Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive587

User: Philip Baird Shearer
I feel the conduct of this admin on the Terror Bombing and History of Terrorism has been inappropriate for an admin. On terror bombing he frequently deleted any additions that didn't fit his personal perspective despite overwhelm consensus for such edits on the talk page. On History of Terrorism he has recently presented himself as a neutral admin however he has previously supported the disputed version that he seeks to lock down, As such I feel he is not approaching the issue with clean hands. Similarly I find his attempt to block anonymous editors who have made substantial and useful contributions to the page also very dubious as it seems simply trying exclude those he disagrees with. I am extremely concerned by his conduct and would appreciate a more expert eye applied to it. Sherzo (talk) 11:08, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * PBS notified. Unomi (talk) 11:25, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Sherzo, please provide diffs of what you see to be problematic behaviour. Unomi (talk) 11:27, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I can't find the article Terror Bombing or anything like it on PBS's contribution list. Which article are you referring to? Ged  UK  11:37, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It would seem to be Terror bombing which is now a redirect. Camw (talk) 11:41, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I've created another redirect at Terror Bombing.  pablo hablo. 11:44, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Sherzo, whatever happened to discussing the incident and trying to resolve it directly with the other editor first, whether or not they are an admin. The only recent post I see at Philip Baird Shearer from you is 5 minutes after submitting an ANI request. This is not the way things are done on Wikipedia, and you know that. (talk→  BWilkins  ←track ) 12:07, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The redirect Terror Bombing will not help much as to understand what Sherzo is commenting on is to look at Talk:Terror bombing and the history of Terror bombing. Nothing that I did in the article Terror bombing involved administrative powers.


 * The second page History of terrorism does involve the use of administrative powers. I have never edited the content of the page all the edits have been used to stop edit warring and uncivil behaviour. The core of the accusation here is "On History of Terrorism he has recently presented himself as a neutral admin however he has previously supported the disputed version that he seeks to lock down". This allegation is made without a history diff to show were I have expressed support for either version. What I have said is "Without getting into the pros and cons of the specific edit, deleting 11,000 bytes from this article is neither here not there as it is so badly written at the moment it is like re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. --PBS (talk) 10:17, 4 September 2009 (UTC)"


 * I suggest that anyone interested reads the sections Three month edit block on new accounts and IP addresses and One month block 2009-12-12" on Talk:History of terrorism. Also consider that two other administrators have tried to sort this out over the last few months without success, and all I am trying to do is make the two main protagonists use the dispute resolution process so that the long running edit war stops.


 * That Sherzo (contributions) reverts History of terrorism, starts this thread and has not placed a comment on the talk page of the article or used Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-10-21/History of terrorism tells its own story. -- PBS (talk) 12:20, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I have to agree, there seems a severe lack of talk page engagement on the part of Sherzo. There also seems to be a willingness to involve SPI and ANI.  A summary of the environment as assessed by QuantPole as of 2009 July is here. Unomi (talk) 12:55, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm involved in this dispute, only as much as I took interest in the previous mediation request (which I closed for lack of interest) and was recently asked to consider reopening it. Sherzo left a troubling comment on my page, where they stated that their only interest in Wikipedia was to "edit rarely nowadays and just generally revert haberstr vandalism to history of terrorism", because "haberstr action have been recognised as vandalism". Haberstr is the other editor with a primary involvement in the dispute that led to the mediation request. I'd like to note that Haberstr has a clean block log and no legitimate vandalism complaints (only one complaint from an anonymous editor who was in a content dispute with them). I'm concerned about Sherzo's declared lack of interest in improving Wikipedia. --  At am a  頭 22:53, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Bill the Cat 7
insists on calling Rosemary Radford Ruether "fringe, leftist" in the article Antisemitism in the New Testament, and a "nut job" on the article's Talk: page. When challenged for a source for the "fringe, leftist" claim, he has produced this footnote: "She is a member of Democratic Socialists of America (http://www.dsausa.org/about/structure.html), a self-described ecofeminist, and as a signatory to the 9/11 Truth Statement (http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041026093059633), she is a conspiracy theorist.'" The "fringe, leftist" descriptor has been removed by another editor and me several times, and the description of her as a "nut job" on the article Talk: page has been removed by three editors, but he persists in restoring both. I brought the mattter to WP:BLP/N yesterday, with no response, and I've warned him twice on his Talk: page with little apparent impact. Unless someone has a better idea, I plan to block him for 24 hours if he adds either description again. Comments? Jayjg (talk) 19:52, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm in the process of researching how to request mediation between me and Jayjg. This is the first time I've had to do this so it will most likely take a few days.  At any rate, I firmly believe that my edits, with sources, justify the wording I used to describe Rosemary Ruether.  The sources Jayjg posted above can be consulted, but he left out one which I guess got lost in this edit war.  Here it is:


 * But I am always aware that I reappropriate Christianity from a markedly different basis than do traditional Christians. http://womenshistory.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?zi=1/XJ/Ya&sdn=womenshistory&cdn=education&tm=9&gps=130_296_1020_567&f=20&tt=14&bt=1&bts=1&zu=http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title%3D1753


 * This last source, in her own words, makes the use of the word "fringe" justifiable. The other sources listed above can be researched and can lead an honest person to conclude that she is indeed "leftist" (which is a fair, non-insulting word).


 * Also, regarding the phrase "nut job" - I was in the process of removing it but there was an edit conflict and Jayjg got to it first. Here is what I wrote right after:


 * Ok, fair enough. I removed it (actually, you removed it; seems like we are editing this page at the same time). Note however, that my edits of the article itself are NOT personal opinions; they are well sourced. I also added another one, in her own words. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 20:11, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, fair enough. I removed it (actually, you removed it; seems like we are editing this page at the same time). Note however, that my edits of the article itself are NOT personal opinions; they are well sourced. I also added another one, in her own words. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 20:11, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, it looks like an edit war has just begun. I'll be restoring my well-sourced edits soon, but I think we are now at the point where we require arbitration/mediation by Wikipedia since you are deleting acceptable sources and then falsely claiming that I didn't source my edits. Are you willing to participate in a mediation Jayjg? Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 20:11, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Finally, my main point in editing this page from the very beginning was to show that the person being quoted (Rosemary Ruether) about so-called antisemitism in the New Testament (which she believes permeates the ENTIRE New Testament) is not in the mainstream of NT scholarship and has an agenda of her own. The way the article stands now, it is filled with POV and even the title itself (Antisemitism in the New Testament) is biased.  It should be called "Perceived Antisemitism in the New Testament", or something like that, since that doesn't automatically assume any antisemitism.


 * Be that as it may, I am very willing to discuss this with Jayjg (and others) in detail, but since he only seems to want to threaten me and exhibits a "my way or the highway" attitude, I'm going to have to request a neutral moderator. Thank you for listening.  Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 21:08, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Bill, I'm not an editor of the article, I'm an administrator there. As an administrator I'm charged with (among other things) enforcing WP:BLP. If I see persistent, continued violations, in that article or others, I will block the offenders. If you continue to insist that you will "be restoring my well-sourced edits soon", and in particular if you act on your threat, then you will experience that. I strongly urge you to carefully and slowly read WP:BLP, at least twice. Jayjg (talk) 21:31, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I would further comment about the label of "leftist"; if review of the various positions taken by the subject tends the reader to consider them a "leftisit" then fine, but it is not something the article writer should place in the article - because then the writer is making the judgement and not the reader (and there is the problem of the implied authority of the writer and encyclopedia). Also, if a reliable source calls them leftist by either their own interpetation or reporting another source then that can be included, but in a neutral manner. This encyclopedia reports the sources, and leaves determination up to the reader. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:37, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Just so. Personal characterizations -- especially ones intended as derogatory, such as these -- should be avoided unless they are completely well sourced (for example, saying "XXX is a discredited YYY" requires very strong and highly credible sources saying precisely "discredited"). This applies to article pages as well as talk pages; our policies are that items breaking WP:BLP must be immediately removed on sight, and are not subject to 3RR restrictions (they may be treated as vandalism.) --jpgordon:==( o ) 22:02, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I assure everyone that I have read WP:BLP. If there is a certain part that I'm in violoation of, then please state so explicitly.  Until that happens, I'm happy to discuss why I used the terms "leftist" and "fringe", which are NOT derogatory (see further comments below).


 * Regarding one of Jayjg's comments: shouldn't an administrator who claims someone is in violation of WP:BLP provide specifice evidence to that effect rather than falsely (in my opinion) accusing someone of it? I mean, I was very willing to discuss the issue with you (Jayjg) in the discussion section and even asked (more than once) to request a neutral moderator, but you declined every time.  If I didn't follow the correct procedure, then fine; just tell me specifically where I erred.  However, I don't appreciate your "my way or the highway" approach.  Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 04:03, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * For whatever it is worth, I've never heard anyone use the word 'leftist,' or seen the word ever used in writing, in any way other than a derogatory way. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:16, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * It's used as a neutral term all of the time. It is only used as an epithet amongst some conservative circles. Throwaway85 (talk) 23:09, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The derogatory use of "leftist" is more common in countries whose politics skew right. That said, another problem with labelling someone as "leftist" is that the word does not have a generally agreed meaning. Wikipedia should not be in the business of deciding where the line between leftists and rightists lies: that's original research. Describe what groups the individual belongs to and let the reader decide. In the same way, editors should not call living persons "nut jobs" - there's no justification for that. It's libellous, it's very point-of-view, it's slangy and subject to misinterpretation, and it's completely inaccurate: "holding unpopular or unusual political views" is not a psychiatric condition found in the DSM-IV. --NellieBly (talk) 04:19, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * FisherQueen, I agree with T-85. There is even a wiki article on the term, leftist, which IMHO is NOT derogatory any more than rightist is, or  any more than Democrat/Republican/Libertarian are.  My intent in using that term is simply to show that Ruether is not "mainstream".  Yet, if the term is still to be considered non-neutral, then I'm perfectly fine with another term - suggestions anyone?  Be that as it may, the organization that she is a vice chair of can be accurately referred to as "leftist" (just look here for their perspecitve if you have any doubt - http://www.dsausa.org/about/where.html).  Therefore, my description of her is accurate (and for those who don't like the word "leftist", once again, I'm open to suggestions).  I'll explain my use of the term "fringe" in my response to the user Amerlioration below.  Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 04:03, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * If the source (Ruether) is widely considered in independent sources to hold an extremist or fringe viewpoint, it is appropriate to note that in a nonbiased way. Such a note would be in accordance with neutrality.  Perhaps User:Bill the Cat 7 would consider clearly indicating what neutral source shows Ruether to hold a fringe view.  —Amelioration  01:46, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Hello, Amelioration. Let me preface my reason for the use of the word "fringe" with this analogy.  If someone says to us, "I have an irrational fear of enclosed spaces" or "I have an irrational fear of spiders", then, IMO, it is perfectly acceptable, does not violate WP:BLP, and is NPOV to describe that person as "claustrophobic" or "arachnophobic", respectively.  Now, let's see what Ruether says about herself:


 * But I am always aware that I reappropriate Christianity from a markedly [bold-italic emphasis added] different basis than do traditional Christians. (http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=1753)

Notice that she is NOT saying, "I differ slightly" or somewhat or in some cases. Rather she uses the word "markedly" to describe how she approaches Christianity. Therefore, if the word "fringe" is not the right word for that self-identification, then, once again, I'm open to suggestions.

Finally, she claims, according to the wiki article Antisemitism_in_the_New_Testament that the ENTIRE New Testament is antisemitic!! Now, I have no problem with the claim per se, but the typcial wiki reader may not realize how out of the mainstream such a claim is. This sounds to me to be a violation of the WP:Fringe policy, especially (but not necessarily exclusively) the "quotations" portion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe#Quotations).

And speaking of the WP:Fringe policy, the entire wiki article (Antisemitism In the New Testament) is an exercise in the violation of that policy, but that's a different story. At any rate, that's my $0.02. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 04:03, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I would say that both the 'Truther' and Antisemitism portions should be in the article. You don't have to use descriptors in the intro of the biography, but you can put in subsections that describe the actions. Find reliable sources that cite the fact that she signed the 'Truther' petition and the descriptors they use. You can't link to the truther petition yourself and use your own descriptor, that's WP:OR. But if the NYT or another outlet point this out and they use the words 'fringe', then you can put in "Described as a fringe leftist by the NYT for both her signing of the 9-11 truth petition and her claim that the NT is antisemitic". Or something like that. DD2K (talk) 04:41, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Bill the Cat 7, this is pretty simple. Do multiple, reliable sources described her as a "fringe, leftist" Christian theologian in relation to her view on Antisemitism in the New Testament? Not your own analysis of her views, but sources specifically describing her this way, in this context? If the answer is "no", then the article can't describe her that way either. That's all that matters here. Don't explain why you think she is a "fringe, leftist" theologian; instead find reliable sources that do, in the context of her statements on the topic of the article. No more arguing, just reliable sources. Jayjg (talk) 05:02, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "Reliable Sources" here is particularly problematic. An organiztion such as Fox News would likely have no problem calling her a fringe leftist, whereas The New Yorker likely would.  How do we determine what is or is not a reliable source given the circumstances, without introducing our own opinions as to what is a biased source and what is not? Throwaway85 (talk) 05:49, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Despite your statement, it appears that "reliable sources" here are no more "problematic" than anywhere else, as there don't appear to be any reliable sources describing her as "fringe, leftist", much less using that descriptor in relation to her beliefs about the New Testament. Jayjg (talk) 02:51, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd like to ask everyone a yes/no question. If someone says to us, "I have an irrational fear of enclosed spaces" or "I have an irrational fear of spiders", then does that mean we cannot use the descriptor "claustrophobic" or "arachnophobic", respectively, without violating WP:BLP?  Thanks.  Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 06:14, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Attempting to back people into a yes/no answer is seldom a good way of convincing them of the merits of your argument. You may think you have "won", but they will think you a fool, and an arrogant one at that. Throwaway85 (talk) 06:37, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * T-85, sorry if I gave you that impression, but that was certainly not my intention. Perhaps I'm wording the question wrong, but it is a sincere one.  Also, I'm a loooong way off from "wining" anything.  Besides, I'm not in this for a "win".  I just want to know if using a single-word description is acceptable in the example I gave above (i.e., "claustrophobic" or "arachnophobic").  Yet again, I'm not emotionally committed to the inclusion of the words "leftist" and "fringe" (as some may be to their exclusion) if other words would be better alternatives - I mean, that is why I have repeatedly asked for single-word suggestions that would sum up Ruether's own self-description.  Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 07:09, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Not a problem, and I apologize for any offense my post may have caused. It's simply too often that people come on AN/I trying to "win" the argument through such childish rhetorical tools.  As for your question, I glanced over the article you linked, but couldn't find a passage that seemed relevant to the case you are making.  Could you provide a lazy editor with a more specific link?  As for the, we would need a secondary reliable source, or her herself, to label her a 'leftist' for it to be includable. Throwaway85 (talk) 07:22, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * T-85, which link that I provided didn't seem relevant? Sorry if this sounds like a dumb question, but it's almost 2 in the morning right now and the only word that seems to be popping up in my mind is "pillow".  Did you mean the one where Ruether says, "But I am always aware that I reappropriate Christianity from a markedly different basis than do traditional Christians"?  Please let me know and I'll comply.  Regarding the word "leftist", please see my response to Dayewalker below. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 08:02, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm simply not seeing where she says she has "an irrational fear" of anythig, or anything else that might justify such a label in the absence of a reliable source outright saying it. Throwaway85 (talk) 08:32, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * He's not saying Radford Ruether has an irrational fear, he's saying the words she uses to describe lher position (from a markedly different basis than do traditional Christians) equates to Fringe as 'irrational fear of spiders' equates to arachnophobia.


 * "Arachnophobic" has no negative connotations, whereas "leftist" in this context is a personal opinion, based on interpretation of the subject's position. Dayewalker (talk) 07:20, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * When I use the word "leftist", I mean it in the context described by the wiki article leftist, and thus has no negative connotation and nor is not my personal opinion. Remember, she is the vice-chair of the Democratic Socialists of America.  But if you would like to suggest another word that is a synonym for "leftist", yet lacks the perceived negative connotations, then I'm all ears.  How about "progressive"?  As a side note, I was reading one of Ruether's articles earlier and she very plainly states that she is a "religious socialist" and is on the "religious left".  I can find it again and provide a link if anyone thinks it would be advance this discussion. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 08:02, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I am going to write this very slowly but loudly; You cannot describe someone in an article as "leftist" to describe their viewpoint or political stance. You can quote someone else so describing them, provided it comes via reliable sources. It wouldn't matter if the entire editing faculty of WP agreed with your assesment, because the majority are aware that WP:OR does not allow us to place our own interpretations in article spacde. The end. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:50, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Surely the best bet is to utilize Radford Ruether's own statement, and avoid using singe word interpretations. "Radford Reuther herself has said that she approaches Christianity from a markedly different basis than do traditional Christians (cite). Then if Fox News refers to her as fringe, we can say "this has led to her being refered to as Fringe by sources such as Fox News (cite). You could contrast her view with those of others "this stance is not supported by any mainstream Christian denomination (cite). It's trying to cram people into pigeonholes in the first sentence that causes the problems.  Let the text breathe a bit.Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:37, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Leave her political orientation out of it entirely. Most of the opposition here is driven by your intent to add a political label upon her, when there is no source which explicitly cites it in context with her religious values. It really isn't relevant in this case, because I know people who share my religious values who are rampaging right-wingers, flaming lefties, and all points in between. Elen of the Roads has a good idea (the post immediately above mine), but I don't think it's necessary to identify her politics at all in this case. It *is* important to note that her religious views don't jibe with mainstream Christianity, but you've identified relevant references to cite that.  Horologium  (talk) 21:07, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. In regards to her religious views, use the quotes elen provided. As for her political views, we can't say anything without a reliable source explicitly saying it for us.  She is a self-described "Liberal Cristian", so you may be able to include that quote, but anything else has to be straight from a secondary source. Throwaway85 (talk) 00:46, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Exactly right, Horologium. Jayjg (talk)

FYI: I'm extremely busy for the next day or so. I'll comment again soon, and I think we are very close to a resolution. Jayjg and others have made excellent points, but I'm not able to repsond in depth right now. Once again, just FYI. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 06:09, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Another user admits sockpuppetry
I've blocked User:DRC1976 as a sock of User:Sithrathien based on DRC's creation of Sithrathien with the text of "A user name I previously had under my real data for www.wikipedia.org." Sith was indefinitely blocked by Jdelanoy over a year ago as a vandalism-only account. Per WP:EVADE, I'm confident that I've done the right thing, but I'd like to let others know in case this user protests. Nyttend (talk) 21:02, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, has DRC1976 done anything wrong in the intervening year? A reformed user who's been "clean" for over a year after starting off "on the bad foot" after a short spat of vandalism probably doesn't deserve a block.  Is there more than this?  -- Jayron  32  21:07, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * They've created 9 new articles in less than 30 minutes, 7 of which were speedily deleted. The remaining two were turned into redirects. It looks like they've evaded the original block to add nonsense to Wikipedia, which leads me to strongly support this block. --  At am a  頭 23:03, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I would note that the deleter of the 3 articles I reviewed was Nyttend, but have no argument on the basis of the deletions. Per Jayron32 I might have extended AGF a little in that I might have issued an "only" warning, but I don't think the block by Nyttend is inappropriate. My only slight concern is that in a years time a new account will start adding nonsense stubs without referencing a previous besmirched identity - but then they may do that without this account being blocked anyway. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:13, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think that we need to assume any good faith on the part of an indefinitely blocked user who is attempting to evade a block; if the user had filed an unblock request, or had created this username to do nothing except file an unblock request for the first username, I'd be more willing to look kindly on the question. In my mind, the big thing is block evasion — the person formerly known as Sithrathien has been prohibited from editing Wikipedia indefinitely, so — in the absence of consensus to the contrary — I think it best to ensure that this person is unable to edit Wikipedia.  Thanks for the input.  Nyttend (talk) 02:36, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

COI etc. at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevin R. D. Shepherd
I just tried to close the discussion at Articles for deletion/Kevin R. D. Shepherd, and ended up having to relist after spending an hour on it. I believe more uninvolved eyes are needed on this AfD and its participants (I don't mean Smartse, the nominator).

Kevin R.D. Shepherd is an apparently self-taught British scholar who writes self-published books on philosophy, including criticising certain groups, gurus and sects, e.g. Sathya Sai Baba. There seem to be issues with COI on both sides: some editors supporting deletion may be associated with the sects he criticises, and some editors opposing deletion may be closely associated with Shepherd or otherwise be opposed to this sect. Note that there has been arbitration in this area before: Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba and Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba 2.

If this was a simple judgement of the WP:GNG, WP:PROF, or WP:CREATIVE, Shepherd would undoubtedly fail. The only coverage I can find is in a book by Marianne Warren, excerpted here. His work has been cited a handful of times over the decades, certainly not enough to say he has had an impact on his field. But it is not that simple. Editors are supporting inclusion despite the apparent failure to meet notability guidelines. The arguments to keep are lengthy but weak: appeals to OTHERSTUFF, JUSTNOTABLE, IKNOWIT, GOOGLEHITS, COMMONSENSE etc. DGG's deletion argument is a good barometer - if he agrees with deletion, there's usually no hope for an article. And yet, I am wary of closing as delete and having this explode in my face. Maybe I should grow a pair, but here I am.

User:Dazedbythebell has linked to a blog that is critical of Shepherd, there appear to be two or three such attack blogs against Shepherd that chronicle the activities on Wikipedia to do with him, so I am concerned about off-wiki goings on. Just Google 'kevin shepherd wikipedia' to get an idea of the material out there. There seems to be a vendetta between Shepherd and someone called Gerald Joe Moreno.

User:Simon Kidd and User:Alex jamieson are new SPAs that wrote this bio, though Simon Kidd says they have previously used another account (which they say has been disclosed in ArbCom). Alex wrote it and Simon gave it a Good Article Review three days after his first edit. Both deny being the subject of the article. Alex jamieson took the photo of Shepherd, so must know him. Being suspicious, I note that there are behavioural similarities between these two accounts, in particular their lengthy style of writing, and I wonder whether checkuser should be used? There's at least some tag teaming going on with the GAR.

I was perplexed by the keep !votes from User:Ombudswiki and User:ProEdits, but ProEdits has frequently added criticism to Sathya Sai Baba, and that article was one of the first that Ombudswiki edited in 2006, so neither are neutral in this area.

Thoughts? Advice? Fences &amp;  Windows  02:19, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

p.s. Two related threads on the COI noticeboard:
 * I had spent the past hour or so reading that lengthy screed also, but came to the conclusion that there was a strong guideline based consensus to delete. Regardless of the identities or motivations of the accounts you mention above, I felt that the keep arguments were extremely weak, and definitely outweighed by the delete arguments. Kevin (talk) 02:43, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, I'm happy with that close. You've got my thoughts above to point to in support of that decision. Fences  &amp;  Windows  02:50, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Spiffyismetodeath
This user is making Attack comments to editors who have flagged his article "Crafty culture." it have been deleted at least 3 times and has inseted the diatribe on at least one other page. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Icelandic_horse&diff=prev&oldid=333173455 In addition to his user main page. This is leading me to believe this is a vandalism only account. I apologize in advance for the improper formating. Avatar 06349 (talk) 02:34, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * UPDATE Kuru has blocked him indefinitly(sp)Avatar 06349 (talk) 02:47, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Banned user from ja.wiki
Remember when I brought up the "AZLUCKY" individual? Well, it appears that the user is indeed disrupting this project in the same fashion that he was disrupting the Japanese Wikipedia. For unknown reasons, he has abandoned the account and moved onto  and on that account has created a bunch of esoteric categories (some on the old account). It also appears the user was in control of the account (edits to include Western animation in Category:Anime spin-offs) and may have used the also abandoned  account. I may have also found his IP: (which is blocked at ja.wiki as seen here). is also a possible sock account. All have edits relating to creating superfluous/esoteric categories, the Ultra Series, and Godzilla.

Now, can we show this user the boot just as they have done at the Japanese Wikipedia? And yes, I have not bothered to contact the individual because he does not respond to talk page messages anyway and will simply move onto another account.— Ryūlóng (竜龙 ) 06:57, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Slow edit war at 1102
is apparently a self-designed defender of the Wiki from "Croatian falsification of history", and, among other things, he WP:OWNs the article (that's right, the calendar year) where he defends the WP:TRUTH against all good faith participants. On the said year, Croatia lost its independence to Hungary by signing a forced treaty (Pacta conventa (Croatia)) whose terms are controversial. Rather than to participate in the Pacta conventa article, he choose to "defend" 1102, and this is his version of the article (note 24 references for a single "paragraph" which smacks of WP:SYNTH and POV-pushing).

Myself and tried to reason with him at Talk:1102, attempting to find a brief compromise formulation, however he undermined all the attempts at dispute resolution, reverting all the attempts to mention the event, wanting his way or the highway, and producing toxic atmosphere all around. Please pay attention to his contributions, particularly edit summaries, which reveal battleground mentality, assumption of bad faith, and accusation of other users of nationalism and vandalism. Particularly, please check out this outburst.

I think that this went beyond normal means of dispute resolution, and I don't think that an article WP:RFC would be worth the effort, because Toroko has refused any good-faith attempt to resolve the issue, and resorted to aggressive name-calling and edit-warring. So, I request an administrative intervention, and possibly a topic ban for Toroko per WP:ARBMAC. Of course, my edits are open for scrutiny as well, though I don't have an axe to grind in this issue. No such user (talk) 07:43, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I've just blocked him indefinitely. I asked him in November, got a response and while I should have followed up, he's been plain disruptive for too long.  Feel free to unblock if he shows an actual interest in getting along here.  -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:12, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Note that he has been pushing that view of his since his first edits in December 2008. I really don't think he's a net gain to the project. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:18, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Kmweber blocked then unblocked
Kurt was blocked earlier by Hiberniantears with the following post to the talk page: Kurt,

I have blocked you indefinitely for long term abuse. I recognize this will be debated. In light of that, if an ArbCom case is required to determine once and for all whether you should be allowed back with or without restrictions, the community should pursue this. If you feel that you can bring value to building an online encyclopedia, please explain this. However, if you are here to treat Wikipedia like a country in need of a libertarian centered human-rights struggle, you're missing the point. Any one of your actions can easily be viewed as merely annoying or immature. However, when taken in sum, your votes in various areas of the project and your numerous candidacies for every position under the sun lays out a clear pattern of contradicting actions intended solely to call attention to your "struggle", all of which plays out at the expense of well-intentioned users who are simply trying to build a collaborative encyclopedia.

I will not review your block, nor do I endorse the lifting of this block by any other admin without the approval of ArbCom. Hiberniantears (talk) 19:05, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I personally endorse this block, as I had a one hour discussion with Kurt about this on IRC. And from what I gained from that discussion, he doesn't plan on editing in the article space in the near future, because he doesn't feel like it at the moment (which is understandable). Yet he has only made 19 edits to the article space this year. I asked him to make an onwiki statement that declared that he would edit more in the article space, and he refused calling it a game. That shows to me that either he has an ego he doesn't want to hurt, or he doesn't plan on editing in the article space. Either way he shouldn't have been unblocked without more of a discussion.

However EVula did just unblock him: Block overturned. Dubious grounds with zilch on the evidence front, and pushing it back on ArbCom is weak.

I'm not saying Kurt isn't a jackass at times (though, to cover my ass, I'll also point out that I'm not saying he is a jackass at times), I'm just saying that this block is incredibly poorly thought out. Kurt is not an insiginficant participant in the entire Wikipedia process; whatever your opinions about him may be, he does not deserve to be swept under the rug, which is the chief reason that I have no qualms about overturning this block. EVula // talk // ☯ // 08:58, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I think this needs a bit more from the community at any rate, as it seems that few people are aware of the block. --Coffee // have a cup  //  flagged revs now!  // 10:32, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Are we here to endlessly debate about community standards or build an encyclopedia? AniMate  10:39, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Following the lengthy discussion last year, Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Kmweber ban discussion, Kmweber was unblocked with a restriction that he could not edit in Wikipedia space. It's understandable that the restriction would be waived to allow his participation as an ArbCom candidate, but was it ever actually lifted? Maybe enforcing or reimposing it would address the problem.   Will Beback    talk    11:38, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It was never lifted, and I'd argue that the ArbCom elections—or at least, standing in them—aren't exempt; if you're banned from Project-space, it's for a good reason. That said, it's a moot point. He escaped a ban a year ago by quitting Wikipedia. It's evident that Kurt is a master troll, gaming the rules so that he can escape sanctions that would befall other editors. The most obvious being, of course, his minority opinions, which make any attempt to get rid of them to be perceived as getting rid of dissenters. There's also the fact that he's known to harass editors on IRC and WR, saving most of it until his ArbCom run last year so that he couldn't be banned from the only people who can do so: the ArbCom themselves. Of course, any ban by the ArbCom is also "motivated by a desire to stamp out dissent". It's also evident that he has not outgrown this immature behaviour, and show be reblocked. Sceptre (talk) 11:51, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * For the record: . Sceptre (talk) 11:58, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I should think a re(in)statement of the conditions per the Kmweber ban discussion - not blocked while he does not edit in Wikipedia space - noted by Will Beback should suffice. I am not impressed by yet another admin acting unilaterally, even in evident good faith, in indef blocking an editor without reference to recent consensus or even discussion. However, in the interests of a quick return to the pre ACE09 status quo I would suggest that this matter is put to bed as quickly as possible. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:12, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think it'd work. When asked last year if there were any sanctions against him, he answered "none that I consider legitimate". Two months into his topic ban. We honestly need to treat Kmweber as having one absolute final chance. He fucks up once more, he's gone. Hell, I want him gone now, for, among other things, harassing female admins, but I'd be willing giving him a final chance as long as it's treated like that. Sceptre (talk) 12:23, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Just told him I will enforce the WP space ban. Viridae Talk 12:25, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * (Response to Sceptre) I was not including Kmw's viewpoint. I was simply saying we do not block him while he does not edit, per the result of the noted discussion, and we will - per Viridae's notice - sanction him if he does. Whether or not Kurt believes it legitimate is irrelevant. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:53, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

EVula, I respect you greatly, but the unblock was incorrect. KMweber is not a "participant in the entire Wikipedia process", he is simply a troll. There is no need for another final chance; either a strict topic ban, or an outright site ban, appears to be the only way to mitigate KMweber's disruption. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 12:48, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * A strict topic ban was made back in 2008, that told him to not edit the Wikipedia space. Of course with the ArbCom election, he thought he could start it back up again. Viridae and I have reinstated that topic ban. I did leave a clause that he can discuss the election until January 15. --Coffee // have a cup  //  flagged revs now!  // 13:22, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Can I point out that Kurt has supported reasonable candidates at RfA? I personally agree that he's a troll, but I've seen him do very helpful things. He seems to be just a guy with a different opinion then everyone else - that may sound cheesy, but he's referenced it and it seems to be true.  ceran  thor 13:47, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * A guy with a different opinion, who harasses people to make sure they hear it. The latter part is why he should be gone, not the former. Sceptre (talk) 14:23, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Wheel warring is bad - yes, I know the definition, but hasty unblocks without debate or consensus cause the same damage. They embolden the blocked editor to think they have been wronged and then vindicated, their behavior acceptable, and they make it nearly impossible for the community to enforce its standards in the face of problematic editors.  Perhaps it's best that administrators not issue indefinite blocks without some prior discussion except in exceptionally clear cases, but administrators are entitled to enforce policies and standing sanctions without first conducting a poll.  As we all know from this board, nearly all proposals to block editors begin to attract a lot of debate and opposition from all corners that does not necessarily reflect the will of the larger community.  So whether the block is short or long, if it is not without basis, please hold off and discuss any proposed unblocks.  The length and conditions can always be adjusted, but releasing the blocked editor to run amok on the encyclopedia is not a good way to go about things.  The default should be to protect the editing environment and the integrity of the encyclopedia against disruption, not process quibbles about blocking policy.  In my opinion every admin is entitled to take a stand now and again, but if the same admin regularly overturns the actions of others without discussion I think their performance ought to be further reviewed.  I don't know which is the case here. - Wikidemon (talk) 14:35, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I always thought it was standard practice and edicate for administrators to only issue an indefinite block to a long-term established user after some community discussion, not semi-arbitrarily. Now, if we're talking about blatant vandals, spammers and trolls (I use this term very strictly), then that's a different matter altogether. While I do not welcome yet an ANI thread about Kurt, that's probably what should have happened. <font color="#660000">Wisdom89  ( <font color="#17001E">T |undefined /  <font color="#17001E">C ) 15:11, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * There was such a discussion, last year: Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Kmweber ban discussion. Kurt left the project for some time, then returned recently and seems to have resumed the same disruptive behavior that led to the ban originally. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 15:24, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I am aware of the previous discussions, as I probably participated in most of them, however, the above link does not show a clear consensus one way or another. Is Ryan's archiving statement binding? Regardless, it's over a year later and it would have benefited from fresh discussion. <font color="#660000">Wisdom89  ( <font color="#17001E">T |undefined /  <font color="#17001E">C ) 15:29, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * My own two cents: I think Kurt's interventions in project space are unhelpful, and designed to provoke rather than contribute productively.  His intentions appear to be sincere, but he is a net impediment and not a net benefit, and I would not think a restriction away from project space would be excessive. That being said, his participation in ArbCom elections is a legitimate output for his philosophical and political positions and I think it is imperative that we do not prevent participation in our sole true political process to anyone who has something to say &mdash; even if it's marginal enough that they inevitably end up dead last every time.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 15:51, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * While recognizing that Coren has much more experience in the WP community, I disagree with the statement that ArbCom elections are the "sole true political process." The Wikipedia community makes decisions through a variety of means, one of the most important being civil discussion.  If a user cannot contribute productively in that milieu, I'd say that person has already flunked out of the "political process" of the 'pedia; participation in ArbCom being an adjunct to the everyday, run-of-the-mill decision making process.  — <span style='background:rgb(40,40,120); padding:2px; padding-top:7px;text-shadow:2px 2px 3px #999'> æk <sup style='color:white'>Talk  20:14, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict)FWIW, when things get this complex on Wiki, there will never be consensus. "Consensus". The unblock by EVula - someone with some serious clout in these parts - was a de facto (or prima facie) recognition that, well, people are allowed to be this disruptive here. Check his contribs, it's not like we'd be losing one of our top content people, but someone will always be around to defend his use of this encyclopedia for his own personal agendas. It's the way it is, I guess - so it goes. <font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">Tan  &#124;  <font color="#21421E" face="Papyrus">39  15:53, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll see your de facto and raise you one counter-point: I see allowing a rather arbitrary "well, I'm tired of you, and without any true consensus from the overall community, I'm going to block you and say that only ArbCom can overturn it"-type of block as setting a much, much worse precedent. Do I care if Kurt is blocked? Honestly, no, I don't. I do care that any attempt to permanently boot someone out of Wikipedia has community support; a couple of "Endorse Block" tags on a user talk page do not community consensus represent. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 18:14, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Saying I've "resumed the behavior that almost got me banned last year" is simply false, since I was repeatedly told--in no uncertain terms--that my participation in AfD and RfA was NOT why people were wanting to ban me--rather, it was because I was harassing people ("why do you hate Wikipedia?", "deletionists are an especially fucking retarded subclass of the rest", going after Seraphim and Krimpet for their behavior towards Bedford, etc.) and because the general quality of my discourse was starting to decline. I fully admit I was way over the line there, but I challenge anyone to point out any sort of behavior of that sort on my part since I returned. As far as I can tell, all I've done in project-space since then is, at worst, started some discussions that were carried out peacefully and calmly and ended with a simple "agree to disagree," and at best actually helped others understand me--and me understand others--better.

As for the ban from project space--it was for three months. It's been well more than three months, and since then I haven't resumed any of the behavior that people were (rightly) complaining about. Kurt Weber ( Go Colts! : 14-0) 15:59, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Your on-wiki actions are essentially the same before you "vanished" last year. It shows you haven't grown up. And if you haven't grown up, there's no reason to believe you won't start harassing people again once this is all forgotten. And you never apologised to Seraphim or Krimpet, or me, or Majorly, either. Sceptre (talk) 17:05, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * What is that idiom? Something about when you point a finger at someone, three point back at you?-- King Bedford I  <sup style="color:green;">Seek his grace  22:15, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * What is that idiom? Something about you being a misogynist troll. Sceptre (talk) 01:15, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

And look--if it is in fact the actual substance of my RfA and AfD contributions, then why not start an RfC? Every time so far, I've been perfectly happy to refrain from the actions in question while the RfC was taking place, and only resumed when (as happened both times) the RfC pretty clearly concluded that I wasn't doing anything wrong. I think my track record is pretty strong on this. Kurt Weber ( Go Colts! : 14-0) 16:03, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * . You violated your namespace ban to run for ArbCom, and even worse, you said you didn't consider the ban legitimate (when it was applied by the community). I don't believe you'll adhere to another community request, per my comments above. Sceptre (talk) 17:10, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Kmweber's on-wiki action also sometimes translates into off-wiki behavior, such as the rather upsetting messages he sent me on IRC. I had to place him on ignore because of it. I realize this is not actionable due to being off-wiki, but it was in response to my recent (failed) RfA that he found the reason to send me private messages on IRC. Basket of Puppies 18:19, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm about as surprised that my unblock ended up being reported here as I am about a sunrise, but I still find it somewhat odd. The block was endorsed by a couple of people, yes, but it was also questioned by several others; John Vandenberg and MZMcBride both specifically stated that they were willing to unblock, citing the rather weak ground that the block was built upon. The entire thing smacked of "I'm tired of you and so you're gone now", which, I'm sorry, but I don't give a rat's ass what your opinion of Kurt is, that's just plain wrong.

Was this wheel warring? No. Hiberniantears tried to lend false legitimacy to the block by somehow claiming only ArbCom could overturn it ("nor do I endorse the lifting of this block by any other admin without the approval of ArbCom"). As was pointed out at User talk:Kmweber, that's not how ArbCom should be cited; it's an attempt to make the block "untouchable". Sorry, no, one person does not make consensus (myself included). Given Hiberniantears' unambiguous position on reviewing or lifting the block ("I will not review your block, nor do I endorse the lifting of this block by any other admin"), there was nothing to discuss. To fluff up this paragraph with lovely shortcuts, this was WP:CYCLE, not WP:WHEEL.

Look, I don't want anyone to look at this as some sort of defense of trollish editors. It isn't (chiefly because I'm not assigning "trollish" or "not trollish" qualifiers to Kurt's actions), and I'm pretty rabidly opposed to the concept of suffering a troll based solely on their contributions. The only thing I'm concerned with here is that an actual attempt at a community-derived decision is made. Hiberniantears' block didn't do that, and there was sufficient consensus that it should be overturned; hence, I did so. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 18:44, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem is, going to the community first will probably not get a consensus to block him, as editors will be convinced we'd be persecuting him for having minority opinions. Despite the fact he's stalked (at least) two female admins before which, is apparently, the cardinal sin against editors. His opinions effectively give him carte blanche to do whatever he wants. Sceptre (talk) 19:18, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Taking a point by EVula a little further, those with a long memory will recall another instance where one admin made a determination in respect of an editor, blocked, and suggested that only a referral to ArbCom would be permitted to undo the block. That action resulted in a furore that echoes even today, and even if a similarly sanctioned account was known to the entire community as being an incorrigibly disruptive influence that is the precedent why we do not allow admins to make unilateral decisions in contentious areas; we ensure that admins are the vehicles of community consensus and not its arbiters. For this reason alone EVula's unblock was appropriate and proper. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:25, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Kurt wrote above: "As for the ban from project space--it was for three months." The topic ban was formalized by user:Ryan Postlethwaite. He reminded Kurt of it a month later. While Ryan wrote that it could be lifted in the future, I don't see any mention of a three month duration. Could Kurt or someone else please priovide a diff to support that assertion? Otherwise the topic ban is still in effect and may be enforced.  Will Beback   talk    21:38, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I am also curious why he thinks he isn't topic banned from Rfa. Since Rfa is in Wikipedia space which he is banned from. -DJSasso (talk) 01:33, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Because he has a Minority Opinion. Sceptre (talk) 01:38, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well he's banned from there now. -<small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;"><big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee // <font color="#090">have a cup  //  flagged revs now!  // 03:18, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Just because I was curious, I looked up Kurt at Soxred93's RfA Vote Calculator. His record of 10-support and 163-oppose is most impressive.  Not necessarily good for the community, but impressive in its consistency nonetheless.  — Kralizec! (talk) 03:39, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I bring this up just because in Wikipedia article editing, you're not suppose to cherry pick statistics. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 19:48, 21 December 2009 (UTC) error
 * I believe the numbers mentioned above by Kralizec! refer to Kurt supporting 10 RFA's and opposing 163 RFA's. Not supports and opposes on his own request.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:07, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * His RFA game is moot. Its not disruptive because no one actually takes him seriously.  He's basically made himself entirely impotent by being so annoying, so there's little point in using that as justification for any block.  I'm not saying one way or another whether he should be blocked or not, but the whole RFA thing is pointless because he's made himself "the boy who cries wolf" there.  Everyone knows he has nothing worthwhile to say, so he's self-eliminated himself from being taken seriously.  -- Jayron  32  03:47, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Hiberniantears weighs in, belatedly
Apologies for my late arrival to this thread. I'm a Christmas baby, and the family chose today to celebrate. I want to clear up a few things, lest my original block statement leads to additional confusion. I really only meant to imply that I won't review the block. I have no problem with Evula or anyone else overturning me. That said, I did believe my block of Kurt was in line with Kurt's ban discussion from last year. The ArbCom comment was a poorly explained attempt to say "I'm blocking this obviously disruptive user. I won't undo the block. If the community wants me to undo it, I want ArbCom to weigh in". I did not intent to say that other admins shouldn't act as they see fit within policy.

As for this ANI thread. It is exactly what Kurt wants. As far as I can tell he is still banned, but we were all too willing to ignore him for a few months as he was obviously returning to his poor form. I'm actually stunned he was allowed to stand for ArbCom, and then I witnessed him pop up over the past week and start harassing RfA candidates again. This was a no brainer as far as I'm concerned. We were simply collectively dropping the ball in dealing with him. Hiberniantears (talk) 03:15, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

In the interest of getting it right
So in reviewing the comments on my block of Kurt, it is clear to me that most of us feel that he is either violating an active ban, or managing to avoid a formal ban by gaming the system with a "retirement". I see him as a banned user who is still gaming the system. Putting my view of the situation aside, can we just have a discussion on what Kurt's actual status is?

Clearly, there is confusion, and I see no need to set us all against each other in arguing over what I now recognize is a highly ambiguous status quo surrounding Kurt. With that in mind, is Kurt banned or not? Hiberniantears (talk) 03:54, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Confirm indefinite ban from non-article space. As far as I am concerned, I think his original ban against all non-article edits stands, or at least, should stand from this moment forward.  He can edit articles.  That's it.  -- Jayron  32  03:58, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Confirm I agree. He is banned from all non-article edits. -DJSasso (talk) 04:21, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Confirm ban, including the ArbCom election subspace. Now that voting has gone to the SecurePoll option, he can safely vote, while being unable to run. While this may not be popular, anyone who is currently banned from Wikipedia space, but runs for ArbCom regardless, is probably disrupting. Sceptre (talk) 04:30, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Confirm ban - Already left a note on his talk page to this nature yesterday. --<small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;"><big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee // <font color="#090">have a cup  //  flagged revs now!  // 04:48, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Confirm. The project space ban was placed legitimately following extensive community input. There is no indication that it has expired. He is welcome to contribute to the article space in a non-disruptive manner.   Will Beback    talk    08:44, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure. Hopefully we won't contract amnesia about this debate in a few months.  I doubt it, though. Protonk (talk) 11:06, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Editing restrictions? "Final warnings" seems to be a new thing there. Rd232 talk 12:24, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Final warnings aren't really new; we give people "final warnings" all the time. The problem is, that they never are. Sceptre (talk) 15:15, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Not confirmed but... When a punishment is imposed, and this is punishment, it should be clear what it is for. There is a diff to 3 months provided by someone else http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AKmweber&action=historysubmit&diff=240123704&oldid=240119164  Let's wrap this up by saying that from 1 January 2010 to 31 January 2010, Kurt Weber has no restrictions and that he should behave in the way he thinks all Wikipedian should aspire to.  That means not trying to push the limit.  In return, others will not try to add restrictions on him.  In the period between now and 1 January, everyone should be in a trial period, trying to act like what they will do in 2010.  To avoid conflict, Kurt Weber should voluntarily refrain from Wikispace except for this ANI thread between now and 2010.  Kurt Weber surprising got 102 supports for ArbCom which means there may be a consensus of 102 active editors in support of him but that those 102 people are afraid to say something, much like people in Iran are afraid to say anything lest they be killed like Ramin Pourandarjani.  I do not support Mr. Weber but do support calm and responsibility. To me, this is a confusing mess that could benefit from a clean slate for January 2010.  Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 19:59, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * ... but things could change in January 2010 so a confirm would be clearly indicated then See above comment of 19:59 21 December 2009 Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 20:44, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

What "poor form"? What "harassing RfA candidates"? It's not like I'm following people around and saying, "Ha-ha, you suck, ha-ha!" My RfA criteria are just one set of criteria out of many; I'm happy to explain it when I need to (always politely), and if not I'm happy to leave it at that. What, exactly, is the problem here? Kurt Weber ( Go Colts! : 14-0) 16:04, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem in my opinion is that you don't seem to see the problem. -DJSasso (talk) 16:11, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I stayed away from project space--indeed, from Wikipedia altogether--for well beyond the three month minimum required by my topic ban, and when I returned I resumed none of the behaviors that I was told were problematic: I didn't harass other people, I didn't throw insults around, I didn't go apeshit on people who attacked me--I have remained calm, polite, and collegial at all times. So my three-month topic ban expired and I resumed none of the behaviors for which it was imposed.  Please tell me, where is the problem, because I honestly don't see it.  Kurt Weber ( Go Colts! : 14-0) 16:23, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You keep saying after the 3 month time expired. Yet there is no record anywhere of it expiring after 3 months. As far as I can find and others, the topic ban was indefinite. -DJSasso (talk) 16:46, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * See below. Kurt Weber ( Go Colts! : 14-0) 16:55, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Except that is not what the link you provide says. It says no less than 3 months and that in 3 months you would be talked to about it. Show me the link to where you were talked to about it and where it was lifted. If you can't show a discussion where it was stated that it was lifted then it wasn't lifted. -DJSasso (talk) 17:00, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, time and time again, I was told that the problem wasn't with opposing self-noms for being self-noms, or voting keep on RfAs simply because the subject existed, was not a problem--that those were perfectly legitimate positions, and that I was entitled to participate in RfA and AfD along those lines, so long as I did so in a civil and collegial manner. The problem was that I was being considerably less than civil and collegial about it (which is true). Now, here are the terms I agreed to. Since those three months were up, I have not been anything but civil and collegial--so I can only conclude that what you're having a problem with isn't with the way I'm acting but with the ideas I hold themselves. Kurt Weber ( Go Colts! : 14-0) 16:13, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Does anyone have diffs of any disruptive editing after his block was lifted? Sephiroth storm (talk) 16:34, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * There was never any long-term block; I simply returned after a several-month self-imposed absence. Kurt Weber ( Go Colts! : 14-0) 16:39, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Since it was said that the ban would las no less than three months, then would be revisited, it is clear that the ban lasts until the second discussion determines otherwise. That never happened, so the ban is still in effect. In the interest of resolving this, let's have an unban discussion right now. The Wordsmith Communicate 17:48, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Coren's offer was made in September 22. The Ryan Postlethwaite's closure of the community ban was on September 23 and so it superseded Coren's offer. Further, Coren was acting as an individual admin, while Ryan was summarizing a community ban, which obviously has greater weight. The ban was violated on November 18  Ryan reminded you of the ban on November 19. As stated above, the ban on editing Wikipedia space appears to still be in effect. If you'd like to ask the community or the Arbcom to lift it you may do so by placing an appeal on your user talk page, but further direct editing here will result in a block. 19:16, 21 December 2009 (UTC)   Will Beback    talk   


 * FYI, for those interested in final warnings, I've given one to Kmweber on his talk page saying that the topic ban is still in place and it will be enforced if he violates it again.   Will Beback    talk    20:38, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * There are conflicting warnings and bans. Coffee put up a notice saying Mr. Weber is banned from everything, even articles.  Will Beback says only Wikipedia space.  Mr. Weber says only a 3 month period was in effect, now expired, and that he's stopped some annoying behavior.  That's why a clarity period is needed.  Everyone should be on their best behavior in January 2010 and should try to get accustomed to that in the 10 days before that.  Then there will be a clear period to assess Mr. Weber. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 20:49, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Please review your facts. I placed a formal Wikipedia/talk space ban, I said nothing about all articles. And it's too late for a 1,000th chance, he can either appeal the ban, or accept it and edit articles. There is no point in a "January 2010 test". --<small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;"><big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee // <font color="#090">have a cup  //  flagged revs now!  // 20:52, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not aware of any ban on editing Wikipedia in general, just edits to the project-space, such as this page or RFAs. The community ban placed on Kmweber in September 2008 is unequivocal. The best thing would be for Kmweber to avoid further confrontation stick to writing articles.   Will Beback    talk    20:55, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Confirm the indefinite ban from the WP space as per the discussion Ryan Postlethwaite closed. Viridae Talk 21:52, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Confirm indefinite ban from non-article space as above.  Sandstein  22:41, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment / question - Please forgive for butting in, and no opinion on the underlying matter, but does "non-article space" include: article talk space? category space?  user / user talk space?  media files?  portals?  This may or may not seem obvious, and I do not mean this as a comment about the editor in question, but many people who tend towards the disruptive on process, meta-matters, and civility do so on each others' talk pages, templates, projects / portals, and article talk pages.  Others do not.  Perhaps it would avoid future confusion to be very specific on this.  - Wikidemon (talk) 22:48, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Answer - It's non "non-article space", but "Wikipedia space". Basically, any page that has "Wikipedia:" or "Wikipedia talk:" in the front of the name. None of the areas you inquired about above match that criteria, so that still leaves a large number of places to contribute. --  At am a  頭 23:08, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Confirm WP-space ban. If Kurt is going to insist on arguing this, I'll add to the pile-on support for the restriction. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:51, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Confirming the ban. Kwmeber has been using the wikipedia space only to fight his ideological battles, he can do that at some other website. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:48, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Confirm. The community has spoken. <font face="Verdana"> Durova  386

User:A Quest For Knowledge
Doesn't appear to require sysop intervention. Discussion on this can take place on user talk pages. Please be nice.

A Quest For Knowledge has deleted talk page commentary by User:ChrisO in two separate instances on Talk:Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident. The first time the user removed the material at 03:30, 22 December, ChrisO objected and restored it at 08:42, 22 December. I contacted A Quest For Knowledge at 09:22, 22 December, and  explained that ChrisO disputed the deletion, and politely asked A Quest For Knowledge to take this up with ChrisO on his talk page or on the appropriate noticeboards. The user ignored my request to discuss this with ChrisO or to file a report on a noticeboard for assistance, and once again, removed the material at 12:08, 22 December. I don't know who is right or wrong here, but to avoid edit wars on the talk page, I feel that A Quest For Knowledge needs to open a line of communication with ChrisO or request outside assistance, and towards that end, I have contacted him for a second time.  Could someone uninvolved with either of these two users take a look at what is going on here? Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 12:33, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Per WP:BLP, I removed material where ChrisO was making accusations against living people. I only have an hour or two a day to devote to Wikipedia so I won't be able to participate in this discussion until tonight, or if I have time, on my lunch break. However, according to WP:BLP, editors who re-insert the material should be blocked. If ChrisO continues making unsourced accusations against living people, I suggest that he be blocked from editing the article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:43, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I suggest that Chris Owen could restore a version of his statement that omits the attack on Solomon. Chris's argument seems unexceptionable, it's just the extraneous material that seems to be causing the problem. --TS 12:56, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't see an attack on Solomon, at most on "his gullible followers". That does not create a BLP situation - it's not the most polite phrase, but no more an attack on any particular person than "humans are destroying the Earth", "Europeans are snobs" or "Christians are stupid". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:11, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * What's the controversial bit? " venom being aimed at him by Solomon, Ball and their gullible followers."? I'm still flabberghasted by Solomon's claim "How Wikipedia’s green doctor rewrote 5,428 climate articles" when at the time Solomon retrieved that figure it would have been the total number of articles WC had edited. I can think of a good word for this misrepresentation. Dougweller (talk) 13:14, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Experting and East London Bus Group
Hi, sorry if this is in the wrong place. I have left it a bit since it happened, but it still needs sorting out.

User:Experting has decided that East London Bus Group needs a list of bus routes. For a start it is in the wrong place, putting it smack bang in the middle of the "Operations" section, and getting in the way. Background information is that East London Bus Group is the parent company of two (more recently three) bus companies, Selkent and East London (bus company). These both have articles themseleves, and the relevant articles give information about which routes they run. I feel that the article on the parent company doesn't need information about which routes they run, 1) because technically they don't run them, and 2) because it is duplicated information which is already covered in a better place. Also, it is just a mass of numbers with no explanation.

I first reverted User:Experting on 11 December, fully explaining in the edit summary my reasoning. Experting, though, just reverted. I reverted a couple more times the following days, again explaining my reasoning, but Experting again just reverted, either without an edit summary or with a useless one like "Yes there is".

I then went to look at Experting's contributions. It would seem that they are an aggressive editor, so I decided not to bring up the issue with them, as it wouldn't get me anywhere. Some evidence of the user's behaviour is:


 * Tagging the edits as a minor edit when reverting
 * Going straight in and issuing warnings at the highest level
 * Reverting without an edit summary (not too bad but they know what they're doing)

The user's contributions show quite a lot of shouting, arguing and reverting. There seems to have been a rather heated discussion with User:Ianmacm. This includes:
 * Not signing what they say
 * Pretenting they are an adminstrator, and saying that they have blocked Ianmacm
 * Removing Ianmacm's replies

I hope something can be done about this. I won't revert East London Bus Group again, as it will only start an edit war. <span style="font-family:Zapfino, Segoe Script;"><b style="color:#FF0000;">Arriva436</b><sup style="color:#800080;><b style="color:#800080;">talk</b>/<b style="color:#800080;">contribs</b> 15:52, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I've notified the user and wow, yeah, talk about completely inappropriate warnings and warning levels. -- Neil N  <sup style="font-family:Calibri;"> talk to me  16:10, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I've encountered him before. He created the Candy King article as a blatant copyvio of the Candy King website, and insisted that the article be retained (to the point of removing speedy deletion templates) because "i need it for my school work and cannot access the candyking.com website in school because its apparant "Entertainment"." He seems to take any criticism of his edits as personal attacks, and doesn't seem to understand the purpose of Wikipedia very well (i.e. Believing it is acceptable to mirror websites needed for schoolwork). &mdash;ShadowRanger (talk 16:33, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Is there an offence of impersonating an admin? I'd say that was worth a short block of its own. Mjroots (talk) 16:30, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * has made a grand total of 119 edits, I'd say there's a good chance Experting doesn't understand how blocks work. A warning would not to impersonate admins and to engage in discussion rather than threaten people should suffice. If it persists, then a block would be warranted. Nev1 (talk) 16:36, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

User:DBaba
in this edit on the talk page of Cave of the Patriarchs massacre is accusing me of being rascist/nationalistic, running a cabal, harassing, and being POV. And all of that after I worked it all out with another editor there, due to both of us being civil and sticking to the rules of Wikipedia, as that same section testifies. DBaba seems to have a serious bias here, as well as a problem with neutrally assessing my person. I have informed him of this discussion here. Debresser (talk) 23:12, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree with these characterizations of what I've had to say. Debresser's activity continues to trouble me, and I find that this is just an alternative means of obstruction he has resorted to. DBaba (talk) 23:27, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Your viscious and baseless attack compared to the discussion preceding it says it all. Debresser (talk) 23:33, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Doesn't seem a seriously sticky attack. Is that all there is, or has he made other statements you find objectionable? --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:51, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That is all, mam. Frankly, I find that more than enough. Debresser (talk) 23:55, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * My previous post got removed somehow. It ran like this:
 * DBaba continues on Talk:Cave_of_the_Patriarchs_massacre calling people by unacceptable names. Debresser (talk) 23:46, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Here is DBaba's post in full:

"''Debresser, I find that your contributions are consistently as ethnonationalist as you seem to think you can get away with. It troubles me that you would attack Zero0000's contributions as POV, when you have racist revisionists working over the page to suggest the massacre was justified as a preemptive strike; that you have nothing to say about that, and only harass serious and neutral editors, and the comments accompanying your edits have frequently been blatantly wrong or incoherent, and that you've been blanking text as "not important" despite its being cited when it doesn't suit you personally, all of these elements lead me to ask you to please stop interfering. I requested comment to get away from this sort of ethnonationalist activism, not to invite more. DBaba (talk) 20:45, 15 December 2009 (UTC)''"

Hope this helps. DBaba, my experience is you're generally a pretty good guy, but there's a problem with calling other editors racist. Remember the fiasco on Nanking Massacre a while ago? I was just being stupid, but you and User:Flyingtiger were convinced I was a Japanese negationist. Try and assume good faith of Debresser. ALI nom nom 01:53, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * E.g. If I remove a sentence or paragraph, it is either unsourced, or irrelevant. And I am willing to defend any my decision to do so. If User:DBaba has any specific problems he could have raised them on the talk page, as another editor has done. In view of my edits, it seems unjust to assume I have a POV agenda. In fact, I have made edits and comments to this article and its talk page that are contrary to what I would have liked, based on the facts and a neutral way of representing them. Calling editing - "interfering", is plain ridiculous. Especially since I am not what you would call a "newbie" on Wikipedia, and have numerous edits to my name, including many on pages related to Judaism. In short, User:DBaba seems to have a bias here, both in regard with the article as with me personally, and he has a very unpleasant way of expressing it. I think a civility warning is the least he should receive. Debresser (talk) 10:23, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Here are six instances of Debresser using the Undo function to remove cited and neutral text, all from this same article, in the space of one week.


 * I do not peg him as actually participating in any FBI-designated terrorist group, as is apparently the case with some of my other foils in this area, but this hasn't stopped him from working fruitfully to the same end: blanking factual and cited information, with the claim that it is "not important".  I am troubled by this and I am troubled that he still does not understand what he has done wrong; and I believe he is being manipulative when he suggests I am "calling people by unacceptable names", or that I have been vicious.


 * I also think he and I can work this out without any help from outside, and that his choice to come here to seek sanction against me is a stunt which further demonstrates political activism on his part. And I apologize for calling him an ethnonationalist, which only served to change the subject from how awful and POV his editing has been, as well as being needless and an inefficient method of bringing him into the light. DBaba (talk) 18:48, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Apology accepted. But you see, you are doing it again! Now you are accusing me of coming here as "a stunt". You just don't seem to know what Assume good faith is about... As to my removals of "cited and neutral text", please see the talk page that at least part of it is considered POV by some, or is indeed plain irrelevant to this article. These are content issues that you should discuss on the talk page, not here. But your failure to apply WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, now those have to be brought here. Debresser (talk) 20:58, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, being that he calls experienced Wikipedia editors "participating in any FBI-designated terrorist group", perhaps it is wiser to just block this guy altogether? Debresser (talk) 17:37, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Is your objection to the suggestion that they participate in the Jewish Defense League, or to calling the JDL an "FBI-designated terrorist group"? — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 19:52, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, is anybody reading this? Debresser (talk) 19:26, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * When you start off Talk:Cave_of_the_Patriarchs_massacre with (and I'll quote) "all edits by Zero are POV down to their minutest details", most admins are going to ignore both of you (or block both of you). You can decide which way I should go.  -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:22, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Please notice that although I personally feel that was the truth, I factually admitted I should not have said so. And I did so in the best way possible: I undid my edits to the article and tweaked other things. I also admitted in this edit that I had previously been overly hasty in editing the article. DBaba to the contrary, seems to be steadfast in his opinions. Debresser (talk) 08:46, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I've collapsed the mediation section as it's just a poisoned well and nothing good can come from it. There's plenty of conduct that's not productive but I'm not interested in playing the who was the first to be uncivil game. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:29, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Do you seriously mean to say that you put saying that an editor has a POV on one level with saying that he is racist and participates in an FBI-designated terrorist group? Especially since he wrote this after the content issue was already resolved, and his edit could have no meaningfull purpose. Debresser (talk) 12:40, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't want to encourage this unpleasantness any further, as it's been quite some time now, but I must say I strongly object to the way Debresser is distorting my words. I hope he can understand that the context in which I questioned his judgment had much to do with how creepy and horrible I find it that there is a guy promoting a "terrorist" group's Facebook page on Wikipedia; I was hoping that mentioning that would reorient his priorities, from maligning me to looking out for innocent people who may yet be murdered.  I'm not going to do a list of the offenses I ascribe to Debresser, because we are now working positively, forwards, in a spirit of good faith. The bridge is valueless without the water under it.  And I do wish you a beautiful holiday, bro. DBaba (talk) 21:14, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

User:98.237.250.200
User talk:98.237.250.200 is repeatedly disrupting Omerta, removing referenced material, a template and adding information that is already dealt with on Omerta (disambiguation). He is also attacking other editors, see here. - DonCalo (talk) 01:03, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, he has not edited since his most recent warning. Should we perhaps wait until he edits in violation of that warning?  -- Jayron  32  01:19, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Too late, I've blocked him for a week for making death threats; even with warnings, that is utterly unacceptable behaviour. There are times when blocks need to be imposed not as punishment but as preventative, not only of a particular editor, but of editors in general, since such behaviour is completely contrary to our principles and should be, and be seen to be, intolerable. Time to stop pussyfooting around here, I think. Rodhull  andemu  01:24, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * My bad, I didn't check that diff. Absolutely, no warnings for that shit.  Completely appropriate block.  Fully endorse. -- Jayron  32  02:03, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The threat is terrible, threat of bodily harm. Given the block duration of other editors, one week seems rather short.  Even legal threats result in indefinite block.  Consider a longer block, such as 30 days.  Since it is an IP, allowing current account holders to edit after, say 31 hours or 7 days is acceptable.  Anyone wish to reconsider? Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 15:35, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * FYI, my previous comments are here. Rodhull  andemu  19:25, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Outing by 89.101.230.52
After removing an external link from the Athlone wikipedia article in line with wikipedias external links guidelines I recieved the following from tthe IP above.

Leave the Athlone Live link forum intact if you don't mind. It has 400+ registered members, all of whom have an interest in Athlone. The link has been there a lot longer than you have been on Wikipedia. In fact, several of the forum members wrote much of the entry for the town of Athlone itself on Wikipedia.

I moved this from my user page to my talk page and responded in a civila manner and was willing to discuss it but have had further edits to my page from this user. They have hunted online for my identity and posted my name publicly on my page and later threatened to "go down to xxxxxxxxxxx to make you stop" and finished by stating "Now, quit while you're ahead.".

I think you will agree that such behaviour is intolerable and I request that something be done to stop this (Mremeralddragon (talk) 16:09, 22 December 2009 (UTC))


 * Are you willing to provide the appropriate diffs to an admin (I'm not one), if so, then please be prepared to do so because this sounds like a simple case of outing and this user needs some time to sit in the corner and think about what they've done. This isn't possible though without an admin (or more likely someone with higher privileges who you trust with your personal info) actually seeing the issue. As much as sometimes we would like to, Admins can't just act on our word alone. Frmatt (talk) 16:18, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * No problem supplying info thats needed and the difs are obvious in my page history anyway as there has been little to no activity on it since joining wikipedia. I just want this nonsense to be done and dusted. (Mremeralddragon (talk) 16:20, 22 December 2009 (UTC))


 * Would you be okay with the diffs being posted here so that the poor overworked admins don't have to search through your page history? I ask because of the possibility of your actual identity being revealed... Frmatt (talk) 16:27, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Here they are (all from ):
 * ,, , , , , ,
 * I have also changed this thread title to make it obvious that this is more than just incivility -- <font color="#307D7E">Phantom <font color="#55CAFA">Steve /<font color="#008000">talk &#124;<font color="#000080">contribs \ 16:34, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Nobody has notified the IP user of this thread. Oh, and BTW, this isn't "threatened" outing, they've posted Mremeralddragon's supposed real name already. That's clear outing, not threatened. 99.166.95.142 (talk) 16:35, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I have notified the IP user of this thread. I have also removed the "threatened" from this thread title -- <font color="#307D7E">Phantom <font color="#55CAFA">Steve /<font color="#008000">talk &#124;<font color="#000080">contribs \ 16:43, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks PhantomSteve and IP 99...I didn't want to do anything without Mremeralddragon's permission, including searching the diffs. I know that I wouldn't necessarily want my information available to just anyone, so figured it was safer to not do anything without permission. Now, all we need is an admin to look into this! Frmatt (talk) 16:49, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm also going to send a message to the Oversighter list, asking them to look at this thread. -- <font color="#307D7E">Phantom <font color="#55CAFA">Steve /<font color="#008000">talk &#124;<font color="#000080">contribs \ 16:55, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Incidently, I took the No problem supplying info thats needed and the difs are obvious in my page history anyway statement as meaning that the OP has no objections to them being here. I have mailed the OS list, hopefully one will pop over and look at these diffs. -- <font color="#307D7E">Phantom <font color="#55CAFA">Steve /<font color="#008000">talk &#124;<font color="#000080">contribs \ 17:03, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The user appears to have a dynamic IP but I have blocked the most recent IP for a week and semi-protected the page for a month. CIreland (talk) 17:01, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Outing edits have been suppressed. -- Avi (talk) 17:25, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you, CIreland and Avi. -- <font color="#307D7E">Phantom <font color="#55CAFA">Steve /<font color="#008000">talk &#124;<font color="#000080">contribs \ 17:36, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for everything guys. And no i didnt have any problems with the diffs being added. I was actually adding them myself and noticed via an edit conflict warning that they had already been posted. Its all good. Im just happy things have been sorted out now. Thanks guys. (Mremeralddragon (talk) 18:04, 22 December 2009 (UTC))
 * All Mr IP has done is made things harder on themselves. If anything, now the page is going to be watched even more closely. I believe the operative term is Plaxico? Half  Shadow  19:42, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

StevenMario
is a 14-year old self-proclaimed "cartoon expert" who keep introducing inaccurate or unsourced information into multiple cartoon-related articles. He has been warned by multiple users (see, , , ), and while his edits are not strictly vandalism (although some have come close), this editor is determined to force his opinions only onto these pages (even without sources, as seen here), and has some serious problems with civility (seen here and here) when his actions are questioned. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 19:20, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * You were required to notify him - see the top of this page. I've done that now. Dougweller (talk) 19:35, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, thanks - forgot to do that... TheRealFennShysa (talk) 19:36, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe he is Mascot Guy? Just a thought, Mascot Guy loves to edit children's Cartoons. -- Rockstone  talk to me!   19:37, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think so - most of this kid's IP ranges (usually beginning in "68." or "208." seem to be originating in Georgia, not San Diego, as Mascot Guy appeared to have. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 19:44, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I would like to add that StevenMario keeps ignoring the consensus at Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Winter Games. The consensus is to say that the review scores have been mostly positive, but Steven has changed it to say mixed reviews on multiple occasions.  TJ   Spyke   19:41, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

From what I have read up on MascotGuy, this is definitely not him. His mother has stated that he is a twenty-two year old who is obsessed with fonts and bridges. His mother made no mention of cartoons, and Steven does not seem to have any overlapping interests with Derek, the origin of the whole MascotGuy fiasco. Since Mario also has been around for a few months while editing cartoon-related articles, it is unlikely that his mother would've missed this cue. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:15, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

"I'm probably not the best person to be moderating Wikipedia"
(not that I try) Can some neutral adminstrators please take a look at the diffs below and explain either to User:Raylopez99 that they are indeed unacceptable, or to me why they are ok? Thanks! ,, ,. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:20, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * If you argue with him, you get to keep him. --TS 20:51, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Whilst I don't like the style used, which I think is ineffective, I think you have to accept that different people have different styles. He has not really said anything bad. So I don't think the diffs you provided are unacceptable.

This suggests that the problem is as much you as it is him. Stop being upset that some people disagree with your belief. Global warming is not a religion; don't treat it like one. There is no need to burn heretics at the stake.

If you don't like what he says, you can always ignore him.--Toddy1 (talk) 20:58, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I beg your pardon? "your objectivity is exposed as bankrupt ... You must be like Caesar's wife, not an intellectual prostitute ... but the dagger is in your stomach and twisting around" - you find that acceptable? Sure, I could ignore them, since they are not directed at me (yet). But I would also ignore WP:CIVIL in the grossest way.--Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:18, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * He seems to be trying to get you to snap. He also seems to be a conspiracist when it comes to what goes on here. Just ignore him, but if it escalates, come back and they will deal with it. Also, feel free to let him know that people are usually watched to see if they are famous, so there are very few COIs here. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:32, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Ktrl101's diagnosis matches my own. Ignore him and he'll either go away or escalate in obnoxiousness to the point where something will be done. Hopefully not the latter, because people who get that obsessed usually stuck around. --TS 21:47, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm actually going to go with Steve here. That kind of behaviour is grossly uncivil, and merits a 48 hour block for incivility and personal attacks.  If he doesn't smarten up from there, increase the blocks.  I agree with Ktr101 and TS about disengagement, and would counsel you to address only his behaviour and not the content of his arguments in the future.  It would be best to do this in a cool, calm, dispassionate manner.  If he finds he can't get a rise out of you, he's likely to mosey on elsewhere.  Still, we can't send the message that this kind of behaviour is appropriate, and a small block is justified. Throwaway85 (talk) 22:38, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for 48 hours for personal attacks, harassment and trolling. Vsmith (talk) 01:14, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you need to make that block a little longer, possibly permanently. --Calton | Talk 02:31, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

User:68.42.168.117
vandalizims check his edits William the Braveheart (talk) 21:51, 22 December 2009 (UTC) Revision history of Mario Party just look —Preceding unsigned comment added by William the Braveheart (talk • contribs) 21:53, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * - F ASTILY  (<font color="#008000">T ALK ) 21:56, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * He only blanked the page once, per . A warning will suffice, which I will hand out. Otherwise, there is nothing worrisome with this user. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:57, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Fastily won. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:57, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * : D - F ASTILY  (<font color="#FF0000">T ALK ) 00:43, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Is the first edit of an account usually a report to ANI? Fences  &amp;  Windows  22:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Was thinking to shout Plaxico, but I'll let it be. SirFozzie (talk) 22:58, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Legal threats by
Subject user has made legal threats   on User_talk:SolidSnake1884, the talk page of a user currently blocked for vandalism/BLP violations, as well as this comment on Articles for deletion/Robert Dickinson. I wholeheartedly agree that the "libellous" edits by were vandalism, but Zensurfer's contribution history shows no attempt to resolve the issue using dispute resolution, as recommended in WP:NLT. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 23:02, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Let's not lose sight of the big picture. A quick look at the history of the article in question shows that almost all of the edits have been by Zensurfer, Zensurfer2 or Zensurfer3 - probably not too much of a stretch to say that they are related. Zensurfer may be close to the subject of the article, and thus aware of the real impact of SolidSnake1884's vandalism. Given Zensurfer's limited exposure across Wikipedia, I suspect that he/she isn't aware of WP:NLT. A gentle reminder on the editor's talk page should be enough, and I'll go do that now. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  23:28, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Too late :( Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  23:31, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Incivility by User:TJ Spyke
I had a discussion on mine and his talk page about an earlier good faith edit which I undid (See here: ), early in the discussion he did hint towards some incivility and I did discuss what I thought the main element of the conversation was before and after his incivility and then he blatantly violated WP:CALM while I was still trying to keep it civil  and then he called me an "ASS" before he cracked a Sarah Palin joke which I believe it to have an uncivil meaning, he's had numerous warnings about uncivil behaviour, as well as edit warring which he was recently blocked for if you check his block log, I believe this to be just another case involving some of his immature antics and he obviously hasn't learned from his unblock on September 1, 2007 which reads "User agrees to conditions set out on his talk page and on Wikipedia:Community sanction noticeboard. Further disruption to result in an indefinite block", I believe its time for an indefinite block as he's clearly caused more disruption and anymore disruption was supposed to result in an indefinite block. Afro  Talkie Talk - Afkatk 03:32, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Endorse indef block - Final civility/edit warring warning was given last month after this ANI thread. He was just blocked for edit warring a few days ago. Enough already.  iMatthew  talk   at 03:44, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree as well sadly. I've had numerous discussions with him about his failure to accept changes, I feel he is just causing a disruption now. I once looked up to him, but now noticing all the problems that have resulted from him, I see he'll never change. I'm not saying I am perfect, but sometimes I even know when to let things go. He obviously goes by his own rules, and most times they just cause more problems than needed.-- Will C  04:03, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Will, I think you are doing this simply because you don't agree with me on many things.  TJ   Spyke   00:47, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Endorse/support as well given the block log (17 blocks, including a couple indefs and one block from just a few days ago) and warnings. Such additional comments as "expect by people too lazy to check the capitalization" from today come off as needlessly hostile if not baiting (notice the others oppose there without making the suggestion that those who support are somehow "lazy"). Plus in such recent discussions as this, berating everyone who dares argue to keep with repeated WP:ITSCRUFT (not even policy/guideline based) comments seems a bit too antagonistic as well. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 04:09, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The YouTube comment wasn't aimed at anybody on Wikipedia, I was referring to people in the media since often they don't bother to get capitalization for tech stuff right before they print articles (it's annoying reading a article and see the writer constantly write "Ipod", for example). All of my replies in the AFD have been civil, so I don't see what you are trying to do with those.  TJ   Spyke   00:47, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Unsubstantiated - Sept 1, 2007 was more than two years ago. The current discussion is heated, but barely passes the noticable level under WP:CIVIL or WP:NPA.  It is certainly not disruption.  If you have evidence of further personal attacks or disruption or gross incivility please provide diffs of those.  We need much much more evidence to justify indef blocking someone who's a longtime contributor.  Please don't bring cases unless you have sufficient evidence ready to go...  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:49, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Further this - the block log is numerous prior to the Sept 2007 indef and then parole. However, since then, he's only had two - 3RR blocks in June and a few days ago in December.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:56, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose indef block Per GWH above. I don't see where this rises to the level of indefinite blockage.  Yeah, this stuff is a bit incivil, but I don't see where we should hold a 2-year old block against TJ Spyke here.  Other than 2 editwar blocks, he seems to have avoided any trouble in the past two years.  -- Jayron  32  05:58, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, there was the incivility final warning from last month, but he's behaved since then other than these two. Even if this is a violation of that final warning, if that's all that has happened since the final warning then he's really only in line for a 24h block (beginning of the block escalation chain) as he hasn't been blocked for this recently.  And it's not clear to me that this is justification for a block at all, even with a final warning a month ago.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:18, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * See this shouldn't be entirely about his incivility. There is also his endless edit wars over some important and some trivial things. His refusal to agree to a consensus. Plus his harassment on AFDs, including the current Articles for deletion/List of WWE Raw Guest Hosts. Him being blocked 2 years ago is still a problem. No matter what the time frame, this just comes to show he never learned from those many blocks in the pasted. Plus he just being blocked a few days ago and I've already seen that he went straight back to edit warring over list formats after it ended. His incivility was even discussed just a month and 12 days ago. In this archived discussion, plenty of proof is given to show that he has had enough time to stop his incivility. That discussion did not result in a block because he agreed to change his ways. That being so recent, clearly he has not. With all these disruptions present, I don't see a reason to not block him.-- Will C  06:36, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 2 out of 3 admins responding so far seem to disagree with blocking, on the evidence submitted so far. You need to make a better case than this.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:42, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Let me clarify that somewhat. The proposed jump to an immediate indef is definitely clouding this discussion.  I believe that given the evidence here, an indef is simply completely inappropriate, and it was inappropriate to ask for one.
 * The question of whether he's misbehaving to some degree or another, violating the final warning from last month, whether these recent comments are sufficiently uncivil as to be actionable - these are different questions than "should we indef him right now".
 * Jumping straight from a warning to indef - absent obvious disruption/vandalism only abuse or something stunningly horrible - is moar dramaz pls - not a responsible approach. If you want to make a case that he's done wrong here enough to justify normal blocking - for 24 h, 48 h, whatever - that's a far easier thing to do, and not obviously a mistake under the circumstances.
 * If someone would like to restart this conversation from that standpoint and argue the case for enough abuse post-final-warning for a short, normal block, then that would be a good next step.
 * I do not have enough time this evening to conduct a complete examination myself. Some other admin may - or you can provide us more appropriate levels of detail to justify it (to me, Jayron, others).
 * Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:52, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

The complainer, User:Afkatk (renamed Afro), seems to have lost. Complaining about someone is incivility. We must have accountability. In America, there is no accountability, which is why lawsuits are rampant and causes all kind of trouble. If the consensus is to block TJSpike, then do it. If the consensus is against it, then Afro should be blocked for at least a week to prevent another disruption of drama and nuisance complaints. Only when there is accountability, will drama be reduced. JB50000 (talk) 08:43, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Support blocking User:Afkatk/Afro if the current consensus continues. JB50000 (talk) 08:43, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "Complaining about someone is incivility"? Yikes. I'm no fan of our current civility standards, but that's got to be one of the most pernicious statements on civility I've ever seen made outright on-wiki. I see nothing in WP:CIV to support this statement; in fact, it directly contravenes that policy:
 * From WP:CIV (relevant phrase in bold): To insist that an editor be sanctioned for an isolated, minor offense, or to treat constructive criticism as an attack, is itself potentially disruptive, and may result in warnings or even blocks if repeated.
 * This is the sort of statement that can be used to justify overzealous enforcement of standards not applicable to the given situation, or to skew sanction discussions in directions they weren't ever meant to go. Please, in the light of what WP:CIV actually says, please reconsider this stance. Thanks...GJC 20:10, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm still undecided on this per the discussion above. However, can TJ Spyke or anyone else explain this? MuZemike 09:02, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * JB50000, I ask what has Afkatk done wrong? Reporting a user for constant violations of civil, 3RR, etc. If that is such a crime, then everyone in this entire site should be blocked. JB50000, are you not at fault for what you just said. You are complaining over this report. Mind you, this discussion is still in its early stages. MuZemike, it looks to be a discussion over formats. Something TJ has discussion with 4 different editors and edit warred with 5. Yet even after being shown changes has been done with format, he goes ahead and starts up another edit war.-- Will C  09:15, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * So far two-thirds of people have been opposed and only one-third for block. If Afkatk (who hides the username with the name Afro) calls for a permanent block and the censensus is against that, then that person should receive disciplinary action.  It's like if you sue someone friviously and lose, you have to pay the winner's legal fees, at least that is the way in the UK (but not in the US, which is why there is a lawyer problem in America).  If Afkatk/Afro called for a 3 month block and was wrong, then that is excusable but to call for a permanent block and call for it wrongly (according to the consensus), then action must be taken.  This is why this noticeboard is flooded with complaints.  People can complain and don't have to take responsibility for their complaints.  I am not against Atkatk.  What I said in the beginning was to block TJ if consensus supported it but to take disciplinary action against Atkatk/Afro is consensus was that no block was taken.  If a short block is the consensus, then do that and Akatk/Afro's complaint is validated. JB50000 (talk) 04:49, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes 2/3rds do seem against me but that still does not make any justification for blocking me, I don't see in what universe of logic it makes sense to block someone because they've brought an incident here. Afro  ( Not a Talk Page ) - Afkatk 10:10, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * People have asked for more evidence, and I can not give that at the moment since I don't know where anymore is, though I am sure it exists. I would rather TJ not be blocked out of the kindness of my heart, however, his constant disruptions have turned my hand. I would like for more users who know TJ to get involved in this discussion. Would anyone mind if I was to contact WP:PW, the project which is primarily participates, about this discussion, to allow more users to give their opinion?-- Will C  10:44, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * WillC, look at that diff more closely. You may have missed something in there which was why I brought that diff up. MuZemike 17:47, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Other than a few insults, all I see is a format discussion. Not sure what exactly you are referring to though.-- Will C  18:03, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "ASSumming"? MuZemike 20:44, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Just a comment about TJ Spyke's block log. Most of the blocks were placed by Alkivar, who was desysopped in an arbitration case with his behavior towards TJ Spyke a significant part of why he was desysopped. So perhaps it would be prudent to take all the blocks Alkivar instated against TJ with a grain of salt. 96.244.150.95 (talk) 19:32, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * TJ Spyke has quite a history of problematic behaviour but does seem to have been better lately. Given the history a block is probably warranted, and I would have trouble knowing when to expire such a block given past history, but it's surely not time for the banhammer here. I'd say we need to talk to TJ Spyke and find out why this particular issue has caused such a problem. I've suggested to Afro that xe seek a mediator as the present debate does not seem to be heading anywhere good. The root is what looks like a good faith content dispute so I don't see any reason why mediation can't fix it. Guy (Help!) 11:46, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Since the unblock in 2007, there have been quite a few incidents, including at least one admin board interest per month this season:
 * October 2009: Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive569 and Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive572
 * November 2009: Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive576
 * December 2009: Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring and of course this current thread
 * Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 16:32, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Endorse. Per above. If this disruptive behavior isn't going to stop, then the user should be blocked. - F ASTILY  (<font color="#008000">T ALK ) 20:00, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Ordinarily I'd agree but here we see a long-standing pattern of problem behaviour, a significant period of evident reform, and then what looks like a slide towards recidivism. I think we should try some kind of parole first before we simply give up on the guy. Guy (Help!) 21:36, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Just because he wasn't banned for two years doesn't mean he was reformed. There has been at least 4 ANI discussions about him (besides the ones linked above) just in the past few months.  here   are several just from October. Wwehurricane1 (talk) 00:30, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Is there a reason no one bothered to inform me of this discussion so I could defend myself? First, to the first user: I was not trying to b uncivil and I apologize if they thought I was (I don't think I was). I asked him why he was assuming he knew my thought on something and I jokingly asked him if he knew what happens when you assume (the old adage that "when you assume, you make an ass out of u and me"); I wasn't trying to be rude. The Sarah Palin thing wasn't incivil and came after I had to ask him something 3 times before he answered (referring to how Palin always tries to avoid answering questions and instead comments on something unrelated). As for Will's comment about refusing to accept consensus, I stopped doing the activities mentioned in that report. As for my block log, thanks to the IP for pointing that out; the admin who was responsible for most of them (including the indef block) eventually got de-sysopped for his actions torwards me and others.  TJ   Spyke   00:47, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Because User talk:TJ Spyke, wasn't notice enough? and the Sarah Palin crack really wasn't necessary, I still gave you the answer you requested and you responded by being uncivil and cracking an unnecessary joke. Afro  Talkie Talk - Afkatk 00:50, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose Indef block Per GWH and above. The links provided show somewhat heated disputes, but nothing that rises to the level of indefinite blockage. -- Unquestionable Truth -- 00:18, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose any block It would appear to me that the crux of this issue is the afore mentioned AfD discussion. A number of people have been badgering TJ (without being uncivil just for the record) and I note that a couple involved - including the OP of this incident - were involved in this. I suggest that TJ has been provoked by the opinion pushing of others, who should perhaps review their own behaviour before having a go at TJ's. As the old saying goes; "It takes two to tango".  !! Just a Punk !!  05:22, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose any block There have been several times that I have disagreed with TJ Spyke (including during an AfD that is currently active). He is firm in his opinions and often blunt. Despite having had several disagreements, however, I have never had any negative interactions with him. A block would be harmful to Wikipedia, as his actions don't justify it, and blocking a productive contributor without just cause makes no sense. GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:34, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose any block Has done really nothing wrong just trying to prove his points. Also if he gets blocked for these reasons I should be too because i've done this before. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Curtis23 (talk • contribs) 02:02, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Considering the LONG list of warnings on your talkpage, I'm sure TJ appreciates your support, Curtis, lol. Wwehurricane1 (talk) 02:42, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose indef block - At this time. User has demonstrated a pattern of worrisome conduct, but little recently. If the community would like to impose a block for any recent activity, I will support, but I am not aware of any precedent in which a user has been indef blocked after more than a year, after having contributed successfully to the encyclopedia. Sephiroth storm (talk) 14:30, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm just gonna drop this since obviously consensus for what it seems is against any type of block against TJ (at least what I can make out) so I don't see any type of reason to continue this discussion, sorry if I've wasted anyones time. Afro  ( Not a Talk Page ) - Afkatk 10:10, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Misuse of userpage User:Pbalajula?
This userpage seems to violate the normal purpose for a userpage. The editor makes no edits to Wikipedia and has created this autobiography, including external links and categories. It has been edited by these accounts:







The page only mentions Peter Balajula once and spends the rest of the space dealing with Ted Failon, who is apparently under investigation for shooting his wife, and this is unsourced information.

If this user (or Ted Failon) is currently in Saudi Arabia and is trying to bring their userpage into compliance as a normal userpage, or to fix a BLP violation, then they should probably be allowed to do so. Since they make no edits to Wikipedia, it might even be better to delete the page completely.

This actually brings up a related issue. If someone doesn't edit here, they have no right to host a userpage here. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:39, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Which is why WP:MFD exists. Collect (talk) 15:58, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Isn't it a custom to notify users of an ANI discussion? Otherwise, they may find their page deleted suddenly.  The user page use of categories at the bottom is questionable to me.  I thought categories were for articles. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 16:11, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Notice given. Cirt (talk) 16:14, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I was bold and removed the categories and interwiki's that are intended for articles only. (<font style="font-variant:small-caps">talk→  BWilkins  <font style="font-variant:small-caps">←track ) 16:18, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * While the shooting of his wife is unsourced on the user page it is sourced in the Ted Failon article. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 07:19, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Something still needs to be done about this page. Wikipedia isn't a free webhosting service. If someone doesn't edit here, they have no right to host a userpage here. The page should be blanked. If the user decides to edit, they're welcome to create a proper userpage, one that doesn't pretend to be a mainspace article with unsourced content about someone else. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:57, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, hands up anyone who wants to discuss.....
''This is not the appropriate forum for this discussion. I'm moving this discussion to the miscellaneous village pump), specifically Village pump (miscellaneous). Happy holidays! --MZMcBride (talk) 07:28, 23 December 2009 (UTC)''

Persistent personal attacks by 71.125.130.14
An IP user (who I strongly suspect to be a previously blocked editor) is posting a series of vitriolic personal attacks against various editors on a number of pages, including his own user talk page:


 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 

He has been asked by another editor to desist from personal attacks, but his response was to call that editor a "WikiNazi Watermelon prevaricative putz". I suggest a block, since he clearly has no intention of being civil. -- ChrisO (talk) 15:22, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * You gotta admit "WikiNazi Watermelon" has a nice surrealistic ring to it, but... yeah. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:26, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Blocked for two weeks. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:27, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * What the heck is "watermelon" supposed to mean as an insult, anyway? -- ChrisO (talk) 15:34, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I suspect its green on the outside, red on the inside. And I disagree with Boris - for proper surrealism, it would need a double alliteration ("WikiNazi WaterNelon" - again, we see the failing of the English language...) --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:37, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That would end up in some ways as a triple alliteration ... I assume they were going for the WikiNazi Watermelon prevaricative putz double play. (<font style="font-variant:small-caps">talk→  BWilkins  <font style="font-variant:small-caps">←track ) 15:41, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think we have a winner for "least persuasive unblock request of the year"... -- ChrisO (talk) 15:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * National socialism combined with eco-socialism? That makes absolutely no sense! –MuZemike 17:50, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Of course it does. Us fascist communists even have our own symbol. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:47, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The sickle and the can opener??? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:45, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks like it...if not...what is it? <b style="color:#009900;">Ks0stm</b> (T•C•G) 05:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * See Fasces. Viriditas (talk) 06:54, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

The Legendary Sky Attacker
Please take a look at User talk:The Legendary Sky Attacker. My actions there are on advice from the Samaritans who I have been in contact with by telephone. If there is anything else I should be doing, please let me know, by e-mail if necessary.  Sp in ni ng  Spark  10:38, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Er, it says he has a heart condition. There's no suggestion of suicide or anything, why lock it down and/or contact the Samaritans? (<font style="font-variant:small-caps">talk→   BWilkins  <font style="font-variant:small-caps">←track ) 10:42, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "I am going to end it here". <font style="color:#999933;"> GARDEN 10:44, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm, where I come from that means "I'm going to stop posting on Wikipedia", based on the context. Those suggesting suicide say "end it all". (<font style="font-variant:small-caps">talk→   BWilkins  <font style="font-variant:small-caps">←track ) 10:47, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The fact that he knows he "won't see another Christmas Day"... but whatever. I'm not going to threaten his dignity by continuing this discussion. <font style="color:#339999;"> GARDEN 10:49, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think what's more of an indignity is if someone was told by their Doctor that their heart is not going to make it (as per the same talkpage), and someone assumes their parting message (although possibly cryptic) is one of suicide and locks their talkpage down. That's a long-lasting tribute, isn't it. (<font style="font-variant:small-caps">talk→  BWilkins  <font style="font-variant:small-caps">←track ) 10:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Whatever. <font style="color:#000000;"> GARDEN 11:06, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I left a note on his talk page, that gave him condolences if it is something he can't prevent, and if he's thinking about suicide to call me. I think this is a rather dignified way of trying to help out. —<small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;"><big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee // <font color="#090">have a cup  // <font color="#4682b4">ark  // 11:27, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Is there any way to contact the local authorities? Do we know where he lives? --<small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;"><big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee // <font color="#090">have a cup  // <font color="#4682b4">ark  // 10:52, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to contact a Checkuser at the moment. It's best if we take this as a possible suicide threat, just to be safe. --<small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;"><big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee // <font color="#090">have a cup  // <font color="#4682b4">ark  // 11:02, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I am tending to interpret this as terminally ill and not suicidal, however, I see where people are concerned about ambiguity. The best-practices essay at WP:SUICIDE basically says that if anyone feels it may be suicide, they can act by reporting to authorities.  If this concerns you, report it.  I would recommend contacting the user in email to ask their side of the story, if you're also contacting authorities.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 11:27, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The only problem we're running into right now is contacting him. He doesn't have email set, and there are no checkusers to get a hold of his IP. I'm well aware of how to try to handle suicides, per the Air Force trying to give us a lot of training on that. —<small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;"><big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee // <font color="#090">have a cup  // <font color="#4682b4">ark  // 11:30, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, this is a person who is either school-aged or who has at times edited from a school. He's not in the US or UK.  I would be willing to release the country and city to a trusted admin who is willing to contact the authorities, but the IP itself will only be released to the proper authorities.  You can email me via special:emailuser. Thatcher 12:16, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm currently contacting the authorities. --<small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;"><big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee // <font color="#090">have a cup  // <font color="#4682b4">ark  // 12:35, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

NOOOOOO! WHAT ARE YOU DOING?
DON'T MAKE SUCH A FUSS! There is absolutley nothing that can be done. I am NOT suicidal. I have a heart failure (A MEDICAL CONDITION) and there is nothing that can be done. DON'T CONTACT ANYBODY! THIS IS A PRIVATE REAL LIFE ISSUE! The only reason I posted on my talk page was for the sole puropse of explaining my soon-forever absense from Wikipedia. An above post was right. I am not going to make it! PLEASE if you have contacted any authorities call it off. They are wasting their time. You are wasting your time. It is not worth fussing over. I am in a severe medical state and I'm going to have two days left to live. THAT IS IT! NOTHING ELSE! I don't want everone stressing over this. It will just be a sudden heart failure and my real life people will take care of the fussing. Can someone please supress this section. Permanantly delete all the edits. There is no need for this.--<b style="font-family:Rockwell; color:blue;">Sky Attacker</b>   the legend reborn...  20:01, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Blocked
I hate to inform everyone, but either this account was compromised or this is just Münchausen by Internet by Sky Attacker. The police went to his home, and they asked if he made the comments, the police told me, that he and his mother were fine and that they claimed not to have made the edits. Therefore I blocked both of his accounts, until further notice. --<small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;"><big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee // <font color="#090">have a cup  // <font color="#4682b4">ark  // 23:23, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * This is why contacting the police is almost always a bad idea, and blocking or ignoring is almost always a good idea. Prodego  <sup style="color:darkgreen;">talk  02:44, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it was still a good call to play it safe. For lack of a better term, "play it safe, just in case". <b style="color:#009900;">Ks0stm</b> (T•C•G) 04:37, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not such a bad idea to call the cops. It might make things a little more real for the guy. Meanwhile, he apparently pulled this same stunt in October. Maybe he's got longer than he thinks. Like the one about the guy whose doctor gave him six months to live. The guy couldn't pay his bills, so the doctor gave him another six months. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:43, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * As noted in WP:SUICIDE - Police really don't mind making such visits and finding out nothing is really wrong. They'd much rather do ten of those type of visits than the one where nobody bothered to make a call and someone's dead now.
 * Not everyone agrees with this, but that's ok. We don't need to turn Wikipedia into a nanny state.  We just need enough of us to use good judgement and be willing to dig a bit and respond if something worries us enough.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:03, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Is the account really compromised? It doesn't look like it to me. Do we block users for being attention seekers? (though I do note the essay WP:NOTTHERAPY) What about the request from Sky Attacker above (before being blocked) to suppress this whole episode? Fences  &amp;  Windows  13:48, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Suppression works on some very specific terms, and I don't think this is one of them. I think the best move here is to simply let it go. Throwaway85 (talk) 14:50, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * He told the police he didn't make the edits, so there is a possibility of a compromised account. We don't suppress everything people want suppressed, this definitely does not deserve suppression, and we don't know if that's him asking for it to be suppressed anyway. --<small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;"><big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee // <font color="#090">have a cup  // <font color="#4682b4">ark  // 14:59, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Fences and Windows--I read that "request" as either a) the compromiser of the account trying to keep Sky from finding out his account was hijacked--nothing more informative than to have the police knock on your door and tell you you've supposedly got two days to live, per the Internet--or b) Sky himself, reluctant to have real life intrude on his plan for a WP-only pity-fest. I mean, it's one thing to have people grieving all over your user page; it's something else entirely to have the cops come to your house about it. (Also, to Throwaway and Coffee--I don't think F&W meant "suppress" in the Wiki sense; I think it was being used like the rest of the world uses it, as in "to gloss over the whole issue".) GJC 15:07, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I did mean 'suppress' in the Wikipedia sense: I wasn't advocating for it, I was just raising it as we've had the police arrive at someone's house, so I wondered whether the request for privacy should be honoured. As for denying to the police having made edits, if the police arrived at my door asking about my editing of Wikipedia I might not tell them the truth, especially if it was embarrassing. I'm guessing Gladys' scenario B is the more likely, especially as they dramatically 'left' Wikipedia once already in October. Anyhow, Sky Attacker can try to explain and request an unblock on their talk page if they wish, so we can probably archive this. Fences  &amp;  Windows  15:34, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Yes, archive ASAP. Which is more embarassing: Perhaps we should just collapse this entire thread and let it fade until SkyAttacker shows their face again. (<font style="font-variant:small-caps">talk→  BWilkins  <font style="font-variant:small-caps">←track ) 16:46, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * making an unclear statement that was intepreted as an intent to self-mutilate
 * having the cops come by and talk to you and your mom about editing Wikipedia
 * perhaps having a real heart condition that now is being looked at as maybe/maybe not real

Problematic editor - User:Drake600
has been a registered editor for almost a year. In that time he has created a number of promotional company stubs, all of which have been inevitably speedied - his talk page is just a string of speedy deletion notices. Out of almost 300 contributions, only around ten are actually legit. Even worse, he is prone to hoaxes - inserting false information, usually "Anton Vassilenko" (his own name?) as a key person in company articles, several of which I found while writing this report, , , (some as IP's, , ). Quick googling shows that "Anton Vassilenko" is a guy in his twenties from Narva, not a worldwide famous CEO/composer. Some of the hoaxes have successfully been in articles since the start of 2009.

His latest creation - - had a look of legit company; if I hadn't been familiar with the user (and his fixation on word "Montek") I might have passed it as a legit article. Even the company home page looks nice and professional - and you have to dig deeper to realize it is just a standard Joomla installation on a free webhost.

As Drake600 is obviously just a throwaway account, there is little point to block him. IP's are dynamic and require just a cable modem reboot to change. Adding filters for "Anton Vassilenko" would be good, but Montek is a common Indian name. So I am at loss of what we can do.
 * -- Sander Säde 09:23, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

There is that one issue of sockpuppetry, which might be worthy of an sockpuppet investigation. Otherwise he needs to be warned or blocked for disruptive editing. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 14:20, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd support an indefinite block for this account, they were warned and blocked for creating such articles in July, but have persisted. Fences  &amp;  Windows  15:17, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed,and so blocked. Not marking this resolved, though based on the other issues raised. Jclemens (talk) 17:52, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Possible Plagarism: Emily West Morgan
I found a plagarism concern and am not sure how to proceed.

Comparing the article Emily West Morgan to this Texas A&M article. I found some identical text and other pieces of text that are almost the same with only some superficial changes. The A&M article appears to be original work (it even cites various references which the WP article does not) so I have no reason to think that that author copied from WP. I have left comments about this on the talk page.

What should be done?

Thanks.

--Mcorazao (talk) 16:02, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, the first question is whether it represents plagiarism (a non-emergency) or copyright infringement, which must be handled immediately. When the article was created,, it was substantially more similar to that external source. The article was created in June, 2005, but the oldest archive is February 2007 for the external site. That doesn't mean we didn't copy it from them. Evidence strongly suggests we did, as they would have had to have taken the text from us in the first month of its creation, before it was substantially changed: . There is nothing at that external site to indicate it is not copyrighted; copyright is presumptive. Though the article has been changed, it seems likely to be an unauthorized derivative work. When copying is blatant, we tag with db-g12. When it isn't, we use {{subst:copyvio}} and list it for closure at Copyright problems. This permits time for verification of compatible license or for interested contributors to salvage the article with new content in temporary space. I'll tag this one pending clarification. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:27, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

The Legendary Sky Attacker
Please take a look at User talk:The Legendary Sky Attacker. My actions there are on advice from the Samaritans who I have been in contact with by telephone. If there is anything else I should be doing, please let me know, by e-mail if necessary.  Sp in ni ng  Spark  10:38, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Er, it says he has a heart condition. There's no suggestion of suicide or anything, why lock it down and/or contact the Samaritans? (<font style="font-variant:small-caps">talk→   BWilkins  <font style="font-variant:small-caps">←track ) 10:42, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "I am going to end it here". <font style="color:#999933;"> GARDEN 10:44, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm, where I come from that means "I'm going to stop posting on Wikipedia", based on the context. Those suggesting suicide say "end it all". (<font style="font-variant:small-caps">talk→   BWilkins  <font style="font-variant:small-caps">←track ) 10:47, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The fact that he knows he "won't see another Christmas Day"... but whatever. I'm not going to threaten his dignity by continuing this discussion. <font style="color:#339999;"> GARDEN 10:49, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think what's more of an indignity is if someone was told by their Doctor that their heart is not going to make it (as per the same talkpage), and someone assumes their parting message (although possibly cryptic) is one of suicide and locks their talkpage down. That's a long-lasting tribute, isn't it. (<font style="font-variant:small-caps">talk→  BWilkins  <font style="font-variant:small-caps">←track ) 10:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Whatever. <font style="color:#000000;"> GARDEN 11:06, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I left a note on his talk page, that gave him condolences if it is something he can't prevent, and if he's thinking about suicide to call me. I think this is a rather dignified way of trying to help out. —<small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;"><big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee // <font color="#090">have a cup  // <font color="#4682b4">ark  // 11:27, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Is there any way to contact the local authorities? Do we know where he lives? --<small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;"><big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee // <font color="#090">have a cup  // <font color="#4682b4">ark  // 10:52, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to contact a Checkuser at the moment. It's best if we take this as a possible suicide threat, just to be safe. --<small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;"><big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee // <font color="#090">have a cup  // <font color="#4682b4">ark  // 11:02, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I am tending to interpret this as terminally ill and not suicidal, however, I see where people are concerned about ambiguity. The best-practices essay at WP:SUICIDE basically says that if anyone feels it may be suicide, they can act by reporting to authorities.  If this concerns you, report it.  I would recommend contacting the user in email to ask their side of the story, if you're also contacting authorities.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 11:27, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The only problem we're running into right now is contacting him. He doesn't have email set, and there are no checkusers to get a hold of his IP. I'm well aware of how to try to handle suicides, per the Air Force trying to give us a lot of training on that. —<small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;"><big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee // <font color="#090">have a cup  // <font color="#4682b4">ark  // 11:30, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, this is a person who is either school-aged or who has at times edited from a school. He's not in the US or UK.  I would be willing to release the country and city to a trusted admin who is willing to contact the authorities, but the IP itself will only be released to the proper authorities.  You can email me via special:emailuser. Thatcher 12:16, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm currently contacting the authorities. --<small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;"><big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee // <font color="#090">have a cup  // <font color="#4682b4">ark  // 12:35, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

NOOOOOO! WHAT ARE YOU DOING?
DON'T MAKE SUCH A FUSS! There is absolutley nothing that can be done. I am NOT suicidal. I have a heart failure (A MEDICAL CONDITION) and there is nothing that can be done. DON'T CONTACT ANYBODY! THIS IS A PRIVATE REAL LIFE ISSUE! The only reason I posted on my talk page was for the sole puropse of explaining my soon-forever absense from Wikipedia. An above post was right. I am not going to make it! PLEASE if you have contacted any authorities call it off. They are wasting their time. You are wasting your time. It is not worth fussing over. I am in a severe medical state and I'm going to have two days left to live. THAT IS IT! NOTHING ELSE! I don't want everone stressing over this. It will just be a sudden heart failure and my real life people will take care of the fussing. Can someone please supress this section. Permanantly delete all the edits. There is no need for this.--<b style="font-family:Rockwell; color:blue;">Sky Attacker</b>   the legend reborn...  20:01, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Blocked
I hate to inform everyone, but either this account was compromised or this is just Münchausen by Internet by Sky Attacker. The police went to his home, and they asked if he made the comments, the police told me, that he and his mother were fine and that they claimed not to have made the edits. Therefore I blocked both of his accounts, until further notice. --<small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;"><big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee // <font color="#090">have a cup  // <font color="#4682b4">ark  // 23:23, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * This is why contacting the police is almost always a bad idea, and blocking or ignoring is almost always a good idea. Prodego  <sup style="color:darkgreen;">talk  02:44, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it was still a good call to play it safe. For lack of a better term, "play it safe, just in case". <b style="color:#009900;">Ks0stm</b> (T•C•G) 04:37, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not such a bad idea to call the cops. It might make things a little more real for the guy. Meanwhile, he apparently pulled this same stunt in October. Maybe he's got longer than he thinks. Like the one about the guy whose doctor gave him six months to live. The guy couldn't pay his bills, so the doctor gave him another six months. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:43, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * As noted in WP:SUICIDE - Police really don't mind making such visits and finding out nothing is really wrong. They'd much rather do ten of those type of visits than the one where nobody bothered to make a call and someone's dead now.
 * Not everyone agrees with this, but that's ok. We don't need to turn Wikipedia into a nanny state.  We just need enough of us to use good judgement and be willing to dig a bit and respond if something worries us enough.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:03, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Is the account really compromised? It doesn't look like it to me. Do we block users for being attention seekers? (though I do note the essay WP:NOTTHERAPY) What about the request from Sky Attacker above (before being blocked) to suppress this whole episode? Fences  &amp;  Windows  13:48, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Suppression works on some very specific terms, and I don't think this is one of them. I think the best move here is to simply let it go. Throwaway85 (talk) 14:50, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * He told the police he didn't make the edits, so there is a possibility of a compromised account. We don't suppress everything people want suppressed, this definitely does not deserve suppression, and we don't know if that's him asking for it to be suppressed anyway. --<small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;"><big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee // <font color="#090">have a cup  // <font color="#4682b4">ark  // 14:59, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Fences and Windows--I read that "request" as either a) the compromiser of the account trying to keep Sky from finding out his account was hijacked--nothing more informative than to have the police knock on your door and tell you you've supposedly got two days to live, per the Internet--or b) Sky himself, reluctant to have real life intrude on his plan for a WP-only pity-fest. I mean, it's one thing to have people grieving all over your user page; it's something else entirely to have the cops come to your house about it. (Also, to Throwaway and Coffee--I don't think F&W meant "suppress" in the Wiki sense; I think it was being used like the rest of the world uses it, as in "to gloss over the whole issue".) GJC 15:07, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I did mean 'suppress' in the Wikipedia sense: I wasn't advocating for it, I was just raising it as we've had the police arrive at someone's house, so I wondered whether the request for privacy should be honoured. As for denying to the police having made edits, if the police arrived at my door asking about my editing of Wikipedia I might not tell them the truth, especially if it was embarrassing. I'm guessing Gladys' scenario B is the more likely, especially as they dramatically 'left' Wikipedia once already in October. Anyhow, Sky Attacker can try to explain and request an unblock on their talk page if they wish, so we can probably archive this. Fences  &amp;  Windows  15:34, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Yes, archive ASAP. Which is more embarassing: Perhaps we should just collapse this entire thread and let it fade until SkyAttacker shows their face again. (<font style="font-variant:small-caps">talk→  BWilkins  <font style="font-variant:small-caps">←track ) 16:46, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * making an unclear statement that was intepreted as an intent to self-mutilate
 * having the cops come by and talk to you and your mom about editing Wikipedia
 * perhaps having a real heart condition that now is being looked at as maybe/maybe not real

Problematic editor - User:Drake600
has been a registered editor for almost a year. In that time he has created a number of promotional company stubs, all of which have been inevitably speedied - his talk page is just a string of speedy deletion notices. Out of almost 300 contributions, only around ten are actually legit. Even worse, he is prone to hoaxes - inserting false information, usually "Anton Vassilenko" (his own name?) as a key person in company articles, several of which I found while writing this report, , , (some as IP's, , ). Quick googling shows that "Anton Vassilenko" is a guy in his twenties from Narva, not a worldwide famous CEO/composer. Some of the hoaxes have successfully been in articles since the start of 2009.

His latest creation - - had a look of legit company; if I hadn't been familiar with the user (and his fixation on word "Montek") I might have passed it as a legit article. Even the company home page looks nice and professional - and you have to dig deeper to realize it is just a standard Joomla installation on a free webhost.

As Drake600 is obviously just a throwaway account, there is little point to block him. IP's are dynamic and require just a cable modem reboot to change. Adding filters for "Anton Vassilenko" would be good, but Montek is a common Indian name. So I am at loss of what we can do.
 * -- Sander Säde 09:23, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

There is that one issue of sockpuppetry, which might be worthy of an sockpuppet investigation. Otherwise he needs to be warned or blocked for disruptive editing. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 14:20, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd support an indefinite block for this account, they were warned and blocked for creating such articles in July, but have persisted. Fences  &amp;  Windows  15:17, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed,and so blocked. Not marking this resolved, though based on the other issues raised. Jclemens (talk) 17:52, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Possible Plagarism: Emily West Morgan
I found a plagarism concern and am not sure how to proceed.

Comparing the article Emily West Morgan to this Texas A&M article. I found some identical text and other pieces of text that are almost the same with only some superficial changes. The A&M article appears to be original work (it even cites various references which the WP article does not) so I have no reason to think that that author copied from WP. I have left comments about this on the talk page.

What should be done?

Thanks.

--Mcorazao (talk) 16:02, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, the first question is whether it represents plagiarism (a non-emergency) or copyright infringement, which must be handled immediately. When the article was created,, it was substantially more similar to that external source. The article was created in June, 2005, but the oldest archive is February 2007 for the external site. That doesn't mean we didn't copy it from them. Evidence strongly suggests we did, as they would have had to have taken the text from us in the first month of its creation, before it was substantially changed: . There is nothing at that external site to indicate it is not copyrighted; copyright is presumptive. Though the article has been changed, it seems likely to be an unauthorized derivative work. When copying is blatant, we tag with db-g12. When it isn't, we use {{subst:copyvio}} and list it for closure at Copyright problems. This permits time for verification of compatible license or for interested contributors to salvage the article with new content in temporary space. I'll tag this one pending clarification. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:27, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Banned user on a rampage - Urgent action needed
The contribs log and edit summaries says it all. This is a sock of banned User:Shuppiluliuma. Not a day goes by without him socking through some new IP. See also  Can someone range block this clown? --Athenean (talk) 20:59, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Give him a 'range block'. GoodDay (talk) 21:04, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Blocked some accounts / IPs. Bit early for a rangeblock yet, but it's possible - A l is o n  ❤ 21:09, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Every day it's the same thing. He just hops to another 151.57 IP and starts again.  Yesterday it was this one, tomorrow it will be another one.  I don't think anything other than a rangeblock will do.  --Athenean (talk) 21:12, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * There, he's at it again . --Athenean (talk) 21:13, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Now that he's seen this report, it'll likely increase. GoodDay (talk) 21:16, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Why not produce some sort of edit filter that prevents any edit from being made with a certain string of words that he likes to place in the edit summary?— Ryūlóng (<font color="Gold">竜龙 ) 21:19, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Like "Gayreece" - that's actually really lame :( - A l is o n  ❤ 21:21, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I wasn't going to say it, but I don't think anyone needs to write "Gayree*" ever on the project.— Ryūlóng (<font color="Gold">竜龙 ) 21:23, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You'd be surprised. Apparently Gayree is a woman's first name.  Maybe one of them will become notable... - Wikidemon (talk) 21:34, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Softblocking 151.57.128.0/17 for a few weeks. See how it goes - A l is o n  ❤ 21:21, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Not unusual behavior for this sort of creature. Frankly, all they're doing by proxy-hopping is giving us more proxies to block. Half  Shadow  21:22, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * So when I went to block, I discovered that it just came from a 6-month softblock, hence the mayhem. 6 months re-instated, so - A l is o n  ❤ 21:23, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Jojhutton
In early December, User:Jojhutton began removing "United States" (both the link and the text) from articles, primarily geographical articles about cities, townships, et cetera, but also from biographical and other articles. He was quickly questioned about this on his talk page, and in the ensuing discussions he often cited WP:PLACE, sometimes referring to WP:PLACE. He was informed again and again that this guideline is about naming conventions, and that nowhere in that guideline (or any other policy or guideline that has been identified so far) is there a call for the removal of "United States" from the infoboxes or bodies of articles. The principle stated by many opposing editors (including myself) has been that in an international encyclopedia, articles about people and things in the United States should not assume that the reader knows which country is involved, but should specify the country consistently. However, he has doggedly continued to remove this information from articles (albeit a small number of articles thus far), even after a public discussion at the Village pump. His practice, when questioned about this on his talk page, has been to archive discussions using the "hat" template, so as to "close" the discussions, thus indicating that he is not willing to discuss any further. So far, it appears that at least 11 editors have questioned him on this on his talk page since December 7, and that no one has supported him; additional editors disagreed with him in the village pump discussion. This seems to have had no effect, as the edits continue through today, December 19. He is a well-established editor, and I believe his edits are typically of good quality. It's just that with this particular issue, he believes that various (non-Wikipedia) manuals of style tell him to remove the country, and he seems determined to do so in spite of opposition from many other editors, lack of support from any other editors, and the lack of supporting Wikipedia policies or guidelines that anyone can find; so far he has not cited any that stand up under scrutiny. What makes it worse is that in these discussions he has had a tendency to accuse other editors of wikilawyering, gaming the system, stalking, et cetera and using sarcasm and insults; and he resorts to these devices very quickly. He accused one editor of stalking after a single isolated revert. I have repeatedly asked him to discuss this and have remained civil throughout; but I'm not sure what else to do, so I am mentioning it here. Thanks. Omnedon (talk) 17:14, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Relevant related discussions:
 * in this ANI archive about Jojhutton
 * this long section in Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names)
 * talk:MOS
 * Toddst1 (talk) 19:40, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * It looks like a content dispute that has sparked a minor amount of edit warring and incivility. Forgive me if I'm a little bit green on this particular issue, but as a style / content matter there seems to be no absolute rule or overwhelming consensus to include "United States" in place names within an article and in infoboxes, when the lede has already clearly established that the setting is the United States.  Sure there are strong arguments on both sides.  The proponents claim it is America-centrism and disrespectful of non-American readers to assume they know something is in America, or to have different rules for American place names that seem to assert that the United States is some kind of default location when the country is unnamed.  The opponents claim that articles should be written for clarity, not to encourage equality among nations, and everybody knows which country we're talking about when we say that someplace is a city in California.  The outcome of those discussions isn't really relevant.  You can't legislate consensus from a guideline page.  What's relevant is that consensus is not so clear that choosing one versus the other is anything other than a content choice.  Like a lot of style choices (American versus British spelling, punctuation inside versus outside the quotes, citation styles) deference should be paid to status quo, the opinions of regular editors on an article, and consistency among related articles or within a project.  Making mass changes or mass reverts just to enforce your favored version is disruptive and can lead to lots of wikidrama.  So best not to do this on either side, just stick to the articles you enjoy editing.  I sympathize with Jojhutton's frustration, but calling it "stalking" is unduly inflamatory. Technically it is not stalking.  Stalking is when you follow someone from one article to another to pursue a grudge.  By contrast, noticing one bad edit, then checking up on the editor's other recent activity to see if it's a pattern, is only good wikignoming.  The problem here is that Jojhutton's edits are not clearly wrong, so reverting them en masse is provocative.  If someone really wants to add, or remove, or link or delink, the country name "United States" from a bunch of article bodies and infoboxes, they need to get a strong prior consensus not only that this is the correct way to go style-wise, but that the mass edits are a good idea.  Best to get approval for a semi-automated bot or the like.  But this is such a tiny issue.  The two editors have been reverting each other to 1RR or maybe 2 on perhaps five or six articles in the past few days.  Administrative mediation could be useful, but I don't see anything warranting sanctions here.  Just my opinion.  - Wikidemon (talk) 21:30, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It began as a content dispute, and content is still at the heart of it, but the issue now seems to be a refusal by User:Jojhutton to accept that every time he makes an edit to remove "U.S", someone disputes it.  Not always the same editor, so it's not a simple matter of two editors disagreeing.  The issue as I see it, is that User:Jojhutton has an opinion that the United States is redundant when discussing a place name for a United States town or city and his contention is that it should be presented as "City/State".   He's entitled to his opinion, but his opinion should not and does not carry any more weight than that of any other editor.   It has moved from a content dispute because, he has used WP:Place as justification for removal, and although every editor who has commented has said either strongly or weakly that he is misinterpreting that part of the guideline he has dug in his heels, told everyone they are wrong, and has continued to use it as justification.  You say, "The problem here is that Jojhutton's edits are not clearly wrong, so reverting them en masse is provocative."   I would say that Jojhutton's edits in the face of opposition, and without anything resembling consensus is more provocative.  I've been concerned mainly with the use in the infobox, rather than the article body.   I've pointed out to him that several infobox instructions explicitly state to use the "City/State/Country" format, with no exception made for "U.S." and I've also given numerous examples of WP:FAs that use this format.   I've also pointed out that consensus is not always achieved by a formal discussion, and often consensus is indicated by the fact that something exists, is used commonly over time over a wide area, and has remained without opposition, which is the case for at least the infobox component of this disagreement.  His response has been to say that it's very interesting but still completely wrong.   Clearly there is some kind of consensus in place to say that the use is at least "acceptable" given that it's used widely, and even in featured articles that have been more closely scrutinised than many articles.  He does not need to accept that it is a preferred style, because nobody is suggesting that, but he does need to accept that there is nothing to say it's incorrect, and that editors who choose this style are not wrong.  I'm disturbed that he reacts to some editors as "stalkers".   That's particularly hostile, and in the case of User talk:Omnedon and you need only look at this user's page to see that editing American geographical articles is a primary interest.   I was concerned with this edit at Marilyn Monroe which removed "U.S." from the infobox and added sources with the edit summary "removing original research and adding a ref to support current version"  Having "U.S" in the infobox is not original research.  This suggests that User:Jojhutton is either unfamiliar with or is misinterpreting what is meant by "original research" or is providing a deliberately misleading edit summary. Neither is acceptable.  "United States" was first added to Marilyn Monroe's infobox when the infobox was included with this edit in April 2006.  (Admittedly as "Los Angeles, United States" which is not correct either).   Since April 2006 this has not been a contentious point, and it is only a contentious point now because one editor has decided it's not appropriate.   I believe that due to widespread use, support by infobox template instructions, and the fact the some of Wikipedia's best articles use the country name in the infobox, there is a consensus to say that it is acceptable, and anyone wanting to add this to the infobox should not feel hindered - but there is no such evidence to support the removal.   It is currently, as you say, an issue primarily between two editors, and a small issue, but when User:Jojhutton first started this about a week ago, he got a response from several editors who seem to have moved on now that he is not making such widespread edits.  I would have too, if not for the Marilyn Monroe edit which shows that he has not accepted the other viewpoint, and has put the change through with a dodgy edit summary.  I would hope that is the last time that happens.  Rossrs (talk) 23:25, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I suppose it seems not such a big deal to people who have memorized the names of the US states, their postal abbreviation, etc. and who speak English as a first language. Leaving out "United States" (and it has been removed from the lede in some instances) is not a tiny thing: it encourages confusion and can mislead. Believe it or not, not everyone outside the US knows what an Arizona is or that AZ is its postal abbreviation. Some will think AZ means Azerbaijan, CA Canada, and KY Kenya. Without the country name somewhere obvious, we run the risk of misleading international users. I don't think that's encyclopedic. --NellieBly (talk) 23:03, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Not to mention the fact that there are those who do not understand that New Mexico is part of the US and not Mexico. MarnetteD | Talk 23:15, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * There would be a not-small number of Americans who don't know that either. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:37, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * This being an English encyclopedia, most people who have learned the language know that California is in the United States. Those who have not can probably figure it out from the first sentence of the lede if the article is written properly, e.g. "City National Bank is an American financial institution headquartered in Los Angeles, California", not "City National Bank is an American financial institution headquartered in Los Angeles, California, US".  Anyway, I agree that the arguments are strong on both sides but not unanimous, which makes an isolated edit on the subject a matter of editor discretion, not behavior.  If consensus is clear in a particular area (say, articles about airports, or an infobox, where counter to my earlier statement, a small group of editors maintaining that particular template or family of templates can establish consensus for how the location fields are to be used) and an editor violates that after objections, it could cross the line into tendentious editing.  Also, edit warring is bad, making accusations in edit summaries is bad, and doing mass bold edits over others' oposition outside of one's normal editing space is bad.  Is he on some kind of campaign, or does this just affect articles he's actively editing?  If he's minding his own business on a small number of articles and other editors are ganging up on him outside of their normal editing range, that does approach some kind of hounding.  I'm reminded of the geocoding fights and date delinking, kind of funny that people get so passionate about the details.  It's like, war of the wikignomes!  - Wikidemon (talk) 00:39, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I must point out that I came into this situation after several other editors had already taken issue with Jojhutton's practice of removing "United States" from articles. Those discussions have since been moved into an archive; they started here on 7 December.  There were four such discussions which took place (three of which were "archived" with the "hat" template) before I even became aware of the situation.  I became involved when some articles on my watchlist were similarly edited some days later; these are articles which I've been involved with in the past and which I watch.  Among these were articles for several (but for some reason, not all) townships in Marion County, Indiana, as well as articles for several Indiana towns.  For example, here he removed "United States" from Decatur Township, Marion County, Indiana.  Because of these edits, I calmly questioned the practice on his talk page like many before me, and was quickly accused of wikilawyering and gaming the system.  However, I have not engaged in edit warring with him.


 * So, this is not simply a content dispute between two editors. Rather, it is part of an ongoing pattern in which at least 10 editors (not including myself) have questioned the practice on his talk page over the last couple of weeks and have been met with the same answers over and over without any resolution or progress at all.  The practice itself is not the core issue here; rather, it is the way this particular editor is dealing with the situation.  The validity of the reasons he cites has been questioned again and again, but though he has altered his edit summaries, the edits themselves have continued in the same manner throughout the various discussions (albeit on the same small scale as before).  Given that everyone involved in the discussions on his talk page has disagreed with him, his determination to continue, combined with his tendency toward sarcasm and accusation and his unwillingness to have discussions, shows clear disregard for any kind of consensus-building.  Basically, he seems not to be interested in anyone else's opinions.  Consensus is a frequently-discussed concept on Wikipedia, of course, and its application and methods of development are sometimes vexed questions; personally, I think it's easier to define what consensus is not rather than what it is, and it is certainly not ignoring the well-founded objections of a dozen other editors and pushing on regardless with a dismissive attitude. Omnedon (talk) 05:36, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * "Dismissive" is one way to describe it, but given the accusatory and ridiculing tone in some of Jojhutton's comments, "dismissive" is probably the most tactful way of describing his approach. His frustration is duly noted.  I also note the frustration of those that have attempted to discuss this with him.  Regarding the earlier comment :  "If consensus is clear in a particular area (say, articles about airports, or an infobox, where counter to my earlier statement, a small group of editors maintaining that particular template or family of templates can establish consensus for how the location fields are to be used) and an editor violates that after objections, it could cross the line into tendentious editing." That was exactly what he was doing with some of the actor related infoboxes despite the fact the the infobox itself, supported by  WP:ACTOR says that for birth and death place the format is city,state,country.  Jojhutton removes and reverts against this consensus and the clearly expressed opposition of several editors - this is a behavioural issue which stems from a content/style issue.   If Jojhutton can accept that there is a community based consensus to allow the use of country as acceptable  -not preferred, not mandatory, not standard - just acceptable, there won't be a problem.  If he can also accept that removing against the objections of other editors is unacceptable, again there will be no problem.   That's what we've been trying and failing to achieve over the last week or so.   I believe Jojhutton has the best interests of Wikipedia at heart, but I'm not as confident as he seems to be that he has all the answers on this topic. Rossrs (talk) 06:01, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Since the discussion started here on ANI just yesterday, Jojhutton has continued his practice by removing "United States" from more than 20 articles about places in California, once again citing WP:PLACE in the edit summary. That guideline has been shown again and again to have no bearing whatsoever on what he is doing. He has been questioned repeatedly by many editors on that, yet he is clearly determined to continue anyway. He is continuing to operate against the clearly-voiced objections of many editors. Omnedon (talk) 19:17, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Just wanted to say I share the concerns of Omnedon, Rossrs, Cptnono, Cybercobra, and the various other editors who've been trying to grapple with this problem recently. A couple days back I politely suggested on Jojhutton's talk page that he should refrain from carrying on with these edits, given that it's clearly provoking concern from many editors, none of whom seem to support his campaign.  Unfortunately, he seems intent on ignoring these concerns and just doing his own thing.
 * As others have already pointed out, Jojhutton cites the Place policy when making these cuts, but the policy has been shown to have no bearing on what he's doing. Alternately, he references in discussions and on his talk page "every English language manual of style" as the basis for his activity.  Manuals like the APA or MLA handbooks are certainly fine resources, but a) I see nothing in my own copy of the MLA Handbook that addresses this (and he doesn't cite any specific sections/pages, despite my request), and b) such handbooks don't control Wikipedia content anyway.


 * Various editors' voicing their concerns has so far had no effect. Attempts to engage Jojhutton in debate haven't been fruitful, and reverting the cuts simply prompts him to quickly put the cuts back (often with accusations that the editor is "stalking"), resulting in 3RR violations and edit wars, for which he's already been warned.  Guidance from administrators on this would certainly be appreciated!  Huwmanbeing  &#9728;  &#9733;  20:10, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The addition to the FAQ on his talk page, made while this discussion is taking place, does not inspire an assumption of good faith.  The FAQ seems to anticipate another stream of questions and complaints. The link to  this : "This archived discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style seems to agree that the  convention is (City, State)" seems to overlook that although four editors discussed it, they stopped short of endorsing it as a blanket rule.   It's cherry picking.  There is no mention of the discussions in which his viewpoint is challenged and his edits disputed, such as this discussion, or the several on his talk page and talk page archives, the one at Village Pump or even the one at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)/Archives/2009/December.   It looks a lot like WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.    His talk page is his business, but the FAQ hasn't been added for decoration.    It's a shame to be talking about an editor rather than to an editor, but when an editor appears to have withdrawn from the discussion when there are still things to be resolved,  it doesn't leave a lot of choice. Rossrs (talk) 08:36, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I love how people are always claiming Americans are geographically ignorant, but won't allow the removal of "US" from place names on the grounds that people outside of the US don't know where American cities are located. They attack Americans for wanting to label things like Paris, France as proof of American ignorance, but won't allow the removal of the country name from Paris, Texas, USA (for example) on the grounds that nobody outside of the US could possibly know that Texas is in the US.  Woogee (talk) 22:15, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think removing country names from English speaking countries is a great idea. Surely every English speaker knows perfectly well where Cumbria, Idaho, Iowa, Montana, Nunavut, Otago, Somerset, Taranaki, Tasmania, Victoria, Waikato, and Yukon are. --GRuban (talk) 16:54, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * What? I'm a life-long English speaker and I no idea what/where Otago, Taranaki or Waikato are.  Either way, it's beside the point since this thread is in regard to the actions of an editor and related edits.  Thanks  Huwmanbeing  &#9728;  &#9733;  17:35, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Woogee, there are so many things wrong with that statement that I hardly know where to begin. And no, GRuban, not all English-speaking people automatically know where all of those places are.  But in any case, as has been mentioned, this isn't about content, but about a behavioral problem with an editor. Omnedon (talk) 03:17, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Clearly my attempt at humor failed. Apologies. Carry on. --GRuban (talk) 13:48, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually it did occur to me that you might be joking; but it's hard to tell in text without any other hints. Certainly in my experience (not necessarily here) people have occasionally expressed views to me that I privately considered to be outrageous, yet they were quite serious. Omnedon (talk) 13:59, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I was hoping you were joking GRuban. I've never even heard of Nunavut.   At least one other person took you seriously.   Kinda funny :-)  Rossrs (talk) 20:49, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It would be funny, Rossrs, except that this situation is still continuing. GRuban, with hindsight, it's obvious that you were joking, and I'm sorry I misinterpreted it at the time; I think it was partly because of the association with Jojhutton's behavior, as well as the comment that preceded your joke.  It's hard to understand why an editor would continue making these edits under these circumstances, yet it's happening, and as Rossrs mentions, the editor continues to avoid any substantive discussion, and continues to cite WP:PLACE in his FAQ. Omnedon (talk) 13:36, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I've noticed Jojhutton's continuing cuts too. :( Various editors have asked him to refrain from continuing, have pointed out that WP:Place (which he always cites) doesn't cover them, and certainly doesn't mandate them.  I've tried twice politely on his talk page to make the point that there isn't consensus on this, that carrying on while there's active contention isn't helpful, but to no avail.  Despite already receiving a 3RR warning on this exact issue, he still restores the cuts if anyone tries to undo them.  Advice anyone?  Thanks  Huwmanbeing  &#9728;  &#9733;  23:17, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

BjörnBergman
is blocked on swedish wikipedia, and now he is spamming mine and other swedish administrators english talk page with complete nonsens and requests for unblocking on the swedish wikipedia. Ghostrider (talk) 15:56, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Some clear harassment there with intent to continue in this. "Men ni kommer inte få nån God jul om jag inte får nån avblockering. Jag kommer att tjata och tjata tills du avblockerara mig....Gå och avblockera mig eller sänk min blockering om ni vill ha en god jul." Roughly translated: "But you will not get a Merry Christmas if I am not unblocked. I will nag and nag until you unblock me .... go and unblock me or lower my block if you want a happy Christmas." --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:02, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Looking at his history here, I have blocked him for harassment. This block is for 24 hours, but should likely be lengthened if he resumes. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:18, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * He is now showing the same beaviour on english wikipeda as he did on swedish. With long monoluges demanding unblocking. Ghostrider (talk) 16:40, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe he will get the message this time, although notes like this aren't promising (still with the threats to nag and nag). --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:46, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Easily sorted, just revoke his talk page privilege if he continues to nag. Mjroots (talk) 18:24, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe the time for that just came? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghostrider (talk • contribs) 20:25, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I've indefblocked him and protected his talk page. Enough is enough. Theresa Knott &#124; token threats 23:37, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Backlog at WP:RM
There is a month-long backlog at Requested moves; apologies if this has been mentioned before but I thought someone better be informed :) GiantSnowman 23:10, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Repeated copyvio by User:Distortiondude at Trigintaduonion
On Trigintaduonion, which he started and is under deletion discussion, User:Distortiondude has repeatedly posted copyright material from here. The first time I reverted it  and posted a message on the talk page. He has since twice, and  restored the copyright material, after I and another editor clearly identified it as copyright material.--JohnBlackburne (talk) 23:46, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I've blocked for 48 hours with a block note explaining and asking him to review WP:C. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:40, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

user:JamesBWatson won't leave my user subpage alone
JamesBWatson seems to have some sort of personally vendetta against me. He's going back through all my edits and attempting to make editing quite annoying for me. Specifically, one thing that he has been doing is removing templates from my user page that he doesn't like. I've warned him about this in the edit comments, but he won't stop. I just want him (as well as everyone else) to leave my user subpage alone. The page is User:Bryan.Wade/Bryan.Wade Here is an example edit, but you can just check the history: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3ABryan.Wade%2FBryan.Wade&action=historysubmit&diff=333054441&oldid=332634652 Bryan.Wade (talk) 08:19, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I've advised on his talk page that it is uncourteous (and potentially blockable) to edit-war on other users' user pages, and that there is no policy prohibiting users from awarding themselves silly medals. While I'm at it, I might also advise Bryan.Wade that there are perhaps better uses for his time than awarding himself silly medals. I don't think that there's much else for an admin to do here.   Sandstein   08:44, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I have the following things to say about this
 * I will, since people want me to, let Bryan Wade continue in his silly pretense that he has extensive editing history that he doesn't have.
 * I have not been "going back through all [his] edits and attempting to make editing quite annoying for [him]. I have removed his false claims to have extensive editing history: that is all. Making exaggerated claims is not helpful.
 * Might this have been mentioned on my user talk page first? I would have thought that ANI was for use when direct approach to the editor in question had failed.
 * JamesBWatson (talk) 09:10, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that if we are going to tolerate these bloody silly self awards then we should at least ensure that they they are accurate. Stating that one is "entitled to display (bullshit award)" that implies 7 years editing when that is a barefaced lie helps the project how exactly? I propose that we delete the subpage. Theresa Knott &#124; token threats 09:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * No -- you have the right to lie on your userpage. If I put a userbox for "native speaker of Mongolian" or "born in Zimbabwe" on my page, that's simply what I can do. If I want to embarrass myself when it turns out that I won't even be able to answer "hello" in Mongolian, then so be it. Same with awards. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 09:41, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes but why do we allow people that? It's not just a question of people making themselves look like prats if they want to, it's also a case of other people being deceived. Let's make life easier for newbies and harder for liars by removing said lies when we come across them. Theresa Knott &#124; token threats 09:46, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, if a non-admin put user wikipedia/Administrator on their userpage, I'm fairly sure it would be removed as misleading... Tim Song (talk) 09:51, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * See Essjay controversy for a case of an editor who (1) lied about his qualifications; (2) used those lies as leverage in editing disputes; (3) used them in a magazine interview about Wikipedia; (4) got hired by Wikia; (5) had the whole house of cards collapse, to the considerable embarrassment of Wikipedia, the WMF, and Jimbo Wales. Asserting "the right to lie on your userpage" looks like the seed of that whole tragedy. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 16:28, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Umm. Yes.  But that has nothing to do with pretty badges and bangles on userpages.  I don't think you understand.  We don't have any interest in (nor should we) policing userpage declarations save the rare case when an editor pretends to be an admin.  Where someone is leveraging credentials, faked or otherwise, in a dispute, that is an independent problem. Protonk (talk) 04:50, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I happened to come across this discussion (do not ask me why ;)), and I think that the entire issue could be avoided. Every editor has the right to write that which he/she desires on his/her userpage, and thus it can be controversial to prevent this when specifically asked otherwise on multiple occassions. Taking a different point of view, this is Wikipedia and our long-term goal is to improve articles; not to write our userpages (although it is, of course, nice to do so!). Therefore, although I feel that neither user had malacious intent in his actions (and knowing JamesBWatson, I am sure that he did not (I would be against blocking him)), no action committed really furthured the goals of the encyclopedia. Succintly, I feel that we might as well let people (or other species (who knows what edits Wikipedia!)) do that which they wish unless their actions influence others in a counterproductive or harmful manner. (Disclaimer: I am not an administrator). --<font color="#000000">PS <font color="#000000">T 09:44, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I do think that lying about editing experience is harmful.Theresa Knott &#124; token threats 09:49, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * In this case, you might be right since it's easy to check, but I would not want to have to send in a certified copy of my BFA, birth-certificate, and passport to the wikimedia foundation or whatnot. That's potential deception, too - and we allow it. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 09:54, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * What percentage of the Earth's population have read his userpage? Not that I do not agree with you, but his userpage comprises a small portion of a vast encyclopedia... --<font color="#000000">PS <font color="#000000">T 10:00, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, no. You don't have any "right" to your userpage. Indeed we don't have any "rights" in Wikipedia whatsoever. You volunteer, and are permitted, to participate in an exercise to build an encyclopedia. To help you do that, you are given a userpage. The userpage is to help you build the encyclopedia - and must be used with that aim. Now, since what helps build the encyclopedia is capable of being understood differently by different parts of the community, you are given a wide latitude to decide how you will use the userpage to help the encyclopedia. Valid interpretations of this aim are - to tell us about yourself - to record your interests and wiki experience or "to build community". We don't generally dictate what's allowed or disallowed, because Wikipedians hold different ideas of what uses help the encyclopedia. However, if a particular use is obviously not helping the encyclopedia by any interpretation held by the community, then that use is disallowed. Rights don't come into it at all.--Scott Mac (Doc) 09:54, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "Right" was not meant to be a legal term here. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 09:56, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * In this context it is not a useful term at all.--Scott Mac (Doc) 09:59, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Theresa, lying on userpages "because one has the right to" is disruptive and unhelpful. Any objections to my listing the subpage for deletion? <font color="#C4112F">╟─TreasuryTag► Tellers' wands ─╢ 10:00, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Go for it. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 10:04, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * In real-life, we usually ignore pomposity; why should Wikipedia be any different? --<font color="#000000">PS <font color="#000000">T 10:06, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

(Edit Conflict) While I do not wish to escalate the matter, I notice that Bryan.Wade's award was removed once again... As I said, if he contributes productively to the encyclopedia, it does not really matter what he places in his user page (in my view). I think that the motivation of a potentially valuable editor (I do not know his contributions to Wikipedia articles, but I assume that they are productive) is more important than the prevention of harmless (my opinion, here ;)) self-praise. --<font color="#000000">PS <font color="#000000">T 10:00, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * WP is a broad church of serious editors, practical jokers, sockpuppets and puppetmasters, compulsive liars and people with or without a sense of humour. There are a number of WP editors who, using their userspace, have created fictitious personae for themselves for the amusement of themselves and for others. OTOH, if someone puts misleading or false claims in their Userspace for a purpose which is not as mentioned, it is not to be condoned - they are merely discrediting themselves, as any simple tool will reveal the self-delusional façade they have created is but a sham. I would draw the line at when/if such an editor falsely claims I gave him/her such and such an award, in which case I would feel justified in removing same for it would/could reflect badly on me. Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 10:07, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Page in question listed at WP:MFD. <font color="#00ACF4">╟─TreasuryTag► secretariat ─╢ 10:08, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Quick Comment: Perhaps reading the lead of Service awards may shed light on the matter. <font color="#000000">PS <font color="#000000">T 10:22, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Also ANI/User:Zaferk. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 10:26, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - Are we really discussing this? --<small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;"><big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee // <font color="#090">have a cup  // <font color="#4682b4">ark  // 13:38, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * ANI does make one question reality sometimes. Fences  &amp;  Windows  13:55, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the complete waste of time, Treasury Tag. We just went through this discussion a few weeks ago. Tarc (talk) 16:11, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * If you don't want to discuss it then don't. No one is forcing you to. Theresa Knott &#124; token threats 16:48, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I was referring to the MfD, but If you don't like what I have to say, no one compelled you to comment either. It goes both ways. Tarc (talk) 18:48, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * But I'm not complaining about anything being a waste of time.Theresa Knott &#124; token threats 23:40, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You were complaining about my complaining. Tarc (talk) 04:53, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not clear from that discussion what conclusion, if any, was reached. However, unless something on a user page is a blatant, gross violation of policy, users should not be messing around with other users' pages. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:17, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I congratulate the user:JamesBWatson for having the balls to do what admins should do, delete the moronic self-awards. Small wonder wikipedia is considered more and more a joke. Dr. Loosmark 22:51, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, blatantly posting lies is wrong. Starting edit wars on others' userspace is also wrong. If the page is to be kept, it should have a humor tag added. As far as not permitting content on userpages that don't contribute to the project, one could also argue that barnstars for finding secret pages is a similar problem, however, writing false information about one's self on his/her userpage is somewhat comparable to deliberately writing inaccurate information on a WP:BLP about themself in my opinion; it's deception. <font color="red" face="Comic Sans MS">PCHS-NJROTC <font color="black" face="Comic Sans MS">(Messages) 23:16, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * As for the humor template. Why not!  Bryan.Wade (talk) 23:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "Blatantly posting lies is wrong". When did the morality police get consensus to act on Wikipedia? Do you lot have nothing better to do than harass another user over an unimportant "award"? Go and do something useful. Fences  &amp;  Windows  23:37, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * For some admins, it seems to be job security. Wiki-userpages are like purple hearts y'know.  Seerius Bizness. Tarc (talk) 04:57, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It would be great if we could close this darn thread here. I invite everyone who commented here to comment at the MfD -- let's create a precedent, enshrine it, and forget about it. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 05:04, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

can someone help me with this?
there's a large chicken, begins with k or maybe c. A bit like a poussin is a small chicken. What is it I think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.135.128.159 (talk) 02:40, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Have a browse of Category:Chicken - but ANI is not the place for these types of questions, sorry! Have a look at Reference desk instead. GiantSnowman 02:45, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * File:White Cochin hen.JPG Edit conflict - Do you mean a Cochin (see picture)? And may I recommend trying here next time you have a question like this? Welcome to the Wikipedia community - this is the page where administrators try to resolve issues with Wikipedia itself. Try the ref desk if you have a more general question about a subject, but remember that Wikipedia is not an off topic help desk. - I.M.S. (talk) 02:52, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Best. ANI. Thread. EVAR! -- Scjessey (talk) 02:54, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Cochin? Doesn't look like it.  This chicken is too white.... hmmm... - F ASTILY  (<font color="#FF0000">T ALK ) 03:03, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

File:Polishbantamchick.jpgThis thread makes me very sad. I am a small chicken and yet I matter too. If you prick me do I not squawk? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.83.163.199 (talk) 03:13, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Here, for example, is a Texas-sized chicken: ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:08, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe they're trying to say there's a chicken on the loose in article space, and we need an administrator to catch it. - Wikidemon (talk) 04:19, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

File:Friedchickenbreast.jpg resolved

Hello again
I know this was marked resolved but thought I should let you know have found the word I'm looking for - it's a capon.

File:Millergirl.jpg virus?
This could be a problem: File:Millergirl.jpg. I've tagged it as a WP:CSD but...the mediawiki software reports it as possibly containing malicious code. Could it be a virus? -  F ASTILYsock (T ALK ) 04:50, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Doubtful, but we should probably delete all of 's uploads (no copyright tags, and various other reasons).— Ryūlóng (<font color="Gold">竜龙 ) 04:54, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Although I'm not at home now, I honestly do not want avast! saying "caution caution a freaking virus is being downloaded your computer might just blow up" like it did in this case in this AfD:

Comment – Link removed - indication the link was infected with HTML/Iframe.B.Gen virus ttonyb (talk) 01:44, 22 November 2009 (UTC) Comment: avast! caught that bugger in the process of downloading it as well. I would've posted it if it weren't for the edit conflicts. ConCompS (Talk to me) 01:46, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone want: caution caution a freaking virus has been freaking detected that might blow your computer up

this or something similar? If it blocks your connection, just freaking disable your AV software for a second, delete it, re-enable, you're good to go. And Fastily, what AV do you use? ConCompS (Talk to me) 05:22, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I think I'd rather not delete it until a user with an IT background or anyone who knows how to deal with this kind of stuff takes a look at it; frankly, I'd rather not see my computer not blow up either. I use Norton.  -  F ASTILYsock (T ALK ) 05:31, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, never mind. Thanks for getting it fixed.  -  F ASTILYsock (T ALK ) 05:32, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * (ec) Deleted, as unused, unknown (MS Word ?) non-image file. Haven't checked the users other uploads. Abecedare (talk) 05:33, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

And I wasn't the one fixing it Fastily, it was another admin... whatever. ConCompS (Talk to me) 05:35, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

There was another similar incident recently, see this archive. Honestly, there's no legitimate reason for uploaded images to contain iframe markup, so we ought to be sanitizing it automatically, or else blocking uploads that seem to contain such things. — Gavia immer (talk) 06:12, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Ethnic insult
Ethnic attack by. The advocated account turned to be another sock. Brand[t] 07:38, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Forgive my naivete, but what part of that was an ethnic insult? Is it the "Azeri" bit? If so, could you elaborate on how that is ethnically insulting?  Thanks. Throwaway85 (talk) 09:18, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "A silver bullet for Azeri wolfishness". This is a subject of Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 in particular. Brand[t] 10:00, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the further explanation. Perhaps it's simply due to my unfamiliarity with the conflict, but I don't see the comment as being overly offensive, certainly not moreso than other comments that routinely fly on Wikipedia.  Let's suppose, for the sake of argument, that someone were to say that uti possidetis is the silver bullet for Irish Nationalism, something I'm much more familiar with.  While I could see the comment being inappropriate and inflammatory, I can't really see it being actionable in and of itself.  I'm aware that Meowy has a history of being blocked for personal attacks, but I think this particular instance would have to be part of a larger pattern of anti-azerbijani comments from Meowy for it to warrant anything more than a warning. Throwaway85 (talk) 10:18, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it warrants an administrative warning, given the unveiled groundlessness of the comment, in compliance with both general and arbcom principles. Brand[t] 10:50, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that's fair. If any admin would like to issue a warning, then please feel free to do so. Throwaway85 (talk) 10:56, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, excuse me for being too literate. "Silver bullet for Irish Nationalism". Why would you think silver bullets would be effective against Irish persons? Well, obviously you are making some allusions as to the only effective way to stop werewolves. I could nit-pick and ask what have wolves to do with Ireland? Not so with Azerbaijan. As you say, you are unfamiliar with the subject. Wolves are used as a symbol by those at the extreme end of Turkish and Azeri nationalism (see Grey Wolves for example, and Azerbaijan National Democrat Party). Those same wolfish Azerbaijanis go tediously on and on and on about the "de-jure" status of Nagorno-Karabakh (and certain editors want that phrase to appear on every Wikipedia article that mentions anything connected to Nagorno-Karabakh), but "de jure" is quickly shot down by "uti possidetis". My comment is thus not groundless, uses a completely acceptable metaphor, and would be well understood by those who know the subject. <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS, verdana, sans serif; color:#0088BB;">Meowy 16:31, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd say any metaphor that involves shooting is borderline from the start. I'd certainly consider it threatening. I'd suggest you withdraw the statement. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 17:44, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Of all the many silly comments I've seen on Wikipedia (and there have been a fair few) the above ranks amongst the most silly. So, following exactly the same silly reasoning, I'd say any poster who uses metaphorical phrases like "borderlines" probably has an unnatural interest in ethnicity and the control of populations. I'd certainly consider talk containing such metaphors threatening, just one stage removed from barbed wire fences and genocide. <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS, verdana, sans serif; color:#0088BB;">Meowy 19:27, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

You ask "Why would you think silver bullets would be effective against Irish persons"? Well, contrary to common belief silver bullets will hurt non-werewolves as well and is not a recommended method of distinguishing between Irish and werewolf. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 16:50, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It is also a bit of a waste of money, what with today's sky-high price of precious metals. So, to placate the worried brow of The Hand That Feeds You, I can easily assure him that I have no intention of shooting any Azeris, or werewolves, or vampires, or even the Irish, using real silver bullets. <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS, verdana, sans serif; color:#0088BB;">Meowy 19:40, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

My two cents, since I have been at the receiveing end of so many attacks, insults and slurs by this user. I have a few samples here:

The NY times citation is a fake, there is no such article (all NY times reports for that period are available online, and nothing for Bitlis exists for that date). ... Meowy 02:10, 26 June 2008 (UTC) (It is not!)

BTW, reading that http://louisville.edu/a-s/history/turks/Niles_and_Sutherland.pdf the initial feelings are one of amusement and astonishment that someone could come up with such breathtaking lies.

All you seem interested in doing is inserting out-and-out lies into articles, using as "sources" extreme nationalist Turkish propaganda. Little wonder nobody chooses to engage constructively with you. Meowy 22:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

More skillful propagandists of Hudavendigar's ilk realise that in some articles it is better to let sleeping dogs lie. However, he has chosen to awaken this article, so let's now tear him apart by telling in the article the full horror of the history he wishes to rewrite and whitewash. Meowy 20:54, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

"Editor Murat, the main culprit for this article's lamentable state, has inserted and reinserted a section titled "Armed Armenian Revolts Against Ottoman Rule", which is full of fabrications. There were no "Armed Armenian Revolts Against Ottoman Rule"". Meowy 01:15, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

"your 6Dec post is a POV diatribe that could have come from a card carrying MHP fanatic"..."Your Turkish nationalist propaganda sources"... "straight from a Turkish propaganda website"..."Murat's obscene misuse of the word "revolt""..."which is actually a tawdry pack of lies" Meowy 01:57, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

None of the above have been punished as far as I know. Meowy has proven time and again that he is a disruptive editor, has degraded the quality of wikipedia, considers it an ethnic battleground, throws ethnic insults around with impunity, deletes and distorts as it fits his nationalistic agenda, and amazingly he is still allowed to do so. At what point will other editors and wikipedia be protected from this predator? He was banned from this very topic if I am not mistaken anyway. What other outrage needs to be committed so he does not get away again with slap on the hand?--Murat (talk) 19:44, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * By making the above post you are breaking your editing restrictions, Murat. As you know, because of your persistant POV-warring and insertion of Turkish government propaganda into articles you are forbidden from making any posts anywhere on Wikipedia that concern the Armenian Genocide. Similar but even broader restrictions apply for Brand, btw. So he also has broken his editing restrictions by making this complaint becasue he is banned from making any posts connected to "the ethnic and historical issues related to" Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Iran. <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS, verdana, sans serif; color:#0088BB;">Meowy  19:55, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No, he hasn't. An ANI thread relating to you doesn't count. And this thread is pointless. I've asked Meowy to tone down the rhetoric, as it certainly can get OTT every now and then. But frankly, I've seen worse. This one we can let slide. Now can everyone please find something better to do? Moreschi (talk) 23:31, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Ahh, but you are a reasonable administrator! I'm sure other administrators would say it did count. I recall one editor, banned from posting anything Russia-related, was warned by another administrator that if he uploading a photo of Fidel Castro that happened to have been taken by a Russian photographer, he would be breaking his ban. <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS, verdana, sans serif; color:#0088BB;">Meowy 00:47, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Great job Moreschi... he already looks wiser and surley learned his lesson.--Murat (talk) 01:17, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Murat, while baiting Meowy may well succeed in getting him blocked, baiting me may well succeed in getting you blocked. Not a good idea. Moreschi (talk) 13:49, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Point of Order
Although I may agree with the finding that meowy's comments did not consitute an actionable offense, I find it disturbing that Moreschi closed the thread personally, given that the alleged offense occurred on his talk page and he is very much involved. In the interests of transparency, fairness, and due process, could an uninvolved admin please review the case and determine if it should indeed be closed? Thanks. Throwaway85 (talk) 13:53, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Update: I've contacted User:Wehwalt in regards to this matter, as I've found him to be a stickler for due process in the past.  I await his verdict. Throwaway85 (talk) 14:01, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Huh? What latest silliness is this? I am the go-to admin for matters Armenian-Azeri: I am familiar with nearly all the participants and their history (having blocked most of them at some point, including Meowy). This does not make me "involved", as I have never participated in any of the content disputes (or at least, very few), nor am I from the area. Just because Meowy chose to say the words "Azeri wolfishness" on my talkpage hardly means I permitted him to do so, or gave the impression such verbiage is normally acceptable; it is generally understood that that is the place to sound off - far better there than on an article page.


 * As it is, he has provided a reasonable explanation of the phrase and its context. While I have warned him recently a couple times to tone it down, this didn't cross the line. It wasn't even really close. Based on my previous work on this area, upon reflection I decided to let it slide. Now why, precisely, should I not do so? Moreschi (talk) 21:35, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. My only concern is that of openness and transparency.  I would be more comfortable if another admin closed the case, given that the alleged offense occurred on your talk page, but w/e.  I don't mean to call your judgement into question, I'm simply concerned about due process and the optics of you closing the case yourself. Throwaway85 (talk) 21:41, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, really? I checked Wehwalt's talkpage and learnt to my amazement that I am "undoubtedly on Meowy's "side"". Comes as a great shock to me, and I'm sure to Meowy, given the large number of over-enthusiastic Armenian patriots I have blocked, banned, or otherwise sanctioned. Even a cursory look at the log of WP:ARBAA2 would have shown this to be nonsense.


 * Shades of...oh, I won't mention him. But really. Could people please assume I vaguely know what I am doing and don't go round abusing the status just for the hell of it? Or somewhere down the line did I acquire the reputation of uber-rouge nutty abusive sysop, and nobody told me? Nobody has still explained to me exactly how I cannot deal with incidents on my talkpage in which I played no part. Moreschi (talk) 21:54, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Wow... Relax. You're seeing demons where there are none.  I never claimed you were "on his side" in the armenian conflict I know nothing about, merely that you were on his side in this particular incident.  Seriously, relax. Throwaway85 (talk) 22:41, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * So because I didn't think the comment was sanctionable, I shouldn't have closed the thread? Only those prepared to dole out sanctions should close threads? Because this is one of those threads where you can't be "neutral": by acting, or by not acting, you take a position. It doesn't matter who closes this thread: myself, Wehwalt, the man in the Moon; they will have to make a judgment call. What is your logic here? Moreschi (talk) 22:45, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Once again, I'd ask you to relax. As I've stated several times, I was merely concerned about due process and the optics of the situation.  That's why I asked Wehwalt, an admin whom I know is a stickler for due process, to take a look at the situation and tell me if my concerns were justified.  At no time was I questioning your judgement, in fact I specifically stated that I wasn't a couple of times.  Your strong reaction here confuses me, as I said nothing against you personally. Throwaway85 (talk) 22:52, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Alright then. Since it's a question of due process, what process have I not, perhaps, complied with? Moreschi (talk) 22:54, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

As stated previously, I was simply conerned about an admin closing a case on an incident that occurred on his talk page. The optics of the situation are poor. It's as if you're at a party at a judge's house and feel you were assualted by one of his guests. It would look pretty odd if that same judge was the one who adjudicated the case. That's all. Now, considering this is a conversation just betweent the two of us that doesn't involve AN/I what say we move it to our talk pages and spare people the edit conflicts if you'd still like to discuss this more. Throwaway85 (talk) 22:57, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Bad analogy because a) I didn't invite Meowy to my talkpage, it's open to all the public; b) the relationship between Meowy and myself was and is far more difficult than that between party host and guest (to say the least: I've blocked him once and possibly applied other sanctions as well); c) the supposed object of the comment, Grandmaster, doesn't seem to have complained or indeed even noticed, and d) even granting your analogy to have any merit, who better to try to damp down tension between the parties of the dispute than someone who knows them both well?


 * This insidious drip-drip-drip of low-level ABF directed at admins is simply terrible. It's demoralisng, degrading, and is slowly killing off will to live of the admin corps, bit by bit. Increasingly even the most uncontentious of decisions can't get through without somebody, in carping tone, squeaking out that meaningless phrase "involved admin!" This ludicrous thread is a particularly entertaining microcosm of a much bigger problem.


 * The majority of sysops make the right decision most of the time. Please, just have some trust. Moreschi (talk) 23:12, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Throwaway, if it help I'll close this thread instead. In future please remember that our primray aim on wikipedia is to develop articles and ANI is just a tool to serve that purpose; so, as far as possible, we try to deescalate disputes here (as Moreschi tried above), rather than raise bureaucratic hurdles to extend them. Hope all involved can move on now. Abecedare (talk) 23:05, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * To all concerned, I hope there's no hard feelings. Never intended for it to be a debate, just a procedural matter.  Happy editing all! Throwaway85 (talk) 08:41, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

GRES Império da Praça Seca
See the history user:biantez, a notorious vandal in pt.wiki, because, impositin POV in many articles of carnival. Example, remove valid information., include information with reliable sources. Quintinense (talk) 06:27, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I see the large content removals, but it's been 2 days since last attempt so any action now might be considered punitive and the user does have a lot of good contributions. At the very least an edit summary needs to be left or it naturally looks suspicious. Haven't been any previous official warnings... admin check and further opinions welcomed. Without past warnings and no clear incivility on our Wikipedia, my unofficial opinion would be a warning... level 3-ish on removal of content? ♪ daTheisen(talk) 08:28, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

User making accusations regarding legal threats
See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:SkagitRiverQueen/Archive 1: a user claims that I am making legal threats. --Rschen7754 (T C) 08:19, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You're in the clear, I'm pretty sure. From the nutshell of WP:NLT: "A polite report of a legal problem such as defamation or copyright infringement is not a threat and will be acted on quickly." You're not threatening anyone to sue (as you state there, you wouldn't have standing anyway), you're just pointing out that their actions could be considered libelous. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 08:26, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Aye. That's not a legal threat by *any* stretch of the imagination. - Jeremy  ( v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!! ) 08:40, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

repeatedly removing AfD message and socking to do so "not vandalism"?
not vandalism?. So people can just do that repeatedly? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 09:02, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Regarding AFD tags, I believe if you warned the user not to do so (instead of general anti-vandalism tags) they would have stopped, as they did now. Materialscientist (talk) 09:14, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The 'socking to do so' part is, as yet, unconfirmed, and new users remove AfD templates all the time, thinking it will have the same affect as removing a PROD or CSD tag, especially when the article was prodded and they removed that template. It seems perfectly possible to me at this stage that they are separate users.
 * Additionally, it would have been much more helpful to try to communicate with the user(s) more effectively than templating them accusing them of vandalism when removal of AfD templates does not immediately seem to be vandalism to most inexperienced users; a message saying 'Please don't remove AfD templates as this will not stop the discussion, and may be considered vandalism'.
 * Thirdly, it's also a shame that you chose to come straight here rather than engage me on my talk page first. Ged  UK  09:14, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, the message itself clearly states "do not remove". Secondly, if it is not vandalism, then you're saying *I* have violated 3RR - no? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 09:16, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * By the way, user did so again, after your friendly message. I'll leave it to you. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 09:18, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Admins!
Yo admins? My mate Terry wants to edit this site as well, but we use the same computer? Are we allowed to edit/vote twice in threads like on this page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.79.15.254 (talk) 03:36, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You can do that, but I would discourage against voting as there are things called Sockpuppets. If you want to get blocked off this site, go right ahead and vote, but I would seriously consider that you guys get a different computer to avoid any issues. That is a dilemma though, so I wouldn't go on my word alone. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:43, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Or, you could register accounts and then you could each edit with an account and not have to worry about things like sockpuppets! Frmatt (talk) 03:48, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It also probably wouldn't hurt to declare that you guys aren't sockpuppets of each other. A good way to back this up is to not go into discussions and vote the same way. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:57, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, sounds good. Suppose we did want to vote on the same issue the same way. Couldn't we make it quicker by just signing once and putting vote x 2 or something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.79.15.254 (talk) 03:59, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia operates on consensus, not voting. There is no strong reason to sign a "vote x2". I echo the response, suggesting that you each create an account and declare that you are not affiliated with each other, but note that what you are referring to "votes" are discussions, not votes, and that what you say is far more important than whether you say "support", "oppose", or otherwise. --Shirik (talk) 04:03, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I wonder how it is that an IP's very first edit is to come to this page and raise this question. Although he's at least being honest about it instead of just doing it. Ironically, unless he gets into contentious editing, it's unlikely anyone would know. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:06, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

whats a sockpuppet? I don't like the sound of it whatever it is! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.79.15.254 (talk) 04:04, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * A Sockpuppet is a user who creates more than one account in order to sway opinion and consensus about something on wikipedia in their direction. If you click on the blue word "Sockpuppet", you can find out more info. Frmatt (talk) 04:14, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * If two people are of the same mind, does their vote get discounted accordingly? What if someone's right and left hemispheres are not well connected?  They get to vote twice?  If I truly feel I am not the same person I was yesterday may I vote again?  - Wikidemon (talk) 04:22, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * While we're at it, I can show you what happens to suspected socks here, since I just created an investigation. Sockpuppets can vote, but they can also be editing other articles below the radar. People are allowed to have one sock as long as they declare it and identify it to the community. And no, their vote doesn't get discounted, as they would likely be an unknown sockpuppet. If we knew that, we would block them. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:25, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * SOCK Covers this question.  Cheers.       bsmithme    04:33, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Look, lots of this advice is going around in circles. If you and your friend edit from the same computer, but wish to use different accounts, that's fine. Actually, it would be helpful to do so, since it is harder to tell you two appart when you both edit from the same IP address. Each of you can create an account, just place a prominent notice on each of your userpages which makes it clear that the two of you share a computer, and that will head off any accusations of problems. You can safely vote in the same discussions, edit the same articles, whatever, as long as everyone knows up front what is going on, we can assume each of you is working in "good faith". Just make a prominent declaration of the connection, and all will be fine. -- Jayron  32  04:35, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree. Also suggest that you two sometimes edit from other places.  Do you two have jobs or go to school apart?  If you sometimes edit from there, and the other guy never edits from there, that is evidence of non-sockpuppetry.  Also helps if now and then you two are editing at the same time (once could be a set up but doing that often is pretty strong evidence that you're not the same person.)--Wehwalt (talk) 16:00, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Should a user banned from editing Eastern European pages be editing Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes?
A user that I see is banned from editing Eastern European pages for one year is involved in the discussion on the Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes talk page.

There is a lot of Eastern European content on that page.

I am simply seeking clarification.

AGF, so I don't want to say any more for now.

Thanks.

DHooke1973 (talk) 08:00, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd think it'd be obvious, given that the Soviet Union—mostly the SSRs near the Iron Curtain, but the RSFSR too—does fall under the blanket term of "Eastern European". Sceptre (talk) 08:06, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * For reference for the admin resolving this, could you maybe give a few diffs, user and link to sanctions? I know a number recently have been banned from certain aspects and articles per ArbCom, but not sure of all details for all persons. This being why a link would be good. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 08:08, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

According to an arbitrator, topics about global ideology are not covered by the topic ban. Also, initiator of the thread seems to be in an content dispute with one of the topic-banned editors. -- Sander Säde 08:24, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd argue that this could fall either way. Is the article designed or talk posted geared toward how Communist regimes engage in mass killings and why? ...or is it examples, definitions and history of and in the Soviet Union in particular? First would be ideology, later would be a specific matter. I'm entirely indifferent, but there's at least a little gray area here. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 08:36, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I simply want to ensure that all editors at that page are editing in good faith. Anyone with a strong ideological bias that will not be shifted by the evidence is going to make it very difficult to reach consensus.
 * It's because I'm in a content discussion that I want the clarification. No point talking to someone who has already decided not to listen. I want to make sure it isn't the case.
 * It's both, Datheisen. How, why, definitions, and lots of examples and history of various Communist regimes.
 * 
 * Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes
 * 
 * DHooke1973 (talk) 09:04, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * As long as Civility is upheld and some good faith is kept, I can see it as okay... but point of the topic bans were to avoid endless WP:NOTFORUM talk like this, yes? If the subject matter is in question, I'd say duck test it versus the three things mentions above and if it cannot at all be viewed as disruption, canvassing, etc. ... okay, that's a lot of "ifs". It would be preferable if the user would just walk away from the talk page before any official resolutions are offered. Then again, I assume they know this given how recent the final decision was put down. Wouldn't be a good start to good faith offered by ArbCom if this continues, certainly. Duck test screams at my gut that this is not a very good thing, btw. As such, half-objectively (the gray area) and entirely subjectively, this doesn't seem all that appropriate to do. 'Tis my recommendation at least. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 09:55, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Mass killings under Communist regimes covers regimes other than those in Eastern Europe, for example China, Cambodia and North Korea. It also includes a discussion of the link between Communist ideology and mass killings. I asked the ArbCom about what is included within the EE topic ban and explicitly mentioned Mass killings under Communist regimes. FayssalF states "editing Communism positively or critically is not restricted, forbidden or whatever while editing the Soviet Union's topics themselves are among the restricted ones" I've been mindful of my EE topic ban and have currently confined myself to general concepts, like the difference between mass murder and mass killings on the article talk page, while totally avoiding anything specific to Eastern Europe, although I will be contributing to the sections concerning China, Cambodia and North Korea in the future. DHooke1973 could have asked for clarification on my talk, but instead comes here without letting me know. AGF is needed here. --Martin (talk) 10:35, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry - I'm not up to speed with protocol. I've been overwhelmed with bureaucracy and intrigue since I signed up. You don't keep your Talk page public so what's the point of me posting on it? I was actually trying not to name you, just seek clarification on the rule.


 * No, I wouldn't just ask you, and I'll tell you why:


 * AGF is something asked of the community. Frankly, I haven't had a chance to feel like part of the community. It's been dodgy since I joined up. If you feel I'm treating you unfairly, Martin, then it would be because I was blocked as a sockpuppet on decidedly ropey grounds and someone recommends that all my contributions on the Talk page be deleted! A significant number of editors I come across have project Estonia or an Estonian image on their user pages, which is kind of weird, only because none of the pages I am editing are about Estonia. I say to myself I'm just being paranoid. Then I find out about this cabal EEML. And you are involved.


 * I'm sorry, it stinks. NO-ONE ASSUMED GOOD FAITH WITH ME. Bang - blocked. If you're a victim of my circumspection, then you have  my sympathy. Hopefully we can open this right up and clear the air.


 * I have AGF with all editors on the Talk:Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes page, but I am reserving it outside that. Quite frankly I would be insane to do anything else.


 * Now, we are specifically talking about two famines on that page atm, one of which was in the Soviet Union. Looking at the comment you part-quoted, I honestly don't know why you are within one hundred miles of that page.


 * "What is understood is that editing Communism positively or critically is not restricted, forbidden or whatever while editing the Soviet Union's topics themselves are among the restricted ones. In fact, the restrictions cover —among other topics— everything to do with the Soviet Union and the Soviet Communism and their relationship with Eastern Europe's cultures and politics. Eurocommunism, Chinese communism or Communism in Angola can be edited freely without violating the spirit of the restrictions. The spirit of the restriction is to end or at least limit the heated atmosphere and the battleground mentality around the topics that involve Russia and its neighbors -both historically and politically."


 * DHooke1973 (talk) 12:34, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

This appears to be a "they disagree, so I will find any process to disqualify them"-type situation. I suggest that any editor with any desire to see how the process is working in the article make a fair reading of the article talk page. The article deals with a great deal more than just Eastern Europe, to be sure. Collect (talk) 12:48, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * With the wider scope of the article, okay, it's likely out of the bounds of ArbCom's ruling. I'd still make a case that this isn't at all in the spirit of ArbCom's good faith in taking extra care in separating out users for different sanctions, and it's almost gaming the system on a technicality at ArbCom's expense. Martintg seems to have been spared a 3 month total ban on AGF on abiding by the topic ban; see here for final vote on the topic ban. I'd really suggest not pushing your luck on this and avoiding any article that mentions an event that took place in the Soviet Union. Period. Focus or no, I don't know why it would be worth the risk. I'll put this another way-- Arbs did not side to opposs that ban per AGF on the topic ban so that said users could run off in heated discussions on matters that, thought not directly related to, are still tied to the articles restricted. Bad karma, and not a road to go down. Any incivility reports, edit warring, etc. whatsoever on article talk or user talk pages relating to, might require a motion to amend. Pleeeease don't squander the good faith handed back to you by the community. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 14:31, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Medieval Warm Period
To Whom it May Concern,

The article Medieval Warm Period was mentioned on this website, and since that day, there have been a flood of edits, out of character with the amount of editing of the article prior to the publication of the website's article 19 December). I checked the talk page and there is no mention of this. But I thought I'd let you guys know, because I've seen on other pages that there is a banner on the talk page that says if an article was mentioned on another website. Anyways, that might be the cause of the recent edits to the article (it's currently locked).--72.178.133.37 (talk) 14:10, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

That website is also on Digg's front page titled "How WIkipedia's Green Doctor rewrote 5,428 climate articles".--72.178.133.37 (talk) 14:15, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * This issue has already been addressed in several places including here and here.Falcon8765 (talk) 14:31, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I have added it to the talk page.  TheWeak Willed   (T * G) 14:44, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

User:DIREKTOR
I decide to write this WP:ANI because DIREKTOR made fun of SirFloyd once more, ignoring my requests of changing his way of talking one more time. User:DIREKTOR keeps making fun of other users editing on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josip_Broz_Tito. He keeps assuming their bad faith and he keeps teasing them, using provokingly language towards them. Even if many users have pointed out to him that they felt offended by his way of talking he keeps refusing apologising or at least changing his way of talking towards them. He keeps de-legitimating other users sources too even if they are from academics saying that the passages which may be perceived as critical towards Tiro (in his user page he says he supports "Josip Broz Tito's views") are based on fascist authors even if it isn’t true (for example “Heh, lol. Unsurprisingly, the source of that is Borivoje Karapandžić, a well known Ljotićevac ("Ljotić-ist"), a Serbian fascist. I'll get back to you on him”). ”). See here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Josip_Broz_Tito) in the “unsourced”, “Hoping you're not just deleting passages”, “Encyclopaedia Britannica/BBC UK-History”,”This article is an embarrassment to the free Western world”, “This week in the news”, “Question” and “A week at the Tito article” sections. He keeps refusing confrontation too (for example “Enough of this nonsense”). He keeps calling User:AP1929 an Ustase (which is an insult, as Ustase are generally portrayed as criminals) for example when he, out of nothing, says the other users to “be advised that User:AP1929 is a well known Ustaše POV-pusher” in order to de-legitimate his comments, he keeps saying AP1929 edits because of a “political agenda”, he keeps assuming his bad faith accusing him of trying to deceive people (“you are either mentally unable to grasp … or, which seems more likely, you are trying to deceive people here”) and of pushing “incredible nonsense”. He keeps acting like this even if User:AP1929 says “I am highly insulted by several things DIREKTOR has produced right here on this very page” and he didn’t apologise. He admits "I find it personally hard to work in such a environment". He keeps accusing User:Sir_Floyd of editing because of a “political agenda” too (“you're intent on adding unrelated information to push a political agenda”), of being “simply unable to comprehend” “as always”, of “keep(ing) on pushing your POV” (“User:Sir Floyd added his standard cherry-picked quotes”), assuming his bad faith too. He keeps making fun of him (“Ah, User:Sir Floyd talks of "offensive behavior" and "productivity"”). He keeps acting like this even if User:Sir_Floyd says “I agree! It's offensive and it's not productive” and “Good one Mr Director, insulting the whole Croatian people (& Kosovo) to the core. This time you have gone too far. In order to clear this up, can you please explain your comment” and he didn’t clear his comment nor he apologise. He keeps making fun of other users (me, Sir_Floyd, AP1929 and User:ShadowRangerRIT by adding brief comments -to other users’comments- like “LoL” and “Heh, always fun”). He keeps accusing me editing because of a “agenda” too, saying my “criticism is nonsensical” when I asked to him why he deleted passages without transporting them elsewhere. He keeps assuming my bad faith too (“I see my unavoidable temporary absence was exploited to full effect”,” Its not "collaboration" (you seek) if you just insert your POV because I'm away”,” you just added the tags after pieces of text you disliked”) accusing me of “undecency” (a thing which I paticularly think it’s offensive) and threatening me of deleting my edits (“You may rest assured that 90% of the undiscussed POV edits you quickly sneaked in will be promptly reverted”), even if my edits were only insertions of requests for citations and the transportation of quotes to wikiquote. To understand the situation maybe you can see here too (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive583#Incipient_edit_war_at_Josip_Broz_Tito, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive584#User:AlasdairGreen27_trolling_once_more_2 and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive586#Legal_threats_by_User:AP1929). In the first (and last till now) WP:ANI I opened I discovered users here on en.wiki thought articles on the Balkans should be avoided and that they were considered battlefields from two opposite groups of users, pushing their POVs. As you can see from the WP:ANI above they may be right. However, even if the discussion is often harsh there (to my surprise) this fact mustn’t justify a behavior contrary to wikipedia policies. When an user makes me understood that one comment I made could be perceived as offensive towards DIREKTOR I apologised to DIREKTOR on Tito’s talk page and on his talk page. So it is possible not to be unpolite on those articles. Then why can’t he use a different way of talking, like other users are trying to do? Why hasn’t he apologise like I do? Why has he made fun of my way of talking because of its politeness? Why i keep writing on the talk page what i have changed in order for others to question my edits and he can’t? Why when I told him “Can't we discuss instead?” does he have to make fun of me (“I'm sad that you're so sad. :)”,” He'll get what he wants apologizing all the way”,” Its a mad house, a maaad house”) even if I pointed out a lot of times to him that I was offended by his way of talking (“Telling to another user he/she has not behaved in a decent way is offensive, even if you put a smile after it. Can you please stop talking this way to me? Maybe you think it's not offensive to write that way, but i feel offended. Thanks”,” keep ignoring my request to stop talking to me like this, because saying "He'll get what he wants apologizing all the way" and "Its a mad house, a maaad house" or calling other users "Ustase guy" (as the Ustase are generally portrayed as criminals) is offensive and irritating, as you are teasing and making fun of me and of other users by saying those kind of things. Please use another way of talking towards me and the others. Thanks.”)? . The fact that this WP:ANI deals with a Balkan article shouldn’t make this WP:ANI different from any other WP:ANI. The fact that an old user (DIREKTOR) is involved shouldn’t have to justify his behavior too as he hasn’t gained a sort of immunity because of the numbers of its edits. I hope you’ll do something. Even if it is restricting all users involved in this and the previous WP:ANIs on the same article from writing on it for a year or more, as the situation as to be solved. Thanks. --AndreaFox2 (talk) 00:40, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * tl;dr. This should get some kind of prize. Mathsci (talk) 00:58, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The user obviously needs a warning, and I would suggest a block only if he kept this up. For some reason, I want to think his account is compromised, as this seems to be a lot from such an accomplished user. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:03, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Hm, if someone actually bothers to check these quotes one can easily notice that there is nothing malicious in these comments, at all. A warning for not matching the painful politeness of the other guy? Do I really have to go through these quotes one by one?


 * To save some poor soul the trouble of going through all this, the gist is: 1) I have not even come close to insulting anyone, 2) User:AndreaFox2 is annoyed by informal conversation, and 3) the fellow is trying to get me banned for daring to oppose his edits, by cherry-picking perfectly benign comments and presenting them in a "sinister" context. The trouble he faces is that despite his best efforts its still plainly obvious there is no malice in them at all. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 01:10, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * At the risk of turning out "manipulative" or something, I'll still say I am confident no serious Wikipedian will be deceived by this collection of out-of-context quotes. I deal with controversial issues, there's a lot of guys trying to get me banned so they'd have free reign over these obscure Balkans articles. A reminder: no insults have been presented here. WP:NPA has not been violated. 01:18, 23 December 2009 (UTC)-- DIREKTOR  ( TALK )


 * I withdraw the statement above, as no one else has complained here. I guess one can get ticked off, but I'll remain neutral and suggest that you get a trouting instead. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:25, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I deserve it. I wasn't being as careful as I should've been with this guy. Apparently he'll manipulate my words whenever he gets a chance. Best make sure he does not get one. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 01:32, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

It's amazing to watch how this DIREKTOR goes away with his disruptions each and every time. "his account is compromised", "out-of-context quotes" etc etc. yeah right. whats next? the dog eat his homework? Dr. Loosmark 02:00, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah yes, it looks like it'll work eventually. If these guys just keep posting nonsense reports like this eventually it'll look like I "get away with it every time". I suppose it only a matter of time before one of these ridiculous-type reports eventually gets me blocked. After all, it wouldn't be "fair" if I "got away with" every single report, would it?


 * Guys, I'm not "getting away" with anything - there is practically nothing to get away with. Please, please look carefully at these sort of cunning traps before making a decision, please look at every one separately, and please bear in mind there's a lot of weekend-editor guys here who want to push the POV of their petty Balkans faction - a lot of people want me banned and will write-up the equivalent of War and Peace here if they think it'll do the job. Over here, the people who just want everyone to get along are a minority. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 02:23, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Of course. Every time everybody else is pushing their POV while you are the objective protector of the NPOV. Dr. Loosmark  02:31, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * What can I say at this point? You're making an assessment of my neutrality based solely on the number of nonsense posts that have been flung at me. What do I say to that? Study-up on ex-Yugoslav history and then investigate my edits?
 * All I can tell you is that I have so far been attacked by supporters from every single Balkans faction - Serbs, Croats (I'm a Croat), Albanians, Bosniaks, and even Italians, and that it seems like all I ever do is keep screaming: "show me the sources". -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 02:57, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Loosmark, the only thing I find amazing is that every time someone complains about DIREKTOR, you appear and complain about how he gets off easier than you. Just let it go, not everyone's situation is the same.


 * DIREKTOR, some of those comments weren't the most civil, I hope you admit that. But there's nothing actionable that I can see. Just don't throw gasoline on the fire if you can help it. --  At am a  頭 03:19, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

@Atama indeed not everyone's situation is the same. Had I done 10% of the stuff we have seen in this report I'd be blocked already. But let's not go into that. Dr. Loosmark 03:27, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You're making an assessment of my neutrality based solely on the number of nonsense posts that have been flung at me. Not at all. I have checked some of your edits the last time you were a "guest" on this board and I have to say that I have noticed a certain type of self-rightness which annoys a lot of people. Mind I'm not saying that some of those editors with whom you interact aren't nationalistic POV pushers, they are. Still your constant cries that you are attacked by all those factions is over the top. Not everybody who disagrees with you is a nationalist attacking you.


 * @Dr. Loosmark. I've seen guys get blocked or even banned on a whim or without the situation being properly addressed, I'm sorry if that happened in your case, and I hope you realize its something I'm actually trying to avoid. You should probably keep in mind that I'm working in the "Balkans department", "the trenches" as AlisdairGreen27 calls it. Proper civility is rare. Which brings me to my next reply
 * @Atama. Of course I admit it, but I was obviously being careful not to take things too far. I can only say again that its taken out of context. A few half-joking comments on someone's habit of unnecessarily apologizing in every post is nothing compared to some of the stuff being dished out there. Just for example, I've been accused on two occasions of insulting my own country, and all sorts of other crazy nonsense... -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 03:48, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "half-joking comments on someone's habit" hmmm. Dr. Loosmark  16:19, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

(TLDR) It is you AndreaFox2 that should have been banned long time ago under the Balkans policy for extreme PoV pushing on the Tito article. Last time I checked it 95% of your "references" were removed because they were cherry-picked defamatory quotes you intentionally twisted to make Tito look as bad as possible. Now you want to take revenge on DIREKTOR because he's one of the last normal guys that has enough patience to deal with your ilk. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 04:24, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I still think my TLDR tag was appropriate. Throwaway85 (talk) 18:39, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It is strange he is "one of the last normal (are you saying i am "unnormal"?) guys that has enough patience to deal with your ilk" as i have written on Tito's page only starting from few weeks ago (two weeks exactly, if i remember correctly). I "should have been banned": why? Because I disagree with you? Do you understand that i'm reporting exactly your type of behavior, which is aggressive and offessive even if you haven't been provokated? You forgot to say that you and DIREKTOR were the ones deleting them. If you have something to report about my behavior you should have to open a WP:ANI about me: there, not here, you can discuss about my behavior. --AndreaFox2 (talk) 18:04, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Administrator attention likely needed
DIREKTOR puts up with a ridiculous amount of BS over on Balkans related articles. Does he always react to it perfectly? No, but rarely is he the instigator. If you look at DIREKTOR's history on AN/I you'll find a string of POV pushers who bring him here that are inevitably indef blocked or banned for said pushing or for socking. It's a frustrating area to edit in, and if anything he should be commended for putting up with so much crap. He'll likely end up at ArbCom at some point, and likely we'll see an expansion of WP:ARBMAC. In the meantime, the articles he's editing likely need some admin attention. I've edited extensively in the area, so I can't use my tools and am frankly still burned out from the conflicts. User:Ricky81682 may be burned out as well, though User:Future Perfect at Sunrise does some work policing the area. It's not fun and you will be accused of everything under the sun, but it's also necessary. Any admins willing to step up? I think the two most likely articles that need some eyes are probably Josep Broz Tito and Ante Pavelić. <font face="Segoe Print" color="black">AniMate 20:36, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * He does have his own uber-NPOV POV of sorts (see Talk:Communist Romania), but I don't recall him doing anything remotely blockable. Pcap ping  03:51, 24 December 2009 (UTC) But others did, apparently Pcap  ping  04:02, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Here he is edit-warring once again deleting NPOV edits (mostly citation tags) from other users even if his behavior is being questioned: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Josip_Broz_Tito&action=history. Here he is talking about an other user in Slavic (Croat?)and he admits he follows his contributions to delete them ("I've undone most of the damage by following his contribs, this has to stop"):http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DIREKTOR#Mljet.C2.A0.28talk.C2.A0.C2.B7_contribs.29. Here he refuses to change his behavior:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DIREKTOR#Sorry.2C_but_it_seemed_necessary_to_me.Here is an example of how users thinks "that the wiki works better when you stay away from and don't disturb the editor Direktor": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sir_Floyd. As it isn't the first time he is being reported for the same things, maybe something should be done, like the proposal i made in my first comment. --AndreaFox2 (talk) 17:26, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * To keep out the potential socks & newbies. Those articles-in-question should be (and remain) semi-protected (including the respective talkpages). GoodDay (talk) 17:30, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * @Atama: here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Josip_Broz_Tito#Foibe) you see he and an other user were the instigators of what happened later --AndreaFox2 (talk) 17:37, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * P.s. He even admitted making "half-joking comments on someone's habit" ... --AndreaFox2 (talk) 17:41, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * User:AndreaFox2, I see you really are doing your absolute best to get me blocked. Either that or you're trying to ruin my holidays (and not just mine). You're even going around calling in anyone you think may support you. I expect we may hear from User:AP1929, as "he was mentioned". I might consider mentioning all my buddies on Wiki too, so that I may canvass as well. And yes, I admit, in my opinion you apologize too much - you caught me. I said you would "get what you want apologizing all the way". This is what the "half-joking remark on someone's habit" was. I apologize for the personal attack. If you require therapy to get over it, I'm willing to cover the expenses (that was another :).
 * I am trying, as I was then, to lighten the mood of the overly-serious conversation. There was nothing at all malicious in my comment, I suspect all this is is an attempt to win a dispute by getting the other guy out of the way. --  DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 18:40, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks that way to me too. <font face="Segoe Print" color="black">AniMate  18:47, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I see you finally admitted you personally attack me(I apologize for the personal attack): i would have accepted your apology if you wouldn't have add "If you require therapy to get over it, I'm willing to cover the expenses". "this is is an attempt to win a dispute by getting the other guy out of the way", "Looks that way to me too": i'm not proposing DIREKTOR to be blocked, i explicity said since the very first comment i propose a restrinciton on some users from writing on a precise article. --AndreaFox (talk) 19:36, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Is it perchance the "precise" article where I dared to oppose your (unsourced) edits? I rest my case. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 19:46, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It is the precise article where, for example, you blanked a section (introduced by another user) without any explanation (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Josip_Broz_Tito&action=history), you had keeped refusing discussion over edits and where you deleted references tags (claiming they were "unsourced") inserted by me and other users to unsourced passages. Can you explain to me how can a reference tag be considered "unsourced"? Naturally, this is a rhetorical question. Do you really believe I want to win a dispute about the insertion of refs tags? Do you think this position of yours is believable? I could had understand your position if we were discussing about the insertion of a passage, about its deletion, ... but we were discussing about refs tags ... --AndreaFox2 (talk) 19:56, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

AndreaFox2, the outcome you want isn't going to be achieved here, especially since this is mainly a content dispute. I doubt you're going to find an administrator here willing to restrict DIREKTOR from the Tito article in order for you to get your preferred version. I suggest filing an request for comment on the article to get some more opinions. If you still feel DIREKTOR's little snipes are egregious behavior, you can file an request for comment/user. Otherwise, I think we're done here. <font face="Segoe Print" color="black">AniMate 21:30, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

User:PCHS-NJROTC has unilaterally declared another user to be "banned"
User:PCHS-NJROTC seems to have a particular interest in what they refer to as "cheerleader vandals". They have seem to have decided that there is a ring of "cheerleader vandals" who spread their message via secret "chain letters". PCHS-NJROTC has recently added a banned user template to User:LBHS Cheerleader, the account which they seem to believe is the ringleader, despite having only 11 edits. The edit summary was "Has been banned for a while, ought to be tagged". LBHS Cheerleader does indeed appear on the list of banned users, because PCHS-NJROTC added them.

When I asked PCHS-NJROTC about this, their responses were somewhat evasive. Apparently there was no community discussion of a ban nor any decision to ban this user. I am concerned that a user has been improperly labeled as "banned", based on the somewhat dubious decree of a single editor. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:08, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No worries, it's already been settled. Not officially banned, taken off the banned list, template removed, issue resolved. <font color="red" face="Comic Sans MS">PCHS-NJROTC <font color="black" face="Comic Sans MS">(Messages) 04:11, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Just be to clear, LBHS is indef banned: 19:18, 28 January 2008 Philippe (talk | contribs | block) blocked LBHS Cheerleader (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (Vandalism-only account). — Huntster (t @ c) 04:13, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Did you perhaps mean to write "blocked"? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:16, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No, seriously, I'd not letting a troll win this by convincing a user that I am "power hungry," so unless admins here seriously think there's a need for an "official ban," let this one drop as simple vandalism for my sake. The vandals will be blocked one way or another anyway unless they behave and contructively contribute, in which case there's no reason to hold their past against them in my opinion. I feel as if the general community has been very supportive of my efforts to fight this particular vandal, but I'm done with them entirely. This is not worth my good name. <font color="red" face="Comic Sans MS">PCHS-NJROTC <font color="black" face="Comic Sans MS">(Messages) 04:27, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You may have misunderstood why I brought this here. You declared a user to be banned when they weren't and then you dissembled when asked about it. Apparently there were other accounts affected by this, based on your actions since this thread started. Edits like this are not appropriate even if you suspect someone of being a vandal. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:37, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Fine, I quit, since you're going to try to persue action over something I was never warned about, and occured when I was practically a newbie, after I chose not to run checkuser on your account. Bye Wikipedia. <font color="red" face="Comic Sans MS">PCHS-NJROTC <font color="black" face="Comic Sans MS">(Messages) 04:45, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * One person complains about you, no one else backs him up, and you quit within 4 messages? Wow. --Golbez (talk) 04:52, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I quit because this is not the first time I've been sanctioned over this kind of mess. I realize I am imperfect, and I tried to handle this within reason, but I will not be sanctioned because of a troll, which is why DC is being so... unreasonable? This was not over 4 messages. I hope this point is heard loud and clear. <font color="red" face="Comic Sans MS">PCHS-NJROTC <font color="black" face="Comic Sans MS">(Messages) 04:58, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * If I may butt in where it is really none of my business, I don't feel that Delicious carbuncle is being at all unreasonable. In fact he could of been much more direct in his communication, and told you quite plainly that you are way out of line putting banned messages on any pages. Beach drifter (talk) 06:17, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Indef blocks where no admin is willing to unblock is pretty much a ban. Since the vandal keeps coming back under new accounts, we're tossing the socks as we find them. PCHS-NJROTC is familiar with the long term abuse and for ease of processing, tags the account(s) as banned. Not seeing the problem here. Shell  babelfish 04:49, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Take a look at this SPI case. Absent the bogeyman of "cheerleader vandals" why did User:Jess Selders 2012 get indef blocked? A 2 minute Google search show that there is a Jessica Selders at Charlotte High. Let's not get into this bans are just blocks etc bullshit. PCHS-NJROTC is quickly undoing all of their edits relating to this "ban", so I think they see the problem.  Delicious carbuncle (talk) 05:02, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It's over DC. Someone block my account at my request please, that way this discussion can just be closed and forgotten. I feel I have seriously wasted my time with certain elements of this project. For the record, just because Jessica Selders is a real person doesn't mean she has the right to edit. Are you trying to say that LBHS Cheerleader is a robot? Seriously... <font color="red" face="Comic Sans MS">PCHS-NJROTC <font color="black" face="Comic Sans MS">(Messages) 05:05, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * As my last request, I would like a full blown sockpuppet investigation on DC; I think more than ever now that he is the same as the Cricket IP user troll. <font color="red" face="Comic Sans MS">PCHS-NJROTC <font color="black" face="Comic Sans MS">(Messages) 05:08, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you've made my point for me. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 05:09, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe they're undoing it because you've continued to push the issue despite it being clear that PCHS-NJROTC really isn't doing anything but defending the 'pedia from rather long term abuse. PCHS hasn't blocked any of these accounts and has used appropriate channels.  Laying this on one editor's doorstep with some rather nasty accusations and hyperbole might just be the real problem here. BTW editors interested in playing around rather than contributing have been known to use real names before, even one's that aren't their own (shocking, isn't it) - that's hardly an indication of good will given the contributions of that account. Shell   babelfish 05:12, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Exactly. What if Jessica Selders wasn't even responsible for that, and she got into some real life "crap" over it all? Wouldn't that just be special? I reverted everything to sastisfy you, which was evidently a waste. No, undoing everything like that right now in order to "hide" something would be stupid, and I sincerely hope you don't really see me as that ignorant. You're probably going to be nailed for AGF among other things. You have this entirely backwards, and you're just mad that I made a big deal about the name issue. Bye. <font color="red" face="Comic Sans MS">PCHS-NJROTC <font color="black" face="Comic Sans MS">(Messages) 05:14, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I lied that I'm done with this entirely; I'm going to, with approval of the community, try to find that person on Myspace or Facebook and personally and calmly, politely ask her if she was responsible (and may I add she most likely was not), and if not, I personally feel the username needs to be changed and her edits be oversighted. Of course, that will be my last contributions to this project, although I'm having second thoughts if the community isn't going to unreasonable as DC has. But only if. <font color="red" face="Comic Sans MS">PCHS-NJROTC <font color="black" face="Comic Sans MS">(Messages) 05:21, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * In short, I realize it looks kind of silly that I'm leaving this over one person. It's not that I can't handle it, it's not that it's just this, it's that I need a break from the drama. I realize I have a lot of support here, and probably some opposition too. Fact is, I know just being the subject of a report here hurts one's reputation no matter how outlandish (unless it's blatant abuse, where it gets reverted immediately), and I feel it's time to seriously take a Wikibreak or even retire to cool down this stigma that has been brought upon me. <font color="red" face="Comic Sans MS">PCHS-NJROTC <font color="black" face="Comic Sans MS">(Messages) 05:32, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Hey, don't worry about it, anyone who doesn't take the time to look and see what happened doesn't matter. See you later. Sephiroth storm (talk) 05:44, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Removed the retirement templates so that the IP troll won't see "victory" and try it with other users. Bascially, I have to continue to contribute now just so the troll don't get his wish. DC wouldn't even satisfy with that anyway. I restored the entry at LTA because it appears consenus that consenus has been in my favor here. But I'm done fighting LBHS Cheerleader. I never lost my cool or anything; I only wanted to settle the dispute. See, when it comes to legitimate users, I prefer to settle issues without getting into a lot of heat. Sigh, guess I'd never pass an RfA, but who needs RfA anyway? Darn, all of this to try to stop baseing everything on a possible link to another banned user, what a misunderstanding this has been. <font color="red" face="Comic Sans MS">PCHS-NJROTC <font color="black" face="Comic Sans MS">(Messages) 06:04, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Dude. When you start talking in terms of "you" and "them" and using words like "victory", you are getting trolled.  Just relax, move on to an area where you aren't emotionally involved and come back in a week's time.  It is not important to win.  Look at it this way.  Your "opponent" has nearly limitless time, resources and entry points.  Attempting to resolve the issue through provocative edit notices, formal bans and direct engagement is a fool's errand.  The only course of action which will avail you is to drain the emotion out of the issue, limit the time and extent of the impact on mainspace and wait for them to grow bored.  No one is served by your flaring up. Protonk (talk) 07:25, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Restarting serious discussion
There is a real issue here seems to have been lost under a torrent of emotional outbursts. An editor who had made a total of 11 edits (assuming there are no deleted edits) was indef blocked for what is very run-of-the-mill vandalism. That isn't abnormal. Having a single editor -- who seems to be on some kind of crusade relating to the high school which they attend -- decide that they are banned, is abnormal. The "a ban is just a block that no one is willing to lift" argument is a false equivalency, since we don't add all blocked accounts to a page which states "Banning is different from blocking".

From what I have seen of the "cheerleader vandal" threat, it is nothing more or less than simple vandalism and it is unproductive to elevate it to anything more. It seems likely to me that IPs and accounts have been blocked on spurious grounds because PCHS-NJROTC has associated them with this bogeyman. Certainly labeling users such as User:Random Chick236 as "banned" when they are not even blocked is wholly inappropriate (as is the edit summary "Give up kid, you're not funny. Try being contructive for a change"). Can we deal with the issue (unilateral declarations of bans by a single, overly-involved user) now, please? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:42, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * A user who has edits that solely consist of blanking articles on various high schools and replacing them with a message that praises his/her own school and does so consistently and with several possible alternate accounts after the original is blocked seems to be an indefinite block candidate to me, especially when subsequent sockpuppet accounts deliberately vandalize and attempt delete articles on rival schools. Whether it is right or wrong to label a de facto banned user as banned is besides the point.— Ryūlóng (<font color="Gold">竜龙 ) 18:43, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Without having confirmed it, I suspect that PCHS-NJROTC personally identified most of those as sockpuppets, just as they decided that certain users were "banned". Take a look at User:Monsterbob234. PCHS-NJROTC added the sockpuppet template and "Hello to you to, here's my welcome wagon unwelcome wagon:" and the edit summary "Go to hell pollywog". The user appears to have made exactly one edit that is at all related to cheerleading. Please don't misunderstand, I'm not suggesting that this particular usage should be unblocked since they appear to be a vandalism only account, but I doubt they are a sockpuppet of User:LBHS Cheerleader and I don't think the message or edit summary were appropriate. Do you? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:19, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * DC, although some of what you say about being "tag happy" may be true, you must see how holding what happened over a year ago (before my grandmother's death even for goodness sake) is unreasonable. I'm sure there's actions you took as a newbie that you would not take at present because of experience. I have learned a lot since then, but I cannot go back and erase my "renegade, tag happy vandal fighting" past. More recent cases have been blatantly obvious. Jess Selders 2012 was not just blocked because of a random sockpuppetry accusation, but rather because there was a pattern of abuse, and because CheerleaderAgainstROTCFacism jumped in the middle of the discussion, pretty much proving my point. Now lets WP:AGF, say the latter wasn't the same person, the Jess Selders account actually belonged to Jessica Selders, and Jess only wanted to help the project. If that's the case, it should be the troll behind CARF on trial here, not me. If the two accounts are not linked, Jess was just in the wrong place at the wrong time. If JS was indeed responsible for Jess Selders 2012 (and there's a significant chance that she was not), and she wants her name cleared of the sockpuppetry stigma, then she needs to request a username change. If the real person is not responsible, then I imagine she'd want the username changed so that her name is not involved in all of this. <font color="red" face="Comic Sans MS">PCHS-NJROTC <font color="black" face="Comic Sans MS">(Messages) 20:50, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * In my opinion you have manufactured a false threat of "cheerleader vandals" which you have used to have editors blocked for small amounts of simple vandalism. I could be wrong, but I have seen no evidence that any such group exists, or is a cause for concern if they do exist. Your histrionic message in this SPI case is ripe with speculation (and includes the all-caps "THESE GIRLS ARE RELENTLESS TROLLS AND NEED NOT BE FED!"). In that rant, you again asserted that User:LBHS Cheerleader was banned when you said "So does the "wiki-love" for those who (unknowing of their ban) give them a second chance". Editors can look at the details of the SPI case themselves, I'm not interested in getting sidetracked by going into the details. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:36, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It seems that consensus is that DC is making a mountain out of a mole hill here, and I'm sure you can all agree that I've been completely reasonable in the handleing of this case aside from contemplating retirement. Actually, retirement, along with my removal of all references to the user in question being banned, was all no more than a failed attempt to compromise. No emotions, no anger, just an attempt to compromise. Thought if I left just like that he'd have been satisfied. It seems as if I have set DC on fire when I challeged his disclosure of my real life name in a particular discussion, which he claims was coincidental. Is biting a troll really any better than him biting an established user? It should be clear to everyone here that anyone that would continue to persue action at AN/I after an honest user in question has already agreed to cave is seeking punishment, not prevention. We block and ban as a preventative measure, not to punish; it's all laid out at the blocking policy. IMO, consensus is that LBHSC is defacto banned. My only intention in adding LBHSC to the banned list was to stop assuming that LBHSC could be considered banned under User:Bobabobabo as the idea was pure speculation anyway. I see nothing unreasonable about the movement; we can't use such speculation against users suspected to be linked to LBHSC, but since she's been considered banned for quite sometime, I felt that she needed to be added to the list independantly. I was being WP:BOLD, which is encouraged here, and I didn't discuss it first because I wanted to WP:Deny recognition. <font color="red" face="Comic Sans MS">PCHS-NJROTC <font color="black" face="Comic Sans MS">(Messages) 21:31, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Whoever this LBHSC person is, she is not Bobabobabo. Bobabobabo edit warred over anime episode list articles.— Ryūlóng (<font color="Gold">竜龙 ) 21:34, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * PCHS-NJROTC, I got involved in this issue only because I watchlisted User:LBHS Cheerleader's page after you made some frankly bizarre accusations on my talk page and elsewhere. For your sake, I won't link to them directly, but the discussion is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Delicious_carbuncle#WP:VILLAGE here]. I believe you know that what you did was wrong and I believe you lied about it in our initial discussion because you knew that. Your subsequent actions suggest that you are trying as hard as you can to get out of this without admitting that. I think it's too late for that. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:48, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know that PCHS's concerns were not real. I am not saying that you did or did not correctly guess his first name there, but if someone posted MY real first name in an on-wiki discussion about me or with me, I'd be a little disturbed and confused myself.  This is beginning to look more and more like a personal battle, and I think both sides need to disengage and return to neutral corners.  There does not appear to be much to be gained here, and its getting nasty in both directions.  I'm not sure any admin action is appropriate here, but the entire mess looks just like personal sniping, and not much more.  -- Jayron  32  21:54, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I used a very common male first name in an example of trivial vandalism during a discussion with PCHS-NJROTC (which was my first encounter with them). PCHS-NJROTC claims that it is their first name. I will assume good faith and assume that it is, but I have repeatedly said that I did not, and do not, know their name, so it was not deliberately chosen. That they now believe that I am a meatpuppet of the "cheerleader vandals" should speak to their eagerness to find connections where none are likely to exist.


 * This isn't personal. I'm not here complaining about possible personal attacks or esoteric content disputes - PCHS-NJROTC unilaterally decided that another user was banned, used that label to influence block on likely uninvolved users, reverted edits of at least one user (who wasn't even blocked) as a banned user based on their mistaken identification as a sockpuppet of the original target. I have absolutely no stake in this or any influence over the actions of any of the parties. At the very least a clear statement from a clueful admin condemning their actions is required, but I would suggest that a topic ban on vandalism would be wise. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:44, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Topic ban? That's sillyness; talk about "cool down blocks" and being counter productive. No, just let it drop as half of what you're rehashing is ancient anyway, and did I mention that there was a checkuser in all of this way back when? In fact, the very term "cheerleader vandal" was not my invention, but rather that of User:Zzuuzz in a request for checkuser which was followed up by User:Alison. DC seems to be "out to get me" here as if I'm the only one working with this. User:PMDrive1061, who blocked the sockpuppets in the most recent case, has not challenged my actions, neither have User:Fullmetal Falcon who shares my pain in that he was once a quite active editor of the pages that LBHSC has been targeting. I am trusted with rollback for a reason, Lord knows I have not abused it. For the record, User:Shell Kinney, who is becomeing part of the WP:ArbCom, has pointed out that you are in the wrong DC. Perhaps we should topic ban DC from AN/I? I personally think a topic ban on anyone would be counter productive here, and frankly, count me out as a contributer to the project if the suggestion even comes close to being seriously considered. There's a reason why administrative action should not be taken on either side of these kind of heated matters, and it's because such actions make matters worse. I am completely done with this; this is a waste of the admins' time. <font color="red" face="Comic Sans MS">PCHS-NJROTC <font color="black" face="Comic Sans MS">(Messages) 04:27, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * (e/c)Thank you for making my point here for me Jayron. As I was saying... Right, I now agree that it is a longshot that LBHSC is Bobabobabo; the basis behind the speculation was the fact that she was going by the name "Jessica" (in multiple incidents), and begging everybody like Boba, but the modus operandi was completely different. However, I see that some people were basing decisions on this "possibility," so I decided that something had to be done to halt the mistaken specualtion being referenced to as fact. Trying to get out of this? No, I'm not in anything, and I really feel it is inappropriate that you made a subsection implying that arguements against you was not "serious discussion." Do you honestly think you could deal with the trolls better than I have? Note that not all "cheerleader vandals" are LBHS Cheerleader, a fact that I acknowledge. Bizzare accusations? For one, I cannot stand to see you attempt to "stick up" for a blatant troll, regardless of whether (s)he's a sock. Random harassment is not something that I'm used to seeing just "happen" out of no where. Off-wiki, people claiming to be cheerleaders from LBH have behaved in much the same way Mr. Cricket has, which is why I suggested the possiblity. Some of these LBHSC trolls have said off-wiki that they used to be admins/established users much the same way as Mr. Cricket. It's pretty obvious that Mr. Cricket is not a current cheerleader at LBH, however, because Cricket is not a carrier in Florida. To cut to the chase, what do you intend to accomplish with this thread? Revenge? Help for a troll? A name for yourself? Victory? Some kind of punative action towards me? What policies have I violated? What is your point? <font color="red" face="Comic Sans MS">PCHS-NJROTC <font color="black" face="Comic Sans MS">(Messages) 22:10, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Per Jayron, I propose a speedy closure of this fiasco. I'm trying to keep my cool here and make peace; DC needs to do the same. <font color="red" face="Comic Sans MS">PCHS-NJROTC <font color="black" face="Comic Sans MS">(Messages) 22:12, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * This is somewhat off topic, but I managed to find this "Jessica Selders" on Myspace.com, and the original text that the user added to her user page is a direct copy and paste from the "about me" section of her profile. If the vandal was not actually Jessica Selders, then it was a copyright violation. <font color="red" face="Comic Sans MS">PCHS-NJROTC <font color="black" face="Comic Sans MS">(Messages) 00:42, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Not important. Stop looking too far into this.— Ryūlóng (<font color="Gold">竜龙 ) 00:45, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm done with this discussion anyway; I just thought that would be interesting food for thought for anyone following this issue. I've called for closure of this discussion, and I hereby disassociate myself from this pointless debate. Have a Merry Christmas. <font color="red" face="Comic Sans MS">PCHS-NJROTC <font color="black" face="Comic Sans MS">(Messages) 01:08, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Ending discussion

 * My major incivility issues that DC have pointed out are ancient history and have disappeared in the last year. Any incivility I've demonstrated in more recent time have been no more than what is typically demonstrated by the average vandal fighter. Vandal fighters are human; they are not going to by "nicey nice" 100% of the time; you might see the occasional "grow up" or "why can't you just be constructive" comment from me aimed at a vandal, but I've come a long way from telling people "go to hell pollywog." Heck, I've even tried to stray away from telling people "grow up" for fear of controversy. The ancient issues were already addressed. I really find it ironic that DC can't be forgiving of an established users' past, yet he expects us to be perfect angels when it comes to dealing with people like User:LBHS Cheerleader and User:Jess Selders 2012, which general consensus is that they're linked. I've WP:AGFed with DC's posting of my name, but everyone must see the heat my questioning of the post has caused, and that an IP troll saw it as a perfect time to get all of this nonsense brewed. Anyone who fuels this debate fuels the hopes and dreams of an IP editor who calls User:McSly a "flaming homosexual," his own ISP's staff "outsourced sandniggers,"  and me a "retarded rotc dork"  aka Hitler Youth  who is power hungry and lives in a double-wide . Why are we discussing this? I cannot help but think that DC is simply mad, and I think the best solution is to just axe this whole discussion now. "Not looking good" as an edit summary? The IP editor, who hadn't edited anything related to me in a while, comes in out of no where and bad mouths me right when DC and I are in a discussion, and DC takes him seriously? DC references to my name (reportedly unintentionally, which I'll accept) about a month after the IP troll did the same? Now DC is on some kind of man hunt to basically get me in trouble after I PO'd him and his IP friend? Put two and two together here AN/I. I'm not saying DC is a sockmaster, but something awefully funny is going on here. <font color="red" face="Comic Sans MS">PCHS-NJROTC  <font color="black" face="Comic Sans MS">(Messages) 04:50, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I think many people are feeling somewhat uncomfortable getting involved with this. I certainly would prefer not to, but I will say that it seems to me that Delicious Carbuncle asked a fair and simple question. What has transpired after that seems solely due to the manner in which PCHS-NJROTC responded. Delicious Carbuncle has certainly not deserved to be served with rambling, accusatory screeds which seem to fail to address the substance of DC's queries while ascribe to DC accusations which I have not seen him make. And no, what is going on here is not funny by a longshot, awful, definitely. Unomi (talk) 07:39, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Without having read everything, This is my view. User PCHS-NJROTC has made some mistakes, the majority of them seems to be in the past, and he has learned from them. I suggest that this AN/I will serve as sufficient "punishment" for his old issues. I agree that it does seem suspicious that DC was pushed the issue, after P-ROTC has tried to resolve this issue, however there is no evidence that the user is in violation of policy. I suggest that this AN/I serve as a warning to both parties, and thats it. Sephiroth storm (talk) 14:17, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * PCHS-NJROTC added a banned user template to User:LBHS Cheerleader on 19 December, so this has little to do with their history of abusive comments although it does show a pattern. You need to read the entire thread before offering opinions such as those above. What is it you think I need to be "warned" about? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:01, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no requirement for me to read an entire discussion. IAC, what I did see however, is a user admit that he made mistakes, and indicated an understanding of those problems. When the user became aware that their recent edit was disruptive, as in the discussion here, the user removed the template, without prompting, which shows good faith on his part. What I think you need to be warned about, is that when a user shows good faith in that his actions were not intended to harm anyone or damage the encyclopedia, you should lay off. Sephiroth storm (talk) 16:13, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no requirement to read an entire discussion? That is enlightening. In that case, having not acquainted myself with the facts, it is quite clearly obvious that you are wrong on several points, for reasons which I do not think it is worth going into here. Hands of gorse, heart of steel (talk) 20:28, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * May I point out, since it appears that one of my comments was misread, that I did not litterally mean any of this is "funny," but rather, I meant "suspicious." Issues at AN/I are always affected by the response from the involved party(s); had I responded with "f*** you losers" as some users have in past discussions I'd have been blocked without question for showing bad faith, so blaming anything on my response is not a valid arguement. I believe that Sephiroth storm's point is that DC needs to assume good faith as I had removed all references to the apparent "ban" as soon as they were questioned here as an offered settlement. I also pledged to disassociate myself with the trolling issue, which I will hold true to aside from reverting blatant vandalism where I naturally see it and issuing standard warnings levels one through four. Is any of this official business really needed? If LBHS Cheerleader apparently shouldn't be officially banned for "simple vandalism," why should a legitimate user be officially topic banned after he has already agreed to disassociate himself? <font color="red" face="Comic Sans MS">PCHS-NJROTC <font color="black" face="Comic Sans MS">(Messages) 16:35, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Allow me to express myself one last time... I will not have my name here (PCHS-NJROTC) tarnished over some IP troll giving an established user ideas to go looking for "power hunger" in my history of edits. Period. Done. Already decided. Please, speedy closure, please. I will not be topic banned or otherwise sanctioned; anyone seriously thinking of imposing sanctions is going to have to permaban User:Vandal Fighter Killed in Action from Wikipedia entirely if they think this is worth a ban. I do have a right to vanish, and as to go through any kind of "punishment" (which isn't something I believe in on-wiki as actions are supposed to be preventative), I would just assume vanish forever. That's what the talks of retirement were about. Sanctions could be troublesome for me in real life, and it's not worth the risk to go through all of this for a troll. May I add that a ban from this would probably be a quite unpopular movement. Anyway, I don't care; if it's that serious, change my name, and then ban me, but disassociate all of my actions from the name "PCHS-NJROTC" if that's your course of action. I do, however, doubt that this will happen since there's no consensus to do it. This is not "pouting;" this is my true opinion. Have I not made myself clear I want nothing further to do with this or LBHS Cheerleader? <font color="red" face="Comic Sans MS">PCHS-NJROTC <font color="black" face="Comic Sans MS">(Messages) 00:37, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Resolution
I've dragged this back out of the archives to get some resolution. PCHS-NJROTC seems to have put a metaphorical gun to their own head and threatened to shoot themselves if anyone tried to get too close, but that doesn't do anything to address the issue. I am not sure why admins seem so reluctant to get involved with what seems fairly cut-and-dried to me. Is it ok for users to unilaterally claim other users are banned? If it is, I've got some people I think I will add to the banned list. If it isn't, what do you want to do about it? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:41, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The answer, as I'm sure you well know, is that only ArbCom or the community can ban a user, not a single individual (well, except for Jimbo Wales). PCHS-NJROTC screwed up, but he's no doubt learned the difference between a ban and a block by now – and he let the issue drop. I suggest you do the same. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 04:26, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think there was a recent case where an admin assumed community support and unilaterally banned a user, but that is not terribly relevant here. Why do you assume PCHS-NJROTC has learned anything from this? I haven't seen any clear admission that they did anything wrong. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:11, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I offer settlement in the case, offer to disassociate myself with the LBHSC case, and learn not to be too WP:BOLD in any situation; basically, I've learned that pretty much everything needs to be thoroughly discussed before any action is taken beyond normal procedure. My error was assuming a ban because others had cited a ban when dealing with the user. Although I merely was trying to be bold and put an end in the groundless assumption that LBHSC was Bobabobabo just because I speculated that they might be linked, I was wrong. Admission to wrong doing is always a bad idea (except when praying to God); investigation comes to a halt with confession, and usually the person who offers confession is hammered. Despite, I have now given you what you want; I have spelled it out in bold letters for you. Now, can you move on now please? <font color="red" face="Comic Sans MS">PCHS-NJROTC <font color="black" face="Comic Sans MS">(Messages) 19:10, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I hate to say this, but your explanation doesn't add up. If you thought that LBHS Cheerleader was a sockpuppet of banned user User:Bobabobabo, why did you remove the tag when you added the  tag? And your very next edit was to dispute the connection between the two accounts and label them as a "meatpuppet ring" (the dreaded "cheerleader vandals", I assume). When I asked you about LBHS Cheerleader's "ban", you told me "It's a sockmaster who is banned by consensus" and "...I've decided to just pull the Bobabobabo tag and throw in an independant ban on LBHS Cheerleader". I don't think you are doing much for your credibility here. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:32, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I once saw a possible connection, but I felt that since there was no actual technical evidence that it was inappropriate for people to base any action on the possible link. The modus operandi in the article space was different, as was the geographical location, my basis was that they both went by the name Jessica and they both had a habit of begging. The idea was to stop people from assuming despite the lack of technical evidence. I thought just shifting the assumed ban to LBHSC directly would be the ideal course of action, but you're right that I should have discussed it first. I'm sure you will agree that it was inappropriate for people to be automatically assuming a ban under Boba when that was just an untested hypothesis rather than a conclusion. This being said without any knowledge of who DC is in real life or what he does for a living, DC, you should be an attorney if your not one, although I'm not sure if you'd be a better defense attorney (because it seems you're doing a good job defending LBHSC here) or a prosecutor (because of your skill at getting people to confess "I was wrong." If you're wondering, that's a compliment for your skills demonstrated here. <font color="red" face="Comic Sans MS">PCHS-NJROTC <font color="black" face="Comic Sans MS">(Messages) 19:42, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The consensus I referenced to was where people seemed to be saying "oh, there's no reason to ban this one individually; lets instead use the Boba ban against her." I personally disagree with that as there's no technical evidence. Don't you? <font color="red" face="Comic Sans MS">PCHS-NJROTC <font color="black" face="Comic Sans MS">(Messages) 19:44, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Just so everyone is clear on this, I am not defending User:LBHS Cheerleader, I am merely questioning the unilateral imposition of a ban on this user by another, deeply involved, user. LBHS Cheerleader is indef blocked and will remain indef blocked after this thread is wrapped up. I have questioned the basis of the block for User:Jess Selders 2012, but I see little point in unblocking now. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:24, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * there is something more serious that seems not to have been noticed: the earlier statement of PCHS-NJROTC: "I'm going to, with approval of the community, try to find that person on Myspace or Facebook and personally and calmly, politely ask her if she was responsible " and a later statement of theirs that they did precisely that: track down the person on Myspace, and extensive speculation about whether a particular named girl  at a particular high school is responsible. To me, this is OUTing, or attempted OUTing,  for either of  which we normally block. As far as I know, the community does not give its approval" to things like this.    DGG ( talk ) 05:23, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * First of all, I would like to state that I believe it was wrong for DC to drag this back out, this is my OPINION, it indicates a possible Conflict of interest. As far as the above goes, it is troubling, I would suggest talking to the user, I think he is aware his actions were not in line with our policies. Sephiroth storm (talk) 06:32, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't believe that PCHS-NJROTC is interested in further discussion on the matter. Unomi (talk) 06:52, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * What possible "conflict of interest" could I have here? PCHS-NJROTC has made it very clear that they would like the issue to be dropped, but the fact remains that there has been no clear statement about this from any admins. Nor have I seen a clear statement from PCHS-NJROTC that they believe that what they did was wrong. I'm sorry to belabour this, but rather than avoiding the issue, let's settle this and move on. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:11, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Admins have been all over this DC. Furthermore, WP:OUTING? I didn't give out anybody's information, and as far as actually carrying out the proposed action of simply asking if it was her, and if she wanted everything oversighted, that was a proposed course of action; I did not actually contact anybody or ask any questions, and would not have without significant community support for the proposal. DC was responsible for just as much OUTing as I was in the matter by going on Google and finding her to be a real person through search results. I asked first, DC did not, and now we have linked to personal information about a "Jessica Selders" all thanks to User:Delicious carbuncle and his despirate desire to get sanctions imposed on me. Who's really OUTing people here? Also of note is that DC has been blocked for OUTing. The block was later lifted, but I believe he could be showing a rather nasty pattern of it. He posted my name, which was apparently unintentional, and then he posted a link to JS's personal, real life information. DC, you keep reviving this discussion, and you obviously seek punishment in the matter. As to why I want closure of the discussion, it's because as soon as my actions were challenged, I went in and removed references to the de facto "ban" and indicated my further disassociation with the issue, and you're still not satisfied DC. Quite frankly, I feel threatened here. I AGFed when DC wrote my name in a discussion, which was apparently unintentional. DC has failed to AGF when I stated my further disassociation with the LBHSC case, which in case wasn't clear, see . If admins apparently couldn't agree on a ban on LBHSC, what makes you think they'll agree on any sort of ban on me? <font color="red" face="Comic Sans MS">PCHS-NJROTC <font color="black" face="Comic Sans MS">(Messages) 15:01, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * DGG, if you are looking for an indication of an WP:OUTING, it wasn't PCHS-NJROTC that first brought up that user and her supposed real name. It was User:Delicious carbuncle here. This whole thing here seems like a misunderstanding, or mistake, about using the words 'banned' and 'blocked'. To have it turn into this kind of drama seems a bit much. DD2K (talk) 15:41, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I do not consider it acceptable to try to get a Wikipedia contributor to disclose their real life identity.  As for "only proposed," you then reported you had gone and looked for the myspace page, and found it. that's more than "proposed"; though you and DC may have finished the discussion between you, this aspect concerns one of our basic rules.  We can block sockpuppets without needing to know who they are in  RL. I'm concerned now about what you did in this respect--I am frankly not concerned about the rest. As a result of getting overinvolved, people sometimes are led to do inappropriate things. I do not think you realize that a hunt for the RL person was wrong.  I await the view of others.    DGG ( talk ) 15:46, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * (ec)As far as I can see, all that people are asking from you is that you discuss calmly and rationally without too much hyperbole involved. The reason, as I far as I can tell, that DC suggested you should be banned from vandalism work is that you seem to be taking an entirely too militant approach to it. I would suggest that you at least limit yourself to revert, warn, report to WP:AIV, WP:LTA, WP:ABUSE and refrain from contacting access providers yourself. I am two minds regarding this as I can see that you are very active with WP:ABUSE, but I fear that your approach to it can be counter productive and I am concerned regarding your apparent ability of perceiving and claiming support where there is none. I do not believe that DC is out to get you, nor am I. I am however somewhat taken aback by your reactions and I hope that we can reach a point where you can come to see why your actions were challenged. I would also note that you have stated your full name on wikipedia and as such claims of outing against your are null and void. Please do consider that I am writing in good faith and please do not feel that you have to respond immediately. Unomi (talk) 16:00, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * With respect, has everyone forgotten how to use diffs? NJROTC, you need to used diffs to support statements such as: "that was a proposed course of action; I did not actually contact anybody or ask any questions" DGG should use a diff in support of "you then reported you had gone and looked for the myspace page, and found it."
 * Now, in response to DC, While NJROTC has not admitted "guilt", he has taken action to remove controversial edits, and has stated that he will distance himself from the situation. I say you may have a COI, because you have not, to my knowledge suggested any compromise, or anything less than sanctions against this user. I can assure you, that this is not the first ANI that has gone without an "official" closeure. IMO, what you should have done, was left the discussion in archive, and watched to see if JNROTC abided by his agreement to separate himself from the noted vandals, "I believe that Sephiroth storm's point is that DC needs to assume good faith as I had removed all references to the apparent "ban" as soon as they were questioned here as an offered settlement." I would like to state that I do not, as of now have a viewpoint on the OUTING issue, as I haven't seen any diffs of the issue. Sephiroth storm (talk) 17:10, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Very well, DC added a link to an off-wiki site about Jessica Selders at CHS here. Although I did look up JS on Myspace, I did not provide any links to her there on-wiki, what I did do is explain that the user may have violated copyright which I found appropriate because it may be a reason to oversight. I fail to find how explaining that text added by a user is a direct copy and paste is WP:OUTING, but okay, if you desire to see it as such, lets go ahead and remove the comment from this thread. I did not contact her or any of the sort, I just curiously looked her up to see who she was, which is an off-wiki activity that pretty much anyone could do if they so desire. Didn't so much as attempt to get past any private settings, contact the person, or reveal my findings to the rest of Wikipedia (except that there's a possible copyvio), just merely viewed what is posted for public access. DGG, in my opinion, is jumping to conclusions. May I also add that DC was once blocked for outing, but the block was reversed because the user apparently "wrote two articles about himself," see I don't know, but it seems this is a similar case here as the user claims to be Jessica Selders, an athlete at CHS. I don't know, may the admins decide on this one as everything about this case seems to be within a debatable gray area. <font color="red" face="Comic Sans MS">PCHS-NJROTC  <font color="black" face="Comic Sans MS">(Messages) 18:37, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

PCHS, if you look at a somewhat similar recent situation, a lot of it depends on the purpose. For example, if I type "I am going to look you up on MySpace", then it's often an attempt to "win an argument", or to dissuade the other editing from further posting. That is a serious threat. In the case I linked you to, they were not only blocked for having made the call, but for having done the off-wiki research in order to find the information about a specific Wikipedia user to use against them. (<font style="font-variant:small-caps">talk→  BWilkins  <font style="font-variant:small-caps">←track ) 18:45, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * However, I'm not looking for information to use against her. She's already blocked, so how could I possibly use anything on Myspace against her. The mention of the copyvio was me AGFing (assuming good faith in that it may not have actually been JS responsible) and was for own protection. IMHO, we should rename the account and oversight references to the name (where feasible) as it does potentially get an uninvolved party involved here. We also need to stop referencing to her here; we should AGF as it is not uncommon for vandals to use someone else's name rather than their own. I know I wouldn't want to be impersonated by a vandal. <font color="red" face="Comic Sans MS">PCHS-NJROTC <font color="black" face="Comic Sans MS">(Messages) 18:51, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * May I add that, in my opinion, we should be extremely careful when taking actions on wiki for issues off wiki. LBHSC vandals found and harassed me off wiki back when they were more active vandals, but I did not seek on wiki sanctions over it; I instead notified Myspace abuse (since the off wiki harassment took place on Myspace). In my opinion, what happens off wiki should stay off wiki. <font color="red" face="Comic Sans MS">PCHS-NJROTC <font color="black" face="Comic Sans MS">(Messages) 18:58, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * seems a little silly to use diffs referring to earlier edits in the very same discussion, but here they are: for the threat  and then  for the statement of having carried out the threat. DGG ( talk ) 04:05, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Based on what I am seeing, JNROTC did not violate WP:OUTING. To my knowledge, supported by the above diffs, he did not post any personal information including "legal name, date of birth, identification numbers, home or workplace address, job title and work organization, telephone number, email address, or other contact information". While he states he looked up the information, he did not post her personal information. Therefore there is no violation of the policy. I think NJORTC can agree that is was a mistake to do so? If that is the case, I believe we can close this ANI and deal with DC's concern over the unilateral banning issue, which since NJROTC has separated himself from the issue, should be the subject of a separate ANI, or even better, a discussion at WT:BP. Sephiroth storm (talk) 05:33, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * As an uninvolved editor in this, I'd be greatly concerned if I knew another editor on Wikipedia was seeking me out on other websites. It may not be outing, but it's a dangerous tactic. And while NJROTC states he did not make contact with the owner of the MySpace page, NJROTC did state that he/she would do so with community consent, and then quickly followed-up saying he/she had already sought out the individual (and apparently confirmed a cut/paste job). No, this is not a case of WP:OUTING, however it could be perceived as harassment, stalking, violation of privacy, and in general just a horrible idea. The fact that an editor sought another (blocked) editor off-wiki to discuss an on-wiki issue also seems borderline obsessive.


 * That aside, wasn't the original issue whether or not one editor was allowed to unilaterally ban another? Not that I have any stake in the decision, I believe this thread will merely get resurrected until that is properly answered. (If it was, and I missed it in all of the hullabaloo, I apologize.) <font color="black" size="2">HAZardousMATT <font color="#00ff00">toxic 14:20, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that it was closer to Harrassment than outing. I have yet to see the ed involved recognize that it was wrong to do it.   DGG ( talk ) 18:17, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Did we ever actually decide on an end action?
Has there actually been any kind of "official" action on the ban template adding? This is been essentially forgotten. How about actual admittance of it not being the smartest thing or an apology? ...Mostly, I'm entirely disheartened by the user's hunting down high school social rivals and trying to their face in their collective block. Honesty, I'm starting to think the cheer group was all different persons with accounts (though it doesn't excuse the disruption and vandalism). Really now, not hard to see, some cheerleader-type persons vandalize the Wikipedia entry of your school, you confirm they're blocked for it, then try to remove any mention of their existence? WP:HSDRAMA for "No high school drama, please"? Combine together some classic high school drama and somehow it turns into a Wikipedia ANI with concerns about a personal vendetta and it somehow being DeliciousCarbuncle's fault. I didn't need to do any research to get that... all on user pages or what was posted in this discussion. I might encourage a bit stricter of final stances given the strong evidence of social revenge as motivation and it not just being a random lapse in judgment. Oh, and get over the bit with DC. S/He's not the subject of this ANI. Has nothing to do with outing, or anything else. It's about the ban templates, and research finding a likely motive. Right. Can we actually get on with a resolution now and cut out further rubbish about non-involved editors and take it to ... wherever you want to argue? Please. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 16:12, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * PCHS-NJROTC has agreed that User:LBHS Cheerleader is not officially banned (see slightly up-thread), which, at this point, is good enough for me. It seems unlikely that any admin action will be forthcoming, but having just looked at this page I think a topic ban discussion should be started (as a separate thread). This can be closed, as far as I am concerned. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:36, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I can agree with you first statement, but I think a topic ban is unnecessary, as the user has stated that they would remove themselves from controversial editing. Why not give him the chance to make a positive change? Sephiroth storm (talk) 18:29, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Works for me. See! Alllllll of that and 3 posts to agree that a trouting and AGF self-imposed user sanction is quite fine, even including the most antagonized editor involved in agreement. Sans objections within the next few hours, I'd at least say a mark as resolved, and any further disputes are likely WP:WQA or RfC material if of the same editor pairs decide to clash again. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 20:02, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to belabour this, but it is clear that PCHS-NJROTC simply does not get it, based on his statement here: "...I personally feel an arguement over whether a blatant troll was banned or just blocked (every account even thought to be a sock of the user would have been blocked for the user's actions anyway), or whether one makes mistakes (everyone does), to be pointless". Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:52, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * e/c DC, you don't get it. This is pointless. Trying to get sacntions imposed on a good faith editor (it'll be a full blown permaban from Wiki if anything, I'm not kidding on that one) in favor of a bad faith editor who's been disrupting at least for over two years is bad. Perhaps I need to scan all of your edits with a fine tooth comb and find something you do wrong and report you to AN/I without settling for less than a "topic ban" or even a "ban" from Wikipedia all together. Why are you making such a big deal out of this? <font color="red" face="Comic Sans MS">PCHS-NJROTC <font color="black" face="Comic Sans MS">(Messages) 22:10, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Seriously? No, topic bans on one mistake is a bad idea. Any kind of "topic ban" will be disputed all the way up to Jimbo and the foundation if need be, and like I said, you're going to have to ban me all together and rename this account per my rights to vanish, and I'm not kidding. No no no no no no no, not kidding. Why? I'm only saying I should have discussed first, I'm not saying that a ban template was indeed "wrong," or that contacting ISPs (which there's no reak way of enforcing any kind of ban on that anyway without violating policies yourself) was "wrong," and what did I say about confession? Two people take that as an excuse to hammer, which is completely out of line with WP:AGF. I'd feel compelled to get an equally rediculous discussion on topic bans on anybody else supporting such an action for failure to WP:AGF, which, in my opinion, is far worse than adding a ban template on someone's user pages that had pretty much been considered banned anyway. Perhaps we should go back to using User:Bobabobabo's ban against LBHSC? That's crazyness as there's no definitive evidence; there should have been a more serious discussion about a ban on LBHSC instead of just going by a sockpuppetry suspicion. Also, I object to anything being posted officially about my self-asserted user action; my goal here is to minimize bad publicity even if I have to just outright leave. Also, I'm completely neutral as to real life connections to LBHSC's abuse; most of her original vandalism seems to have targeted Charlotte High School (Punta Gorda, Florida), which is also my school's top rival, so there's no WP:COI here. In reality I really don't like CHS anymore than she does, but I personally find it very immature to right hateful comments and inaccuracies in the school's article. I also have nothing against cheerleaders, and in reality, practically every one of such I know in real life are good friends that I would not have any desire to hound with bounty-hunter style investigations. As I'm not refering to the vandals, this is not WP:OUTING. I do not know the one's responsible for the vandalism, nor do I know exactly who's responsible except I've heard it's more than one person, which really doesn't matter except for the fact that it explains why LBHSC's behavior varies greatly, and is difficult to detect. Checkuser confirmed that various LBHSC suspected socks with various personalities were related, but the user is an IP hopper that could not reasonably be range blocked. The Mmbabies case was over a year ago, and I learned a lot from that. Until this month, my handling of the LBHSC case was praised, I received barnstars from it, and respected admins told me to "keep up the good work" as seen here. <font color="red" face="Comic Sans MS">PCHS-NJROTC <font color="black" face="Comic Sans MS">(Messages) 22:05, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Kikodawgzzz's use of minor edit flag
Hello.

I was directed here from Wikiquette Alerts.

Kikodawgzzz continues to add tags to the White privilege entry (history), including tags for speedy deletion, while using the minor edits flag. He's been warned twice about this on his user talk page, but he has done it twice since then. (Click here for the most recent example.) -- Marie Paradox (talk) 20:02, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * (ECx2) I don't think they should have been marked minor, but I don't see why it warrants an ANI post. He hasn't been warned the standard 4 times yet. However, he does seem to be editing disruptively. <b style="color:#009900;">Ks0stm</b> (T•C•G) 20:44, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Administrators should review my own talk page, as well as those of Marie Paradox and Malik Shabazz, and in addition, the revert wars AND the discussion board on the article in question. It's my firm conviction that by doing so, Wikipedia administrators will conclude that the article is POV to the point of being un-salvageable, and must either be removed entirely, or deleted and then re-created with an eye to encyclopedic objectivity. Kikodawgzzz (talk) 20:43, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I've reviewed your talk page and, quite frankly, I'm impressed with everyone's patience with you. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 20:50, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I fail to see any connection between your belief that an article is POV and your refusal (or inability) to fix your preferences to stop marking all your edits as minor. Or your repeated attempts to have the article speedily deleted, when you have been told, by three different editors, that your belief that the article is POV is not a valid criterion for speedy deletion. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 20:49, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry I posted here without four warnings' having been given. If I should ever need to post here again, I'll adhere to the standard. Thank you, Ks0stm and Jauerback for looking into this matter. -- Marie Paradox (talk) 00:41, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Has anyone noticed that both the constant reverts and the constant criticism of my actions have come 99.9% exclusively from either Marie Paradox or Malik Shabazz? It is clearly as if they think they alone 'own' the article and can simply revert anything they see fit. It's not just the box for speedy deletion one or both has removed; it's also been the box for gradual deletion as well, as well as the custom warning box I designed that cautions new viewers of the page to beware that the article is vastly unbalanced and really needs to be fundamentally rewritten and/or purged. Oh, and they also consistently remove the 'total rewrite' box without bothering to say anything. Jauerback, you're surprised at "everyone's" patience with me? If you look at the tendencies of the records since I returned to this article, you will see that these two are very far from "everyone." (I was one of the original editors of the article back a few years ago, and had stopped coming around to it, and then I come back and find all this ethnic nationalist-sympathetic language "supported" by "scholarly sources" and a pathetic two-paragraph, mid-page 'Criticism' section that doesn't even mention (though it used to, back when I used to edit it) real criticism of WSP as it exists in the world of anti-racist, non-right-winger criticisms. Perhaps most important, however, is this apparent perception that it is "me" or "mainly me" that is protesting against this article, because I am "bellyaching." But actually, if you look at the history of the discussion section, there are just as many angry users out there who are equally angry, or at least almost as angry, at the 'evolution' of this page into a totally one-sided view of the phenomenon, and a refusal by its two "chief editors" to work on it to establish encyclopedic/journalistic objectivity, which actually, if Shabazz and Paradox are indeed going to insist upon ensuring that they alone are today's two main editors of the thing, THEY should be taking it upon THEMSELVES to personally ensure. But they won't; they probably put most of the supporting documentation towards pro-WSP in there themselves, actually, and then threw up their hands and said "well, it's not our responsibility to do the rest." Stuff like THAT is clearly not acceptable on a valid wikipedia page. Has everyone forgotten about the fundamental requirement of a Wikipedia article that it be verifiably and obviously neutral in its viewpoint??
 * If people involved in this case want to continue arguing this way, that's fine, and I'll gladly reciprocate, as I am a very fierce left-wing opponent of White Skin Privilege as an "anti-racist" theory and I believe it should absolutely be purged from leftist circles as it exists-- and warnings against its spread should be posted for the benefit of innocent minds who don't know any better and wind up taking the article as all-but-fact. But my personal views aside, even if these two editors are going to continue to insist that the article must stand until someone else can fix it, should it not be agreed administratively that a warning box and/or a box for the process of gradual deletion over the course of more extended discussion be allowed to stand? I absolutely intend to continue fighting this out and I will do so until Shabazz and Paradox are significantly lessened in their influence of this article. It's time for these two to be shown that they can't be in charge, and that wikipedia is a collective effort. Kikodawgzzz (talk) 11:04, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Kikodawgzzz, personalized disclaimers, and speedy deletion
Kikodawgzzz repeatedly has added a personalized disclaimer to White privilege      that has been reverted by at least three different editors. I warned Kikodawgzzz that we don't put disclaimers in articles, but it seems to have made no impact. In fact, Kikodawgzzz has added the disclaimer several times since that warning.

Also, Kikodawgzzz repeatedly has nominated the article for speedy deletion under non-existent criteria. Three different editors removed the speedy deletion tags with edit summaries that explained Kikodawgzzz had not specified a valid reason. I advised Kikodawgzzz that the article couldn't be deleted unless a valid speedy deletion reason was specified. That discussion, too, didn't sink in, because Kikodawgzzz nominated the article for speedy deletion twice after my note.

Clearly I'm not getting through to Kikodawgzzz. Could an uninvolved administrator please try? Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 18:27, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ I've blocked him for a week to prevent continued disruption of the article.Beeblebrox (talk) 19:04, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Unacceptable behavior from User:Franklin.vp
has a history of extreme incivility. My most recent encounter with this user was this post, which was directed at me and which I found extremely upsetting to the point that I was considering retiring (again) from the project. I had a previous encounter with this user at Talk:Asymptote, where perhaps both of us behaved in a mutually antagonistic fashion, but ultimately I found his posts there inappropriately personal (including some ridiculous but aggravating speculation on what I do or do not understand, which I found totally uncalled for). Since our interaction on Talk:Asymptote, I have found on several occasions that Franklin seems to have appeared on talk pages of articles that I edit. As this seemed to fall short of WP:HARASSment at the time, I was not going to make too much of this, but then I noticed that apparently the user has quite a history of extremely inappropriate posts:


 * Calling another user (me) ignorant and petulant.
 * Calling another user "an ignorant brute" and a "troll".
 * Other very rude remarks that appear to have been part of a campaign of harassment against User:Nezzadar. In particular,  ,.

There was an earlier ANI thread on this sort of behavior here in the archives (actually, with this edit following the "stern warning", he probably should have been blocked outright). I don't know what the appropriate course of action is to deal with this. I leave it as a matter for the folks here to decide. Sławomir Biały (talk) 16:31, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * If these kinds of vicious personal comments are actually condoned by Wikipedia's policies (as evidenced by over two hours without any other comment), I think I really shall retire for good. I do think this at least warrants some reply, if not some kind of administrator action.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 18:52, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Christmas time. Be patient. Not too many people are here now. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 18:55, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I see where you warned him at 21:22, 22 December 2009 which was AFTER the incivility you note above. I also see that User:Franklin.vp has not made any incivil comments since you warned him at that time.  Are there any that I am missing, because what I see here is a) your warning 2 days ago b) some edits by him, none of which contain any incivility and c) this thread.  What we are missing is evidence that your warning did not cause him to change his behavior; that he ignored your warning.  Near as I can tell, he took your warning to heart and is playing by the rules right now.  Can you show us recent (i.e. since your warning) evidence of problems? -- Jayron  32  19:09, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * He was warned last month for this kind of behavior (and also engaged in more personal attacks of the same editor a week afterwards). I only became aware of the older warnings and the past history of vicious personal attacks after posting the warning to the talk page (thanks to User:RDBury for pointing out this history).  Anyway, I feel that this behavior is so far outside the norms of what should be considered acceptable that surely some action stronger than a repeated warning is warranted here.  Sławomir Biały  (talk) 19:15, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, since blocks aren't supposed to be a punishment, I still feel like 2 days of no problems is a long time to come back and block someone. Yes, he has been warned in the past, but apparently this latest warning took hold. Like I said, we can block him when he continues the problems, but what is the point of starting an ANI thread 2 days after the last incident? -- Jayron  32  19:35, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok. Well, let's hope this warning holds.  I for one am still quite offended by some of the remarks this editor has made towards me, despite my own efforts to get past it.  I think the best solution is for me simply to leave Wikipedia for good.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 19:42, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Renewed disruption/hounding by User:Jack Merridew

 * Ikip, you are far from an appropriate editor to be closing this down. Jack Merridew 20:58, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Resolved? Not really. For what it's worth, I believe that the appropriate course is for one or more neutral admins to
 * take firm control of this shouting match, and
 * actually look at the conduct of all the editors involved, and deal with it appropriately to stop the misbehavior.
 * I've only read some of the diffs, but those evidence counterproductive conduct that should be stopped, including some very uncivil edit comments (regardless of who is right about the edits themselves). Thank you.—Finell 21:14, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The last ANI lasted weeks, and had to be moved to another page. Since then there has been an RFC and arbcom.
 * This is a childofmidnight/Giano type dispute, except the editors are much less powerful and influential.
 * I encourage editors instead to consider a RFC. Ikip 21:19, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Although I have tried to avoid/ignore him for months now per WP:DENY, he is still at and despite multiple warnings; see for example the proposals at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Motions/Jack Merridew one year unban review/mentors page and Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Motions/Jack Merridew one year unban review/mentors page, which follow up on Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Motions/Jack Merridew one year unban review/mentors page. I have been working on Manon Batiste for some time only to have him show up with this comment after me, revert me, revert me elsewhere, and attack me in a discussion. As User:Newyorkbrad wrote, "I would also emphasize that Jack Merridew should make a concerted effort to avoid unnecessary interaction with other editors with whom he has been in repeated conflict, not only White Cat, and should avoid any actions that could give a reasonable appearance of wikihounding such editors, whether or not that is his intent." He is meanwhile also back to signing with "Jeers" despite warnings as well. Despite multiple warnings, proposals, and cautions, it just won't stop, whether it be to avoid me, to not mock others in signatures, etc. Enough already! Please, please help! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 17:27, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Pickbothmanlol loves Jack Merridew, please no block. Faded-Myth-Of-Fate (talk) 17:29, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Someone block the damn sock, above. AN, please cease being disruptive re pop-culture articles and AfD. Cheers, Jack Merridew 17:34, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * See for example the following comment from an admin: "How about you don't ever comment on A Nobody again or get indefinitely blocked again? With your past, you have absolutely zero authority to suggest that someone else is "extremely disruptive" and "primarily responsible for creating the polarized I/D schism". You have been warned before to stay away from A Nobody. Consider this a last warning." Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 17:35, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * A sublimely timed complaint, A Nobody, when just moments ago you engaged in the exact kind of mimicry of another editor's comments that you've repeatedly been told is infuriating. Haven't you also been told running to ANI at the drop of a hat is also kind of annoying? --EEMIV (talk) 17:49, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Haven't you been told to stop swearing and mocking editors in your incivil edit summaries:, , etc.? Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 17:51, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, not that I recall, no. --EEMIV (talk) 17:55, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * For example, I said as much concerning your reversions of people's edits as "lasy" here. And after putting up with these attacks for a year and despite multiple warnings by multiple admins and other editors is hardly a "drop of the hat". I avoided jumping in on such threads as Administrators%27 noticeboard/IncidentArchive582 and yet the fixation on me has continued. Trying to change the subject is unhelpful. I know you don't like me; I know no matter what I do, I can't change that perception, but I should hope that even someone who does not like me would see a problem when even admins who are not my biggest fans have warned someone to avoid me, he stays after me, or when even his staunchest supporters have warned him not to use "jeers" in signatures, he keeps at it. When even people who don't like me see a problem, when even his supporters warn him, and he still ignores both, then it is time an admin do something more decisive to stop this already. Despite all the mean things you have said to me, I can assure you that if some user was warned by multiple admins to leave you alone and kept going around calling you disruptive, etc., I absolutely would support your rightful indignation if the shoe was on your foot. There is a serious problem on our site if someone with such a bad history sees fit to fixate on another. —Preceding unsigned comment added by A Nobody (talk • contribs)


 * I wasn't trying to "change the subject" by bringing up your echolalia; rather, suggest that you're not going to get anything out of your latest JM complaint about him behaving in a way contrary to previous admonitions against him when you, also, behave in a way contrary to previous admonitions against you. You keep asking for support in enforcing a change in someone's problematic behavior yet seem unwilling to make a shift yourself. (Maybe I've missed something in your behavior the last few weeks we haven't overlapped -- but, judging by the AfD- and article-related behavior where we've overlapped the last days or so, I see the same ol' same ol'.) --EEMIV (talk) 18:13, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Anyway, good luck. I'm sure this thread will end with the same mutual frustration and bemusement the others have. Perhaps you can demonstrate being "the better person" and pick a venue for contributions in an area that doesn't significantly overlap with JM's. Not exactly fair to you, but it gives you a "high road." Or something. --EEMIV (talk) 18:15, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * That is what gets me here. You know perhaps my main interest on Wikipedia is fiction and yet, I intentionally avoid commenting in Articles for deletion/Allieds, Articles for deletion/Jagernaut, and Articles for deletion/Ruby Dynasty specifically to avoid him (I somewhat similarly am avoiding such discussion as Articles for deletion/Mattias Nilsson (Mercenaries), despite my obvious interest, that you commented in so as not to needlessly escalate things between us). If I can avoid discussions after him, there is no legitimate reason why he must show up in discussions after me, and he doesn't just show up after me. As I indicate above, he does so with a "rationale" that attacks me more so than actually focusing on the article. As Fram hints at in her cited warning above, it is one thing if editors with impeccable records criticize me, but to be ridiculed by someone who thinks the sexist "Delete...her tits didn't make teh list" is a worthwhile contribution? Neither I nor anyone can take seriously criticism from such an account. Moreover, whether anyone finds my sources convincing enough, we are indeed here to build an encyclopedia and so to characterize a good faith effort to spend several minutes not only looking for sources by also working them into the article is just too over the top. Again, someone can reasonably not convinced that my sources meet their criteria. Okay. But to call trying to find and add sources "disruptive"?! And to be called that by someone who has done nothing to demonstrate looking for sources or attempting to add them in just about every fiction AfD he comments in is beyond the pale. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 18:39, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Requests for comment/A Nobody and you're back at it all. Jack Merridew 17:44, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

This is not about me following AN; I saw the articles pop-up on my watchlist. He's disruptively undoing redirects on merged content; repeatedly. AN needs to cease all of the disruptive behaviors he garnered so much commentary on. His demonizing of me is merely a tactic to change the subject.

Note how he starts right off with "WP:DENY". I've tried all sorts of DR with him, but he simply shows me the hand and seeks sanctions. AN, you want this properly sorted? Pick one of our talk pages and we'll have a nice cup of tea. If you will not, I'll stick to my view that you need a pop-culture/XfD/RfA topic ban; broadly construed. You would, of course, need to significantly adjust your approach to this project. Jack Merridew 18:27, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Jack Merridew, do you think it is more appropriate for you, than someone else, to be responding to edits made by A Nobody (both of you have a history of animosity)? Why didn't you give someone else a chance to respond to the issue? Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:35, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * See the histories of Manon Batiste and Jimmy Patterson; the edit warring over the redirect has been going on all month without me. I opined on both AfDs some months back and this has repeatedly popped-up for me, so I dipped an oar in and commented. I care little about A Nobody as a person; I do care about his disruption of the project in areas I've long had an interest in. If he would like less involvement from me, he could try and reform his approach to the project. Jack Merridew 19:02, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Ncmvocalist, note whereas I worked to improve these articles his comments in the AfDs are the antagonistic "this is unencyclopaedic trash" (a copy and paste from here. Compare that with my stance, i.e. no need to attack anyone else, no need to declare anyone else's effort's "trash". Moreover, the idea that the one person in the discussions to actually show evidence of looking for sources and working to add them to improve articles is somehow "disruptive" is beyond laughable. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 19:14, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Restore original section title. Whether the claim was correct or not, the title, accurately reflecting the poster's accusation, was consistent with practice here, and Jack's retitling was abusively uncivil. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:36, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Hardly a neutral title or a neutral editor doing the restore. Jack Merridew 19:02, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Hullabaloo, despite your revert, note the edit summaries here and here. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 19:14, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * …and here. Jack Merridew 19:26, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

After being mockingly referred to by my old name on Wikipedia Review after admin User:DGG wrote "I can confirm that I've seen the evidence of ongoing harassment off-wiki. I think baiting someone in these circumstances is despicable." by someone who also claims in his blog to "have gained enough trust and influence now and most admins are so naïve that I can make claims against anybody I suspect is a secondary account and get them blocked for sockpuppetry" and who admittedly "loves conflict", it's just enough already. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 18:39, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Those blogs are not me; some fucking troll. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 18:51, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm willing to believe that the blog above is not Jack's, and that it was placed online by someone back in 2007 in order to discredit him after his unbanning. A domain who-is gives an address of a Google dns-admin. Perhaps that dns-admin might be encouraged to close down the blog as a defamamation of the Jack who edits Wikipedia?  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 20:37, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * All blogspot blogs give DNS info as google, since google owns blogspot.  TheWeak Willed   (T * G) 20:51, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Copyright issues and User talk:MJfan9
This user has repeatedly inserted copyrighted images on his user talkpage [] and user page []. He is wiping his user page of the last warnings he has been recving but something has to give. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 17:53, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * He's allowed to remove any messages from his user talk that he wants to. As far as I can see, he has not, as yet, restored the non-free images since removing the  warning.  So far, he is actually heeding that warning.  He read the final warning at 16:20, and someone (rightfully) removed the problematic images at 13:54-13:56.  So far, he is doing exactly what a warning is supposed to do.  He has not repeated the problematic behavior, so there doesn't look like anything for admins to do here.  If the behavior returns, let us know, but right now, it looks fine.  -- Jayron  32  19:01, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually I was referring to the last few days of warnings he recieved. I understand he is good to clear his talk page at will but this is the at least fourth final warning I've seen because of this issue.

[] [] [] [] [] Hell In A Bucket (talk) 19:11, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Block this user. In addition to don't care about the warnings, he's attacking users, like me. After he wrote that on my talk, he reverted my editions on his userpage and my message too. I reverted it again. -- MisterWiki  talk   contribs  19:26, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Block him for a week, since he has only been here a little over a week. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 19:38, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Blocked for 3 days for the personal attack. --<small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;"><big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee // <font color="#090">have a cup  // <font color="#4682b4">ark  // 20:04, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

A veritable sock drawer at Articles for deletion/Tim Ireland
The Tim Ireland article has been controversial for some time, with several accounts nominating it for speedy deletion on multiple occasions, and/or repeatedly PRODding it (the repeat PRODs are, of course invalid). The article was originally PRODded by Magpie1892 in July, with the PROD removed by CJPargeter. Magpie1892 PRODded the article a second time in early December, I removed the PROD as invalid, and the sockfest began. The PROD was added back several times by IPs, then twice by User:Chithecynic, who has also acknowledged being one of the IPs. It was also speedy-nominated by IPs and by Seven-nil, who has virtually no edit history and only one edit not related to this article. On December 17, Chithecynic nominated the article for deletion. All but one of the "delete" !votes in the AFD (that by Fenix down, who is clearly editing in good faith and not involved in the shenanigans) appear to come from the accounts/addresses which had previously placed invalid PRODs or speedies (quickly declined/removed) on the article. These account share other features -- for the named accounts, very limited edit histories; problems signing posts correctly, and posting personal attacks on editors disputing their edits(mostly me, see such charming examples as (Chithecynic);,  (Magpie1892);  (Seven-nil);  (217.28.34.132, open-to-public IP address with many other users);  (92.41.202.43, presumably same access as !voter 92.41.217.22). I'm not sure this article over a minimally notable UK blogger has stirred up such a hullaballoo fracas, but it's getting way out of hand. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:34, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, you'll just love this, so :p - the following accounts are ✅ as being the one editor:
 * The underlying IP has been blocked, too, as it's been abusive in itself. The other accounts are ❌ - A l is o n  ❤ 20:42, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Is that a resolved tag then? Throwaway85 (talk) 21:05, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Someone should likely deal with the accounts. As checkuser, I'm not going to block them, too - A l is o n  ❤ 21:07, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow, that was fast; thanks very much. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:10, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * So my understanding is that the IP editors have been blocked, is that correct? If so, should we start an SPI on the registered accounts? What's the proper course of action here? Or have the registered accounts already been taken care of? Throwaway85 (talk) 08:40, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No, they've actually all been done now. I ran a check on the accounts in question - sokay, we're good :) - A l is o n  ❤ 00:11, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't you mean 'sockay'? Oh ho ho ho ho...God, I'm lonely... Half  Shadow  00:13, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * So my understanding is that the IP editors have been blocked, is that correct? If so, should we start an SPI on the registered accounts? What's the proper course of action here? Or have the registered accounts already been taken care of? Throwaway85 (talk) 08:40, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No, they've actually all been done now. I ran a check on the accounts in question - sokay, we're good :) - A l is o n  ❤ 00:11, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't you mean 'sockay'? Oh ho ho ho ho...God, I'm lonely... Half  Shadow  00:13, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring on closed AFD and personal attack
I'd appreciate it if someone else could take a look at this and possibly leave a comment on their talk page. Cheers, postdlf (talk) 22:56, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I've left a message on their talk page regarding this, I don't think we're quite to the level of needing any admin actions yet. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:02, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I agree, I just thought it would have more effect coming from someone with whom he had no previous interactions. postdlf (talk) 23:49, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Multiple new accounts adding mysterious external link
A situation was raised in this thread at the External Links Noticeboard that deserves administrator attention. Someone is creating multiple new accounts with the apparent sole purpose of adding links to the site at sites.google.com/site/datemix/. The accounts are created, given user pages dressed up to look like the pages of experienced users (e.g., putting a supposed user profile claiming to have begun editing in 2006, when the account was created that day), and from there the only activity is to add this link. I'm particularly disturbed by the user-page dress-ups, which suggests a relatively sophisticated attempt to prevent the accounts from being immediately blocked. The link itself goes to what is basically a blank page, so I suspect either malware distribution or an experiment to see whether this type of approach will work for spreading spam in the future. Accounts involved include:



I'm working on removing the remaining instances of this link, and I'm going to report it to the spam blacklist, but something needs to be done about these accounts. --RL0919 (talk) 15:39, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Looking at the user and talk pages, they are full of fake claims - Denenc has copied User:Magicartpro's user page, for instance, and is claiming to have created Magicartpro's articles. I'd say block them all, and I might just do that. Dougweller (talk) 15:45, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Socks. Look at User:Menxuo's user page... Banner up top suggests persons look at their alternate account which they're on break. Okay. That sends us to User:Merlion44, which itself is a puppet of User:Merlion444. Sock of a sock was approved? Highly unlikely. Same MO on userpages and edits for all 5 of those. imo it might only have been copied because it is the same user. Worth an SPI for Magicartpro and Merlion444 probably. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 15:53, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I've blocked all the socks, will file an SPI to root out sleepers. - Jeremy  ( v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!! ) 15:54, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Got one more - . NawlinWiki (talk) 15:57, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, will add to SPI now. - Jeremy  ( v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!! ) 15:59, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * And another, . NawlinWiki (talk) 16:00, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * And have added that one as well, as well as requested any CU doing it to also hit the underlying IP. - Jeremy  ( v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!! ) 16:02, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * By the by, SPI up. - Jeremy  ( v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!! ) 16:06, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Found a bunch more, I'll add them to the investigation. The pattern suggests to me that it's User:Tile join, but that's just a hunch.  NawlinWiki (talk) 16:11, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * And CU complete. It's not Merlion444 or his socks, nor is it Tile Join and his socks - it's a Spanish ISP, a /23 of which has been given 48h. I think we're done 'ere. - Jeremy  ( v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!! ) 14:41, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to ban User:PCHS-NJROTC from Abuse response and vandalism-related issues
User:PCHS-NJROTC has a history with Abuse response and sockpuppetry investigations. Despite this, they appear to lack the judgment and maturity necessary for such efforts. This recent long and somewhat rambling ANI discussion deals with their unilateral addition of a user to the WP:list of banned users (as well as earlier false assertions in SPI discussions that the user was banned). In that thread there were concerns raised about PCHS-NJROTC tracking down people off-wiki to question them about their accounts.

PCHS-NJROTC was previously topic banned from Mmbabies-related topics for similar off-wiki activities. The entirety of this Mmbabies discussion page is simply an embarassment to the project (which doesn't even take into account the edits that have been removed). PCHS-NJROTC should have been topic banned from any vandalism-related activities long ago.
 * Support- as proposer. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:21, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose and speedy close. I really do hate stray from WP:AGF here, but this user is obsessive. There was an earlier thread here that was closed because there's no consensus other than the fact that this is going no where either way and that DC needs to WP:AGF. Not all of my anti-vandalism activities are controversial at all; I have rollback which I continue to be entrusted with for failure to abuse the tool. I already offered peaceful proposal. Once again, I hate to stray from WP:AGF, but I'm about to propose a topic ban on DC from posting AN/I threads as he clearly can't control his urge to get a "topic ban" imposed despite lack of support/consensus. <font color="red" face="Comic Sans MS">PCHS-NJROTC <font color="black" face="Comic Sans MS">(Messages) 22:38, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted a unilateral deletion of this thread. Anyone who thinks it merits deletion should say so and get something like agreement on this. (As for me, I have no opinion on it.) -- Hoary (talk) 23:16, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

DC, could you please remove your costume and come down from the ledge? Beeblebrox (talk) 23:17, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * DC, I think you are doing nothing by digging for drama. You dug one post out of the archives, you start this one after the previous one is archived again.  You are clearly involved and want nothing more to dig up some drama.  You say this "isn't anything personal", but it is clear it is personal to you.  Hence why I moved this to the section at the top and archived it.  Step away from the dust that was once a horse. - <small style="white-space:nowrap;border:1px solid #900;padding:1px;"> NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • 23:20, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Dual WP:DENY: There will never be consensus other than the fact that everyone is groaning about the similar larger problem. You both know this. You both have been rather oddly overzealous, you both have offered at least semi-reasonable solutions on top of others proposed by outside parties. *Scratches head* Neither of you have been notably "better" or "worse" than the other in terms of forking, rambling and general endless disputes of any type, so I'm not seeing any consensus ever forming to one end. ...Even if that did happen, the other would claim it was users "choosing sides". ♪ daTheisen(talk)
 * How about this, as was suggested in the previous close: WP:DENY, go work on other stuff, take a few days off. Speaking to the other party in any way shape or form even indirectly can be interpreted by any uninvolved admin as a lack of truck in further AGF and can perform whatever actions deemed necessary. Both of you are "encouraged" to avoid any notification boards with the exception of matters in need of immediate attention such as actions relating to BLP, AIV, NLT, etc. DC, should admit that dragging this on is not the wisest thing. PCHS needs to admit to the same in tandem. Preferably both with apologies. PCHS has the matter of the blocking and offline social drama dragged to Wikipedia that started this all, but that's separate and supposedly handled. End this, or I'm going to start an RfC for both of you in one swoop since the level of sighing all around is pretty balanced and there's seemingly no reconciliation. Is it one or both sides contributing to that? Who knows. That's what an RfC could discuss. Any RfCs filed in this matter from either of you should include a call for discussion on your own actions, as well, so that there's at least an attempt at one balanced level of discussion. No more ANIs, no reports elsewhere. It'll all be about the same thing.
 * Would someone mind explaining to me how this can't just be marked resolved as "consider these unofficial final warnings on dealing with one another"? That's agreeable, I'd think. Everyone drop their WP:BEANS and go edit elsewhere for awhile, with the ban template matter and off-wiki-to-wiki drama left at the discretion of others to consider worth action anymore. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 23:57, 24 December 2009 (UTC) -- style fix ♪ daTheisen(talk) 23:58, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Request to re-open the ban discussion
It looks like this thread has been prematurely closed because people are characterizing it as "drama" without even reading the diffs provided. Why not let the discussion run its course? If the community decides that a ban is not necessary, no ban will be enacted. I may be pressing the issue, but not dealing with it squarely and promptly is what is causing the drama. If it helps at all, I'm not planning to participate any further in this (but I would like it re-opened). If someone wants to start an RfC, be my guest, but don't expect me to participate - the discussions speak for themselves. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:15, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * NO! - <small style="white-space:nowrap;border:1px solid #900;padding:1px;"> NeutralHomer •  Talk  • 04:24, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Neutralhomer, after I asked you to stop interfering with threads in which I am involved, you moved this into the archived discussion. You seem to have personal grudge with me for some reason and only do this to threads which I have started. You're welcome to offer your opinion, but please do not stifle other editors' ability to participate here. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:14, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Nothing is going to come out of this Carbuncle. Move on, for fuck's sake.— Ryūlóng (<font color="Gold">竜龙 ) 13:39, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, Carbuncle. For your own sake and sanity, stop flaming the Solly in an attempt to burn the Spy. - Jeremy  ( v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!! ) 16:15, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I continue to support blocking him for harassment,  but for reasons I do not understand, there does not seem to be enough support.    DGG ( talk ) 16:23, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Somewhat to his defense, he did raise a very sizable concern that started this ANI and was largely ignored because of a tidal wave of uncivil statements being shoved again. With his/her level concern with the ANI, I don't blame them.. At the very least, the party concerned has been able to deflect any criticisms. Past that, no, there's no excuse as to why this has kept on. DC... please, stop.This is arguably over the line on "mutual stubbornness" tipped against you now. As such, if people could avoid trying to pile on it, that would be appreciated. A lot of the continued defensive attitude comes from from now being continuously scrutinized for every one of DC's actions, whether or not that is warranted. DC needs to give it a rest, retaliation posers out to get DC need to give it a rest. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 17:39, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

PimpUigi impersonator
Merry Christmas, and Happy Holidays Wikipedia Admins.

I'm sorry if this incident has been made in the wrong section, I don't think this fits into the other categories.

I've finally decided to start making edits to Wikipedia, and I find someone has been impersonating me.

I've been trying to make my name for a few months now.

Every time I try to make my name PimpUigi, I get the message "too similar to the user name Pimpuigi"

I've never registered here, and I am an ex pro Smash Bros. Melee player.

http://super-smash-bros.wikia.com/wiki/Smasher:PimpUigi

I was relatively famous, and very popular in the pro circle from 2005 to 2007

I've never been impersonated anywhere except for here, to my knowledge.

I can do whatever you want to prove I am who I say I am.

Voice verify, web cam, PMing my established user name (PimpUigi) on forums, cell phone, passport, drivers license, etc. etc.

I have made small but accurate, handy, sourced edits to the 32X, and 32X related articles, as well as the JVC Star Wars article.

I plan on continuing to provide respectable assistance, but I will not make another name that is not mine.

I have the AIM account PimpUigi, and my use name on every forum I want to be part of is PimpUigi.

Pick a random one to PM, and it will be me, I can guarantee it.

My email addresses are not PimpUigi, because I want to remain professional for my real life profession.

I can and will provide email addresses if asked, I do want my user name linked to at least one of them.

I did not chose my nick name, my name chose me.

Dukey Brown Mario came up with it as a cool name for the Pink Luigi, and people just simply started calling me "PimpUigi" because I would shout "PimpUigi!" when someone would pick the Pink Luigi.

It stuck to me so well, the admins of www.smashboards.com changed my user name from whatever it had been at the time, to PimpUigi for me.

It's a very fond memory of mine.

I tried once before to resolve this, but as I had no other interest other than someone was impersonating me, I let it drop.

I looked over your guideline for misleading user names.

"There are four kinds of usernames that are specifically disallowed:


 * Misleading usernames imply relevant, misleading things about the contributor. Misleading names include those that imply you are in a position of authority over Wikipedia, or those that impersonate other people."

Someone impersonated me under my name.

I can already see they made my name look bad.

This makes me very unhappy, especially since I want to help contribute, and be semi recognized for it.--70.20.246.58 (talk) 07:15, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The "Pimpuigi" account appears to be unused for several years. Surely someone could rename it and make it available for you to use.— Ryūlóng (<font color="Gold">竜龙 ) 07:43, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That account was actually just a vandalism account (and is indef blocked, so it won't be making any more edits anytime soon), so it might meet the "...rare exceptions are made where old edits do not require attribution under the GFDL" at WP:USURP, since all of its edits have been totally reverted as vandalism. Regardless, since it's registered, usurpation would be required, so you'd have to create an account of some type to move to that name. Bureaucrats also generally prefer to see that you've made a reasonable number of good edits with that account&mdash;it's a waste of their time to usurp for people who aren't going to stick around anyway. I think, though, that if you make yourself an account (what about something like User:The Real PimpUigi?) and edit under it for a while, if you explain your case, there's a reasonable chance a usurpation request would get accepted. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:02, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * As this prospective user wants the name with different capitalisation from the existing account that is blocked they actually need to request the account be created for them. WP:ACC or the direct link to the form, http://toolserver.org/~acc/ . <font face="Georgia"><font color="#ff0000">delirious  ☯ <font color="#00cc33">~ nollaig shona duit~ 18:31, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

ApprenticeFan and deletion processes
In the online communities for which are based on one of my editing areas here on Wikipedia, the television series "Tensou Sentai Goseiger" has been known about for a month or so now. A recent magazine article came out which has officially confirmed this entity today, and I wrote the article on it found at. had been working on a draft of this article in his user space using information that was not found in standard publications available to the general (Japanese) public (proprietary catalogues given to marketing people) found at.

discovered my authoring of the main space page today and listed it for speedy deletion as a copy-paste move of Fractyl's subpage. I advised him of his mistake and moved on by adding onto the page. He took my statement as an invitation to list Fractyl's user page for MFD using faulty reasoning.

ApprenticeFan has participated in many deletion debates but it does not appear that he knows when a page should or should not be deleted. Very often he provides improper deletion reasons and definitely in the two "Goseiger" pages his inability to discern proper deletion processes is evident.— Ryūlóng (<font color="Gold">竜龙 ) 07:40, 25 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I decided to speedy closed the discussion minutes ago. I'm deal with this. Done. ApprenticeFan  talk  contribs 07:43, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Wiki Greek Basketball
I am reporting this editor here for continued incivility and attempted RfA disruption. Firstly, his RfA tanked due to the the attitude he displayed in the nomination and in subsequent edits to it. The next incident happened here where he opposed because he felt he was a better admin candidate than the one who he left the oppose for. Further incivilities can be found here, here, here, here, and here.

In my view this editor has crossed the line and I recommend an indefinite ban due to his temperment and attempted RfA disruption. ArcAngel (talk) 09:21, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You insult me and then make a request to have me banned and say I crossed the line. You truly are a great asset to Wikipedia.Wiki Greek Basketball (talk) 12:29, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you provide a diff to this alleged insult? Your actions in this section clearly crossed the line and indicate that you do not possess the required maturity level to have the admin tools as you have YET to act in a rational manner after your failed RfA, acting "high and mighty" as you did, and continue to do.  Your refusal to accept anyone's advice in this matter is further proof that you will never be supported for adminship, and are putting yourself in a very difficult position by refusing to acknowledge your totally asinine behavior.  ArcAngel (talk) 12:48, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You must be an evil person. Nothing else makes sense. You really are very mean and rude. You have no right to treat me like you have. NONE. What is wrong with you? Why are you like this? What is it? Were you abused as a child?Wiki Greek Basketball (talk) 12:57, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, I WAS abused as a child - but that's neither here nor there. So, you can provide no diffs to my alleged insult?  I have not seen any meanness or rudeness coming from my side of things, I can assure you, and if there had been, I am sure other editors would have let me know about it.  On the contrary, YOU have no right to be acting and treating others as you have been.  That behavior is the clearest definition of uncivil I have ever seen.  ArcAngel (talk) 13:02, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You must have something seriously wrong with you. You insult me personally. Then after an admin (who also insulted me personally) removes my votes without ANY proper reason to do so and then threatens me with a ban - while I am complaining about it with the admin - YOU go and ask here that I be banned because I dared have an issue with that admin that is being a complete you know what and clearly not following the rules he should be. And now this site is full of people that don't know the first damn thing about this and are just attacking me and gang raping me here and requesting I be banned without even know what the f is happening here. All because YOU decided that it was bannable that I did not like Coffee abusing and harrasing me, just for that YOU think I should be banned. Never mind that I have been a dedicated and good user here and NEVER in almost 2 years have I EVER had a problem here. NEVER. But God freaking damn I made the god damn mistake of applying to be an admin and now people like YOU are harrasing me and punishing me for it and trying to ban me because of it. It's freaking outrageous. There..........ya got it? Do you understand why I am mad now? That's it. I am DONE and finished.Wiki Greek Basketball (talk) 13:09, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It was this edit of yours that led to my reporting you here. Nowhere did I see any 'abuse' by Coffee towards you whatsoever, and yet you continued to drag him through the mud, as you are doing to me now.  I have done nothing here but report factual information as to your disruptive behavior - another example of which is here.  That is in no way, shape, or form a valid reason for opposing someone, and it was the start of many incivilities I noticed coming from you.  ArcAngel (talk) 13:22, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You decided to escalate this to out of control and unacceptable levels. By requesting that a user (me) be banned because he was being harassed my an admin (Coffee) for no reason. You can try all you want to weasel out of it, but those are the facts and you know it. Unfortunately for you, you misjudged me to be as easy a kill and ban as all the other people you have probably done this to before.Wiki Greek Basketball (talk) 13:27, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The only thing I see that is out of control and unacceptable here is your behavior, and the match to this big fire can be traced back to your failed RfA. I do not see ANY harassment from Coffee towards you whatsoever - that is fact.  Your continued uncivil behavior since your failed RfA is also fact.  While true I was initially uninvolved I decided something had to be done about your uncalled for editing.  Your failure to see what you are doing, and trying to twist things around to your favor will not work.  ArcAngel (talk) 13:48, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * They also edit warred with me on my talk page. I don't support an indefinite ban, but maybe something to keep them from posting flagrant mistruths everywhere (also known as being disruptive). I think they just need to relax a bit. RFAs can be stressful, especially if one thinks they are ready to be an administrator and they are denied by the community. But going on a rampage after a failed RFA doesn't help out the project. Killiondude (talk) 09:25, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You were the one that edit warred with me. Do people here have ANY scruples or morals at all?Wiki Greek Basketball (talk) 12:30, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Support indefinite ban. Rampant and deliberate disruption. <font color="#FFB911">╟─TreasuryTag► Woolsack ─╢ 09:28, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * IMO a siteban is too much. Perhaps a topic ban from RfAs and/or a civility restriction? Tim Song (talk) 09:29, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Support indefinite ban topic ban from RfA if his behaviour keeps up... this is way out of line... <font face="Segoe Print"><font color=#069>The <font color=#077>T <font color=#086>hi <font color=#095>ng <font color=#193>M <font color=#585>e <font color=#777>r <font color=#A57>r <font color=#B44>y <font color=#D11>Christmas 09:31, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose this ban. He does a lot of good content work and the 'crats will know what to do with his "oppose" votes. Ucucha 09:33, 25 December 2009 (UTC)


 * (ec)An indef is a massive overreaction. Perhaps someone should suggest he take a wikibreak and possibly topic ban him from RfA and related matters for a period of time. I saw the RfA and it was a mess but, IMHO, Wiki Greek Basketball was no more or less responsible for it than anyone else- how would you feel if ~40 editors were piling on with the opposes within a couple of hours of the RfA transcluding? It's hard not to take it personally. Only if all other options have failed should we start to consider serious bans and blocks. Remember, this guy is an accomplished and prolific content writer. <font color="Teal" face="Tahoma">HJMitchell  <font color="Navy" face= "Times New Roman">You rang?   09:38, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you going to stop this gang raping against me or not? I am waiting for one admin here to act properly and take care of this problem as it should be and to get these people off my back that are harrasing me and that are pushing it to the line that they should in fact be banned and it would be just.Wiki Greek Basketball (talk) 12:32, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You might want to see here where I suggested he take a short break. The reaction in his edit summaries and comments were't very receptive to that idea. He tried to reply on my talk page, and I like to keep threads centralized, hence the edit warring I referred to a bit above in this section where I posted. Killiondude (talk) 09:50, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Support short ban (3 days – 1 week) for rapidly escalating disruptive incivility (see also the thread below this). Upon ban expiration, support a topic ban from RfA. I respect Ucucha's reasoning, but RfA can be a stressful enough process even with good faith opposes, there is no need to subject candidates to the kind of anxiety that results not only from WGB's screeds but also from the inevitable piling on by those who are bent on making sure he has plenty to eat. — <span style='background:rgb(40,40,120); padding:2px; padding-top:7px;text-shadow:2px 2px 3px #999'> æk <sup style='color:white'>Talk 09:46, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you explain to me why other users and even some admin were allowed to be in some cases VERY uncivil with me at my RFA? I am sorry but that's very bizarre. And admin can be as uncivil as he or she wants, and they are an ADIMN.Wiki Greek Basketball (talk) 09:51, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec)Clarification – my last sentence above (though snarky) should not be interpreted as a criticism of those who have corrected WGB in private – but we have many people willing to do something that only needs doing once. This is one of the reasons I support a short ban, to allow WGB to educate himself on the policies in question rather than having them pointed out to him ad nauseam by well-intentioned editors.  — <span style='background:rgb(40,40,120); padding:2px; padding-top:7px;text-shadow:2px 2px 3px #999'> æk <sup style='color:white'>Talk  09:53, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Support indef RFA topic ban. User does not have the maturity to participate in those discussions, --<small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;"><big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee // <font color="#090">have a cup  // <font color="#4682b4">ark  // 09:59, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You are a disgrace to this site. No strike that, this site is a disgrace. This site should be ashamed that you are an admin.Wiki Greek Basketball (talk) 13:00, 25 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose Really people? An indefinite ban for that? Remember, bans are the very last sanction for problems that can never ever be solved. In this case there are multiple other options. How about a topic ban from RFA matters for example? I understand that everyone involved is a bit annoyed by such behavior and WGB is probably best advised to simply stop it if he wants to disprove claims to his immaturity but a full ban is not needed at this point. They are upset, no doubt about it, but real incivility looks different. Some of those things they mention are valid concerns, like a user striking !votes in an RFA they themselves !voted in and the pile of opposes at Requests for adminship/Wiki Greek Basketball which was completely unnecessary (although WGB is partly responsible for this by keeping the RFA open until a crat closed it). I would suggest that everyone involved with this user (and/or their RFA) keeps away from them and discussing them and that people who were not involved in these matters should judge what to do next. Regards  So Why  10:03, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Support limited ban This user has contributed well in mainspace - but I feel that they should have a temporary topic ban from RfAs (perhaps 3 months initially). -- <font color="#307D7E">Phantom <font color="#55CAFA">Steve /<font color="#008000">talk &#124;<font color="#000080">contribs \ 10:22, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thankyou Steve. I'd support that. It's both appropriate and proportional taking into account the events that have led to this thread. I'll treat the alleged personal attacks by Coffee as a separate issue for these purposes. <font color="Teal" face="Tahoma">HJMitchell  <font color="Navy" face= "Times New Roman">You rang?   11:06, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I did nothing to be banned from RFAs. NOTHING. I was 100% within site rules. I made an oppose vote. I stated why and I broke no rules when I did. I certainly did not post the type of arrogant crap that people did towards my RFA. I also have thoroughly explained my vote and position in this discussion and it absolutely does NOT classify as pointy. Yet a mod sought out to mark my votes as such and then threaten to ban me over it. Then these other users decided to request I get banned over it. If I am banned from RFAs this is nothing but a travesty and I am done forever with this site. FOREVER.Wiki Greek Basketball (talk) 11:54, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Nobody is going to beg you to stay. Look, normally you would likely have passed RfA easily.  However, your self-nom was as arrogant as any that I have ever seen.  "I'm a genius, so make me an admin" doesn't work.  You screwed up the process yourself.  Then, by then showing some rather WP:DICK-ish tendencies afterwards you have pretty much guaranteed that you will NEVER be trusted with the bit.  Don't blame others for not taking you seriously when you didn't take yourself (and the role) seriously. (<font style="font-variant:small-caps">talk→   BWilkins  <font style="font-variant:small-caps">←track ) 12:01, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * For your info I only put my IQ AFTER numerous people insulted my intelligence.Wiki Greek Basketball (talk) 12:23, 25 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Note—this user has now taken to deleting others' comments from this thread. A block is sorely needed. <font color="#00ACF4">╟─TreasuryTag► draftsman ─╢ 12:05, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note that this mod is breaking just about every rule he feels like it. Just because he knows that the admin Coffee should be removed from being an admin and now he's scared shitless about it and he's trying to silence me. Not even is this mod even the slightest bit tactful about it either.Wiki Greek Basketball (talk) 12:23, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Based on the egregious behavior this user has exhibited merely due to this thread, I agree that he should be given the boot.— Ryūlóng (<font color="Gold">竜龙 ) 12:51, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * First, I was treated very badly and unfairly by these people and I have never even talked to them. Then one of them (an admin) violated site rules and removed my votes to an RFA. Then they proceeded to further harass me and threaten me with a ban. THEN this other user requested I be banned. I am sorry but YES I am REALLY damn pissed off now. How the hell would you feel? Why don't you tell me how the hell you would feel if that happened?Wiki Greek Basketball (talk) 12:55, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * This is only a website. What happens happens. But if what happens means you cannot work with others, then you should be prevented from using this website.— Ryūlóng (<font color="Gold">竜龙 ) 13:20, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Exactly my point. So ban Coffee for about 2 weeks and when he comes back make him re-apply to be an admin. If he becomes an admin again MONITOR what he is doing. So there you have it. However if Coffee still refuses to get along with others and treat them properly then he should be banned. We are in agreement. But I'm still waiting to see some action.Wiki Greek Basketball (talk) 13:32, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That's not what I said. I said that if it can be proven that you cannot edit collaboratively or be genial to other users, you will be banned. I have yet to see any bad behavior by . However your threats of blocks to users who opposed your RFA and other behavior on RFAs are bannable, if at least from participating in the RFA process.— Ryūlóng (<font color="Gold">竜龙 ) 13:36, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Motion to close section, "User:Wiki Greek Basketball"
This is going nowhere, is producing near-universal consensus that Wiki Greek Basketball shouldn't be banned (funny, that...), causing strife and rampant incivility, and is adequately covered by the fact that this user is being harrassed by others here. Wiki Greek Basketball (talk) 12:14, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose closure, user is disruptive, this needs discussion, and this "motion" is POINTy in the extreme. <font color="#7026DF">╟─TreasuryTag► constablewick ─╢ 12:15, 25 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose The consensus may be that you shouldn't be indef banned, but not that there should be no ban. -- <font color="#307D7E">Phantom <font color="#55CAFA">Steve /<font color="#008000">talk &#124;<font color="#000080">contribs \ 12:16, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * What consensus? You mean you and a handful of other people that are treating me like dog crap? Really? THAT consensus? Yeah you really have a lot of "consensus" behind you. You mean out of control mods like Coffee and mods that are just here to defend him like this other guy? You mean users that are simply picking on me just because they are bullies? That consensus? You can't be serious? No wait you actually are right? Truly sad.Wiki Greek Basketball (talk) 12:20, 25 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Support You are now so desperate that you are simply making up false accusations against me. This post you just made was incredibly incompetent.Wiki Greek Basketball (talk) 12:18, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see a false accusation. The history clearly shows that you placed a falsely signed comment (signed as TreasuryTag) - see here - for someone with an alleged high IQ, I find it surprising that you don't know that all actions are recorded by the editor who did it, regardless of how they sign the comment. -- <font color="#307D7E">Phantom <font color="#55CAFA">Steve /<font color="#008000">talk &#124;<font color="#000080">contribs \ 12:21, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You are absurd. You lie about me one more time and I am starting a complaint against you. And another thing this does not even concern you. You have NOTHING to do with this. NOTHING. Yet you feel the need to keep acting like it does. You are certainly a detriment to this site.Wiki Greek Basketball (talk) 12:25, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Wiki Greek Basketball, you are going too far now. Your comments throughout this discussion have been far from civil and now you're resorting to personal attacks . If somebody disagrees with you, insulting them and trying to demean their opinion is not the way to counter it. The way you have been treated (whether appropriate or not), does not excuse your behaviour. I have given you a formal warning on your talk page as well; if you continue to make personal attacks against any user, you will be blocked. ≈ Chamal  talk ☃ 12:45, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Your selective reading skills are amazing. People can just throw barrages of personal attacks and false accusations against me and yet you choose only to threaten me. Why don't you do your job? It's a VERY simple request. Do the job you are supposed to do. You take care of my complaints which are 100% valid and legit and stop harassing me and you will never have a problem from me ever. It's embarrassing that not one admin on this site can even do their job or at least they simply REFUSE to do it. Is it really so hard for you to do your job and solve the problem? Is it really that complicated? Seriously? What the hell is the big problem?Wiki Greek Basketball (talk) 12:51, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "<b>What the hell is the big problem?" Look in the mirror? ArcAngel (talk) 12:58, 25 December 2009 (UTC)


 * 1) So if I were to insult you for no reason and then request that you be banned after someone else harassed you, you would not be upset with me? Are you actually trying to use that argument? Are you REALLY trying to make that argument? I mean for reals?Wiki Greek Basketball (talk) 13:15, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:PA, and if you still see any diffs that can be counted as blatant personal attacks against you, please post them here. Apart from that, I have nothing else to say since everyone can see the actual situation right here in these discussions. ≈ Chamal  talk ☃ 13:01, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You can see for yourself Requests for adminship/Wiki Greek Basketball. I applied for admin and was denied. As you can see Coffee the admin and some others thought it was funny to insult me. Whatever. Then I voted at the RFA here Requests for adminship/Shubinator. To this Coffee furthered his harassment of me by marking my vote out. Not only was it NOT pointy as I explained it there and in this discussion here as well (it does NOT qualify as pointy) but he had also voted in that same page. Yet he STILL did this. Never mind that in my RFA he personally insulted me when he voted on my page...........then he threatened me with a ban - you see that on my talk page. Yes, he did this to me and simultaneously threatened me with a ban. Meanwhile, I get mad at this and started arguing with him about what he was doing. Immediately arcangel files a ban request for me here. Simply because I was upset that Coffee was harassing me. I am sure that Coffee got all panicky and had to have these people post all this crap about me here to try to get me banned. Just being afraid he will get in trouble for abusing his admin role (which he should). Then to add insult to injury all these people just started attacking me here and accusing me of things I didn't do, etc. Saying I should be banned, etc. I think the picture is pretty clear. Actually I am sure that 90% of the site users would have been much more angry than I am.Wiki Greek Basketball (talk) 13:23, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if you know what is meant by "diffs", but they are basically a way of showing a difference an edit made to a page - it shows what was added or removed in a specific edit. What a couple of people have asked you to do is to provide these showing where someone has insulted you, or launched a personal attack on you. For instructions on how to provide diffs, see Help:Diff which explains how to create a link to a diff. Even if an edit has later been removed, its details are still in the history of the page: look at the history to find the time/date when the personal attack was made. Create a diff using the instructions at Help:Diff, and then post it (them) here - this will show where the insults or personal attacks were made, and who the editor was (as you have found out, it shows the actual editor who made the edit, regardless of how it was signed). If you have any other questions about how to provide diffs, please feel free to ask here - either myself or other editors will be quite happy to help you with this. -- <font color="#307D7E">Phantom <font color="#55CAFA">Steve /<font color="#008000">talk &#124;<font color="#000080">contribs \ 13:29, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * If I can't be accepted then neither should you I would say that is VERY pointy, indeed. And for the record, Coffee did NOT contact me in any way to post something on his behalf here - as I stated up above^^^ it was your continued (and continuing) disruptive behavior that led to my reporting you here.  ArcAngel (talk) 13:34, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No that is NOT pointy. In fact it's about 1/10 as pointy as the BULL SHIT that users and admin alike posted on my RFA. UNREAL that you still choose to harass me even now.Wiki Greek Basketball (talk) 13:42, 25 December 2009 (UTC)


 * A simple request: WGB, could you please list exactly what lies have been told about you, and by which editors? Give the exact quotes and the diffs (as explained above). This will allow non-involved editors and admins to see who has lied about you, who has insulted you, etc. As one of those you have accused of lying, I'd be curious to know what I am meant to have lied about, as I am not aware of any lies I have told about you. I may have expressed my opinion - but that is my opinion, what I think -which is neither true nor false. To put it bluntly, I think it is time for you to put up or shut up. -- <font color="#307D7E">Phantom <font color="#55CAFA">Steve /<font color="#008000">talk &#124;<font color="#000080">contribs \ 13:35, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Steve you can now see that both ryulong and treasurtytag have vandalized this page NUMEROUS times and then tried to cover it up. They have also sent to other mods that I did it. I have reported this. If I get banned for this there will hell to pay and I guarantee ryulong and treasurytag will not be on this site anymore. Now steve they have vandalized numerous times the diffs I have posted against Coffee. So you either put up or shut up. Either ban those two right now or you are a FAKE.Wiki Greek Basketball (talk) 14:20, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I am reporting the admin Coffee

 * Merged into the above, connected, thread. <font color="#A20846">╟─TreasuryTag► Africa, Asia and the UN ─╢ 09:42, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

The admin Coffee started attacking me personally and breaking site policies on civility. He then removed my votes on RFA's unfairly. He then threatened me on my talk page. This guy this "admin" insulted me PERSONALLY and very rudely several times. He then says I cannot make oppose votes that were within guidelines. But when he (Coffee) voted on my RFA he personally insulted me and broke the site rules of civility. I want an explanation as to why this is happening and is being allowed. Anyone can look at how he talked to me on my RFA and see that I am telling the truth. In fact several other editors told me that they thought that the behavior that he and others did on my RFA was completely out of line. Now this Coffee admin guy is following me and harassing me. Making note of any contributions I make in Wikipedia and trying to erase them. Playing God and abusing his post as an admin - acting precisely as he should not. And the ridiculous thing is that he accused me of not being worthy of being an admin.Wiki Greek Basketball (talk) 09:34, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Look at how I was treated by these same people complaining about me at my RFA - Requests for adminship/Wiki Greek Basketball. I am really getting very frustrated and upset now. These people have no right to treat me this way. This is ridiculous. I should be reporting THEM. I am a very dedicated contributor to this site and all i am trying to do is help the site improve. And this is how I am being rewarded. First, being insulted and treated like I am worthless at my RFA by admin and other users who BROKE site civility rules. Second, these SAME people report me for treating them wrong? So that's how this site operates? I can't believe how ridiculous this is. Here I am a good contributor being treated like total crap and it's clear that the people doing it to me do nothing more on this site than harass good editors like me. This is a real joke. I have done NOTHIN to deserve this treatment.Wiki Greek Basketball (talk) 09:41, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, striking the !vote was probably a stupid thing to do per the spirit of WP:DENY. Only a crat should remove !votes by non-blocked users and certainly it shouldn't be done by anyone who already !voted in the same RFA - it will always look as if the user doing so has a conflict of interest. Nevertheless, Coffee is correct, your behavior is pointy. If you oppose people regardless of their individual contributions, you are no better than those who in your view have wronged you. I suggest you step away from that area of the project and reflect on what legitimate concerns people mentioned at your RFA. The same advice is probably true for everyone else involved here, just let it go and if problems arise, let uninvoled users handle them. Regards  So Why  09:54, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I did not oppose the votes merely because I was denied. So no I was not pointy. My opposition in both cases was perfectly legit and it should never have been removed, nor should I have been threatened with a ban. As I said, I was opposing because I looked at the two candidates and in my opinion they were both less deserving of being admins than me. I was voted down overwhelmingly so then it is simply illogical and wholly unfair for them to get approved. In fact it goes completely against what the site claims. As you or anyone else can read what the site itself claims are the basic considerations to apply. So two people applying with much less contributions or help to the site than I have done should not be approved if I was not. That is very simple and obvious to anyone that does not have a personal prejudice or bias. It's very simple. The people made it very clear that I was not qualified so then people who are less qualified than me should not be approved either. So in no way, shape, or form is that being pointy. Actually it's very simple. If those two editors are approved I should also be approved, and in fact the comments made towards me were pointy. Like Coffee's comments SHOULD have been marked as pointy, the one's he made to me. The whole problem is that some of the admin can't do their job. But I am more than willing to replace Coffee. I volunteer and the site will be much better off with me taking his job. I promise you thatWiki Greek Basketball (talk) 11:03, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think Coffee followed WP:DENY pretty well. They struck out the vote, added a succinct and strict warning, then did nothing further. Very good conduct IMO. <font color="#7026DF">╟─TreasuryTag► assemblyman ─╢ 09:57, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I have to disagree here. Coffee !voted in the same RFA (support), so they should never strike any oppose !vote, especially not, if the problem is that the majority simply disagrees with the reasoning (remember that DougsTech fiasco?). We have elected crats to deal with those matters after all. As soon as one takes action in any situation they have previously been involved in any way (here by !voting in support), it looks like one has a conflict of interest, which can serve to increase drama regardless of one's intentions. Regards  So Why  10:10, 25 December 2009 (UTC)


 * A list of how these people acted with incivility towards me and started and kept doing it.

Additional "Rain Man" question from Coffee 4. What is your theory on quantum physics in relation to RFA?

A.

5. What is the square root of 3.14xJimbo?

A.

And I'd be a better president than Larry King[citation needed], so I guess I should be president then? Coffee // have a cup // ark // 15:07, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

hear hear. -FASTILY (TALK) 15:11, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

After finding this edit, it seems clear to me the candidate is power hungry and is willing to use that power to get their way on trivial things such as sports position naming. In the same edit candidate is borderline civil and is apparently willing to ignore consensus to push their changes in articles where they are not needed. ArcAngel (talk) 03:32, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Strongest possible oppose The incivility brought up here is frankly shocking... your temperament is blatantly the opposite of what we want in an administrator. The Thing Merry Christmas 10:25, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Pile on Oppose - Extreme maturity issues, I'm to the thinking that this is definitely a minor, or someone who has no idea what maturity means. -Coffee // have a cup // ark // 13:17, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Wiki Greek Basketball has indicated that they wish for the RfA to run full circle. -FASTILY (TALK) 15:36, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

The more humor the better. ;-) --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 15:51, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I am very civil, what do you see wrong with my civility? Anyway, thank you for the kind remarks. You are able to recognize a good user, unlike many others here who seem to lack that ability. Thanks. --User:Wiki Greek Basketball (talk) 10:48, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Your comment right there genius, tells all. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 15:04, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

This was started by them, especially Coffee and was completely done without me having ever even talked to any of them. Coffee CLEARLY violated site rules on civility and personal attacks. Without any question. Amazing how these same people are asking for me to be banned. What? Do you people think that your quotes to me have disappeared or something? I would like for an admin to please explain to me how Coffee's behavior is acceptable and why I am being attacked like this for no reason, then when I get mad about it because nothing is being done about it - some of the same people making rude comments to me want me banned? I do not understand this. I wonder how many other good editors like me have this happen to them. There is no way that this Coffee guy should be allowed to continue as an admin.Wiki Greek Basketball (talk) 10:04, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything wrong with any of the material you've put above. They seem to be either in good humour, or very fair comments regarding your disruptive behaviour. I can assure you that Coffee will not lose the admin-bit over this, so please stop calling for it. <font color="#FFB911">╟─TreasuryTag► senator ─╢ 10:20, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well if you don't find anything wrong with that and think it's perfectly acceptable then quite frankly you have no business being even in this discussion because you just don't get it. Wait......you have no problem jumping all over me, of yeah that's right conflict of interest and playing favorites. Give me a break. I have had it with this. This site has gotten so out of line as how it has treated me. I am going to remember all of the users who are doing this to me. Oh and BTW, if I said anything wrong I was just "joking". It's all in "good humor". WOW the only jokes here are.................Wiki Greek Basketball (talk) 10:32, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, just to clarify: when you say, Well if you don't find anything wrong with that and think it's perfectly acceptable then quite frankly you have no business being even in this discussion, do you mean that anybody who disagrees with your stance in this "discussion" shouldn't be allowed to take part? Because if so, that's rather silly. <font color="#A20846">╟─TreasuryTag► draftsman ─╢ 10:46, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No. I mean that people like you that are mentally incapable of objectivity and basic civility towards others have no business in any such discussion like this. You don't even know what manners are, you can't even grasp what is rude discourse and what is not, so you clearly have no business spouting off in a subject related to the proper and improper treatment of others.Wiki Greek Basketball (talk) 11:08, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I thought so. Thanks. <font color="#FFB911">╟─TreasuryTag► Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster ─╢ 11:09, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, while I am "incapable of basic civility towards others", it seems that you suffer from the same affliction – <font color="#A20846">╟─TreasuryTag► assemblyman ─╢ 11:12, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikpedia Incivility - "Incivility consists of personal attacks, rudeness, and aggressive behaviours that disrupt the project and lead to unproductive stress and conflict." So be DEFINITION of THIS SITE what Coffee and some others did on my RFA was in fact breaking site rules. Yet, strangely it was just allowed, or as you put "funny". But for some odd reason after I get upset about it continuing AFTER Coffee WRONGLY marked by oppose votes just simply to be a prick and for no other reason, after mind you that he THREATENED me with a ban just because he wanted to be a prick and because I was now at that point getting mad at his treatment towards me.........it is me, I am the one who is being accused of being the problem here, and I am the one people want banned. Well isn't that just precious. Doubly so that someone like you thinks it is funny when someone is insulting to me, justified when they wrongly mark my votes, and justified to then threaten banning me on top of it........but if I even dare question this treatment or these actions I am just totally out of line and someone like you just can't wait to tell me the f off. Seriously man, you are really too much. And also it is clear that someone needs to edit the civility page because clearly site policy is actually 100% the opposite of what is written there. That's certainly causing mass confusion to users like me who believe that what admin write was actually supposed to be followed on the siteWiki Greek Basketball (talk) 11:25, 25 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I am not going to comment on this, other than to recommend admins to read the submitter's comments to other editors on their RfA and on their own talk page here, here and here. I could probably find more examples elsewhere, but I'd rather spend Christmas Day with my partner and kids than here, so I'm off! I'll look in on here later today if I get a chance. -- <font color="#307D7E">Phantom <font color="#55CAFA">Steve /<font color="#008000">talk &#124;<font color="#000080">contribs \ 10:22, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * So let me get this straight Steve......it's OK for numerous users including admin to INSULT me when I have never even talked to them. To keep doing it over and over and then if I get in the slightest upset about it it's immediately time to deal with my "disruptive behavior"....that's it right? Well I don't know who I have to go to to report this, but I will find out and I will get this taken care of. Because this absolutely ridiculous and people like Coffee are ruining this site. This is the thanks I get for being a good user and for OFFERING more help by offering my time to be an admin. Absolutely ridiculous that people are being treated this way. I see from how this is happening that this is standard operating procedure and who knows how many hundreds of people got the same treatment and since had to leave this site. Meanwhile some people who are obviously here ONLY to harass others are in power positions. Truly a terrible situation here at this site all aroundWiki Greek Basketball (talk) 10:37, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * WGB, may I suggest you allow the community to resolve this? It's obvious (rightly or wrongly) that Coffee will come out of this unscathed but it would be easier to focus on him if you hadn't risen to the bait. This entire thread does nothing but attract attention to you, which, right now, is the last thing you need. Why don't you take a few days then get back to editing in the mainspace and avoid Coffee and the other editors involved in this unholy mess. You're a great asset to the encyclopaedia, don't let this stand in the way of that. <font color="Teal" face="Tahoma">HJMitchell  <font color="Navy" face= "Times New Roman">You rang?   11:03, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The community is trying to railroad me. This is some serious BSWiki Greek Basketball (talk) 12:07, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

(outdented and uninvolved) As I have been through the hell that is a failed RfA, it is important to remember that by submitting to that process, you were indeed warned ahead of time. You fully invite people you have never met to objectively (and subjectively) evaluate you, your editing, and your behaviour. Some dig deeper than others. If you did not want to be subject to this, you should not have put your name forward.

Specifically, some of the questions added are pure humour - you should see the questions that come up when someone well-known for participating in Math and/or Science articles. As such, none of those are uncivil - you actually had a chance to show your sense of humour (we need more valid humour around here). Comments about "pile on" and "does not display the maturity" are very very very standard comments throughout MANY RfA's based on behavour and patterns of edits. RfA is the one place where were are REQUIRED to comment on the editor and their edits.

I should note: I am mature enough to have !voted FOR some of the people's RfA who actually !voted AGAINST mine. That is called objectivity. (<font style="font-variant:small-caps">talk→  BWilkins  <font style="font-variant:small-caps">←track ) 11:21, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * So because YOU feel a certain way, I am supposed to feel the same exact way? Sorry, but absolutely not. Also, I am not an idiot so please do not talk to me like I am one.Wiki Greek Basketball (talk) 11:31, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It's called "modeling desired behaviour." I also addressed your specific complaints, no comment to that, other than being dismissive of wise counsel?  I didn't think so.  (<font style="font-variant:small-caps">talk→   BWilkins  <font style="font-variant:small-caps">←track ) 11:38, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * There was not one thing that was wise or counseling in what you said. All you said was either accept group think and take whatever some prick does to you and beg not to be banned to others after that prick attacks you. Don't ever question what some losers on here deem to be the way the site operates and is run or else. Don't you dare think that you are better than some stupid arrogant pompous fools that are on here, because no, they are better than you, etc. Excuse me but that is absolute nonsense.Wiki Greek Basketball (talk) 11:45, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Here's some wise counsel: refactor your statement above to remove the clear and obvious violations of WP:NPA or I expect you'll be unfortunately adding a black mark to your clean block log. There was NOTHING uncivil about your RfA that I can see.  Move on, and learn.  Don't TELL people how good you are next time, SHOW them.  "I have a 197 IQ" ... we don't need smart admins, we need admins with common sense... besides, your IQ doesn't have reliable sources :-)  (<font style="font-variant:small-caps">talk→   BWilkins  <font style="font-variant:small-caps">←track ) 11:52, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah well my 197 IQ tells me that what you just said is a clear bias. An obvious pre-conceived notion to say the least. Whatever. I am through with this site. I am really pissed off and I think forever I will be really angry at Wikipedia from now on. And I damn well won't ever donate anything again. In fact I will always bad mouth the site from now. Because now I have seen the light. I now realize how many things are SERIOUSLY wrong with this site. The USERS and ADMIN. Just so many people that are here just to f up the site and to f with good users. It's absolutely disgusting.Wiki Greek Basketball (talk) 12:01, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Motion to close section, "I am reporting the admin Coffee"
This is going nowhere, is producing near-universal consensus that Coffee shouldn't be desysopped (funny, that...), causing strife and rampant incivility, and is adequately covered by the parent-thread above. Would anyone object if I just closed it? <font color="#7026DF">╟─TreasuryTag► constablewick ─╢ 11:59, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Support closing of THIS section only No evidence of incivility by User:Coffee. Tit-for-tat filing. (<font style="font-variant:small-caps">talk→   BWilkins  <font style="font-variant:small-caps">←track ) 12:06, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

WikiGreek—can we just ban him and move on?
Seriously, in this thread alone, he's been disruptive, deleted others' comments, falsified signatures, made personal attacks, whined about conspiracies... he needs a break of at least a week, starting very soon indeed. <font color="#A20846">╟─TreasuryTag► draftsman ─╢ 13:50, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * And now he's editing  comments left by others. This is outrageous behaviour. <font color="#7026DF">╟─TreasuryTag► prorogation ─╢ 13:56, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you should have checked what Coffee and some of these others like angel were actually doing before you just started attacking and harassing me? You know like done your job properly? Now you have the problem that other admin not involved might see it. Too bad you decided to attack me rather than the people that were actually breaking site rules.Wiki Greek Basketball (talk) 13:55, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * So now you are assuming that Steve and TresuryTag are admins? Why is it that no one else here sees a problem with MY actions in reporting you?  Answer me that.  ArcAngel (talk) 14:28, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

User(s) blocked. for 31 hours. I can put up with a lot of things, but changing another editor's comments to attack someone else simply cannot be tolerated. — Kralizec! (talk) 14:35, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Not only that, but he is now up to lying about an edit he himself made and blaming it on others. What can be done about that?  ArcAngel (talk) 14:38, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Nothing. Seems to assume everyone is an admin here (I must've missed becoming an admin, maybe I was asleep), and that we have some sort of cabal-thingie going... ah well... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 14:40, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

WGM provided some links in this edit. Unfortunately, for some reason he saw the need to refactor some others' comments as well, so it was reverted as vandalism. Anyway, since I was the one who asked for diffs, I will respond to that. None of the provided diffs are personal attacks or insults (per WP:PA) as you have claimed. Coffee was clearly joking, but if you were offended by it, you could ask him to withdraw the comments. The warning was somewhat harsh, but after your pointy behaviour at Requests for adminship/Shubinator, I cannot say that it is unjustified. Whether Coffee's actions there were correct is not something I can decide by my own, but my opinion is striking that !vote was the right thing to do. So, to sum up, you have not been attacked. But you have attacked others here and here for which you were warned. You made another attack after that warning, but I did not block you for that since you quickly removed it. I'm sorry to see that you have brought down a block on yourself anyway in the end, despite all the advice offered to you by a number of editors. ≈ Chamal  talk ☃ 14:52, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Support a longer block. The editor's comments up above ("were you abused as a child", calling editors "evil" et al) are not something that can be settled with a 31-hour block. Suggest a week, and 3 months from RfA. Ironholds (talk) 14:57, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Ironholds' proposal.--<font style="color:#4682b4">Coldplay Expért <font style="color:Crimson">Let's talk 15:05, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Support He is now making unjustified claims that he is in the right and all involved are in the wrong. He simply does not see or admit that his behavior is not acceptable here.  ArcAngel (talk) 15:08, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Support—though I'll be waiting in anticipation of my permanent ban once he becomes unblocked! :P <font color="#A20846">╟─TreasuryTag► Tellers' wands ─╢ 15:09, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I still think that he doesnt deserve a Ban. Just a block.--<font style="color:#4682b4">Coldplay Expért <font style="color:Crimson">Let's talk 15:11, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Read his comments at the bottom of his talk page. Despite the diffs I posted there, he still insists that he's not guilty of said actions and is still trying to put the blame elsewhere.  ArcAngel (talk) 15:26, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * He's saying that I dont know what Im talking about. I did !vote oppose on his RFA and I have been following this whole thing since it was started.--<font style="color:#4682b4">Coldplay Expért <font style="color:Crimson">Let's talk 15:32, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Just leave it as it is and we'll see what happens... end of drama. For now. (And don't feed him on his talkpage either) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 15:14, 25 December 2009 (UTC)


 * And he's back to editing others' comments. <font color="#A20846">╟─TreasuryTag► constablewick ─╢ 15:35, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, on his talkpage, he can do whatever he wants. If he wants to create an alternate reality there, let him. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 15:37, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That's not strictly true. Editing others' comments is not allowed, particularly the sort of edits he's making. <font color="#FFB911">╟─TreasuryTag► Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster ─╢ 15:38, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You can remove other users posts from your talk but it is very wrong to alter a post so that it misrepresents what another user said. Off2riorob (talk) 15:41, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * technically, it's his post. so... anyways... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 15:43, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter "technically" whose post it is. He is not entitled to misrepresent what I said. End of. <font color="#FFB911">╟─TreasuryTag► constabulary ─╢ 15:46, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * shrugs* you're probably right. He won't be back anyways... if he makes true on the stuff he promised, he'll be gone... so... merry christmas :PChoyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 15:51, 25 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Support (I went off to eat and then finished this, so I'll keep it in here anyways.) He's an excellent editor, but this was totally suprising because I felt that he would take a personal vendetta against me. His incivilness is also sad, since he was stable up until his RFA. Too bad this has to happen on Christmas, but that's the way the cookie crumbles. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:17, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Please can I have some advice
I don't know if I'm in the wrong - I might well be - but I don't like how I've been treated by another editor, so would appreciate some clarification. If I'm in the wrong then I at least know not to do it again. There has been a debate on Talk:Avatar_(2009_film) between myself and another editor. It's become a heated debate, but that isn't the problem. The other editor invited input at WT:FILM.

This is what he wrote:.

I have no problem with this. But in my eyes, it was non-neutral and continued the discussion rather than just notifed. That is the editor made a point and expressed an opinion, so I responded to the point raised even though the main discussion was taking place on the Avatar talk page:

The other editor moved my comments to the Avatar page, but left his own up. I reverted this edit even though I agreed with the principle behind it. The reason I restored my comments is because he left his own comments, which I felt were not just notifying other editors of the discussion but that he was furthering the discussion. You can see there were a couple of reverts between us:

I felt it was out of order that he made further comment on the subject but was deleting my comments while leaving his up. I also agree that the discussion should take place at the one location. This was eventually resolved when the other editor removed the 'bias' from his comments thus leaving it as a simple notification:

This is where things turned ugly with another editor, when User:Wildhartlivie left a comment at my talk page:. They accused me of edit warring because I had restored my comments to the talk page. I explained why I had done this, that i felt the other editor had done more than just notify the other Project members of the discussion, but had furthered the discussion:. The other editor did not agree:. He reiterated the accusation taht I was edit-warring which I felt was insulting. I was attempting to resolve the dispute through discussion for a start, and disagreed with the nature in which the discussion was raised. I didn't really see why the other editor's comments expressing an opinion on the dispute should remain, while mine were deleted. I felt it was appropriate for my comments to be there while his were. I felt the other editor finally acknowledged this by altering his comments to reflect my concerns. It may have been wrong of me to restore my comments, but I genuinely felt a injustice at the time. What I take exception to is this accusation of edit-warring by this other editor while I was taking part in a discussion so a dispute wouldn't become an edit-war. I thought it was rude, so informed him that I thought it was insulting to accuse me of edit-warring and re-explained my position:. He responded with this:

So there are some things I would like to clarify. Was the discussion raised in an acceptable manner? Was it legitimate for me to post a response? Was it legitimate for my comments to be removed? was it legitimate for me to restore my comments? And was it legitimate for this other editor to leave such comments on my talk page? Maybe my actions were incorrect, in which case I am sorry, but I do feel slightly aggrieved by the whole thing. Betty Logan (talk) 19:02, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Erik insisted on a biased notice to the talk page discussion in clear violation of WP:CANVASS. In his defense, after all of the drama he did eventually change it into a neutral notice but it shouldn't have taken an edit war to convince him to follow Wikipedia's policies. The warnings left on your talk page were inappropriate, you had a completely legitimate concern and his own bias was getting the better of him. Wildhartlivie had no call to drop edit war notices on your talk page, especially since Erik was closer to violating 3RR than you were.


 * Just an aside, did you notify Wildhartlivie and Erik of this ANI posting, as required by the board rules? --  At am a  頭 22:23, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I was not notified of this posting until an uninvolved editor posted a notification to me. I do not believe my initial postings to the editor's talk page were in the least bit insulting. I posted after I noticed that User:Betty Logan had reverted the move of the posting from WT:TALK and I responded with the observation that moving it was appropriate considering there was a ongoing discussion at the article talk page. I did not at any time "drop an "edit war notice" at the editor's talk page, I only referred to "edit warring" in my posts. The editor's reverts included edit summary talk, such as "If you can make comments here, so can I" and "You didn't just bring the discussion to the attention of others, you expressed a biased opinion." For the record, I'd like someone to point out to me in the following edits where Erik also posted his own commentary when moving the talk page posting: 1. There is no additional commentary, 2. I see no additional commentary added here, and 3. Where the notice was "simplified" and it also removed Betty Logan's ascribed "biased commentary" posted almost 3 hours earlier. By the way, the only other commentary I see on that page was posted by Erik almost three hours earlier, it was in no way "additional commentary" in the way it has been characterized here, nor was any of this in violation of WP:CANVASS. By this time, I was somewhat exasperated with the editor and I did tell her not to come to my talk page and bandy about veiled threats about coming here and using words such as "insulting". User:Betty Logan removed my posting, calling it "vandalism". Righty or wrongly, I took exception to that characterization, commenting "Please do not misrepresent my comments as vandalism, as I stated assume good faith - it's a valuable lesson". That was removed as "edit warring". Outside of restoring my comments to her, in the context of her knee-jerk reaction to a posting made some over 2 hours earlier and mischaracterizing it as "posting a biased opinion and removing her posting", I did not do anything wrong and I object to her bringing this here and failing to notify me of her actions. This is precisely what her veiled commentary leaned toward when she posted to my talk page and precisely why I suggested she learn a bit about WP:AGF. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:30, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm completely cool with Erik, he's a good editor. We had a dispute and were trying to hack it out.  He did alter his comments in response to my objections so the situation with Erik was resolved. I find it disheartening that Wildhartlivie accuses me of violating AGF when in his first message to me he accused me of edit-warring.   The only reason there was a time gap was because I only discovered the comment several hours later.  One of my concerns was that the debate on the original talk page was quite long, and I felt the notification on WT:FILM summarized only half of the argument, so I tried to balance that.  I'm sorry that I didn't notify Wildhartive about this ANI, but this is actually the first time I've ever posted on this board. It is unfortunate that Wildhartlivie still doesn't accept he behaved incorrectly though.  Betty Logan (talk) 04:46, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I do not accept that I behaved inappropriately. You made a huge stink about Erik having posted a comment and made it sound as if it were posted at the same time that he moved your posting, which essentially instigated all of this. It is not unacceptable to raise the problem of edit warring when it appears that is occurring, although I did not drop a WP:3RR warning on her talk page. When I responded to your edit summary comments and suggested it wasn't worth edit warring over it, you removed my posting as vandalism. Why would I "accept that [I] behaved incorrectly"? I maintain that I did not. I don't know what you hope to accomplish here, but you dropped a thinly veiled WP:AN/I threat on my talk page and then brought me here and lament that I "accept" my incorrect behavior, when I was not the one reverting a move to a talk page message. It is thoroughly relevant that his comment was over two hours earlier, since you are asserting he added the comment with the moving of the talk page commentary, making it appear the two were directly related. If it is "all cool" with Erik, why did you bring this here? To drag me into what you perceive as "trouble"? Sorry, you're simply wrong. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:22, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

This discussion is unwarranted. WP:ANI says, "Frivolous complaints and unsubstantiated requests for administrator intervention do not belong here... Before posting a grievance about a user here, please discuss the issue with them on their user talk page." No such effort was made. I moved Betty's comment to the article's talk page because I did not want discussion to take place on two different talk pages. When Betty expressed the concern that my notification was biased, I acknowledged and rewrote it. She is welcome to discuss conduct with me on my user talk page. Leave Wildhartlivie out of this; the dispute at its core is between us. Erik (talk) 02:34, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * This does not concern you Erik. I was not happy with the wording of your notification because I felt it summarised your side of the debate but not mine, and you corrected it.  Our 'dispute' was quickly resolved, and the only reason you are mentioned here is to give my complaint context. I stressed a couple of times I have no issue with your behavior, and the only thing I took exception to in regards to you, you yourself quickly resolved without any outside intervention and I appreciate that. This complaint is entirely about the messages Wildhartlivie left on my talk page, and for the record I did address my concerns with him on his talk page where I pointed out that I felt insulted at his accusation that I was "edit-warring" and explained my stance.  I was courteous in my message on his on his talk page, but he deleted it and left another message on my talk page instructing me that I must not leave any more comments on his talk page. Betty Logan (talk) 06:51, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Give it up. I do not intend to "admit" to bad behavior as you seem to want because I did not violate WP:CIVIL or other behavior guidelines. I cautioned you that your behavior did not seem in keeping with what you were claiming and stated that he was absolutely correct to move the posting. You were making a stink over a posting made almost three hours before your post and didn't even realize it. You stumbled on that time frame and made an issue where one did not exist, just as you are doing here. I don't know what you want here - do you want others to tell you that you are right and I am wrong? Read the first posting I made to your talk page above. There was nothing out of line about it. But I will repeat my last comments to you - do not post to my talk page again. I have every intention of following up on an WP:SSP case I found. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:48, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I came here for clarification on my behaviour in the matter, to ascertain that I did not behave improperly and that my actions were within the remit of Wikipedia guidelines. An administrator confirmed that Erik's notifification was inappropriate in its original form, I was not out of order in restoring my comments, and that you shouldn't have left the messages you did on my talk page.  As far as I'm concerned this is resolved now, and what you do or don't accept is between you and your conscience.  As for this silly sockpuppet thing as far as I'm aware I cleared the IP check and my personal edit history is beyond rapprochement.  Betty Logan (talk) 09:16, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Just wanted to bring this to everyone's attention. It's a WP:CANVASS violation, near as I can tell. <font face="Century Gothic"> Equazcion ( talk ) 16:08, 25 Dec 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Equazcion. I wasn't going to bring that up here, but it's worth mentioning Skag has filed a sock puppet case against me based on the comments of an unrelated editor at her talk page. Wildhartlivie (talk) 16:58, 25 December 2009 (UTC)


 * After noticing SkagitRiverQueen had filed a sock investigation against Wildhartlivie I thought the complaint might be relevant to this inquiry. I think bringing the details of an investigation into a particular user to the attention of another editor that has filed a sock investigation is hardly 'canvassing'.  Canvassing would be going around messaging every editor who had a dispute with Wildhartlivie.  There are now two investigations into Wildhartive that may be relevant to each other and I notified the instigator of the other investigation.  This is clearly not canvassing because I was not incentivising an editor to take action against another user - they had already instigated the investigation and I made them aware of this one, especially since this investigation pertains to an editor's improper conduct, and SkagitRiverQueen has started another action pertaining to the same editor's improper conduct.  Betty Logan (talk) 19:00, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * As an aside it is also worth pointing out that User:Equazcion is embroiled in a dispute with SkagitRiverQueen about reporting Wildhartlivie as a sock, so their judgement is hardly objective here. It may even be worth adding that user to the sock investigation. Betty Logan (talk) 19:14, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * What judgment? I'm not commenting on this ANI dispute, only on your canvassing for participants. It doesn't take much judgment to assess that. You notified someone uninvolved with this dispute based on their having been in previous disputes with the editor you seek to complain about here. That's canvassing. Read WP:CANVASS. <font face="Century Gothic"> Equazcion ( talk ) 20:05, 25 Dec 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't notify the editor on the basis of a previous dispute, I notified them on the basis they have instigated a current investigation into the same editor that is being investigated here. If I were interested in digging up old grievances I would hardly have stopped at just the one editor.  SkagitRiverQueen filed a complaint of her own volition, nothing to do with me. Betty Logan (talk) 20:29, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You told the editor "There is an investigation into his conduct at Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents if you would you like to bring your probelsm with this editor to the attention of the administrators". However you want to word it: You sought Skag's involvement here based on knowing they were in a dispute with the user. Whether they instigated an investigation, or whether the investigation is currently ongoing, are both irrelevant to the question of canvassing. <font face="Century Gothic"> Equazcion ( talk ) 20:39, 25 Dec 2009 (UTC)
 * I brought this investigation to Skag's attention on the basis of her being involved in another investigation concerning the user being discussed here. If it were just a dispute between the two parties there would have been no notification.   I did not canvass the opinion because she has already officially filed it somewhere else.  If you're saying that canvassing precludes informing other editors about investigations into users that they are currently officially complaining about then I think you misunderstande the concept of canvassing.  Canvassing is there to preclude you soliciting opinion that otherwise wouldn't exist and that clearly isn't the case here.    Betty Logan (talk) 20:55, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Canvassing policy is there to preclude the soliciting of opinions that you know already exist. If you know someone will likely take your side in a discussion, you're not supposed to choose them to inform about it. See CANVASS. <font face="Century Gothic"> Equazcion ( talk ) 20:57, 25 Dec 2009 (UTC)

Query - User creating hoaxes in another user's space
--Wehwalt (talk) 21:01, 25 December 2009 (UTC) I recently discovered something very strange while recent change patrolling. One user, "" has been creating possible hoax pages in another user's namespace. See here:. These are all within the userspace. This was extremely perplexing to me. The articles revolve around a seemingly fictional band named "Smile", and the pages are written in past tense. Examples: "Smile (commonly typeset as SMiLE) are a rock group formally banded in 2010" "Then they had an above-average commercial success in their native province, with their debut Internet-only releases, their albums First Smile and Second Smile (2015), and their first concept album, Hit-Parade (2016). However, it is with the releases of their double album Two Times Rock 'n' Roll in 2017, a second concept album Performance in 2018"

This all seemed very strange (and rather fishy) to me. What do others think of this? Should steps be taken to prevent this material from hitting mainspace? - I.M.S. (talk) 01:16, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I would suggest that you notify Mr. Frank of this discussion. I suggest that we ask him; he has been most industrious in building that page.  I can't imagine that that page has any legitimate encyclopedic purpose, but let us see what he says.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:24, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The thing is, a "hoax" which discusses what a band is doing in 2017 is so obvious it couldn't survive casual inspection, so I wonder if it is an actual hoax or done for some other reason.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:27, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I've notified him of the discussion, and I hope he posts here soon. I agree with you - he has been extremely industrious in the building of those articles. I wish he'd devote that energy to real ones. :). Another interesting thing I noticed, adding to the "hoax", is that the Grateful Dead, including the deceased Jerry Garcia, play with the group on their 2014 live album. Very strange. - I.M.S. (talk) 01:36, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Indeed so; if it was a common hoax, I'd delete first and ask questions later.  But these obvious huge red flags make me want to hear from him, and at the very least give him a chance to copy them elsewhere before we delete them, as a sign of respect.  We do no harm by waiting.  Do we have an archive of the best hoaxes someplace?--Wehwalt (talk) 01:40, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * We did, somewhat. Here. There are a couple other places in which users preserve "silly" articles, or hoaxes that had so much work put into them that they didn't deserve to be erased. Some people save them in their userspace (User:I.M.S./User:TheWho71/band/smile live 1‎, for example - the page does not exist) but this practice is frowned upon, I believe. I'm sure you know about all of that, however. Responding to "waiting for his opinion" - I completely agree with you. Waiting can't hurt. - I.M.S. (talk) 01:48, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I wonder if TheWho71 is a part of this, and if we should be talking to him as well. Would a page created in his userspace automatically be part of his watchlist?  And the fact that his name derives from a band and this "hoax" is about a band is an interesting coincidence ...--Wehwalt (talk) 02:00, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I can confirm, from experience, that subpages of a user's userpage are not automatically added to their watchlist. So if TheWho71 is a separate user from Frank, he wouldnt automatically know about the creation of that band page.  (But then, TheWho hasnt edited since May 2008 anyway, so it's kind of a moot point). -- <B>Soap</B> Talk/Contributions 01:14, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Never mind the notification, I see you did that. Nice work.  Why would you go into another's userspace unless you had permission?  I mean, it is not as if you are hiding anything, it is going to show up in your contributions and the article history.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:02, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, edit conflict. Responding to your second from last comment: Too much of one, perhaps. I'm not at all suggesting a SPI, but I do think it rather suspicious that Mr.Frank's ~30th edit was to establish this page, and he has devoted hundreds (perhaps over a thousand) edits within TheWho71's space. - I.M.S. (talk) 02:09, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Why aren't you suggesting a cu? Given the fact that most users on their 30th edit couldn't intentionally make a page, it seems very possible and would explain a lot.  Again, though:  screamingly obvious.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:15, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * How do we go about it? Should I open a formal case, or should we contact a CheckUser? What's the best way? I must admit that I've never opened or even been involved in an SPI before. - I.M.S. (talk) 02:34, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Go to the SPI page and create the subpage with the checkuser thing. I could start it if you want, as I have done so before, only to have one of the most stressful SPIs possible. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:35, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I created the investigation here. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:18, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for creating it, Kevin. As I'm rather busy right now, I feared getting caught up in an SPI, as I don't have that much time to devote at the moment (much like some of my FACs/GANs in the past). I'll submit my evidence to the case, If you'd like. Many thanks - I.M.S. (talk) 14:39, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't believe this really qualifies as a hoax, because it's set in the future. I'd call it a fantasy article, really, and it reminds me a lot of the fantasy hurricane articles that Dylan620 created in his early days on Wikipedia.  And Dylan was allowed to move those articles to Wikia, where he could work on them at his leisure without worrying about any of them getting deleted.  I suggest we do the same with this person. -- <B>Soap</B> Talk/Contributions 00:40, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Tend to agree. Let's let the sock investigation conclude.  Now the article is being edited by an IP.  It's all very odd.  There seems to be no malicious intent whatsoever.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:42, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * pehaps we should tell Mr. Frank that he has X amount of days to move the article/s somewhere else befroe they be deleted. S/He isnt doing anything that is hurting the project but it is still hoax-like.--<font style="color:#4682b4">Coldplay Expért <font style="color:Crimson">Oh Christmas Lights... 00:53, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Give him ten days, and tell him that if he doesn't act, they will be deleted, but he can always ask an admin to email him the pages if he misses the deadline? And notify all of them, including the IP.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:10, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. I'm in favor of that. - I.M.S. (talk) 06:03, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, everyone... I just have been warned, and I realize that I did something wrong... Hum, pretty embarrassing... I agree that these pages are not really at their place. These are not a hoax, it's a bit of fantasy written about a band I know (a kind of fictitious career plan), and as you may have understood, these are not finished. What can I do if I wish to continue to edit these pages without trouble, but also without disturbing the project (for which I participated a lot with my accounts TheWho71 and Monday94) ? Mr. Frank (talk) 14:19, 25 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Wait. Are those accounts yours? As in they are legal sockpuppetts. We all thought that they were seperate users.--<font style="color:#4682b4">Coldplay Expért <font style="color:Crimson">Let's talk 14:24, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * They aren't. Actually, I lost my passwords for these accounts, so I created Mr. Frank. Mr. Frank (talk) 14:39, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That said, I began to save them on my computer, but it's not over. I'll give the signal if you want to delete them. Mr. Frank (talk) 14:44, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Alright. Guys, does that sound good? The user has admited that those were his old accounts and seeing as he forgot the password, he made a new one. (You may still want to put the Legal SP tag on them so this will not happen again) He has also agreed to move his work to his own computer and at the end of the day they can be deleted. Sounds good?--<font style="color:#4682b4">Coldplay Expért <font style="color:Crimson">Let's talk 15:08, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I can close the SPI now if you guys think it is okay, since it is basically confirmed. At least he was honest about it, and all is well. Thank god this was peaceful. I guess we are all in the Christmas spirit here. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:34, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am gratified to see how laid back everyone was about this. Not a single admin jumped in and started throwing blocks around.  Can we bottle some of this Xmas spirt and have it available the rest of the year?--Wehwalt (talk) 20:53, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm pleased with the outcome as well. I truly was not expecting Mr.Frank to show up here, but now that he has, it's made this issue quite a bit easier to resolve. Thanks to all that helped me figure this out, and happy holidays - I.M.S. (talk) 21:16, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Harassment by Cremepuff222
Cremepuff222 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · [ logs] · [ edit filter log] · block user · [ block log]) seems to have decided to continue their campaign of leaving stupid messages on my talkpage (see here for earlier discussion). I don't know what the solution is, but their behaviour has to stop. <font color="#C4112F">╟─TreasuryTag► without portfolio ─╢ 09:02, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I propose this discussion take place elsewhere. I see no reason for administrative intervention. --cremepuff222 (talk) 09:15, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I've responded to this suggestion on Cremepuff's talkpage. I see the need for administrative intervention because nothing I can do seems to stop these soppy notes being left on my talkpage. Cremepuff's admin rights were removed, and it still carries on. This clearly needs the community to step in and help resolve the "dispute" – such as it is. <font color="#7026DF">╟─TreasuryTag► Speaker ─╢ 09:17, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I ask if you like apples. Cremepuff222 gets banhammered? Just answer the question. :) --cremepuff222 (talk) 09:19, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Honest question Cremepuff: Why would you do this? It seems as if you are just asking to get banned.  We just finished a prior proceeding where your behaviour was deemed inappropriate.  Why stir the hornet's nest again?  Are you still tying to prove your "everyone should relax" point? Throwaway85 (talk) 09:23, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah, checking back the records, there have been a couple of other similar/worrying from Cremepuff today and yesterday:  This really needs to be sorted out. <font color="#C4112F">╟─TreasuryTag► First Secretary of State ─╢ 09:24, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I decided to read the discussion that went on here earlier, and some comments were not very nice! --cremepuff222 (talk) 09:25, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, and that double support on the RfA was quite a mistake. The first diff, however, was quite intentional. Edit summary just wasn't that nice. --cremepuff222 (talk) 09:27, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Seriously man, just address the question: Are you trying to make a point here (again)? This is getting tiresome. Throwaway85 (talk) 09:28, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I wasn't trying to make a point here (again), sir. His comments were not very kind, and posting silly questions clearly disturbs him greatly. So an act of revenge I believe! --cremepuff222 (talk) 09:29, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, and I very much like your userpage, Throwaway85! It's lovely. :) --cremepuff222 (talk) 09:31, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Back to the issue at hand? Throwaway85 (talk) 09:49, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Needs attention ASAP, this is the same matter that looked like a compromised account a week ago and it shouldn't happen again. Both of you, I'd suggesting backing off for a few hours and taking a powernap while matters are sorted. Continued bickering isn't going to accomplish anything and just result in unneeded incivility or disruption.
 * Given the severity of the last matter, it needs to be discussed and investigated. Given the holiday and ArbCom appointments coming, it may or may not be better to discuss here first, I've no right to opinion on that. One condition of the indef block overturned 5 days ago was for no further disruptions or other nonsense. It may or may not be deliberate that this is starting exactly 1 week after the first block (of 1 week) was initiated, perhaps thinking that it results in a clean slate for some reason... however, the block was changed to indef, so even that claim is moot. This is out of place for me to suggest, but a short-term block could be used to pause this, as it was last time. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 09:35, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Certainly. Because further "harassment" will cause much harm to our beloved editors. Hmm, the one week business is quite a coincidence too. I think we should discuss on my talk page though, if possible! --cremepuff222 (talk) 09:39, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * CP, could you please just agree to stop provoking editors in this manner? If you would do so, I think everyone involved would be willing to move on and forget anything ever happened.  Continuing on this course, however, will only engender more drama.  Please stop. Throwaway85 (talk) 09:49, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'll stop. :) --cremepuff222 (talk) 09:53, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you. For the record, I think it best to cease any interactions of any kind with TreasuryTag, given the delicate nature of the situation. Throwaway85 (talk) 10:02, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note—this is precisely what Cremepuff promised to do a week ago: "Whatever the case, I will not engage in anymore of these nonconstructive editing sprees. And again, apologies to those whose time I've wasted." That promise held for about six days. <font color="#C4112F">╟─TreasuryTag► draftsman ─╢ 10:00, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I know, but let's just leave it be for now.  If it happens again, it's flagrant trolling.  For now, let's AGF that he's being honest here. Throwaway85 (talk) 10:02, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, sorry about that, Tags. I'll stop for sure this time. --cremepuff222 (talk) 10:05, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Give it up on your talk pages, too, please. TreasuryTag-- WP:DENY on any and all further postings since you know responding won't do anything. Just track any future troubles tonight until this gets looked over, and after you know the deal with WP:WQA and WP:AIV for use in the future. An admin can review the terms of the unblock, but I will echo Throwaway85 in that AGF stands for the timebeing. The promise of "never again" came up last time as well, if I recall... ♪ daTheisen(talk) 10:10, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Whoops, I guess I forgot about that little detail. --cremepuff222 (talk) 10:17, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Did you honestly suggest it was "revenge"? That's either WP:POINT, WP:BEAR, WP:DICK or WP:STICK ... pick one, it's awfully uncivil activity. (<font style="font-variant:small-caps">talk→   BWilkins  <font style="font-variant:small-caps">←track ) 10:41, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't suggest, I quite clearly stated that it was indeed revenge. :) And... I like all four of those. They're nice. --cremepuff222 (talk) 10:42, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Really??? Are you here to write an encyclopedia or screw around? (<font style="font-variant:small-caps">talk→  BWilkins  <font style="font-variant:small-caps">←track ) 10:50, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Lol, not gonna lie. Both! --cremepuff222 (talk) 10:51, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

This nonsense on the part of Cremepuff needs to stop. Toddst1 (talk) 10:55, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That's "Cremepuff222" to you, sir. And why do you speak of me as though I am not listening? Speak to me, more effective. :) --cremepuff222 (talk) 10:56, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, taking a look at his talk page has convinced me that this problem is not going away. Can we focus on a permanent solution? Or, correct me if I'm wrong, has he already been blocked? Throwaway85 (talk) 11:06, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I've restored his indef block. Edits like this prove he is here to screw around. The rest of us are not and simply don't have time for this childishness. Edits like this prove he doesn't care much either way. Without meaning to be rude, we're well shot of him; alas, because he was a productive and useful editor once. But no longer. Wikisuicide. ⇦REDVERS⇨ 11:09, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, pity. Hope we will see him again in a mature guise.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:11, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Good block. Let's close the case and move on. Throwaway85 (talk) 11:12, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I was about to block when Redvers beat me to it. Because he may come back, and because of this disruption, I have removed his rollback rights. Dougweller (talk) 11:14, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * He's indeffed right now, to my understanding. If he wants to come back, he needs to appeal the block, and I don't see that happening (successfully) any time soon.  Still, good preventative measure. Throwaway85 (talk) 11:18, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

< Good block, thanks, Redvers. A real pity it had to come to this... <font color="#7026DF">╟─TreasuryTag► voice vote ─╢ 11:24, 24 December 2009 (UTC) The childish trolling continued on his talk page, so Anonymous Dissident blanked and I've protected it indef to save him from himself. I'll unprotect after a month or so, to give him growing-up space. ⇦REDVERS⇨ 11:54, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Just to say that I support this block. It's very sad seeing a former administrator and a long term contributor indefed, but come on, Cremepuff, enough is enough. Way too much time has been wasted on his childish game playing already with the last ANI, the RFC etc and he either needs to get with the program and stop using Wikipedia as a toy or go away and come back when he's grown up a tad. What I find most alarming in all this is that someone this immature could get through RfA and it's really yet more evidence that we need to find a better way of selecting our admins. Sarah 11:30, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * In talking to Ryan Postelwaite, his nominator, it seems that this childish behaviour is recent, and that he behaved in a much more mature fashion during his RfA and the period following it. This recent behaviour seems out of place.  Inexcusable, nonetheless. Throwaway85 (talk) 12:04, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry to have been so blunt in my questioning this morning. I'd seen enough, and realized that appealing to his ego was actually going to get the true answers. (<font style="font-variant:small-caps">talk→   BWilkins  <font style="font-variant:small-caps">←track ) 11:56, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

The former administrator-in-question, had become irrelevant to Wikipedia. The indef-blocking is the correct course of action. GoodDay (talk) 15:25, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a clue what Cremepuff was trying to achieve here - I emailed him last week when he started messing around and he seemed quite genuine with his apology to me. After he gave up his admin rights, he seemed to behave more collaboratively for a few days then we get hit with this. The only thing that I can think of is alcohol (or some other drug) getting in the way of his clarity (especially given the time of the recent troublesome edits (around 4am his time)) but that doesn't really matter anyway - Well deserved indefinite block in my opinion. I want to make it clear though that when Cremepuff became an administrator, he was a role model for other young Wikipedians - he worked extremely hard and was well respected, it's unfortunate what's now happened.  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 15:35, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I would like to be able to attribute the behaviour to some substance, but it appears as if this has been a concerted effort on Cremepuff's part to disrupt. I'm sorry that you got dragged into this, and I know it must not be easy to see someone you had a lot of respect for go down in flames like this. Throwaway85 (talk) 07:58, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Cremepuff 222—clearing up the mess
Cremepuff has helpfully posted a list of his misdemeanours on his talkpage, some of which may need looking into, particularly this – a case where Cremepuff seems to have reversed, without explanation, a decision made at MfD. He has also admitted another vandal-sockpuppet about which even last week's Checkuser drew no evidence; perhaps this merits further investigation. <font color="#FFB911">╟─TreasuryTag► draftsman ─╢ 11:48, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Given the disruption on his talk page, that may need to be protected as well. It's a shame that a previously productive editor has ended his time here like this. Throwaway85 (talk) 11:53, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * He's now spamming my email. I just received the following message: <tt>Sup. :P Gonna post this on ANI as more evidence that I should be burnt at the stake? Okay. :) Sounds like great fun!</tt> While his email address reveals his real-life name, I'd very much rather this stopped. Could he be re-blocked without email? I'm happy to forward it to an admin if necessary. <font color="#FFB911">╟─TreasuryTag► constablewick ─╢ 12:06, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * (Now received multiple emails from him... *groan*) <font color="#00ACF4">╟─TreasuryTag► cabinet ─╢ 12:10, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Not much anyone could do about off-wiki emailing. Just mark his email addy as spam and be done with it. Throwaway85 (talk) 12:12, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * There is, he can have his use of Special:Emailuser disabled (see BLOCK). <font color="#7026DF">╟─TreasuryTag► most serene ─╢ 12:14, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ Ged  UK  12:17, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm assuming you didn't reply to anything he sent? Throwaway85 (talk) 12:19, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

< Thanks, Ged. And no, I certainly didn't reply to anything he sent, I have hopes of living the rest of my life in peace! :P <font color="#7026DF">╟─TreasuryTag► Tellers' wands ─╢ 12:19, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well good luck with that, and may your holidays end in a much less stressfull manner than they started. Throwaway85 (talk) 12:21, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

As sad as this is to say, this went far more smoothly than last week, and being why this time everyone being so flat and blunt was useful. User has no one to blame but his/herself for this all and we still don't know where this came from or why it started. Remember the concerns about the compromised account and the appeal to Meta for an emergency desysop? Given this happened again, and seemingly very deliberately at the end of what the user thought was still their 1 week block/sanctions, it should be reported somewhere "higher" (I wouldn't know where) and a check on login info being from different IPs than the usual? ...Do we do CUs of a single account in these cases? All the question marks that appeared then that were chalked up to a one-off bit of adolescent whatever are now back. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 14:42, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Good block. I'll have to note the permalink of this discussion for the next time somebody asks me why I oppose admin candidates who are minors.  Sandstein   21:54, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Good block, enough is enough. Sandstein, please don't paint all minors with the same brush, adults act immature too so this really does not prove anything. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 21:59, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Piling on to endorse the block. We gave him a chance and he blew it with his eyes wide open. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:48, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I know we don't usually take preemptive actions, but I went ahead and reblocked his socks with talk page access revoked, and re-instated the autoblock in the interest of heading off any more of this monumental foolishness. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:31, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Other sockpuppets
needs to be blocked, I don't think it was listed on his 'list of issues which need to be fixed'.— <font color="Green">Dæ <font color="Blue">dαlus <font color="Green">Contribs 23:22, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ good catch. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:34, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You may also wish to check out this list.— <font color="Green">Dæ <font color="Blue">dαlus <font color="Green">Contribs 00:09, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I blocked two that were fairly obvious off that list, but we would need a checkuser for the rest. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:59, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Reporting User:Shshshsh: Are wikipedia articles private property of established users?

 * This situation doesnot require admin action, there has been no attempt to resolve the dispute through normal channels such as the talk pae, WP:3O, or other dispute resolution. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:15, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

The User:Shshshsh has reverted my edits to article Andaz Apna Apna 2 times saying that my addition about info about sequel to the movie is irrelevent and speculations were supported by unreliable sources. I am giving below references from those media about which article on wikipedia exists. If these are 'unreliable sources' then better to delete articles about these media.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/bollywood/news-interviews/Salman-Aamir-tie-up/articleshow/5096182.cms http://www.zeenews.com/news467473.html http://www.expressindia.com/latest-news/Return-of-the-Native/259624/ http://www.hindu.com/cp/2009/06/12/stories/2009061250020100.htm http://www.bollywoodhungama.com/features/2007/07/26/2886/
 * The Times of India
 * Zee News
 * The Indian Express
 * The Hindu
 * IndiaFM

It is unfortunate that some so-called established users sit on some articles and consider those articles as their private property. They bend wikipedia rules, sometime use rules which voilate spirit of wikipedia.

My referenced edit was reverted but this User:Shshshsh has no problem keeping unreferenced text in the article which I quote below: The film was a box office failure when released, but has since achieved a cult status among Indian audiences.

I will not call for reference even though they exist because it is against commonsense. Everybody knows it is cult movie.

But at the same time there were much talk about sequel to this movie which was acknowledged by actors, director, producer of this movie and reputed media. And few lines are worth mentioning.

I am really disappointed by this Gaming the system and users sitting on articles considering those articles their private property.

I give my word, I will never return to wikipedia and I am going to block this account by entering random password.

Thanks! Āditya (talk) 20:33, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You should've notified User:Shshshsh when you posted this - I've done it for you. Exxolon (talk) 20:54, 25 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Well Aditya is completely wrong. I posted a welcome message to the user and politely explained everything. I clearly stated "I'm not to decide what can and what cannot be added, it's our policies and guidelines." He added unsourced statements such as "sleeper hit" and then added some speculations about a possible sequel which are not relevant, more so in a section about reception. As the user himself added, the making of a sequel to this film was denied by the director. I had gone through the sources (two of which are completely unreliable) but overall none of the reliable ones had supported what the text said. I'm of course willing to discuss it on the talk page and the reason for the user's sharp reaction and his post on here remain unclear to me, but anyway - I have no energy to keep this thread on. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  21:05, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Grundle2600
Sigh. Despite pledging to be "topic banned from editing or participating in discussion of any political or politically controversial article, as well as BLPs. This includes articles directly about politics, but also includes politically controversial topics, like climate change," is right back at it on Talk:Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident. Per [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive586#User:Grundle2600_and_the_Diane_Francis_article. this recent ANI thread], this was supposed to be the last straw. I'd like to propose that the indef block that was lifted following his pledge be reapplied. At the very least, a block of considerable length seem warranted. Should be a no-brainer this time. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:56, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, in the edit you cite,, he says that "I still reserve the right to make edits about international political articles that are not BLPs", so he is not violating the conditions of his unblock, and I see no immediate reason to re-block. (Whether that unblock was a good idea in the first place is a different question.)  Sandstein   22:09, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, in the edit I cited "climate change" was specifically listed, but Grundle did not rule it out as one of his conditions. So interpreted strictly, he violated his own pledge. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:25, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I said, "I still reserve the right to make edits about international political articles that are not BLPs." Grundle2600 (talk) 23:29, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * So? You are still editing at a politically-controversial, left vs. right hotbed article on climate change. That's as clear an indication as any that you intend to continue the actions that got you blocked in the first place. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:37, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Please cite any diffs that I made since my last block ended that you think are in violation of any wikipedia rule. Grundle2600 (talk) 23:43, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * What has that got to do with anything? You pledged to avoid "climate change" and then went back on your word, as far as I'm concerned. -- Scjessey (talk) 04:21, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I said, "I still reserve the right to make edits about international political articles that are not BLPs, such as nuclear power, overpopulation, and sweatshops. My edits in these articles have generally been welcomed by other editors, and the histories of these kinds of articles shows that I have substantially improved them without causing trouble." Grundle2600 (talk) 15:02, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Scjessey is falsely attributing that pledge to me. I never pledged that. According to the text at the very link that Scjessey posted, this is what I said:


 * "I agree to avoid editing articles about politicians from all countries, including their article talk pages. I also agree to avoiding editing articles about people from all countries whose main notability is their political commentary, such as Diane Francis, Michael Moore, and Paul Krugman, as well as their talk pages. I do not agree to any such ban on BPLs for non-political people, such as Phoebe Cates, Stephen Hawking, or Jules Verne, because the issue there for non-political BLPs (I think Tiger Woods was the only one) was not my edits to articles, but instead, some jokes I made in the comment section and talk pages. Therefore, I agree to stop making jokes about all living persons in the comment section and talk pages for articles. However, I still reserve the right to make edits about international political articles that are not BLPs, such as nuclear power, overpopulation, and sweatshops. My edits in these articles have generally been welcomed by other editors, and the histories of these kinds of articles shows that I have substantially improved them without causing trouble."


 * Thus, I never said the words that Scjessey is attributing to me.


 * I am going to assume good faith, and assume that this was an honest mistake on Scjessey's part.


 * Grundle2600 (talk) 22:11, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Grundle, the concern was with your editing behaviour in regards to any article with political connotations. As part of your unblock request, you said you would like to be able to edit articles on animals, etc.  Climate change is very obviously a politically heated issue, and violates the spirit of your pledge. Throwaway85 (talk) 22:42, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Grundle should not have been allowed to add his own qualifiers and interpretations to the conditions laid out at Proposal to unblock. But that ship has now sailed unfortunately, as I'd say the fact he was unblocked serves as an implied acceptance of those "modified" conditions.  So like a defendant who gets off with a lesser sentence because of a clerical or judicial error, here we are. Tarc (talk) 22:44, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Absolutely, totally agree. The conditions that were added by Grundle substantially weakened the proposed restrictions.  Shrug - nobody said anything about it then, so I have to agree with Grundle that they were accepted by both sides.  Based on the modified restrictions, his comment is not in violation. Ravensfire (talk) 23:01, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Throwaway85, you said, "Climate change is very obviously a politically heated issue, and violates the spirit of your pledge." You are wrong. It's exactly within my pledge, which states, "I still reserve the right to make edits about international political articles that are not BLPs, such as nuclear power, overpopulation, and sweatshops. My edits in these articles have generally been welcomed by other editors, and the histories of these kinds of articles shows that I have substantially improved them without causing trouble." Grundle2600 (talk) 23:04, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to make any judgements about Grundle's involvement, since I know nothing about the previous discussions on the subject. However, it should be noted that the article in question, while not a BLP per se, is fundamentally concerned with BLP issues since it relates to accusations against several individuals and organisations. It has been persistently affected by (and a number of editors blocked for) violations of the BLP policy. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:47, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion: Allow Grundle to edit politics articles again and topic ban him from BLPs and anything related to science. Articles in the latter two categories are serious articles; you don't want problematic editors to edit these articles. Editing politics related articles is more of a recreational game on Wikipedia. Count Iblis (talk) 23:33, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I oppose this. Grundle has shown nothing but contempt for Wikipedia policies on any article that has even the slightest hint of a political flavor. This latest transgression should be the end of this. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:38, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you cite any diffs that I made since my last block ended that shows "contempt for Wikipedia policies"? Grundle2600 (talk) 23:41, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Count Iblis, ban me from science articles? Why? Please see User:Grundle2600 for lots of science articles that I started. There's no problem with any of them. And there's no problem with BLPs that aren't related to politics either. Can you point out a single diff that I made since my last block ended that violates any wikipedia rule? Grundle2600 (talk) 23:41, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe that Grundle is making an honest attempt to abide by the restrictions he specifically agreed to as conditions of his unblock. On the other hand, due to his history of using Wikipedia more as a journalism/investigation site than an encyclopedia, I don't have a lot of faith that this will work in the long term. But until and unless he violates policy again, or goes back on his pledge to avoid political BLPs, I don't think that any further action is needed. --  At am a  頭 23:56, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

For the record, here is the diff that Scjessey's ANI complaint is about:

"I vote for calling the article Climategate, as that is the most commonly used term, just as the article about Panthera leo is called Lion. Grundle2600 (talk) 21:24, 22 December 2009 (UTC)"

"Q Science said, 'By the way, of the 157 MB of released files, only about 8 MB (5%) were email.' I think that statistic should be added to the section of the article called 'Content of the documents.' It also seems odd that the only subsection in that section is the one about the emails. Perhaps the info about the rest of the documents doesn't have any reliable sources - yet. Grundle2600 (talk) 21:27, 22 December 2009 (UTC)"

Grundle2600 (talk) 00:03, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Update - Grundle has been WP:ICE CREAM-ing the regulars. I think this calls for an immediate fudge sauce with walnut sprinkles.  - Wikidemon (talk) 01:18, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I support Wikidemon's proposal. Grundle2600 (talk) 01:37, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I note that Grundle has made no effort to apologize for this infraction, and continues to argue that he has done nothing wrong. Wikidemon attempts to make light of this, as he has done in the past, but frankly Grundle's "I'm a nice guy. I've done nothing wrong" routine doesn't work on me anymore. -- Scjessey (talk) 04:25, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Scjessey, the only "infraction" is that you falsely attributed a quote to me which I never said. At first, I said that I thought that you had made an honest mistake. However, since you have not admitted your mistake, and you have not apologized, and you continue to pursue this matter against me, I now believe that what you did was a deliberate, bad faith attempt to get me blocked even though I did not break any rules. You ought to be ashamed of yourself for doing that. Grundle2600 (talk) 14:48, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Urgh. Last week, on one of his unblock requests, he stated "Then they should ban me from all political articles from all countries, instead of blocking me, so I can still edit articles on animals, science, technology, and pop culture"  I hate to say "I told you so", but when I declined his unblock request last week, I stated "I'm not sure how you could turn an article about an animal or science or pop culture into a political battleground, but I am sure you will try hard to do so."  It seems clear to me that Grundle is not interested in editing in a way that avoids controversey.  Immediately after being unblocked, he dove in head first into one of the biggest edit wars going on at Wikipedia right now.  This is completely unacceptable.  He claimed while blocked, several times, that all he wanted to do was avoid political articles and edit innocuous stuff.  He gets unblocked, and goes right back to the same behavior has before.  Can we just return his indefinite block, and call this done with.  The experimental unblocking has failed after less than a week.  -- Jayron  32  05:17, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That was a different unblock request, which was denied. Also, if you think that what I did was so bad, then why have you not cited any diffs to show that I broke any wikipedia rules? Grundle2600 (talk) 14:44, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I changed the heading of this section from "Grundle" to "Grundle2600" because there is another wikipedia editor named Grundle. Grundle2600 (talk) 14:57, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I also made this edit on my user talk page before my block was was lifted, where I replaced Jules Verne with Bill Watterson. Obviously, Verne has been dead for quite some time. Silly me! Grundle2600 (talk) 15:20, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposal
Having exhausted the community's goodwill, the indefinite block of Grundle2600 should be reinstated.


 * Support — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 05:57, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Please cite any wikipedia rule that I have broken since my last block ended. Grundle2600 (talk) 15:08, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * support -- Jayron  32  07:05, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Please cite any wikipedia rule that I have broken since my last block ended. Grundle2600 (talk) 15:08, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Just a clarification, is this a proposal for a community ban? That's what we normally do with people who have exhausted the community's patience. If what is proposed is a normal block, what would be the conditions for an unblock? (I have not yet formed an opinion about the merits of either proposal.)  Sandstein   08:17, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * One way to get unblocked is for the person to acknowledge that they broke a specific wikipedia rule, and promise not to do it again. Since I have not broken any wikipedia rule since my last block ended, there is no wrongdoing for me to acknowledge, so I could not use that argument to get unblocked. The only other way to get unblocked is to argue that the block was not justified. In this case, no block is justified, and several people have already explained why. Even the people who support blocking me have ignored my multiple requests for them to cite any diffs which show that I broke any wikipedia rules since my last block ended. Grundle2600 (talk) 14:36, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose So far, no one has posted any diffs of me breaking any wikipedia rules since my last block ended. Grundle2600 (talk) 14:31, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose pending some showing that Grundle2600 broke a policy or what he agreed to on his talk page. And please, could the usual suspects please avoid cowboyship by going and blocking in the middle of a discussion?  Let's talk this out.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:41, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose, I have to agree with the two users above, someone needs to demonstrate how Grundle broke policy before we even think about a lifetime community ban. WVBluefield (talk) 14:47, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Wehwalt & WVBluefield.--Cube lurker (talk) 14:51, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Support - No policy was broken this time, but Grundle2600 broke a pledge to avoid politically-controversial articles after being indef blocked for breaking policies in the past. Agree with Wehwalt that this needs to be properly talked out this time - let's not make this a thing that crops up every week or month. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:12, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Why not just re-apply the original conditions, without his qualifications? The case is murky, because Grundle was seemingly allowed to agree to restrictions only conditionally. If we reapply the restrictions and he breaks them, the case for an indef block will be much more clear-cut.--Cúchullain t/ c 15:25, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose regrettfully. Too much confusion over the exact terms of the unblock (terms asoriginally posted or as modified by Grundle) giving plenty of doubt that anything was violated. Wikilawyering by Grundle on this? Obviously! But in this case, because of a lack of clarity on the community's side, not Grundle. Ravensfire (talk) 15:28, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment What makes this even more ridiculous is that Grundle’s “violations” were made on an article talk page and not an article. This whole thread smacks of pettiness and demonstrates how one user can game the system to squash another editor. WVBluefield (talk) 15:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I beg your pardon? You'd have to be extraordinarily naive to think that article discussion does not have a direct affect on article changes. Also, I don't care for your suggestion that I am gaming the system. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:35, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Its becoming clear from the discussion above that not only has Grundle not violated any terms of his unblocking (as he wrote the terms favorably) but that you are using this forum to punish him for past run ins and not any current conduct. And for the record, an article talk page is not an article. WVBluefield (talk) 15:42, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but that's pure fantasy. This matter is nothing more than the logical result of Grundle2600's actions. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:53, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Conditional Suport I propose modifying Grundle's ban to include any articles with political connotations. I realize this may be difficult, but Grundle has editted productively articles which have nothing to do with politics, and it would be a shame to lose those contributions.  I suggest modifying his block, and having rigorous administrator oversight to ensure future relapses do not occur. Throwaway85 (talk) 18:23, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Conditional Support per Throwaway85. I wish either my original unblock conditions had been left intact or else people hadn't allowed so many revisions by the blocked individual. He must have known this AN/I drama-fest would happen the second he set foot in that Global Warming email hacking nightmare. &lt;&gt;Multi‑Xfer&lt;&gt; (talk) 09:28, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, no. Given that my talk page comments were perfectly reasonable, it never occurred to me that anyone would file an ANI complaint. And still, even now, no one has cited any wikipedia rules that I violated with my comments. There is no legitimate reason to topic ban me from articles related to global warming. Grundle2600 (talk) 15:59, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Objections to complaint based on confusion over quote attribution
Scjessey, the person who created this ANI complaint against me, wrongly attributed a quote to me which I never said. Then after I explained his mistake and posted what I really did say, I said, "I am going to assume good faith, and assume that this was an honest mistake on Scjessey's part."

However, since then, Scjessey has not admitted that he mistakenly attributed something to me which I never said, and he has not apologized, and in fact, he has continued arguing against me. Therefore, I no longer believe that what he did was in good faith, and I no longer believe that it was an honest mistake. Instead, I now believe that Scjessey deliberately attributed a quote to me which I never said, in a bad faith attempt to get me blocked for something which I never said.

Shame on him.

Grundle2600 (talk) 14:41, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * We're talking about the topic ban quote here? Yes, I'd like to see Scjessey address that.  Given that what is being discussed is the privilege of one editor to edit Wikipedia, we need to make sure what we post is accurate.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:45, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's what we are talking about here.


 * Scjessey said:


 * "Despite pledging to be 'topic banned from editing or participating in discussion of any political or politically controversial article, as well as BLPs. This includes articles directly about politics, but also includes politically controversial topics, like climate change,'"


 * But I never said that.


 * This is what I actually said:


 * "I agree to avoid editing articles about politicians from all countries, including their article talk pages. I also agree to avoiding editing articles about people from all countries whose main notability is their political commentary, such as Diane Francis, Michael Moore, and Paul Krugman, as well as their talk pages. I do not agree to any such ban on BPLs for non-political people, such as Phoebe Cates, Stephen Hawking, or Jules Verne, because the issue there for non-political BLPs (I think Tiger Woods was the only one) was not my edits to articles, but instead, some jokes I made in the comment section and talk pages. Therefore, I agree to stop making jokes about all living persons in the comment section and talk pages for articles. However, I still reserve the right to make edits about international political articles that are not BLPs, such as nuclear power, overpopulation, and sweatshops. My edits in these articles have generally been welcomed by other editors, and the histories of these kinds of articles shows that I have substantially improved them without causing trouble."


 * Thus, I never said the words that Scjessey is attributing to me.


 * Grundle2600 (talk) 14:54, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Again, I'd like to see Scjessey address this point. If Scjessey is maintaining that Grundle said this, and certainly that is the implication, I'd like to see Scjessey post a diff.  We get enough drama at AN/I without questionable bases for persuing a matter, if that's what we have.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:57, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I also made this edit on my user talk page before my block was was lifted, where I replaced Jules Verne with Bill Watterson. Obviously, Verne has been dead for quite some time. Silly me! Grundle2600 (talk) 15:19, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I already explained this yesterday. I'll do it again if you like. Here's the gist of it in easy-to-read points:
 * Grundle2600 was indef blocked for various violations of policy, including the most sacred (see archive of ANI discussion)
 * A list of "sanctions" were proposed (see archive) by User:Multixfer. "Climate change" was specifically mentioned in the list of points.
 * Grundle2600 pledged (with conditions) to abide by these points diff, but no mention of "climate change" appeared in Grundle2600's conditions.
 * Grundle2600 violated the agreed-upon terms by joining the debate on a highly controversial climate change-related article.
 * I think this is a direct violation of his "promise to be good" pledge. Even if you don't agree, you'd have to argue that it is at the very least a violation of the "spirit" of that pledge. Grundle2600 has repeatedly demonstrated an inability to edit or discuss political (or politically-controversial) articles in a responsible manner, either by directly violating policy or trying to push a political agenda. How much more of this must we put up with? -- Scjessey (talk) 15:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * In Grundle's defense, his version of the conditions includes the phrase "I reserve the right to make edits about international political articles that are not BLPs...". I think that does cover the climate change articles for the most part.  His changes are pretty cleverly written to include many of the articles that he wants to edit without imposing too many new limits on him. Ravensfire (talk) 15:47, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The talk page Grundle2600 edited has a BLP tag at the top of it, as pointed out by another editor above. It may not be a biography, but for the protection of the various individuals being discussed within the article it certainly falls under the auspices of WP:BLP. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:55, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The article does not have a BLP tag. Grundle2600 (talk) 16:00, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Articles don't have BLP tags, their discussion pages do - as in Talk:Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident (the very first tag on the page). If you are going to pledge to avoid BLP articles, it would certainly be helpful if you could actually identify them! -- Scjessey (talk) 18:19, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The Jay Leno article says "Living people" in the list of categories at the bottom. Grundle2600 (talk) 01:42, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Awesome. So? -- Scjessey (talk) 02:30, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

(No indent) You just said, "Articles don't have BLP tags." So I said that you were wrong - the Jay Leno article does. Grundle2600 (talk) 17:31, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Another proposal
Grundle is to abide by the original unblock conditions without any qualification: This will clear up the confusion about what restrictions were placed and agreed to.--Cúchullain t/ c 15:43, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Grundle is to refrain from posting his list of seven questions or referring to them anywhere on Wikipedia.
 * 2) He is topic banned from editing or participating in discussion of any political or politically controversial article, as well as BLPs. This includes articles directly about politics, but also includes politically controversial topics, like climate change.
 * 3) Grundle agrees to take note of and adhere thoroughly to WP:SYN
 * 4) Grundle agrees to disengage from and avoid those he has had disputes with, especially political disputes.
 * 5) Any posting of his seven questions or referring to them, or breaking of his topic ban, or deliberate engagement with those he has had disputes with will result in his indefinite block being immediately reinstated for a period of no less than 4 months.


 * For now, I disagree. Grundle has several restrictions on him at this point from previous discussions/cases plus these new ones.  Let's see if he can abide by his own restrictions without causing disruption.  If he can - great!  Job well done!  If he can't, it should be easier to be get additional restrictions.  I think he got let off the hook on this one, but maybe he'll work better under restrictions that he was able to modify, rather than have them dictated to him. Ravensfire (talk) 15:53, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Extremely disgusted and reluctant oppose - I'm sorry to say but the unblocking admin seriously here by accepting Grundle's conditions, so unless another admin wants to start the ol wheel-war fun, we're stuck with dealing with the consequences.  I have no faith whatsoever that Grundle can make positive contributions to such a politically charged as global warming and the e-mail hacking incident, but the unfortunate outcome of the unblock is that it will have to be tolerated until it crosses the line.  Perhaps this will serve as a cautionary tale for the future; don't let the accused dictate the terms of the probation. Tarc (talk) 16:25, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it looks like Grundle2600 is going to get off on a technicality. Ambiguity is the friend of the accused. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:42, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Scjessey, the only "ambiguity" is that you attributed something to me which I never said. Grundle2600 (talk) 16:45, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Tarc stated, "I have no faith whatsoever that Grundle can make positive contributions to such a politically charged as global warming and the e-mail hacking incident." You are mistaken. The most recent edit that I made to any such article was this one from December 9. And if you look at the current version of the article, you will see that the information that I added to the article is still there - 2 weeks after I added it. In fact, even Scjessey, the person who filed this current ANI complain against me, has edited that article since I added that info, but left intact the information that I added. Thus, I have just proven that I am capable of making a positive contribution to such an article. However, if you think that my edit has made the article worse, you are free to remove that information from the article. Grundle2600 (talk) 16:44, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * A single edit is not much of a sample to go on, and the bulk of your past disruption stemmed from talk page contributions, not article edits. Tarc (talk) 16:49, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Tarc, here is the diff that Scjessey's ANI complaint is about. It's on the talk page. It's a perfectly reasonable edit. Grundle2600 (talk) 16:55, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You continue to ignore the facts, which I have laid it in an easy-to-follow form above. You are less likely to get sanctioned if you admit your error (or even admit it could be seen as an error), instead of arguing with every editor who disagrees with your version of events. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:22, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Grundle, I voted to oppose, albeit reluctantly. Take your victories where you can and stop quibbling. Tarc (talk) 18:25, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment I believe it to be in the best interests of all concerned for Grundle to maintain his editing priveleges, with the caveat that he refrain from editing, or commenting on the talk pages of, any article with political connotations. I propose, as above, that an administrator undertake to monitor his edits, and ensure he does not violate said condition.  While I agree that technically, he has not violated any rules since his previous block, I feel his recent edits violate the spirit of what was imposed.  The unblocking admin was perhaps too quick to accept Grundle's proposed conditions.  I think we can avoid much future drama, and Grundle avoid future blocks, if he agrees to adhere to the condition I have proposed. Throwaway85 (talk) 18:29, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I oppose blocking - But this should be considered a "last chance" for the editor. I think that's the consensus I see here, most people opposing an immediate reblock do so because of a technicality and because no disruption has occurred afterward, and I'm in that camp. But I don't see many people putting a great deal of faith in him. I say that if he can somehow avoid trouble, despite his history, then great. If he acts as everyone expects he will, then there's cause for the indefinite block to be reinstated. --  At am a  頭 20:44, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment It is not a last chance for Grundle, because as far as I can tell, he has not done anything wrong.  He is within the scope of his editing restrictions.  Now, I will say that possibly the unblocking admin should not have let Grundle amend the understanding that way, but it did pass by unremarked, and Grundle's entitled.  The edit itself seems unobjectionable.  I would say that I'm far more upset at Scjessey.  Either Scjessey's complaint that began all of this lacked clarity, or it lacked candor.  I have my opinion on which, but I AGF.  Frankly, I see nothing further to do here.  Let's close all of this.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:56, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I gave you the thorough explanation you requested. As far as I am concerned, Grundle2600 agreed not to involve himself in politically-contentious areas of Wikipedia, and he went back on that agreement. That is my interpretation, which I have made in good faith. Indeed, Grundle2600 continues to involve himself in the same article, with this proposal. Bear in mind that Grundle2600 was expected to act "whiter than white" in order to get the indef block rescinded. If Grundle has not done anything wrong, then perhaps the failure to properly restrict Grundle in the first place should be addressed. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:11, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * He is within the scope of his editing restrictions. Thus, he did not do anything wrong.  Nothing further to be done  here.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment Grundle has wriggled out from under this one, but his choice to wriggle is disconcerting. This edit to the Irish Famine article is disconcerting, too: he tries to put the famine in the context of laws that had been repealed a generation or more before.  So, he'll be back, and I will gladly bet the under for January 5. PhGustaf (talk) 00:44, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * PhGustaf, I was not aware that those laws had been repealed. I was just citing what was in the source. I am interested in accuracy, so thank you for pointing that out to me. This was not a deliberate attempt on my part to add false information. If you look at the source that I cited, I think you will see that my edit was done in good faith. Grundle2600 (talk) 04:43, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The first line of Section I of your source says, "The Penal Laws, dating from 1695, and not repealed in their entirety until Catholic emancipation in 1829,...". PhGustaf (talk) 15:20, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That's my fault for not reading every word of the source. It was a careless mistake on my part, which I should not have done. But it was not a deliberate attempt to add false information. Grundle2600 (talk) 16:02, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Grundle, now might be a good time to take a step back from articles with political connotations. You do yourself no favours by editing such articles, as it only increases admin surveillance of your edits.  It might be wise to stick to entirely uncontroversial articles for awhile, and let things cool down a bit. Throwaway85 (talk) 06:24, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * OK. I am now voluntarily on break from all political articles. Grundle2600 (talk) 17:33, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Grundle2600 agrees to take voluntary break from all political articles
As of now, I am taking a voluntary break from all political articles and their talk pages. I am doing this as a gesture of good will, and to show that being allowed to edit the rest of wikipedia is important enough to me that I am willing to compromise. All I want to do here is to improve articles, and there are plenty of articles that I can work on that aren't political. Grundle2600 (talk) 17:36, 25 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you, and Merry Christmas (from an uninvolved non-admin)!—Finell 17:45, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Merry Christmas to you too! Grundle2600 (talk) 20:22, 25 December 2009 (UTC)


 * That sounds good. Can I suggest that you do this for at least a month and also drop a note here on AN/I when you are ending it, so we are all on notice?--Wehwalt (talk) 20:57, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll raise you to two months and change. I will avoid editing political articles at least until February 28, 2010, 11:59 PM. And yes, I'll post a note here when I'm ending it. Grundle2600 (talk) 21:41, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Good plan. Be careful, though; you're sufficiently talented to work tendentious political commentary into articles on bacon without even noticing it yourself.  Stick to stuff like peeps.  Cheers, PhGustaf (talk) 21:59, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Heh heh. Thanks. Grundle2600 (talk) 01:08, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Day-O (The Banana Boat Song)‎
You never know where an edit war will break out. This skirmish is an IP address insisting that the song's lyric about the banana spider is a veiled reference to black people plotting to kill white people. What should I do? Wait until he breaks 3RR? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:55, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Damn, this is sad. I love that song. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:00, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Nobody has discussed this with the editor, on his/her talk page, until now. Also, editor has not been given the courtesy of an ANI notification. This complaint is premature and should be shelved until proper process has been followed. Rodhull  andemu  01:06, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You are suggesting that IP editors actually are aware of what gets posted on their user talk pages.— Ryūlóng (<font color="Gold">竜龙 ) 01:07, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * They get the big orange notice, assuming anyone posts to an otherwise empty Talk page; however, I see there has been some engagement on the article Talk page, which is where the discussion belongs. I assume the editor, not having been welcomed, should benefit from education first, criticism second, and sanctions third, if they don't get it. However, the education process seems to be continuing. Rodhull  andemu  01:13, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I also posted a comment on that article talk page point the IP to here if he wants to say something. That particular IP's last edits were 3 1/2 years ago. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:15, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, all. It appears that the IP has backed off, for now at least. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:50, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * come mister tally man, tally me banana -- Jayron  32  04:04, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs (personal attack redacted by  Jeremy  ( v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!! ) ) has a problem with a NPOV interpretation who goes running to the administrators after a few minutes of a disagreement. I think we are working the disagreements out on the article page. But go ahead and block me. There is no point in being able to edit if the edits always get undone anyways. Why contribute anything useful to Wikipedia then? It would just be a waste of my time.

On a different topic, why can't I just respond to one topic on this page? I had to edit the whole page. Is there a way?

I'm just putting the userlinks here so it's easy to block Baseball Bugs if an admin wants to.

24.125.41.207 (talk) 07:56, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Uh, I advise against that, especially since calling him a "fascist" is very much blockable as a personal attack. - Jeremy  ( v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!! ) 08:27, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

What if he really was a fascist? What if he was a member of a fascist political party, or admitted to a fascist philosophy? He may want to be known as a fascist. 24.125.41.207 (talk) 08:31, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You do not know any of that, however, and as such it is a personal attack. Let's not argue semantics here. - Jeremy  ( v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!! ) 08:35, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Jeremy, if I called him a democrat, would it be a personal attack? I don't know that he is or isn't a democrat. I don't think it's a personal attack. I intend to argue semantics because it's Wikipedia. You are getting off topic. We are trying to decide the level of citations that is needed for interpretations of music. There are articles with uncited interpretations of music all over Wikipedia. And then Baseball Bugs, the self-appointed dictator of Wikipedia, doesn't like an interpretation he sees and says it's original research, doesn't have any citations, and all of the usual libel that self-appointed Wikipedia dictators dredge up. I am trying to work on that question on the article page. 24.125.41.207 (talk) 08:54, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * IP, you're going to have to rein in the personal attacks. Nobody is going to listen to any substantive points you may make when you're using overly emotive (and inaccurate) terms like "fascist" and "self-appointed dictator of Wikipedia". Indeed, we're likely to skip listening to you entirely and just hit the block button. Want to try again? ⇦REDVERS⇨ 09:01, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

OK REDVERS, I can be less emotive with how I talk about people. However, it seems like Baseball Bugs simply assumes that he's right. Look at the tone in his posts about this article. Without saying that I am talking about Baseball Bugs, just talking about Wikipedia users in general, can you please give me Wikipedia advice about how to deal with people who constantly patrol articles to enforce their non-NPOV perspective on those articles? Is there a way to complain about users who are too protectionist, activist, or authoritarian? 24.125.41.207 (talk) 09:12, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You got caught inserting potentially racist, but nevertheless uncited commentary in an article about a still-popular song. They were thankfully removed.  Why do you suddenly feel the urge to bite the person who caught you?  That will never detract from the reality of what was done, and that it was fixed.  Wikipedia is not a game, and getting mad at the people who protect it is never going to get you far. (<font style="font-variant:small-caps">talk→   BWilkins  <font style="font-variant:small-caps">←track ) 10:45, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Games are great. :) --cremepuff222 (talk) 10:48, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: Cremepuff now blocked (see a section below). ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:28, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

To the IP, who asked - and ignoring Cremepuff222's attempt to be unhelpful - the basics of sorting disputes are first to self-edit any and all emotive language (so that's a checked-box straight away - thanks). Now, does the problem seem to you to be one editor or multiple editors? If multiple editors, start a thread on the talk page of the article, and list concisely and factually the issues, then how you would see them resolved. If it's one editor, start a thread on their talk page and do exactly the same. This part is negotiation.

Lets assume that the start-talking step above didn't work, for whatever reason. That's when it's time for one of the avenues in our dispute resolution processes to be followed. There are lots of options here and you'll likely spot one that suits you best. This is the point to stop editing the article - it gives you the higher ground if you've not edit warred or done anything silly in the meantime. Staying calm and factual is the best way to get somewhere with dispute resolution, so collect your sources now. You'll need any problematic diffs to hand, and also some reliable sources (as links is best) to back your point of view. Dispute resolution is never quick, but we're not on a deadline here and we're all volunteers, so you're not going to get speed out of us!

The only time that administrators can intervene is if someone breaks one of our bright-line rules. The community doesn't empower admins to make judgements in content disputes; we can only act where a rule has been clearly and unambiguously broken, or where a consensus can be shown to exist and continue to exist for or against something and needs enforcement - and even there we tread carefully as the community is rarely happy for admins to make too sweeping a judgement over anything.

So your next stage appears to be to try dispute resolution. You may also like to make a free account and edit with that: you don't have to, but since 70% of our vandalism comes from IP addresses, people tend to have a prejudice against them. The account can be throwaway - use it for the dispute resolution, then quietly forget about it once it's over. ⇦REDVERS⇨ 10:59, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The IP also characterized wikipedia editors with various extremist terms, on the article talk page. He also removed a section to make a point, although the point might be right. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:28, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the links REDVERS. That's a great explanation of how to work on these edits. You should add it to a help page.

BWilkins, the interpretation is not racist. By saying that "if I think it's racist, it must be wrong" undermines the effort to create factual articles. If you actually have something constructive to say about the topic, come work on the article. 24.125.41.207 (talk) 20:21, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Factual articles are awesome. Those based on WP:OR, or a lack of WP:RS (emphasis on R) have no place on Wikipedia, nor does your apparent snootiness, thanks. (<font style="font-variant:small-caps">talk→   BWilkins  <font style="font-variant:small-caps">←track ) 01:20, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

So now that the IP cannot add his interpretation of the song, he removes another interpretation.— Ryūlóng (<font color="Gold">竜龙 ) 23:26, 25 December 2009 (UTC)