and mediation to deal with frustrated editors in content disputes. These behaviors uncivil and do not promote collegial and collaborative editing. If you'd like to discuss it respectfully I am happy to do so at the appropriate venue and do not require any continuation of the drama mongering and hounding that you've engaged in here. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Can anyone explain to me why here on Wikipedia CoM is treated with so much respect given his editing history, while Prof. R. Brews was more or less booted out? Was RickK right after all? Count Iblis (talk) 23:22, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Who are those people and what do they have to do with this discussion? I would hope that I'm treated with respect by many editors and admins because I am here to collegially and collaboratively improve the encyclopedia. How is your comment helping in that effort? ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:24, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * There appears to be a certain class of people (CoM, Maleus, and Giano) who are allowed to run rough-shod over Wikipedia for some unknown reason, and whom admins are afraid to touch. Is there some policy that says that these abusive drama-mongers get a pass with every thing they do?  Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 00:33, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't say that they are untouchable, as CoM has been blocked in the past. As far as this incident goes, CoM did not put it right at times, for sure, and may have not responded/commented in the best tone. However, I see no attacks; if his honest opinion is that an admin is abusing his power, then there is no other way to state this than "you are abusing your power". There is nothing block-worthy here, but I would stress that CoM stop commenting on this admin's page, since he seems clearly bothered. If this happens, then there should be no more problems for anyone. Just back off each other. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 00:51, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * So I'm an "abusive drama-monger" eh? I honestly don't know what you people use for brains. Can you not see any discrepancy in your abuse of another editor on the grounds that you believe them to be abusive? If they're wrong, then equally so are you. You can't pick and choose who you allow to be abusive. Presumably you will be receiving a civility warning in the very near future. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:55, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Please do not engage in personal attaks like "I honestly don't know what you people use for brains", it is unacceptable and certainly does not help your case. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 00:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * You seem to have some difficulty in understanding the meaning of the word "attack". I was merely making a general observation about my own ignorance of the difficulties that those with shit for brains must face on a daily basis. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:10, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Malleus -- is that necessary? Shouldn't Wikipedia have professional standards of interaction similar to those of a modern workplace, where you treat other human beings with basic respect and decency, even if you disagree with them?  Wouldn't that make it easier to engage in a collaborative enterprise?  I honestly don't understand your need to be casually abusive.  Sorry, just shaking my head.  WHY? Antandrus  (talk) 01:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Does anyone else think it's ridiculously ironic and funny when admins attack Malleus while Who then was a gentleman's?'s comment just above it is a clear personal attack on three good faith editors (one of them not even involved in this discussion). How long before one of our illustrious admins or a badge wielding member of the civility police (perhaps Chariman Emeritus GeorgeWilliamHerbert?) reminds Gentleman that we're expected to refrain from calling each other names. I wonder what would have happened if I had called another editor an abusive drama monger instead of keeping my focus on their abusive actions. Oh the irony. I think we can reclose this discussion unless GeorgeWilliamHerbert has something more to add? (and now I see Malleus has been blocked. Ridiculous) ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Not ironic at all. While WWAG (I like how that looks as an acronym) should have assumed good faith certainly, he was criticizing your behavior, the same way you criticize his. While he should assume good faith, his infraction is nothing compared to telling people they have shit for brains. Once again, simply unacceptable and immature in every way. Let's STOP making new conflicts here and act adult. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 02:12, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

On the original topic
Requests for comment/ChildOfMidnight might be a good link to turn blue if we want to make progress on this matter. I find CoM's constant frivolous cries of admin abuse annoying and disruptive, but it's hard to pinpoint a single act as particularly so. Just a thought. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 23:38, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Just a note Heimstern is FP's buddy who 100% supported FP's questionable block of Jacurek. At the end of the discussion FP told Heimstern something like "you were the voice of reason in the discussion". Seems that now CoM has to be taught a lesson for daring to question FP's bad block - simple tactic - next time nobody will dare to question any block. Loosmark (talk) 00:13, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Please assume good faith; I doubt these admins get a kick out of blocking people because they feel like it/don't like them/disagree with them. Once again, the admin feels harassed,and while I do not agree that he was, CoM should cease communication with him on the issue. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 00:54, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Scapler, the thing is that CoM did cease the communication with them however somebody had the bright idea to re-open this thread just to raise more drama with some old grugde or sth they had with CoM. And then Heimstern produced the red link above. Loosmark (talk) 01:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Loosmark, I challenge you to find a single diff where I've supported his block. I've supported FutPerf's behaviour in getting community review at AE and supported ending you and CoM distorting facts on his talk page. Now you're distorting the facts again here, as in fact I have no opinion whatsoever on his block of Jarucek and have expressed no such opinion. Now you're trying to tar me with a guilt by association campaign. Stop it, for the love of Pete. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 01:53, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

What we're talking about here is a pattern of disruptive behavior that so far has been left to run largely unchecked. Quite frankly, this user has been a stain on the Wikipedia ever since Requests for arbitration/Obama articles came down against him. It is difficult to even find a starting point, as the editing is so dense (in the sense of volume, not intelligence). Example, CoM vs. SarekofVulcan: began with a block here and continues down through the next few sections...make sure to note the "Statement on censorship and abuse" part, where those two "censored!" blocks used to be Nazi imagery that this user resisted removing for a time (details of that here). What happens after this is that CoM will harass the administrator in later, unrelated issues, such as with,.

I'm sure others can fill in details of CoM vs. WMC, vs. Sandstein, vs. Bigtimepeace, etc... Even Georgewilliamhebert has been on the receiving end of some of CoM's vulgarity, if I recall. There's a line between questioning admin actions and outright harassment/hounding. Tarc (talk) 01:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

ChildofMidnight frequently adds noise to our discussions on ANI. I think it would be help prevent a descending spiral if we asked CoM to refrain from commenting on ANI matters that did not directly involve them. Jehochman Talk 02:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not the one who reopened this discussion Jehochman. Please don't blame me for the disruption caused by GeorgeWilliamHerbert and Tarc whose disruptive vendetta against me has been allowed to go on for far too long. Close this abusive thread and let us all get back to editing. Hopefully an admin with good sense will unblock Malleus promptly and apologize to him. It's upsetting but not surprising that not one of you cared to note Who then was a gentleman?'s personal attack. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:08, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * CoM, I rather like you because you have spirit and personality, though we often disagree. Your wikicareer will improve if you back away from this cesspool noticeboard.  I agree that unarchiving this thread has not been helpful.  It's just wasting electrons and bandwidth the longer it stays open.  No administrative action will be forthcoming.  I think we should be much stricter about preventing ANI threads from turning into free-form mudfests, or uncertified RfC's.  Jehochman Talk 02:18, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Noting that I am with you on this request for comment, the block of Malleus was justified. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 02:16, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

And a new Dodona sock
Oh, and another thing: can somebody please block, who with this posting openly admitted he is banned user (as was indeed not difficult to guess before.) Thank you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:22, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmmm just out of curiosity how come he isn't in the WP:List of banned users?-- SKATER  Speak. 21:30, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I don't know. I've frankly never paid much attention to that page. This was a case of a blocking and sockpuppeting history escalating through multiple sanctions, "last chances", renewed socking and renewed blocks over the course of well over a year, and then after somebody had upped it to indef so much more persistent sockpuppetry that people have been assuming "no admin would ever be willing to unblock" as a matter of course. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:39, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes - I don't think Dodona's actually banned, just indefblocked. In this case, it's indistinguishable. Sock blocked, anyway. <b style="color:black;">Black Kite</b> 22:37, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

abusefilter-view-private
What is the user rights group abusefilter-view-private and what are the requirements to be assigned to it? <span style="padding:1px;font-size:11px;border-radius: 1em; -moz-border-radius: 1em; -webkit-border-radius: 1em;;background-color:green;border: 1px solid;"><span style="border-radius: 1em; -moz-border-radius: 1em; -webkit-border-radius: 1em;;color:#FFFFFF; padding:1px;font-size:11px;background-color:green"> Btilm 23:21, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? The only AF-related userright is edit filter manager, which includes the ability to see private abuse filters (due to the userright also conferring the ability to edit filters). - Jeremy  ( v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!! ) 23:26, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * And see the top of the page: "This page is for reporting and discussing incidents on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators." I'm not entirely sure that your question fits that instruction... BencherliteTalk 23:29, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh. Where would I post it then?  Take a look at Wikipedia_talk:Edit_filter, please.  <span style="padding:1px;font-size:11px;border-radius: 1em; -moz-border-radius: 1em; -webkit-border-radius: 1em;;background-color:green;border: 1px solid;"><span style="border-radius: 1em; -moz-border-radius: 1em; -webkit-border-radius: 1em;;color:#FFFFFF; padding:1px;font-size:11px;background-color:green"> Btilm  23:36, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Unless the rules have changed recently, abuse filters can only be seen by admins that have the authority to edit abuse filters. If you have a question about a specific abuse filter, I expect a friendly admin would be willing to discuss it with you (though he might not give you the specifics). ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:40, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No, read the link provided. Such a userright is mentioned there, but if it exists it's only on the test wiki, since it isn't in the user rights lists on the management page. - Jeremy  ( v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!! ) 23:47, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It exists as a permission, but isn't assigned to any user group (see 19362, apparently resolved, for its creation, and 20721, currently marked as a "new" bug, for the request to enable it on en.wikipedia). snigbrook (talk) 23:52, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * (although that request is only for it to be made available to administrators, not as a separate group). snigbrook (talk) 23:54, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:AIV
There are somewhere between 15 and 20 open items at the AIV site. The admins are apparently at the World Series or something. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:37, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Go Phillies! List cleared. TN <b style="color:midnightblue; font-size:larger;">X</b> Man  00:15, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

User:C4GSH
Could someone stuff a cork in him, please? He's multi-posting articles that are both spam and copyvio, and when they get deleted he simply reposts them. I've reported him literally two hours ago and he's still spamming away. HalfShadow (talk) 00:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Did you post it to WP:AIV? I don't see it on the list. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:10, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * He gawn, at 00:06. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:12, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Rude sock
A blocked user confirmed that they created a sockpuppet account to continue editing while blocked. 24.148.0.83 (talk) 12:52, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Sock of who? I warned him to cut the personal attacks.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail Review 13:22, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * This guy, apparently. 24.148.0.83 (talk) 13:24, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh. this guy. Looks like a WP:DUCK to me.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail Review 13:27, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Nuked the account. Syrthiss (talk) 13:28, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I knew I was pushing it with my reverts; I've been warned not to edit war, so I will not, and I will come here instead if the user resumes this behavior. 24.148.0.83 (talk) 13:29, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I want to make it clear that I blocked him solely for the personal attacks and the block evasion. I'm not taking a position on the edit war (tho with his socking to the account, he did violate 3rr I believe). I can think of many other productive things to do than to edit war over a comic book character. Syrthiss (talk) 13:36, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, technically, if he starts up again, take it to WP:SPI.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail Review 13:43, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * And yeah, that was kind of a trivial edit to war over too...--Unionhawk Talk E-mail Review 13:44, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Looks like it's time for SPI. 24.148.0.83 (talk) 06:17, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Personal attack by Who then was a gentleman?
Who then was a gentleman referred to three good faith editors who are major content contributors as "abusive drama-mongers". This is clearly not a comment on content, edits, or even behavior, but a clearly abusive and over-the-top personal attack. I trust he will be sorted out. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, right. But let's not descend to the level of the thin-skinned drama whores who initiate these childish civility cases here. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:06, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Intolerable. You give us some diffs, and appropriate action will follow. This may range from a *yawn* to, er, something else, but we are not psychic. Rodhull  andemu  01:08, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, on Wikipedia it is possible to be both a "major content contributor" and an "abusive drama-monger". The ability to write articles and the ability to interact constructively with others appear to be nearly orthogonal skills.  Unfortunately, there are those on Wikipedia who believe that the latter is excused by the former.  It is unfortunate that we are not better at dealing with that. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:12, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * A rather ironic complaint, given that you used similar wording against myself and Future Perfect at Sunrise not 2 hours ago. Tarc (talk) 01:18, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Clearly I said "their efforts" were problematic. That's a description of actions. The diff clearly shows that I did not accuse you of being a disruptive troll who pursues me constantly while adding very little to the encyclopedia. I think you'll agree that if I had, that would be a clear personal attack. Gentleman, on the other hand, called other editors names. But if we're getting clarification that comments of that sort are acceptable then I support revising policy accordingly. After all GWH and other civility police have caused an awful lot of disruption chasing down comments they can object to. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:37, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I don't think swimming through "fog soup" is going to happen here. If you want some action, provide the diffs, otherwise, with the best will in the world, this thread is going to be closed without further notice. A more impolite way of putting it might be "put up or shut up", but I resile from such coarseness. Rodhull  andemu  01:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I thought you had already indicated that Who then was a gentleman? specifically calling three of his fellow editors "abusive drama-mongers" would be met with a yawn. So what good would providing a diff do other than to rehash his vile attack that you've already indicated is acceptable? ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You were mistaken; a *yawn* was but one option, but without diffs, we have no way of knowing whether there are other options without engaging in fishing expeditions. Let's be clear here; if you're asking for admin action, you should be prepared to substantiate at least a prima facie case worthy of investigation, and if you aren't prepared to do that, it should be no surprise if your complaint is rejected out of hand for lack of support. And where have I indicated anything in relation to this complaint? Again, evidence or, er, "go away". Rodhull  andemu  02:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Here's the diff referred to - the complaint here seems to accurately represent what was said.
 * I am not happy about the comment. But I'm not happy about a lot of comments in the thread.  I don't know if this specific example rises above the general tone enough to act on, though a warning wouldn't be out of place (and CoM and others already did that).  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:14, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yet you support blocking an editor who responded to being called an abusive drama monger? This is absolutely ridiculous. The action that was clear and obvious abusive drama mongering was your reopening of the thread. That is what has caused all this fuss, disruption and incivility. And yet here you are defending your fellow admin who engages in unprovoked personal attacks while sat the very same time you support a block of a good faith editor who was personally attacked viciously by your admin buddy. There's no other word to describe your behavior than to call it disgusting. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:17, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe you're attributing more "taking sides" to me than I am doing. I do not support an editor, who is an administrator, calling you or others abusive drama mongers.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:52, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Having seen that diff, I am in two minds. My experience is that there are some editors who get a "free ride" again, and again, and again, because they have records of providing "good content". OK; they provide good content. They are not unique in having the capacity to provide that content. However, our policies and processes predicate not only that provision of good content is worthy, but also that it should be done with goodwill and commonality. Whereas I fully understand the impact of the ignorant, to my mind, a measured response should include a mature reaction to that impact, particularly since this is "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit". Ignoring that fundamental principle, and its consequences, is futile, but seems to be a symptom of some editors who ignore the reality of the situation. I don't see these "good content" contributors fighting vandalism on a daily basis, but if they did, I feel they'd have a clearer idea of what we are up against. They have it easy, because their disputes tent to be academic, until they step outside editing content and the process of negotiating and conciliating content, and start assuming that their view is the only correct view. Personally, I'm neither so clever nor arrogant. Would that these people would seek a third opinion or a wider discussion once in a while. Bit, er, they seem not so to do. Rodhull  andemu  02:32, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm reverting Jehochman's closure because this clear personal attack on three good faith editors including Giano who has yet to be informed is what instigated Malleus response which he's been blocked for below. This doublestandard of behavior is totally unacceptable. Either unblock Malleus or block Who then was a gentleman for his unprovoked personal attack. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:30, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * This is an administrative close. No administrative action is required here.  Please don't continue feeding the flames of a disruption.  Wikipedia is for writing articles, not for engaging in personal feuds and retaliations. Jehochman Talk 02:58, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Block of Malleus Fatuorum
Evening all,

Before this turns into a wheel war, can we please get a consensus about whether the block of was correct? He was blocked by for this comment ("You seem to have some difficulty in understanding the meaning of the word "attack". I was merely making a general observation about my own ignorance of the difficulties that those with shit for brains must face on a daily basis. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:10, 5 November 2009 (UTC)"). I'd have warned first personally, but I can understand the logic behind the block. What does everone else think?  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 01:54, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * No Wikipedian deserves to be told they have "shit for brains", not even one who has the audacity to disagree with Malleus Fatuorum. People leave Wikipedia for websites not so abusive when they encounter such things. The block was based in existing policy which enjoys consensus and was in the best interests of producing an encyclopedia.  Chillum   01:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course that's not what he said and Chillum has a long history of disruptive interactions with Malleus. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think he asserted that any specific Wikipedian has "shit for brains". It was a very crude idiom, but this does not look like an NPA violation to me. — Jake   Wartenberg  02:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * That is a lovely loophole.  Chillum   02:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. There was no personal attack except from Who then was a gentleman? calling three good faith content contributors "abusive drama-mongers". Unblock pronto there Ryan. We can't have this sort of abusive double standard that is continuing to hurt our community. As soon as admins start treating editors with respect, they will get respect in return. This block is disgusting. And the use of it for grudges by Chillum is just another in a long line of his abusive behavior. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:05, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * NO INDIVIDUAL was told they had "shit for brains" in the post that is linked to. The truth is that there are a lot of editors who are less than educated here ... was it an optimal post? ... no ... was it a blockable post ... NO!  Unless there's something else here - this block is not justified. Period.  Show me something block-worthy, and I'll support it ... but that post is NOT it. — Ched :  ?  02:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I should think the block was a bit of an overreaction, personally.— S Marshall  Talk / Cont  02:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I believe that the "oh, it wasn't referring to any specific individual" interpretation is, unfortunately, not supportable. There's no evidence in the thread that he was or could be referring to any object of that claim other than the person he was responding to.  AGF and grammar variations can explain a lot... but not this much, no.  Sorry.  You're all stretching for an excuse.  As I said on my talk page to a couple of people, this was grossly inappropriate, and I'd have blocked Jimbo or a sitting arbcom member for making the same comment.  WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL draw lines in the sand.  The lines are much argued over, but they're lines.  This was across the line and then some.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:09, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No, there was a clear personal attack in "I don't know what you people use for brains", closely followed up by the not-so-veiled implication that he did have some fairly clear ideas on the subject. Good block. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:09, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I haven't too often agreed with Chillum on civility enforcement matters, but I have to completely concur that this "no individual was targeted" excuse is pretty flimsy. The implication, especially coupled with the phrase "I honestly don't know what you people use for brains" (emphasis mine), was pretty clearly that the people to whom Malleus was speaking were the people with SFB. Not a comment on the block itself, but the excuse that no one was targeted does not hold any water in my mind. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:11, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Look ... there's a TON of folks that have said a lot of unkind things in the last few months. There's been more drama than we can weigh.  Admins. are not supposed to be some sort of military police here.  We are a website dedicated to building an encyclopedia.  When there's a problem, we need to discuss the problems - not act in some "I'm the boss" sort of way.  Blocking people just drive up the drama level .. discussion is what's needed here .. not some sort of police state. — Ched :  ?  02:21, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * With that much I tend to agree. This is why I won't block for incivility and advocate ignoring it instead: Civility blocks almost invariably increase drama rather than bringing it down. Certainly that seems borne out here. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I think there's a risk in admin A blocking user B for something user B said to user C, unless it's either horribly over the top (like a user earlier this evening who said something about burning another user at Auschwitz) or unless user C himself feels personally attacked, i.e. intimidated. The reason I say that is in part because short-term civility blocks don't seem to do any good, as the both of you are saying; and because, frankly, there is no standard of civility. You get these characters like Badly Overweight who throw obscenities around and then say, "I hope you didn't take it personally!" But similar behavior by others, including admins, goes virtually unchallenged, while still others get indef'd for it. Something's wrong with this picture. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * We've seen a lot of bad behavior by a lot of people over the last few days. Some of them were admins.  I have responded to two specific worst cases I saw - and been blamed for selective enforcement in both cases.
 * In some sense this is correct - I selectively enforced against the worst violators, when I didn't have the time or energy to issue a dozen civility warnings to other participants.
 * I am open to suggestions on what to do about this sort of problem. If we stop enforcing civility in threads where it gets bad in general, then the entire point of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL - to try and maintain a minimum level of constructive discourse and avoid people turning this project into a verbal brawl - is missed.  If we enforce it selectively, on the worst cases, this happens.  If I try to enforce it for all instances of incivilty I'm not going to get any sleep tonight for all the warnings I'll have to issue.
 * The end effect is suboptimal any way we cut it. More opinions on better approaches or more help would be appreciated.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * That's a very different issue than "Was this block within policy and precedent" - if you would like to change block policy and / or WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL, then the policy change procedure is ... somewhere over there. I disagree that blocking is inappropriate for personal attacks - they're disruptive to the community, they lower the level of conversation all around, they make it harder for others to participate in the conversation.  However, those issues are subject to a new community policy consensus, if you want to seek such a change.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:31, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * At some point, someone has to say, "You guys have to act like adults; we're building an encyclopedia here, and we have to at least be able to spend time in the same (metaphorical) room together without spitting at each other." It turns out that allowing free-for-all 'discussions' (where 'discussion' seems to have devolved to mean 'endless petty bickering' or possibly 'pissing match') hasn't seemed to achieve our goal.  It's pretty apparent that Malleus has been deliberately inflammatory and insulting in an awful lot of posts for an awfully long time.  This time, he drew a block for it.  Hopefully, that will be the end of it.  Both he and any other editors inclined to mistaking rudeness for frankness will hopefully take the hint.  This is an encyclopedia, not a brawl.  TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Please, everyone here actually look at the conversation he was engaged in. WTWAG called him a "drama-monger" (not appropriate in itself, but that is not the issue here), to which Malleus responded "So I'm an 'abusive drama-monger' eh? I honestly don't know what you people use for brains", in this instance, it seems obvious that "You People" would include WTWAG, since he was responding with the you people thing to the drama-monger comment. He then went on to refer to the same group as "those with shit for brains". It seems remarkably, slap-me-in-the-face obvious that this was an attack on WTWAG, as well as a larger group, but definitely referring to the commenter as well. After the block, he also said to the blocking admin: "I've lived long enough to know a great many things GWH, one of which is that the greater fool is the one who argues with a fool. So I will not argue with you". So, he continued his personal attacks by calling someone a fool. I'm not sure what he is so angry about, but this 24 hours hopefully will see a cool-down (I know this is not a reason to block, and the block was rightly based on PAs). Cheers! Scapler (talk) 02:27, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Anyone who has been blocked five times for incivility should have learned a lesson. Wikipedia is a collegial, consensus-based project. Folks who try to bully their way by insulting other editors are not helpful to the project and tend to drive away other users. I don't see how anyone could think that saying folks have "shit for brains" isn't uncivil.   Will Beback    talk    02:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it has to do with upbringing or socialization. There are folks out there who literally think that saying F.U. to somebody is no big deal; and stretching AGF about as far as I can, I suspect M.F. is one of those folks. He honestly doesn't think that throwing obscenities around is objectionable behavior. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * There are people who come to the project thinking that it's OK to use blogs as sources too. But it isn't OK to use poor sources, or to repeatedly insult other editors. If Malleus didn't know it when he came here, after five blocks over a year he should have learned.   Will Beback    talk    04:02, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps one who views his purpose as the hammering of fools is more likely than most to treat such fools (as he sees them) with contempt? Deor (talk) 02:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

To those who think that personal attacks should not result in blocking I implore you to propose a change in policy at WT:NPA instead of constantly complaining about the enforcement of that policy. It seems that despite constant complaining by those who disagree with blocking for personal attacks nobody every tries to change the policy's stance on the matter, my guess is that they know that the community supports a prohibition on personal attacks and would roundly reject any proposal to eliminate blocking as a response to them. If you can't get consensus to change the policy then please do not cry foul when an administrator enforces it. Chillum  02:48, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Great, another civility argument. Let's all agree that everyone has a different civility threshold and shall never agree. Nice, glad that's settled. As for Chillum and Malleus, I frankly think each of them should be user-banned from each other. We have topic bans, so why not user bans? -- avoid each other at all costs. If Malleus gets blocked, Chillum should be the absolute last person to participate in a related discussion. Chillum should not be involved in any process that judges Malleus' behavior. There are plenty of admins around that can handle this, and that won't serve to inflame the situation further by virtue of their mere presence. The same should go the other way around; Malleus needs to stay away from Chillum. I say this with absolutely no personal history that I'm aware of with either editor. Equazcion   (talk)  03:00, 5 Nov 2009 (UTC)


 * What exactly are you referring to? My interaction with Mal has been limited to a few civility warnings I have given him in the past and calmly defending myself against his counter-accusations. If I have done anything inappropriate please point it out to me without being vague and I will seek to improve myself, but as it stands I can not gain much from your criticism.  Chillum   03:05, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I wasn't criticizing you, I was making a suggestion for the future. You and Malleus have a heated history. I have no idea who did what to whom, and don't care much. When I see Malleus' name, generally in a discussion of behavioral problems, I invariably see yours, and vice-versa -- he complains about you a lot, and when you're involved in discussions about him, he tends to pick you out of the crowd to address directly and bring up past instances. As an observer I get the feeling it would be best for the both of you to keep a good distance from each other. Like I said, other admins can handle it. Equazcion   (talk)  03:12, 5 Nov 2009 (UTC)


 * The problem is that anyone who attempts to enforce the NPA policy on Malleus very suddenly finds themselves with a heated history. He makes sure of it. I am not taking admin actions because he has attacked me for various things in the past month or two, but that is for the sake of appearance not because I have done anything wrong towards him. I will still have my say when his behavior comes under scrutiny. The fact that you don't care much who did what to whom is a shame, because it is crucial information when deciding if someone should not be involved in a debate.  Chillum   03:16, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Do what you like. I'm just stating my observations. Equazcion   (talk)  03:18, 5 Nov 2009 (UTC)


 * That is fair enough. You are welcome on my talk page if you wish to go into more detail, or this can be left as it is. Either way is amicable with me.  Chillum   03:27, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Bugs makes a damn good point - the fact of the matter is that we are a VERY diverse culture. But I couldn't find where Mal said to anyone "FU".  There are young editors here that have been sheltered all their lives, there are editors here that have suffered the terrors of war.  It makes for a difficult situation in that there are times that communication is difficult.  Work on it folks.  Talk.  Shutting people out by blocking them from being able to communicate is never going to be the answer.  I don't see any overwhelming consensus here to continue a block for Malleus - therefore I am going to unblock.  Does Malleus rub folks the wrong way? ... Hell yea.  Then TALK to him.  We have user talk pages for a reason.  I read the the thread.  Malleus showed his obvious discontent for the situation.  There's no "personal attack" here .. there's a disgruntled editor expressing his discontent.  I'm sorry folks .. that's simply not a blockable situation.  I'll wait a few minutes to give anyone the chance to produce some "egregious" violation that I haven't seen ... but reading through the thread at hand... sorry ... not something that justifies a block. — Ched :  ?  03:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think there is consensus for that here. Prodego  <sup style="color:darkgreen;">talk  03:08, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Enough already. There is no consensus to change the status quo. Don't unblock.  Instead, let the user serve out their 24 hour block, or let the user request unblock through the usual channels. This thread has become a surrogate for the usual debates about enforcing our civility pillar.  Could we please take that discussion to the appropriate policy page and let ANI get on with other business? Jehochman Talk 03:19, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Considering that the blocked user has not posted an unblock request, and has decided to not argue with the block this whole discussion seems to be putting the wagon in front of the horse. Is this about what Malleus wants or is it about people's opinion on this type of block? If it is the latter then the proper venue is WT:NPA not here. Chillum  03:25, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * At the most pleasant cocktail parties, or working lunches, when someone says something offensive, it is either ignored, or perhaps gently chided. The offender generally thereafter refrains, aware of social convention.  Those who don't, and repeatedly engage in such conduct are perhaps ultimately dealt with by over time being uninvited, but I've never been at a pleasant cocktail party or working lunch where security guards hover over at the ready to forcibly eject those guilty of a social faux pas.  That sort of regime only seems to exist at the seedy joint in the bad part of town populated by dangerous folks who react to certain words by stabbing or shooting people.  Nothing good ever really goes on there, unlike WP, where no one will ever get shot or stabbed, but nevertheless we treat words with the same heavy handed approach.  Steveozone (talk) 03:54, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes exactly, I wonder how people respond to this? Really I wonder if it isn't even more futile, considering the durations: this seems almost more like making someone go stand in the corner (where they can still yell insults if they choose) for about five minutes before they're allowed to return to the table.  I think it's a question with the way blocking practice has evolved generally, actually, where some now see it as as a convenient first line defense against disruption of any sort, so much so that it comes to substitute for any less forceful options.  At least in my view the social pressures would be significantly more effective if they were allowed to work. Mackan79 (talk) 09:06, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * People who know Malleus are having fun on his talk page. I think that is the appropriate response. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:57, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Ya. Support what I'll henceforth refer to as "block parties" for all stupid civility blocks. Lara  04:02, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd like to throw my support behind "no blocking for uncivil (and funny) remarks that arent directed at anyone personally". As long as your honest and being straightforward I wish we'd have more people use the words "shit for brains" on Wikipedia, I'm still giggling. I want to throw up everytime I see someone bend over backwards to be "civil" to morons who obviously dont have a point (like me), I'd rather you call me out on it, I'll laugh and ignore you and give you just as good as you gave. It sure beats those that edit wars and those that quote policy at you. I'd rather be insulted personally and called an idiot for what I believe in a discussion, than to listen to someone quote policy as to why they have the "correct" belief.Camelbinky (talk) 04:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Well then propose a change in policy at WT:NPA. I have even created a placeholder for such a proposal if anyone thinks the community will support it.  Chillum   04:53, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The community, specifically the admin corp, cannot distinguish between incivility and personal attacks. Furthermore, en.wiki is too large for any proposals for change to policy or procedure to result in anything but failure in no consensus. Lara  04:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Proposals that have the support of the community pass all of the time. If your argument is that you cannot get consensus for your argument because Wikipedia is too big then I ask you to look at the policy and talk page histories and see the daily changes that are decided upon. People don't change the NPA policy because they agree with it, those that disagree to it are often those unable to follow it.  Chillum   05:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * So, are you saying that if I call myself a crude asshole, I should be blocked as well? Maleaus, if I understand correctly called himself shit-for-brains. Wikipedia is not censored. If the problem is language (ie-swearing), when did we become prudes? Wikipedia has always been had a free spirit regarding expression. Yes, some of us grow up in an environment where swearing is acceptable, and others not; live with it. "Swear" words arent inherently "bad", they are the Anglo-Saxon words for "acceptable" Norman-French terms (shit for feces, fuck for sex, and so on) they arent "bad" or unacceptable if you consider proper English terms to in fact be what the Anglo-Saxon term is and the Norman terms are not proper English. In fact saying the F-word is equivalent to saying "deer" instead of "venison", which is "correct"? Neither, because deer is Anglo, venison is French (almost all prepared meat uses the Norman-French while the animal it comes from is Anglo-Saxon; Beef-Cow, Pork-Pig, etc, because commoners raising the food were Anglo while the nobility eating it was Norman-French). Maybe understand the history of our words will take out the sting? But back to the point- he didnt insult anyone but himself,Camelbinky (talk) 05:08, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * It's not so much the specific words, it's the extreme aggression they convey - along with their self-demeaning nature, i.e. impression they leave that the one using them is a low-life. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:15, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * No, what I am saying is just what I have posted, not what you infered from it. Malleus's comment was clearly directed at the person he was responding to. If Malleus has said that he himself has shit for brains then I probably would not have said a word.  Chillum   05:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

One amusing thing is that the Admin who issued the block the same one who caused the mess in the first place by re-opening an already archived thread which predictably started the drama. Typical Wikipedia. Loosmark (talk) 05:13, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

This is a good block. Block him for 48 hours if he repeats the behavior. Everyking (talk) 05:32, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * It's a massive over-reaction and a rather poor block indeed. Malleus, IMO, was making a comment to the generality and it clearly wasn;t aimed at one person in particular. In these cases, I would have issued a warning and/or revert (as I did here where an editor clearly called someone else a cunt). But no all-out blocks without a warning at least - A l is o n  ❤ 05:43, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * My bad folks. I thought that the "status quo" was anyone can edit.  but I guess it's now - you need to get consensus to be "unblocked".  I'll try to understand this concept in the future.  Yea.. I can see a great future for the project. — Ched :  ?  05:47, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Please Ched, you know very well what the administrative policy says about blocks and unblocks. I know you know because I have recently reminded you. It has been that way for years, propose a change on the policy talk page if you don't like it. The administrative policy was written by the community, the same people who selected you to enforce that policy. If you think that blocks should require consensus first, or that reversing a block should not require a consensus then propose it and let the community decide.  Chillum   05:48, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not going to comment on the block itself, but personal attacks don't need to be directed at only one person, as opposed to many, in order to qualify. He was referring to his opponents in the argument as a group. Equazcion   (talk)  05:50, 5 Nov 2009 (UTC)


 * Administrators are selected for having a record of being exceptional volunteers... not volunteers above exception. It's probably worth noting at this point that there are worries that Wikipedia is run by administrators who are "above the fray", allowing them control of the site. Xavexgoem (talk) 06:45, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The excuse that the "shit for brains" wasn't directed at anyone in particular is bogus. Of course it was. It was clearly meant as a paraphrase of his immediately preceding posting, where he said "I honestly don't know what you people use for brains". In this, "you people" clearly refers to the person he was addressing, i.e. User:Who then was a gentleman?, and unspecified others. The phrase "those with shit for brains" clearly refers back to "you people". This is as clear and specific a personal attack as you could get. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:54, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * well, since Malleus realizes how foolish some folks can be, and doesn't seem to be intent on pursuing the matter, it would be childish and foolish for me to continue in any focused direction. There are some downright ridiculous comments above that I'll not even bother addressing.  The block was bad; period - but since the "blockee" chooses to rise above it, I'll not continue any course of action.  My best to all. — Ched :  ?  07:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I have mixed feelings about these kinds of blocks, but I’m wondering at the moment when it was first decided that admins should consider themselves to have the discretion to block a good-faith editor for being a little uncivil. Am I wrong that originally the idea for admins was that they would issue blocks, but avoid deciding unilaterally that someone should be blocked? I am entirely sympathetic to the need for a courteous editing environment; I’m simply unsure that blocks as a first response foster this. I wonder what would happen if instead George had struck the offending comment, informed Malleus that he considered it to violate WP:NPA, and asked him to be more courteous in the future. One possibility is that Malleus would scoff, George would take it to ANI, and there would not be consensus to act. But if that is the case, should Malleus be blocked? My theory is that at some point with any editor there will be consensus regarding incivility, or there won't be, but if anything the consensus may actually arrive quicker without these recurring blocks and debates on whether they were warranted. Mackan79 (talk) 08:32, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Totally uncalled for block. I sometimes wonder if certain Arbs do not do these things just to keep their own names in lights. I suggest he is unblocked at once; as for Chillum being part of this thread, I really don't think it needs me to point out the obvious - does it? All this block will create is furthering festering and fostering of bad feeling - or is that the intention? I suspect that may well be the case. Giano (talk) 08:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Interesting. I think most people complaining here would rather the comment have been redacted first, author contacted, etc. Others look ahead to say that knowing Malleus, he would certainly tell the admin to fuck off in that case, and we'd end up here; besides which he's been told before, no reason to inform him again, he knew exactly what he was doing, etc. Which makes the complaints really about the skipped steps; except of course for those people who see absolutely nothing wrong with what Malleus said, that it wasn't worthy of redacting or of blocking, even if he's been warned before. What an interesting range of views expressed in this discussion. Forgetting the result, I'm curious to know if those who see no problem with the original comment would be in favor of demoting civility and NPA. I guess that's not a discussion for ANI though. Ignore me, I'm ranting. Equazcion   (talk)  08:51, 5 Nov 2009 (UTC)
 * There’s no such thing as being “a little uncivil”. This example wasn’t even thinly disguised, it was written in a snide way with the second part reinforcing the first by means of linguistic artifice. If he said it to someone’s face where I come from, he’d likely get flattened.
 * The world doesn’t stop because one notable editor is blocked for a day. He’ll be back, no doubt emboldened by his many supporters’ comments. And Wikipedia takes another quarter turn in it’s decent into irrecoverable chaos as witnessed on these boards the last few weeks. Those who believe this was acceptable or use a skewed interpretation of what he said to claim he was being self-deprecating should get a grip. Leaky Caldron  09:06, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If we're going to have a civility policy, surely it precludes editors from calling one another "shit for brains". This was not an innocent, casual use of colorful language by a new editor so fresh out of the boonies that the phrase is just part of their cultural vocabulary.  Nor was it a hypothetical or generalized comment.  It's a featured article writer, here for three years, with an account name based on Latin wordplay, who called a specific editor "shit for brains", who has engaged in these kinds of insults again and again, and been blocked for it repeatedly.  MF knows that others object to that kind of taunting, he just chooses to proceed despite the objections and blocks.  As a direct response to Scalper's warning MF not to further insult Gentleman, MF offered a ridiculous logircal argument that he had not in fact insulted Gentleman, then called Gentleman "shit for brains".  It was a deliberate provocation.  It's pretty simple.  If an administrator warns an editor not to engage in behavior the administrator deems "unacceptable", and the editor in question responds by amping up the behavior, it's fair for one administrator or another to issue a block to stop the escalation.  These blocks do work, and they should not require so much hand-wringing here.  MF can be uncivil as much as he wants, and he should face swift and escalating blocks for that.  Sooner or later somebody will back down, and the outcome cannot be that the community backs down on its demand for a civil editing environment.  If MF truly enjoys creating featured articles more than he enjoys insulting people, he'll take the very easy, basic, step all of us are expected to take, and just drop the hostility in favor of productive editing.  Let's face it, some people simply think they should be free to be uncivil, and others look at every block as some kind of conspiracy.  Those opinions don't really count.  They're not relevant to the discussion.  We have a policy and it should be enforced quickly, forcefully, and without interference.  Anyone who wants to change the policy is free to propose it, but that won't happen.  Don't gauge consensus by the !votes of the drama addicts on this page - out there in the more productive namespaces, the requirement to work together and treat each other decently is pretty fundamental to the encyclopedia.  - Wikidemon (talk) 09:21, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's acceptable, based on my own background (the comment on U.S. radio would elicit a fine, for instance). The problem is I'm unclear that a 24 hour block from a single administrator has any real effect on whether it's acceptable or not.  That he'll be back and equally emboldened is probably true, but isn't it foreseeable?  See Einstein on the definition of insanity.  Perhaps counter intuitively, I think the better response may not be to block as a first response, instead to seek consensus, and then to implement the consensus.  If the consensus isn't there, then work for it, or accept it.  Try again next time.  Where the blocks are repeated I'm not especially concerned, but I'm left agreeing with Ncmvocalist that it's kind of a sorry way to try to create community norms.  Mackan79 (talk) 09:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * This block is a sign that the patience of many in the community is running thin for users who (1) make inflammatory and insulting posts, and (2) don't do enough in terms of voluntarily remedying the issue with their approach in interacting with others. and  were clearly frustrated. The response Malleus provided would have been fine, despite the frustration, had he not inserted the "I honestly don't know what you people use for brains" bit - there was no need to further that negative perception. The concern would have been resoved if he had struck that quoted sentence; not even an apology was needed. Instead of doing so, he further escalated the situation by making another uncivil comment which was even more inflammatory (and no amount of wikilawyering can change that fact). Some users believe that ANI (as a system) is a problem due to precisely this sort of discourse, when in reality, the issue rests with the users who make those comments - such needs to be removed from the situation in order to move disputes (and any accompanying drama) towards resolution. As for the comments, until the community approves a system where these sorts of comments can be removed or the inappropiate parts modified, there is little to help remedy the issue. As for the user, unless there is a probation that sets out those terms, admins cannot impose temporary page bans unilaterally, which leaves blocks as the only option for users who have been warned and blocked an ample number of times. It is a sad situation, and dilemma, that this puts us all in. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * People are offended by 'shit for brains'? Good God.  If this is the threshold for standing on chairs and holding our skirts while screaming for help, why has nobody warned or blocked for "abusive drama-mongers"? Parrot of Doom 09:31, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Someone was warned for "abusive drama-mongerers" - which after reviewing the situation, I agreed with, and have said several times in several places. There were clearly provocations from both camps in the leadup to this.  The problem when responding to a mess with this much abuse is where to start.  Unfortunately, there is a tendency to respond to the person who made the last and worst response and not those who escalated it leading there.  I have said several times in these threads, and before that elsewhere, that such responses are not fair or optimal.  But sometimes "doing the total right thing" would require hours and hours of work, time which I (and Wikipedians in general) usually do not have to dedicate to incidents.  It would be constructive for the community (admins and editors) to try and work out ways to address each of these issues.  I believe that I, and admins in general, cannot be paralyzed into inaction by understanding and admitting that the process is not entirely balanced and fair when it comes to escalating conflicts.  We have to be able to act to enforce reasonable behavior standards and avoid Wikipedia becoming a brawl.  But we should be open to and strive for doing better.
 * It's a hard problem, though. Ideas welcome.  Volunteer effort appreciated.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 10:18, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Good block, per Will Beback above, but it should have been substantially longer.  Sandstein   09:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Request wider view at the Matthew Shepard article (RE: Edit Warring)
The is currently edit warring and adding information against consensus on the Matthew Shepard article and appears to be a Single Purpose account for this designated purpose, the most recent incidents relates to a rape allegation/issue, although looking further back into the article history more examples of the edit warring can be located.
 * Examples of the edit warring: (1) (2) (3) (4)

The issue has been raised and debated on the article's talk page located at Talk:Matthew_Shepard, I'm requestin wider community consensus on the appropriate course(/s) of action, which of presently a Article Ban for the mentioned used seems most appropriate. Peachey88 (Talk Page · Contribs) 06:27, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Not an admin (just an opinion from someone uninvolved), but I don't see how an article ban makes much sense.
 * There seem to be two separate issues here:
 * Whether or not to include the incident in the article.
 * Policefact's edit-warring.
 * It seems to me that you should probably file for an RFC on whether or not to include the incident. Being vaguely controversial seems a poor reason to not include something in an article to which BLP doesn't apply. But, I'll leave that up to you.
 * The edit-warring is a problem irrespective of whether or not he's right in wanting to include it. However, there's no reason to assume that he's capable of entirely behaving everywhere but in that article, so I don't see the point in a ban. I assume he's currently blocked, right? I mean, 6RR? If he isn't blocked yet, he likely will be very soon. And that's good. If an RFC is filed, hopefully he'll (eventually) participate in a constructive fashion. If not, meh, he'll just be blocked again.
 * Either way, it seems (to me) the two places you should be looking are at 3RR (if he isn't already blocked) and RFC, rather than AN/I. 209.90.133.214 (talk) 06:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Smartbook09
User indeffed. Mjroots (talk) 06:51, 5 November 2009 (UTC) Time for a talk page block? ,, -- Neil N   <sup style="font-family:Calibri;"> talk  ♦  contribs  06:33, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. Thanks. Evil saltine (talk) 06:47, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Ed, Edd, n' Eddy's Big Picture Show
Not sure if this is the right place to bring this up, but I want another pair of eyes on it. User:Tdinoahfan completed the above article, after Ed, Edd, n Eddy's Big Picture Show was deleted following an AFD vote. Because he provided no sourcing, I tagged it for speedy as a possible hoax; he's reverted it, and continued to do so every time I retagged it. I've hit 3RR now, so I'll go no further. I left a note on his talk page, which has gone unanswered: is there anything further that needs to be done? I'm willing to stop speedying for good if this can be proven to exist.

See also: Articles for deletion/Ed, Edd, n Eddy's Big Picture Show -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 21:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * It exists...not sure how close it comes to WP:N, but it definitely exists...I'd suggest you do a quick Google Search next time before bringing it here. I got 71,000 google hits when I searched it.  I won't speak to the AfD because I can't seem to find it. Frmatt (talk) 22:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Ordinarily I would. In this case, precedent existed for a deletion, and it was recent (couple of days ago).  I figured there was probably something else going on here that I didn't know about. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 22:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Now deleted. It was protected (inexplicably).  Further attempts at restoration should go to deletion review. Protonk (talk) 22:06, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I think User:Tdinoahfan's most recent edit illustrates that he isn't here to participate in collaborative editing. Soxwon (talk) 22:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It could illustrate many things. No harm, no foul. Protonk (talk) 22:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It was protected, and the speedy should have been declined, as the AFD for previous discussion was because it was deemed a hoax. It never went to full discussion etcetera, and now apparently exists (or at least someone went to great lengths to pretend it does, complete with youtube video links of it). I am asking Black Kite to undelete it long enough to determine if it truly exists (there appears to be YouTube of it, etcetera).. (oh, and addendum: FRICKIN EDIT CONFLICTS) SirFozzie (talk) 22:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you give me a few minutes on this, please? I have quite a strong suspicion this might well be a G5 as well as a G4. Also, I'm pretty sure that's not the only AfD there's ever been on that article - there's a lot of ways of punctuating it. <b style="color:black;">Black Kite</b> 22:19, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Not a problem, there is no deadline, after all :). I was just looking at it from a procedural standpoint, that the AFD wasn't a valid speedy reason, and that the reason for the speedy last time does not appear to be true now. I have no opinion on the notability or appropriateness of an article on it. SirFozzie (talk) 22:24, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Found it. Articles for deletion/Ed, Edd n Eddy's Big Picture Show. Now, as for the G5 aspect... <b style="color:black;">Black Kite</b> 22:26, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * And Articles for deletion/Ed, Edd n Eddy's 1st Movie! <b style="color:black;">Black Kite</b> 22:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

(de-indent) The last one really doesn't apply here again, it was deleted because of WP:CRYSTAL, which again, no longer applies (note that it said that it was fine to recreate after it was released), but this one [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ed, Edd n Eddy's Big Picture Show probably is a good deletion and it should go to DRV. (although I would support replacing the article with a redirect to the main Ed-article). Good work, BK :) SirFozzie (talk) 22:30, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) One of the AfDs that Black Kite is referring to is Articles for deletion/Ed, Edd n Eddy's 1st Movie. That was easily findable through the most recent AfD. While I've been assuming good faith with Tdinoahfan's creation of this article, the alleged EE&E movie has been the subject of repeated recreation. I agree with Protonk that, at this point, the correct venue for restoration is DRV. —C.Fred (talk) 22:31, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If the speedy had been declined, I'd be fine with it - as I say, I have no opinion one way or another. My reasons for bringing the whole thing to ANI in the first place have to do with the way in which the creator handled the article, reverting my changes and making no attempt to handle my concerns properly. Also, I would note that it seems to have been raised at DRV already, if I understand comments on the creator's talk page correctly. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 22:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I've been EC'd so many times now many of my original points are moot now but I've been involved with this article for some time and there is a huge history here of bad article writing regarding this specifically so whilst it does exist it doesn't mean it's notable and the most recent AfD shows that, the create-protect for most variants of the title is because the fans are a little overzealous. treelo <sub style="color:#D2CDC6;">radda  22:34, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Note User:Tdinoahfan has been blocked for incivility and edit warring. Martin 4 5 1  (talk) 22:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I have indeffed the editor since they wouldn't stop edit warring on WP:DRV. I did try to explain the process to them. If they request unblock showing they can edit properly then fine, but they've already been blocked for disruption once, and their account's only 2 days old. And I'm pretty sure they're a recreation of a blocked user anyway. Creating an AfD with their 3rd edit? Um. <b style="color:black;">Black Kite</b> 22:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Tdinoahfan's specific style of grammar and spelling and speaking as if people hate the show seems familiar, xe is most likely a sock of someone but I'm unsure who, I'll dig around. treelo  <sub style="color:#D2CDC6;">radda  22:45, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I came up with nothing (though think it could be someone who was banned recently) but if anyone wants to tell me who created Ed, Edd n Eddy's Big Picture Show most recently it might help me make a case. treelo  <sub style="color:#D2CDC6;">radda  23:23, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Just a friendly reminder to admins. Don't ratchet up blocks due to post-block ranting (though it is hard to ratchet up 'indef') Protonk (talk) 22:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * This is fairly normal for the fans, you'd be best not letting them go this far with their arguing, you'll be there all week. treelo  <sub style="color:#D2CDC6;">radda  23:23, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Can someone provide a link to the DRV? At the very least the deleted article titles should be redirected to the main article (Ed, Edd n Eddy?) and whatever cited content exists included there. The response to the articles repeated recreation looks reactionary and inappropriate to me. Why not try to solve the problem? ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:51, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Same guy as . Thatcher 23:49, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem is easily solved. That's for the article to be written with sources showing notability, as opposed to re-creating the version that was deleted at AfD because it had neither. <b style="color:black;">Black Kite</b> 00:04, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Even easier would be to redirect it to the main article, perhaps with a small section all its own, indicating that it was selectively released but hasn't been widely covered as is noted in the consensus of this AfD discussion . Redirects can be protected you know. That would solve the problem once and for all. (It turns out the section already existed. So all that's needed is a redirect. See below) ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:24, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Admin assistance needed
Could an Admin please redirect Ed, Edd, n Eddy's Big Picture Show (which has been protected) to Ed, Edd n Eddy where this content is included. Thanks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:56, 4 November 2009 (UTC) ✅
 * Thanks Protonk. I think this thread is resolved and exhausted. Unless of course we can work in something about Ottava? ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:06, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * CoM, a friendly word - please do not try to antagonise other editors. Mjroots (talk) 06:27, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * As one who is beginning to understand Ottava's side of these controversies that he seems to find himself in frequently, I might have made the same satirical comment if I had thought of it first. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:04, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Good advice. I'm not sure which bit you're referring to though as my comment just above was meant as a harmless joke. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:31, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Back anew...
As with the same obstinate attitude over including showcruft and user-sourced info on Brainsurge. Immediately reported to AIV.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 07:18, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * ...and has been blocked. But this probably isn't over.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 11:53, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Edit-warring, disruptive SPA, possibly COI
User: Xeugene has repeatedly made disruptive edits to the page Pacifica Forum, including dissing Elie Wiesel at least once (using the term "Wiesel Words") as well as repeatedly insisting that David Irving is not a Holocaust Denier contrary to consensus. In addition, Xeugene has not edited any other articles besides Pacifica Forum, which leads me to believe that there may be a possible SPA case here; the person's username seems to suggest that they may have some close connection to the Forum, possibly a COI.

This appears to be a long-running violation of multiple Wikipedia policies including 3RR, edit warring, repeated insertion of unsourced material and/or links to inappropriate sources, removal of properly sourced material, insertion of irrelevant material, and removing categorizations. This has gone on for several months and I really don't know what to do; since there are so many issues at play I'm not sure which noticeboard is best. Stonemason89 (talk) 22:56, 4 November 2009 (UTC)




 * Have you attempted to discuss this matter with the user? Have you notified them of this discussion by placing  on their talk page? Jehochman Talk 13:47, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I did place the ANI-notice on their talk page, and they haven't responded to it yet. I haven't attempted to discuss the matter with the user, though, because I wasn't quite sure what the appropriate thing to say would be. I didn't want to get into a fight or accidentally say something I'd regret later. That's why I asked for help. Stonemason89 (talk) 14:27, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Harassment by User:Wdford
Background (I): It is now almost three years since I've made the first of my altogether 5000+ edits at Wikipedia, and I've learned at lot during these 3 years. So, at the upcoming Friday, at 10 a.m. local time, I will be giving a 30 minute presentation on Wikipedia at my University, for about 20-30 undergraduate students who are studying to become grammar school teachers and are having a session on web 2.0 teaching materials. One part of my presentation will be concerned with editing experience at Wikipedia, any I will give an honest account of my experience. Currently I am considering telling the students this story:

Background (II): ''Some articles at Wikipedia are about highly controversial topics. One of them is the article "Ancient Egyptian race controversy". The controversy is about the question which skin colour the ancient Egyptians had. Why is this topic so controversial? In short: Because some white people think that every person of African heritage who is interested in the topic is promoting [a fringe pseudo-historic 'theory'] Because some black people think that everyone who denies that the ancient Egyptians had a darker skin then people from Europe is a white racist who tries to deny them their heritage. Probably not unsurprisingly, it is almost impossible to write an article on the topic at Wikipedia. After during one of these discussion quite a lot of material was removed from the article, I though: Why not recycle some material - and I added this to the article Great Sphinx of Giza.

First Incident: ''Yes, there actually is a small debate about the question whether the the Sphinx depicts a black person or not, and why shouldn't this be discussed in the appropriate Wikipedia article? At least until somehow there is an acceptable general article on the topic. Of course, there was some discussion, but considering how controversial the topic is, everything went nicely. Until an editor called Wdford from South Africa joined the debate on the article. I won't bother with recalling the details, however, this resulted in me giving up on the article.

Second Incident: ''Wdford then did some work at the article Ancient Egyptian race controversy, which I have mentioned previously. As could be expected, they didn't actually managed to work it out in the discussion there, so at some point, Wdford and more then one other editor were banned from the article. I thought that this was my big chance. I previously had identified four good books on the topic, two by white authors and two by black authors, and I thought that I now had the opportunity to fix the issue. Initially, everything went well, and I was able to get the support of all other involved editors. And then, the ban, that kept Wdford away from the article, was lifted. Wdford almost immediately gave me an confrontation at the article, and after I had notified the adminstrator noticeboards two times and no one had intervened on my behalf, I gave up on that article, too

Third Incident: ''I mean, there are many other articles at Wikipedia that could use a good editor. Last month, for example, I noticed an article "colloidal silver". That stuff was used until the 1940s as internal medicine, resulting in an unknown number of cases in which people's skin turned grey as a side-effect; currently that stuff is marketed again as an alternative medicine, with the same side-effects and unsubstantiated claims of effectiveness. There was a discussion of the article at the noticeboard, and I took part at this discussion. This discussion was rather long and ugly, and after it was over, Apparently everyone was so tired of the flame war, that no one wished to continue the controversy at the article - well except from one unacceptable edit by whom? Wdford, who had not participated at all in the discussion. I asked myself, what he possible might want to to do there. Harass me? But despite my instincts, I started to work on the article. But to my surprise, it went quite well. I turned out that it even was possible to have a constrcutive discussion with one of the editors, with whom at had a very confrontational discussion at the noticeboard previously. But this ended, when Wdford decided that he wanted to rewrite the lead and to restructure the article.''

''His edits were, honestly, bad. Again, I will not go into the details (you can read the discussion online at Talk:Medical uses of silver yourself, if you want), but there was no way I could agree to his edits. I tried to explain this to him, but after one day of discussion I noticed that it was still impossible to have a discussion with him.''

The End? How does this story end? I don't know yet. But I think it wouldn't be fair if the first people I told this story to were some students who have never edited Wikipedia. So, I am giving the Wikipedia community, and especially its administrators, a chance to deal with the issue now. I am feeling harassed, as in "wp:harassment", by Wdford. Probably he is not actually trying to harass me, but he is trying to prove that he can write a better article than me, and honestly, he simply can't. He is lacking basic skills necessary for that, like the ability to evaluate sources. But he is also unable to accept criticism in any way, and every time I criticise him, he responds by accusing me of "acting like I own the article" or that like. Under these circumstances, there is no way I'll be able to recall the positive experiences I've had editing Wikipedia on Friday, so I decided to post this thread now, which at least gives this story a (small) chance of a good ending before then. Zara1709 (talk) 20:09, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I think presenting the problem concisely with diffs would have been more helpful than writing a detailed story. In any case, this is clearly a content dispute, as you seem to acknowledge, "Probably he is not actually trying to harass me, but he is trying to prove that he can write a better article than me, and honestly, he simply can't." Dispute resolution is the appropriate way to get this matter resolved, I don't see how an administrator is necessary or could help any more than any other uninvolved editor could. --  At am a  頭 21:10, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I can't describe this issue with full diffs, it was already depressing enough to write it this way. And probably he is not actually trying to harass me, but the effect is the same. He is making it impossible for me to edit the article, and he is effectively driving me off Wikipedia. Why would I spent about 6-8 hours fixing the structure of a controversial article when he can come along and simply wreck it up again? And since this is already the third article where there is a problem, this is certainly not a contend issue, but a problem with the editor. An administrator could have fixed the issue a few months ago, if he simply had restored the topic ban against Wdford. An administrator, or any other motivated editor, needs to get down to it, read Wdfords comments and the discussions on the article I've mentioned, and then, if he comes to the same conclusions as I, needs to explain to Wdford that I mustn't continue what effectively is harassment. But if no one is willing to support me here, I am going to take a break from Wikipedia for 6 months, advise a group of 20-30 students not contribute to Wikipedia (writing articles is fun, but the discussions about them often aren't) and this article, medical uses of silver, will likely be again the topic of a few threads at the noticeboards, since Wdfords edit restored similar ambiguities and misquotations like the ones that made the article an ANI case in the first place. Zara1709 (talk) 21:35, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Any admin who was thinking of sanctioning Wdford would probably wish to read the talk page of Medical uses of silver before doing so. You'd make a better case there if you would write brief comments instead of great walls of text. It is hard to rule in your favor when your case is so vague, and needs thousands of words to explain. WP:DR is your best option. Coming to ANI frequently is not a good use of your time, or ours. It's nice that you are willing to work on difficult articles, but to then complain when you find opposition is paradoxical. EdJohnston (talk) 18:27, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I did expect some difficulties at the article, and I was prepared to deal with these difficulties. But I did not expect THIS! Honestly, if some editor with whom you had previously difficulties shows up at another issue, on which you have already spent some time, wouldn't you suspect that he his harassing you? An the reason I am writing such great blocks of text is simply. Wdford is avoiding a discussion of the actual content issue, so I have to repeat and explain my view on that again and again. (Just like you have to continue to repeat the mainstream view when you are dealing with a fringe editor.) I received some support from another editor, so probably we can solve the issue at the article - but probably not. If you want to know what problem I have with Wdfords edits, just check out my last post on the article talk page. If Wdford isn't able to identify a fringe source when he sees it, then isn't a good editor, but that alone wouldn't be a problem. But if he is unable to admit that he made a mistake and takes the revert of his edits as a a reason to start a confrontation, (and not as a reason to discuss those edits) then someone needs to get involved and explain him that this attitude is unacceptable. Zara1709 (talk) 20:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

attacked by webhamster
Today I was verbally attacked by User:WebHamster via two of his socks one of which is still active. I have tried to open an enquiry at (IPsock|WebHamster) in respect of his sock known asUser:Fred_the_Oyster but I am not sure of the correct procedure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackieupstairs (talk • contribs) 23:30, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The way this is generally done is to open up a sockpuppet case at WP:SPI. However, when you do so, be sure to have evidence ready that shows why this editor should be considered the same person as WebHamster. Reviewing their behavior, I see nothing to indicate that except for an edit war at Affinity (band) between yourself (as an IP) and him which ended with a semiprotection of the article. I also can't find any "verbal harrassment" of you from this editor or any other editor. --  At am a  頭 00:08, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Jackieupstairs appears to be a single purpose account for attacking WebHamster, also at least one of the accounts claimed to be a sockpuppet was an impersonator, and was blocked as a sockpuppet of another user. snigbrook (talk) 00:10, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * User:Fred_the_Oyster does look suspicious, though. Started editing after an 18 months break a couple of days after WebHamster was indeffed, and shares many of his interests.  Yes - WP:SPI is the way to go. <b style="color:black;">Black Kite</b> 00:16, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not a single purpose account please refer to my contributions to for example the comedians both before and after I upgraded my IP number (a fact mentioned on my talk page) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackieupstairs (talk • contribs) 15:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It is public knowledge that webhamster is "Kurt Adkins" as shown for example in the authors name of []. I just removed a link from this page The_Goon_Show inserted a while back by webhamster. It’s a site selling copies of BBC owned works. Whois records or the "Click on the email" confirm that site is operated by Kurt Adkins. Kurt Adkins incidentally is the registered domain owner of many more sites which either directly link from Wikipedia or are a link from a one of the other sites e.g. www.kinkybrits.co.uk. I could go on to show other socks of his such as those with mysteriously the same aspergers syndrome based in Manchester) however to focus on this particular sock one simply types "Fred the oyster"+"Kurt Adkins" into Google and see the results highlighted. The reason he has attacked you dear Jackie is you stumbled upon one of his other money making links from the Affinity article.  "....tree diagram designed by Mo Foster and Kurt Adkins" That link (disguised in Japanese) is a redirect to airmailrecordings.com which earns him 12000 yen from poor suckers drawn into buying a copy of music which by all rights should belong to Affinity.  So Jackie please do not take these attacks personally as Kurt Adkins does have a history from when 11 users have been suspended Incidentally he was accused then of running many aliases []or [] Kurt describes himself as "an IT consultant" therefore multiple IP address cloning or dynamic ip address switching with proxies will be of no problem to him. I am not sure how much evidence admins need before they realise that Kurt Adkins = webhamster = fred the oyster86.176.164.80 (talk) 17:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm with snigbrook, both the Jackieupstairs account and 86.176.164.80 accounts look like they are out to attack WebHamster who has given up on Wikipedia because of these kinds of attacks. Block both the account and the IP now before they cause more damage. Nev1 (talk) 17:09, 5 November 2009 (UTC) PS. Note the similarity in the above IP address and the one that registered, an account impersonating WebHamster. Nev1 (talk) 17:14, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I would have thought the allegations i made were of more importance than who i am, although i can see why you are reluctant to answer or deal with those allegations. I am not causing any damage to Wikipedia other than exposing the truth. For somebody to directly link out of Wikipedia to their email address used to take payments and then subsquently try and allege that e-mail address (identity) was stolen is real comedy, particulary when they use the same IP range of numbers as 20,000 other editors in order to try and add weight to their childish and deceptive claim their ID was stolen. Please do not insult the intelligence of either the good admins or other good editors and please refrain from making vicious attacks on a female editor. Its becoming a little too predictable that when Kurt loses the plot there to his rescue are the same names all from the same area.86.176.164.80 (talk) 17:43, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Is there an admin in the house that can block this IP and the main account? Auntie E. 18:10, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry forgot to deal with Kurts Nev1's point on Webhamster leaving - he did not leave - his account was blocked!! that is why Kurt is using his Fred the Oyster account.86.176.164.80 (talk) 18:51, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Can an admin have a look at this ip there are some what look like outing comments on his take page  Off2riorob (talk) 18:57, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi and thank for all your help. I now realise that it is all about money and selling dodgy pirate music/tv. I really do not wish to get embroiled in his nasty ring of deceit although I did wonder why would anyone get so defensive and abusive over minor edits —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackieupstairs (talk • contribs) 19:18, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I've warned User talk:86.176.164.80 to use WP:SPI and do something productive or I will block. I'm out for a bit so feel free to message me if he continues. -- Ricky81682 (talk)

Concerning images uploaded by User:Robkelii today
User:Robkelii has uploaded a lot of images today (see contribs) without adding the required source and licensing information for such images; a lot of these images have since been given speedy delete tags. The user has already been given a bunch of warnings (including a final warning) to stop uploading images without specifying appropriate source and licensing data. After the final warning, the user continued to upload additional images without adding the required source and licensing information. As of right now, the user still does not appear to have made any effort to add source and licensing information to images that he/she uploaded today. The process of having to put speedy delete tags on each of these images has become very tedious and annoying due to the large number of images that need to be tagged. SoCalSuperEagle ( talk ) 01:10, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * A quick look tells me (from the EXIF data) that the uploader more than likely took these photographs themself, and needs education as regards Commons uploading and licensing rather than criticism; I see nobody has engaged this editor, but on the other hand, neither has he asked for advice. Let's see his response here, but I don't think it helpful to drive away a good-faith contributor without taking a little effort to discuss. Rodhull  andemu  01:16, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The user has received several notices and warnings (see this for example). The uploads still continue unabated. I'm blocking to give us time to catch up. (ESkog)(Talk) 22:15, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Sockfarm of edit warriors!
For a recap on the full story: Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations/Archives/Archive7

And now, although the initial IP block has expired, it looks they have created yet another account just to continue to edit war (although this one has not yet done anything else abusive). 24.148.0.83 (talk) 12:48, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * From the above linked SPI talk page, it sounds like Luna Santin has done what can be done for now. If socking/personal attacks/edit warring continues, consider an update at that talk page instead of here, just so everyone's on the same page. -kotra (talk) 20:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Uncivil Argument over Phillip DeFranco
I recently edited the wikipedia article about Phillip DeFranco to remove a section i believed should not be part of the article, the section in question is taken from an interview with a British youtuber, who expresses her opinions about Phillip DeFranco, however within the article this is presented as fact twice in the article, I deleted these sections as I thought they were mearly the work of vandals however Alizaa2 (talk) reverted my edit with an angry edit message, I placed a message on his talk page asking about his reasons for doing it, and responded in a hostile manner, the argument was carried out between our respective talk pages, I asked a more senior member of Wikipedia than I,  Kyle  1278 , to take a look into the disagreement as he has history with the Phillip DeFranco page as well as past interaction with Alizaa2, and he refereed me too this page. With some looking into past article revisions, it became clear that the section in question was added by Alizaa2 and since then he has stubbornly reverted all edits that have tried to remove the section. I believe that the user is displaying Ownership_of_articles as well as contributing sections that go against NPOV. 81.86.244.17 (talk) 14:19, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I have removed the content from the article and warned Alizaa2 about WP:BLP and WP:Civil violation. I suggest that interested users discuss on the article talk page to decide if and how Paperlilies' opinion needs to be included in the article text. Abecedare (talk) 15:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikihounding
Collect has just commented on all seven open AfDs I have commented on (6 of which I set up) and taken a contrary position, yet not commented on any other AfDs: Conservatism in North America (Oct. 28), National liberalism (Oct. 30), Naïve liberalism (Oct. 30), Small-c conservative (Oct. 31), Small-l liberal (Oct. 31), Small-l libertarianism (Oct. 31), Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation (Nov 2). This appears to be Wikihounding: ...the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on pages or topics they may edit or debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work, with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor. I was previously in conflict with Collect at RfC/Collect. The Four Deuces (talk) 15:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * At face value, this appears to be textbook wikihounding. A statement from Collect would be appreciated. Tan   &#124;   39  15:31, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Alas -- not hounding by a long shot. If you will recall, I was very active on XfD before my break -- I am catching up on the open issues, and you will note that the few overlaps with TFD are minimal in the total context of my posts. TFD seems, moreover, to have been inordinately interested in me per  "He's back. The Four Deuces (talk) 16:07, 30 October 2009 (UTC)"  and    "== Collect ==  Do you really think that Collect is waiting until the 1RR is over? He said he was taking a short trip into the mountains, but I expected him back long ago. I asked Soxwon but no reply. Have you heard anything? The Four Deuces (talk) 04:18, 26 October 2009 (UTC) " which would seem to imply that TFD was following me rather than that I was following him.     etc. show his fadscination with me, and the ability to make many and varied charges.  As the edits at issue now were all in the precise same category, it is likely indeed that a person commenting on one would comment on the others, and that is precisely what happened, TFD's clear and prolonged distaste for me notwithstanding.  I am well over the nine thousand edit mark -- I have no cause to "hound" anyone in 7 edits for sure! Collect (talk) 16:09, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * In summary, you're saying that it's a complete coincidence that the AfDs you !voted on today were all ones that TFD either started or !voted in, and all your !votes are contrary to his/hers? Tan   &#124;   39  16:15, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Adding: My total overlap on XfD with TFD is eleven articles. My overlap with Ikip is 51. My overlap with Ironholds is 41. If I am hounding TFD, Ikip and Ironholds have the better case, for sure! And with minimal overlap with you, I overlap once on XfD. Sorry -- I am a big user at XfD and that is the simple truth. And I would hasten to point out that I am not a "deletionist" and therefore my 80+ % "keep" record would rather imply that I am more likely to find reasons to keep than to delete. Proposers of deletions tend, for some reason, to seek deletion of articles.  Thus that ratio is totally consistent with my record over hundreds of XfDs.  And with the XfDs all falling into the same area of reasoning, it is highly unlikely that I would Keep some and Delete others. Thanks! Collect (talk) 16:20, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I cannot believe this was a simple coincidence given the timing and nature of the !votes, and your past history of tendentious editing and conflict. To me, it's obvious that these were deliberate !votes by going to AfDs in which TFD participated. Your past AfD voting patterns are irrelevant. However, more opinion is needed here. Tan   &#124;   39  16:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Deal with facts, please. That you had a conflict with me in the past ought not weigh a microgram. My XfD voting pattern is very consistent, over many hundreds of !votes. These pages all fell within a very narrow category in which I have !voted many times. TFD has hounded me in the past, and kept close tabs on every edit I have made. And since these !votes were in line with all my !votes in the past, make up under 5% of my recent edits, and all fell into the same category, it is an extraordinary stretch to assume anything more than coincidence because that, frankly, is what it is. And since my return from break was not predicated on any reason remotely connected with TFD, whilst he apparently kept daily tabs on me, even contacting other editors, I suggest that you look at his behaviour and not mine here. Thanks! Collect (talk) 16:42, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * This does not appear to be a serious issue to me. All members of the community are still welcome to comment on XfDs, are they not? Previous history between editors should not matter. Would TFD be complaining here if Collect had Wikihounded him to his AfDs and voted to delete? I think not. I am sure Collect's arguments and their merits will be judged appropriately by the closing administrator. Glass  Cobra  17:21, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, saying this does not appear to be a serious issue is ignoring the Wikihounding portion of the policy WP:HARASS - as TFD posted above, "the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on pages or topics they may edit or debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work, with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor." Of course all editors are welcome to comment on XfDs. Even disregarding past history, I have a hard time believing that commenting on seven AfDs in a row, all ones TFD participated in, taking a contrary stance, without any other AfDs in the mix, is coincidence. Tan   &#124;   39  17:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You believe that I would comment on some -- and miss others which he posted in? That my !Votes were somehow deficient in reasoning? That 6 out of 17 !votes represents stalking in any way?  I would ask any person who has no preconceptions here to review my posts on those XfDs -- heck review every single !vote I have ever made - and come back with any conclusion other than the simple fact that where I research a topic involved in an XfD and post the multiple links that the !vote is in any way biassed. Meanwhile, did you note his apparent obsession with me -- even posting to other editors as to my break?  And note further that every one of the !vote posts dealt with the issues at hand, and did not "confront" TFD in any way.  Nor can I conceive that the handful of !votes can be construed as intending to cause any editor any "distress" both of which are needed for "hounding" to exist.  And also you should note that no other AfDs in the lists of a few days back were related to these.   BTW, I find that I also posted at ArbCom as a result of seeing Vision Thing's page -- and where TFD (and a hundred others) are involved.  Unless, of course, you can suggest that my end of break was deliberately timed to harass TFD?  Frankly at this point, I feel hounded and harassed by TFD, to be sure. Thanks. Collect (talk) 17:57, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * @Tan - I believe that editors should be allowed to disagree with each other and not be accused of Wikihounding. Collect's opinions on XfDs are perfectly acceptable; further, one vote at a couple XfDs does not "inhibition" make. If anything, noted by Collect's points above, TFD is the one doing the stalking. Glass  Cobra  18:12, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I completely disagree with your assessment of the situation. However, I did note above that more opinions were needed, and I certainly don't plan to take any action without clear consensus. Tan   &#124;   39  18:14, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Five successive posts from TAN:
 * “At face value, this appears to be textbook wikihounding…”
 * “In summary, you're saying that it's a complete coincidence that the AfDs you !voted on today were all ones….”
 * “I cannot believe this was a simple coincidence given the timing and nature of the !votes, and your past history of tendentious editing and conflict…..”
 * “I have a hard time believing that commenting on seven AfDs in a row,…..”
 * "Well, I completely disagree with your assessment of the situation."
 * Responded to with a polite, definitive, plausible explanation. Let’s just forget about WP:AGF eh?. Where's the evidence of intending to create irritation, annoyance or distress? Leaky  Caldron  18:17, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't consider the explanation to be "plausible", but thanks for the summary of my edits, I'm sure that's helpful to everyone. Tan   &#124;   39  18:19, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid i'm not seeing this the way you are Tan. They're all AFD's on politics, and Collect has a history of interest in political articles. If he followed TFD from politics to botany to sports to films etc, then the evidence would look a lot different to me. I think there's room to AGF that these edits were not so much coincidental as topical as opposed to malicious.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Keep reasons are specified, within the bounds of probability and do not constitute an attack on the nominator. Also, Collect has been offering opinions on other AfDs and MfDs. I know nothing of either of these editors, but I cannot see the problem hereElen of the Roads (talk) 19:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I think collect has given a polite explanation here. Even if the coincidence seems strong to some editors, it makes sense to AGF and accept it. So far, there is no actionable pattern here. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 19:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Collect seems to have missed several open political AfD discussions that I did not contribute to: Dermocracy, Postsocialism, Hunter Liberals, Saddam Hussein – United States relations, Brownism.  Collect's vote on the AfD for Naïve liberalism is the hardest to explain.  While I nominated it for deletion and five editors have voted to delete, Collect has provided the only dissenting vote.  He refers to its being "used for a forum name to discuss the topic" then provides a link to a site that says, "There are no entries in Naïve liberalism forum. Become the first person to post messages in this forum by using the form below!"  The Four Deuces (talk) 20:11, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Eh? I admit to using the Google precis on a site for "naive liberal" after finding it to be a very common phrase indeed.  WRT Dermocracy -- it was just relisted, hence I missed it.  It f soumds like an article on skin, however.  I will take your word that I should have thought it was on politics.  I have no idea what "Brownism" is in any case, and the others are only marginally related to my interests in AfDs.   On reflection, Brownism appears to have no use as a phrase,  so I have entered my !vote there now -- it appears to have very little claim to notability indeed. Thanks! Collect (talk) 20:22, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Can 82.15.39.177 be blocked from Legality of cannabis?
is making daily vandal edits to Legality of cannabis, their only contribution. I've just given them a third warning but I believe that a simple page ban may curb the vandalism without blocking a possibly shared IP. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  15:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You're looking for WP:RFPP. :-) Tan   &#124;   39  15:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Cool. Will try there... though being one IP vandalizing one article I think a ban from that article makes more sense, but I guess bans can be ignored where-as page protection cannot. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  15:57, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * A single IP-ban from an article really isn't possible (or practical). The solutions are either to block the IP or protect the page. Tan   &#124;   39  15:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually the solution is a block, if it's a single IP (to avoid punishing other anonymous editors). cf WP:SEMI, first bullet point. Rd232 talk 20:26, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/2009 Richmond High School gang rape
Could someone please have a word with User:Richmondian about this AfD? We have a standard AfD format for a reason. So far, he has; I have "fixed" the problems a number of times (removed 3 times, moved to correct place once), but he reverts every time, and seems to believe he has the right to format the discussion as he likes. <b style="color:black;">Black Kite</b> 19:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * edited my nomination statement
 * placed "authoritative" notices about how notable the article is right at the top of the AfD - very confusing
 * moved his comments above the infobox so that they look like they are part of the nomination
 * made his comments bright red and bold - again, giving editors a false idea that they are authoritative


 * I have been told that others CAN NOT mess with my comments but it KEEPS happening, even by the editor that told me not to do it in the first place. WTHeck? Am I in my rights to make comments??? And where are the rules on formatting? Just seems like he doesn't like anyone stealing his thunder. I am trying to BE BOLD why can't the I have a rebuttal to this persons claim that the article should be deleted? It is very biased as is, there is one "authoritative" voice at the top then chattering masses below. Richmondian (talk) 19:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but there are rules on how to comment on an AfD. You can find them here. Failure to follow these instructions can be viewed as disruptive editing and can lead to a block. TN <b style="color:midnightblue; font-size:larger;">X</b> Man  19:33, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You have been requested not to disruptively alter the format and other users edits there and also warned not to and yet you have continued in the same disruptive manner. Off2riorob (talk) 7:33 pm, Today (UTC+0)

The guidelines were clearly violated, right at the beginning: "If the article is not already tagged to note a problem, apply a tag, such as notability, hoax, etc.  this ensures readers are aware of the problem and may act to remedy it."

No one placed those tags on the page. So maybe the AFD should end, since the policy was violated right at the beginning....

In any case, nothing on there about using colorful language, soooo what's the problem? I edited the nomination to avoid confusion, but after being told that it was inappropriate to edit other's stuff I stopped -- then the exact same person started messing with my edits. And I'd actually request some help getting rid of this "off2rob" character

Richmondian (talk) 19:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * (ECs) User:Richmondian appears to be taking this AfD very personally, and xe is being quite disruptive about it. He has tried several variants of putting his own comment at the top of the page .  Xe has also responded to a number of other users' comments, which isn't necessarily against the rules, but the aggressiveness with which it was done and the repetition of the same (valid) arguments makes it hard to follow AfD.  User:Richmondian is clearly acting in good faith, and I'm not sure he's done anything sanctionable, but he needs to understand how to behave in an AfD... MirrorLockup (talk) 19:46, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * S/he may have been acting in good faith, but they have now been advised of the rules and need to follow them. Ignorance is no longer an excuse. TN <b style="color:midnightblue; font-size:larger;">X</b> Man  19:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Ummm, I read the rules Tnxman,  I don't really see the issue.   You more senior wikipedians would do well to point out what you are talking about in more specific terms than just some link like "#NOTNEWS", as today I've read through many policies and usually the linker is mistaken (intentionally or not).  Really a big waste of time the amount of time I put into the article and now a half day on saving it from deletion.   Richmondian (talk) 20:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, most specifically:  Start your comments or recommendations on a new bulleted line (that is, starting with *), and sign them by adding ~ to the end. If you are responding to another editor, put your comment directly below theirs, making sure it is indented (using multiple *s).  TN <b style="color:midnightblue; font-size:larger;">X</b> Man  20:05, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That's quite enough, Richmondian. If you cannot remain civil and cordial here (i.e. calling to "get rid of another user" is clearly not), then you will have your editing privileges revoked, plain and simple. MuZemike 21:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

66.90.29.229
The IP user 66.90.29.229Talk Keeps adding what amounts to personal attacks and WP:BLP violations to their talk page as they did here. The current target is our own Jimmy Wales but their have been others. They are currently blocked but keep adding this to their talk page. Additionally, in an edit removed by another editor they promised to continue vandalizing once they are unblocked. I think the page needs at least semi-protection. Thank you DSRH |talk 20:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Tnxman307 blocked him and removed his talk page access. Marking resolved.  Thanks for the heads up.  -- Jayron  32  20:38, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Koavf and renaming of categories
On the 3 November a rather large group of categories were nominated for speedy renaming. In spite of a reasonable objection which should trigger a full blown discussion and which instantly nullifies the speedy request, User:Koavf made the changes to a vast number of categories. I am attempting dialogue with the user at present, but no explanation for the actions have been forthcoming. Hiding T 09:46, 5 November 2009 (UTC) **What are the terms of the probation? Hiding T 10:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * He is under probation - see WP:RESTRICT. You are welcome to enforce it accordingly. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:51, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Explanation As posted on the above user's talk:
 * I am aware of the speedy CfD process and have even moved a category from it due to objections. In this case, I suppose I misread the exchange between the two editors; I figured this was a case that had resolved itself due to discussion (e.g. this), but I was clearly mistaken. This is a matter of oversight rather than disregard for process and I consequently have no problem assisting you in reverting my changes.
 * So, let me reiterate here that I am happy and willing to do my part to undo these edits, but I cannot do so immediately. Since it is entirely possible that this will be resolved by the time that I come back to Wikipedia, I apologize to those who put forth the effort, but I simply cannot do all of this right now. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:55, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Topic ban
Under the terms of the probation, I have topic banned User:Koavf from adding or removing categories from any page. Am prepared to discuss this with other administrators. Hiding T 10:07, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Is this to be permanent, or do you forsee that it would be possible to lift this at some point in the future? The original complaint was about moving cats, not the addition or removal. As far as I can see, you haven't banned Koavf from moving cats, which would be in line with the complaint raised. Mjroots (talk) 10:15, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * How do you move categories without adding or removing? I see it as being as permanent as it needs to be, am perfectly willing to discuss a suitable time period, but right now I want to resolve the changes that have been made. Hiding T 10:19, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Appropriate response in the circumstances. Where a sanction does not provide an explicit duration, it is considered indefinite. A slight amendment to say "adding, moving or removing" may give less grounds for differing interpreations. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Does this clarify: ? Hiding T 10:35, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Perfect. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:38, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I see this as appropriate. The user certainly seems to have a hard time learning from past errors w.r.t. categories. I have usually tried to give him the benefit of the doubt, but there does come a point when you have to say a user's not "getting" it. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:05, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Reverting
Is it possible to get a bot to revert the changes made? I started re-adding Category:PlayStation 3 games to the affected articles manually but it was a much bigger job than I first thought.  Chimpanzee  - User | Talk | Contribs 10:53, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I could likely set up an automated awb account I have if there is consensus that it is okay, since the remit for the account would not cover the changes. Hiding T 11:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The edits that User:Koavf made to remove Category:PlayStation 3 games from articles do not fall under the rubicon of out of process speedy renamings, so I am unsure they should be reverted. Hiding T 11:14, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It is outside of speedy renamngs, but his changes (removing Category:PlayStation 3 games from games already in [[:Category:PlayStation 3-only games (and same for Xbox 360 and Wii games) goes against longstanding acknowledgement of WP:DUPCAT and guidelines/discussion at WP:VG (that is, CONSOLE-only games should also be in CONSOLE games even if the -only category is a subcat of the general CONSOLE one). At least something at that scale (100s of articles) should have been discussed somewhere before being done. --M ASEM  (t) 14:22, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Block evasion at DRV by CSOWind
These IP's have identified itself as the sockmaster, one in a handfull caught Using Wikipedia for spam or advertising purposes for their company, Computer Systems Odessa. Currently, this sockmaster is Block evading and attempting to Game both the system and the deletion process by activly participating, and attempting to undelete companies "ConceptDraw" spam software; --Hu12 (talk) 17:19, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * See Spam case and Sockpuppet investigations/CSOWind.
 * Deletion_review/Log/2009_November_5
 * Deletion_review/Log/2009_November_5
 * Deletion_review/Log/2009_November_5


 * I closed the DRVs under WP:RBI. If anyone provably not involved with the company wants to create articles then they can, I guess, but I am innately suspicious of the Really Important and Notable Things which remain inexplicably undocumented on Wikipedia until the company's representatives happen along. Guy (Help!) 02:16, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Who *was* a gentleman?
I haven't followed all the drahmaz here surrounding Malleus's block; can anyone interpret this edit to Malleus's talk page? Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 22:14, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * No idea, but he left the same thing on ChildofMidnight's page too. Looks real mature.  Tex (talk) 22:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Pretty sure his account's been compromised. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 22:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Now I've found the background. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 22:25, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Ugh... – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 22:26, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Should we block him, Chillum, Sarek of Vulcan, and GeorgeWilliamHerbert indefinitely just to be on the safe side until we can sort this issue out? Prevention of harm to the encyclopedia is paramount, and (compromised or not) those accounts have certainly caused enough drama. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:28, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I haven't been compromised, just exhausted by being paged all night...
 * I can't exclude compromise, but it could equally well be Wtwag being highly inappropriately confrontational. I agree that whatever the cause, it's nowhere near ok behavior.  I am reviewing to try and see if it's a compromise or not.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:33, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That's just what a compromised account would say. Strong support indefinite block of Georgewilliamherbert until we can be sure of his identity adn motives. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:37, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you fucking serious. Protonk (talk) 22:38, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * COM and Protonk, do you really need to escalate this? GWH said he's looking into it.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 22:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I just want to know if he's joking, which I assume is the case. If wtwag keeps this bizarre streak up I'm inclined to block the account as a compromised account, but there is no indication that is the case (yet). COMs participation here is nearly inexplicable unless he has just decided now is the perfect time to yuck it up about something. Protonk (talk) 22:43, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Bizarre streak? What bizarre streak?  Oh, I get it.  Calling out The Protected Ones for inappropriate behavior is not allowed.  Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:47, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * "Calling out" anyone in the fashion you did is counterproductive and stupid. I can't possibly imagine that you thought it would help the situation or bring clarity where there was none previously. Protonk (talk) 22:51, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I smell the smell of sarcasm in the morning. I am not taking COM seriously on that point - and I don't think anyone else should either.  Perhaps inappropriate timing given that we have an actual serious issue with someone else here, but that's not a wiki issue, just a sense of humor issue.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:45, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

ChildofMidnight, you have to assume good faith in issues like this. You can just block an acocunt based on what you think. It has to be based on what you know.-- Coldplay   Expert  22:42, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

COM, you're not really helping here. This, however, clearly shows it was retaliation, not comprise. Very gentlemanly. Tex (talk) 22:43, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

My account is not compromised. As I explained to Juliancolton, the edits I made were in direct response to the ridiculous comments CoM and Malleus left on my Talk page. They were so ridiculous, that only laughter was the correct response. I also note that not a single person has yet notified me of this discussion, as is required at the top of this page. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:45, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That would be my fault; I don't frequent this board and am not aware of the protocol. I do know a gentleman when I see one, though.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 22:47, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Is an indefinite block of Georgewilliamherbert off the table? Because I still think it's a good idea. Better safe than sorry! ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:52, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Listen, if admins are going to regularly abuse their tools with such brazen disregard for collegiality and an utter lack of respect for their fellow editors, the very least we can do is have a sense of humor about it. I doubt highly the "gentleman" account is compromised and I don't much care. Georgewilliamherbert's block was much more nasty and disruptive than someone acting like a childish jerk. If we would just let the occasional incivility slide now and again we wouldn't have had to deal with this all this nonsense in the first place. If someone wants to call me a name fine. But let's not have these drama mongering admins on the loose with their arbitrary enforcement of "civility" against editors they don't happen to like. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * (edit conflicT)Well out of order. If you're going to abuse editors, and respond to their appropriate warnings by laughing—especially after one of those editors was blocked after responding to your comments—you should expect some kind of sanction. Parrot of Doom 22:53, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Parrot are you kidding about "Appropriate warnings"? Malleus got none before the ridiculous block he got yesterday. Georgewilliamherbert only issues warnings to editors he doesn't like to intimidate them. When an editor's comments were repeatedly being refactored by an admin Georgewilliamherbert had nothing to say to the admin, but warned the editor. Another admin engaged in a brazen personal attack on this very noticeboard, and one of these admins (Georgewilliamherbert included) so much as blinked. But then when Malleus (who Georgewilliamherbert and the rest of the abusive, disruptive, and drama mongering wiki-civility police don't happen to care for) responded sarcastically he was instantaneously blocked by the same admin (Georgewilliamherbert) who reopened a closed ANI thread in a pointy disruption that caused all this nonsense. And now that the same abusive editor (an admin I believe?) goes and laughs in the faces of editors he got away abusing (one of them he was able to blocked by an abusive admin) and I'm supposed to expect take these admins and their processes seriously? You're suggesting sanctioning me because all I can do is laugh when one of our admins comes and effectively laughs in my face at what they were able to get away with? It certainly wouldn't be the first time I was blocked for suffering at the hands of admin's abuse and disruption. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:57, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Whatdya mean, occasional incivility? I was once told to "fuck off" in plain view of several admins and arbcom members, and no one said a word. I'm beginning to get Malleus's point.  Pointy disruption and harassment of a blocked editor is, I hope, a blockable offense, but what do I know?  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 22:54, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry someone told you to fuck off. Protonk (talk) 22:58, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep dreaming. It will be a cold day in hell before you see them block one of their own. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Protonk; I actually like that admin today. But I did take note that nothing was said or done, as if I-- an editor I think in good standing-- was invisible. Needless to say, that event didn't encourage me to join the admin corp.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, GWH. Now on to gentlemanly behavior, all? Sandy Georgia (Talk) 23:09, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Probably the least bad option available to stop a climbing in progress. Protonk (talk) 23:11, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Um... Cool-down block policy, much? This is getting ridiculous...--Unionhawk Talk E-mail Review 23:16, 5 November 2009 (UTC) Ah. That makes sense now.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail Review 23:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It was not a cool down block. Who was... made two clearly taunting statements and then defended them as completely appropriate behavior and indicated that he felt justified in continuing.  The statements violated WP:CIVIL - taunting other editors in that manner is not OK.  The block was imposed to communicate that the civility policy is serious and will be applied as evenly and impartially as possible, and that his behavior was not acceptable and can not continue.  If he had apologized and it was evident he wouldn't continue there would have been no need - as is, he was indicating a clear interest in continuing to escalate and defending the initial actions.  Preventive as ever.  I could have run it for 24 hrs but I don't think that's necessary to communicate the issue and prevent further abuse.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:25, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Ummmm why was Malleus blocked????? Dishonest double-standards from corrupt and sleazy admins much? ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:19, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * You don't find those edits disruptive? It's OK to harass another editor; that's not disruption? Let's all go home, then. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 23:19, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Let's face it, all this achieved is more drama on this thread. The original purpose of this thread was to find out what the heck was up with the "Ha ha ha..." - we found that out. Now we're discussing whether or not two editors should have been blocked as a result of pretty much this thread...--Unionhawk Talk E-mail Review 23:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Georgewilliamherbert has blocked for Who then was a Gentleman 12 hours for taunting multiple editors after making personal attacks against them the day before. This is half as long as Malleus's block for responding to that editor's abusive taunts and much shorter than the indefinite block an editor gloating over Ryulong's desysop got as punishment. But it does set an example that editors are treated one way and admins and their buddies another. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:28, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * COM, would you be able to let this go? The editor was blocked, the message was delivered, your points will win you no favor and further drama.  It's done; archive it.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

(ec)::Sandy, did you notice that Who then was the Gentleman? was given every benefit of the doubt? Admins even tried to suggest his account had been "compromised". The issue was discussed with him. He was given opportunities to apologize or acknowlege that it was a mistake. Only after he refused and stood by his behavior making no apology was he then blocked for 12 measly hours. How does this compare to the block of an editor with no warning after they responded to a personal attack (one the admins didn't even blink at) from that same editor with a sarcastic comment? They encouraged this behavior and we're reaping what they've sown. I'm happy to let it go. But don't you think it would be a good idea to learn from it? If we're not going to indefinitely block Georgewilliamherbert let's at least but him on a civility restriction to stop him from issuing abusive civility blocks to good faith editors whose comments he doesn't like. It only escalates disruption, adds to the ill will, and causes drama. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:42, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * This thread is closed, COM: resolved. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think the issue is resolved. I think it stinks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:47, 5 November 2009 (UTC)