Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive695

User:Flatterworld
I began editing (diff) Bashar al-Assad on 7 May 2011 when, in the course of a discussion at another article, certain biographical details relating to the president surfaced that were not part of his article prior to my edit. There has since been a discussion ongoing about how best to handle the added content. joined the discussion here, with no valuable input other than to shoot bad-faith accusations from the hip. There is nothing necessarily uncivil about his language, but the nature of his comments undoubtedly runs counter to WP:AGF, which is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia. The user's Talk page abounds with warnings against similar conduct in the past:, , , , , , and the list goes on and on.

I directed the user to WP:AGF here and here, asking that he strike out the bad faith remarks. He chose to disregard my advice. It is necessary for an Admin to involve himself in guiding in how Wikipedia envisions healthy interactions between contributors. A 48-hour block would not be an excessive response under the circumstances, though I am open to less severe alternatives.—Biosketch (talk) 08:13, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * A 48 hour block for saying you cherry picked sources? Would you be open to the less severe alternative of doing nothing? It seems to me you are running into some opposition on the Assad talk page. Trying to one-up the opposition by trying to get them blocked is not the best way forward. I'd suggest you solve this dispute by continuing the discussion on the talk page. I note you also failed to inform Flatterworld of this discussion.--Atlan (talk) 12:30, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I was informed on my Talk page (which I clear after reading). Quite honestly, I have more important things to do with my time at Wikipedia than argue about this. It's not bad faith to address a serious issue with an article, and I will not be bullied into some sort of fake 'compromise' by any attempts at intimidation. Flatterworld (talk) 14:48, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, I noticed you were informed on your talk page of this report at WP:WQA. This, however, is a different report at a different venue.--Atlan (talk) 15:52, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I didn't realize there were so many venues. ;-) Flatterworld (talk) 16:40, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * , thanks for taking the time to look into the incident and for leaving the updated notice on 's Talk page. In answer to your question about the 48-hour block, of course it isn't simply for the accusation against me over cherry-picking sources. It is the broader tone of 's comment, the fact that it attributed ulterior motives to me, and 's ostensible history of similar such comments to others. Perhaps I am overstating the importance of WP:AGF, but the page does describe it as "a fundamental principle on Wikipedia," and it rather unequivocally requires editors not to "attribute the actions being criticized to malice unless there is specific evidence of malice" – and in this case no evidence of malice was indicated by the user making the accusations. Also, the suggestion that I'm trying to one-up the "opposition" – a label I emphatically reject, by the way – by getting them blocked frankly doesn't make sense. You'll see that the additions I made to the article have been embraced by the article's editors since I introduced them. They've even been expanded. The dispute on the Discussion page is therefore not about content but about a much more minor question of layout. If 's contribution had been a meaningful one, elaborating at least a little on why he construes my additions as cherry-picking etc., there wouldn't have been a problem. It's the reality that in this user's first interaction with me he chose to assume bad faith that's the problem. I've had much more heated discussions with colleagues here, but they stay constructive because a mutual effort is made to assume good faith as much as possible. If WP:AGF is not considered a serious policy, then I'll concede the 48-hour block is excessive. But if WP:AGF is seen as essential to Wikipedia, it is not.—Biosketch (talk) 11:14, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Blocks are a preventative measure. We don't issue them as punishment for failing to assume good faith. This board is for incidents. If you want to address Flatterworld's long term behavior (which I doubt, even though you bring it up), start an Rfc. Usually, it is best to either prove the other side wrong, or agree to disagree and shrug it off, rather than run to the admin boards in righteous indignation.--Atlan (talk) 14:18, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It's unfortunate,, that you insist on shifting the focus onto me, first for "Trying to one-up the opposition" and then for "righteous indignation." The second idea is as bizarre as the first was shown to be, and addressing my concerns with less aggressive language would have reflected better on your judgment. It would have been sufficient to say from the beginning that "Blocks are a preventative measure" and that Admins do not administer them "for failing to assume good faith." That would have gotten the message across that WP:AGF is not strictly enforced, without the gratuitous calumnies vis-a-vis my motives. My pride is not wounded, but my confidence in you is.—Biosketch (talk) 10:02, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

User Geo Swan continues violation of BLP
After his recent RFC Requests for comment/Geo Swan he still violates BLP and bases articles on primary sources against community consensus and BLP.Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_84 And he keeps reverting one edit another one with a false explanation that he want to discuss the copyright status of the image while reverting a bunch of other edits including some that violate BLP. Please help. IQinn (talk) 14:59, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Ugh, the image dispute is just a small part of Geo's obsession with cataloging and wikifying every Guantanamo detainee. It was bad enough when MfD had to scour his userspace for this languishing junk, but now IMO Category:People held at the Guantanamo Bay detention camp needs a thorough review. Tarc (talk) 15:29, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I suggest Iqinn has slipped into forum shopping here. I already initiated a discussion over the use of this image, at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2011 May 11#File:Andrew purvis's sidebar -- 'The Suspects- A Bosnian subplot.png.  So, my edit was not an attempt to avoid scrutiny, as Iqinn implies.  I already know Iqinn objects to the use of the image in question.  I'd like the opinion of uninvolved third parties.  And, if I am not mistaken, the puf is an appropriate forum for that.  Cheers!  Geo Swan (talk) 17:09, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * As said that here is not about the image and the whole thing was never about the copyright status of the image it was about the value of the image for the article and about Geo Swan secretly reverting other changes that violate BLP in the same edit. There was a discussion on the talk page about the value of the image where he fails to provide compelling arguments or sources for inclusion. He does not need to revert the image 3 times into the article to get another opinion on copyright was not in question and if he would like to discuss the copyright status than anyway keep the image of the article until that has been discussed not edit war the image into the article. But that is and was never the topic here - edit warring, BLP and continues disruptive editing is.
 * He did not only re-add the image 3 times while a discussion was ongoing on the talk page what would be bad enough. He reverted several other edits under the cover of this. E.G. re-adding these primary sources two times one two. against community consensus and RFC/U and Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_84
 * @Tarc - how can this section ever been cleaned up when Geo Swan keeps aggressively reverting any attempt to clean it up under false explanations and he disagrees to be mentored? I am here so administrator stop him edit warring and stop him repeatedly reverting all changes of the article including some that violate BLP. I also want him to agree to be mentored as the RFC/U Requests for comment/Geo Swan suggested. At least he need to be mentored in BLP articles where he once again violated BLP. Enforcement is needed. IQinn (talk) 23:55, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I do not disagree with you, just noting that this image brouhaha is the proverbial tip of a very large iceberg. Tarc (talk) 15:13, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Nothing here. Not ripe for this page.  The already-opened discussion at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2011 May 11#File:Andrew purvis's sidebar -- 'The Suspects- A Bosnian subplot.png should be pursued by the parties there, and discussion there completed.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:55, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Well Eppefleche, i think you are a known supporter of Geo Swan and people might should not take your words to serious. The forum you point to is irrelevant and as i laid out that is not about the image it is about Geo Swan edit warring and violating BLP. It seems to be the case that other people understood the problem quicker and enforced the removal,  of the problematic content that he had re-introduced two time into the article under the false claim he would like to discuss the copyright status of the image. Geo Swan should agree to be mentored as the RFC/U suggested unfortunetly he refuses to do so and continues disruptive editing in BLP's articles what makes the fixing of this section almost impossible. IQinn (talk) 08:40, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Possible disruptive nomination for deletion request
User:Thivierr nominated Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Competence is required for deletion. This essay was mentioned as part of a comment to an evidence presentation in an Arbitration Committee case; Thivierr has consistently commented in that case in support of the "accused party" at the core of that dispute, and this essay was cited by another editor that has commented against the accused party.

If someone uninvolved in the arbcom case could keep an eye on this user and his deletion request, that would be appreciated. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:31, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Huh. Did not notice this until after I had begun closing the MfD as withdrawn, but there we go. sonia ♫  09:24, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Light current
LC was banned over 4 years ago. He continues to sock relentlessly to this day. On the ref desk talk page, we have editors arguing that if his ref desk edits happen to be "answerable", then they should stand, invoking IAR, claiming it overrides a ban. I say a ban overrides IAR. What say y'all? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:41, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Ignore All Rules is "when it's in the best interests of the wiki, ignore the rule" not "do it just for the hell of it". Pretty sure that a sockmaster socks because he wants the attention and is tired of being left on the outside. I don't think indulging him and allowing community participation constitutes the best interests of the wiki unless you're a Conservapedia mole. Ironholds (talk) 22:03, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't have a strong opinion on the issue, but this is not being suggested "just for the hell of it". See a thread here: Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk, where a rationale is outlined. Staecker (talk) 23:28, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * He's banned; He cannot edit, if he does edit those edits must be removed on sight, and if he creates socks to edit, those socks must be blocked, period. There is only one recourse here, and that is an unbanning proposal at WP:AN. Unless the community decides to unban this user, or unless His Honorable Lord Jibmo Wales overturns the ban, the policy is clear. IAR need not apply.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  00:01, 8 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The proposal that a banned user's Reference Desk questions be somehow allowed to stand is being made by a lone editor, and for my part, I don't see any consensus developing around it. —Steve Summit (talk) 02:21, 8 May 2011 (UTC)


 * What complicates the issue is that other editors respond to a question, only to find their efforts reverted. Based on the argument that a question from anywhere in 1/16384 of the entire possible range of IP addresses must be this one banned user.  What if the banned user is part of a school with a thousand children?  Now they're all "trolls", and all answers to their questions disappear.  Administrators have refused to block the range of IPs for just that reason; why should other editors be more restrictive?  We've ended up with a duplicate ANI and Sockpuppet Investigations at the Refdesk talk page.  Most fundamentally, the compromise I suggested is based only on the right of an editor in good standing to ask a question which happens to be the same as that asked by a banned user - something which I hope should not be controversial. Wnt (talk) 03:47, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No one has claimed that anyone that edits from Light Current's range is Light Current. Not one person.  However, Light Current has a very specific and well understood modus operandi, and the combination of his behavior with his IP address is a clear indicator that it is him.  Merely because people know his behavior, and enforce his ban by removing his questions, does not mean that people have even once claimed that innocent users editing from that range should also be blocked.  What has happened is that YOU, Wnt (and near as I can tell, you alone), have taken upon yourself to mischaracterize the work of others in such terms, but no one actually behaves or thinks that way, no matter how often you assert it as though it were true.  Its simply not true.  LC is an obvious troll, his fingerprints are distinct and recognizable, and it is unfortunate that your answers to his trolling questions get deleted along with the questions themselves.  However, that doesn't mean that other people (you know, those people that are not you) cannot recognize him.  -- Jayron  32  03:59, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I'll grant that I don't know his modus operandi. Could you point me (and the rest of us) at some resources about that?  The Refdesk questions were so short, I never imagined they could carry many fingerprints. Wnt (talk) 04:38, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Given that this was explained to you at WT:RD, and you chose to ignore it or discount it there, I doubt you'll listen here, but here goes. LC asks short, contextless questions about subjects which are either a) defecatory b) sexual c)bigoted or d) some combination thereof.  An earlier popular subject was the planet Uranus, which can often be mistaken for the english phrase "your anus".  LC has apandoned this motif, but other questions are usually easy to spot.  Other recent gems have revolved around the size of someone colon, and the proper technique for masturbating a dog.  Don't be ashamed, however, if you cannot easily spot him.  The world is a diverse place, and we all have different skills.  I, for example, am not a really good Basketball player, so I don't spend a lot of time playing basketball against better basketball players.  Likewise, if you find that you lack the skills in the area of spotting LC socks, perhaps it would be best if you didn't get in the way of people who are really good at it.  Its not a slight against you; like I said we are all good at different things, and that doesn't mean you are a bad person for not being good at identifying his socks.  -- Jayron  32  04:51, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear - was that pattern described before the most recent round of questions? (And true, I never even thought about the weight of a human colon as defecation-related) Wnt (talk) 04:57, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * People told you those posts were him, and you clearly refused to believe them. This is all over WT:RD.  Lets also make this clear:
 * Sometimes, people who are not LC also ask immature, offensive questions. These are easy to spot since LC edits from a known set of IP addresses.  We delete other obvious trolling questions as inappropriate, even if LC has nothing to do with them.
 * Sometimes, people who are not LC, but edit from the same IP range, ask legitimate questions at the ref desks. These are easy to spot as the questions are usually well thought out, have a context, and don't delve into prurient interests, and don't follow up honest questions with inappropriate trolling later on.
 * Again, don't be ashamed if you cannot spot these things. People don't necessarily think less of me for my poor basketball skills.  -- Jayron  32  05:03, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Here is what we're dealing with:


 * "The problem is that you are never going to be able to stop anyone determined (even me) from editing. 8-) People just have to live with it. If you dont like a Q, ignore it, but dont make a song and dance about it." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.25.110.50 (talk) 09:33, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

He's been at this for over 4 years. Someone needs to prove him wrong. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:24, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The Internet seems to be here to stay, and Wikipedia has the potential to last for the long term, too. Eventually, Light current will die of old age.  And Wikipedia will still be here.  Until then, WP:RBI. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:05, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * What's curious is that according to this LC goes through so much trouble to be recognized. He has to come to the same place, ask almost the same questions, and never register for an account first.  If he simply wanted to have trollish questions stay up and be answered, it would be no challenge at all.  One reason why to me the "WP:DENY" argument seems misplaced. Wnt (talk) 06:15, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Many trolls will do that. They'll play a game that's basically "How long can I last before I'm found out?" Sometimes they'll drop little hints, especially if they're being overlooked for who they are. I recall a troll from a couple of years ago (not LC) who kept editing and talking about the subject of anagrams. He was on there about a month before anyone realized that his username was an anagram of his sockmaster's username. That's what makes LC all the more puzzling, as you say: He immediately makes his presence known. The fact that he keeps asking the same stupid questions over and over indicates he's basically playing "internet ping-pong". The dilemma for him now is that his ever-higher visibility produces an ever-longer list of editors willing to "paddle" him. There are many of those, and only one of him. So it's a battle he can't win... as other trolls have eventually figured out. LC isn't there yet. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:04, 9 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Ironholds, I'm not saying what I agree with WNT's proposal, but it was clearly not "For the Hell of it", The effort to completely expunge light-current's questions sometimes becomes extremely disruptive, far more so than if the questions had been answered and allowed to sink quietly into the page history.
 * Bugs's crusade against this banned user has essentially become the most significant of component of the banned user's disruption.
 * (I'd also like to take a moment to mention how unusual it is to report a mere talk page proposal to ANI as if it were some oncomming horror. Ref-Desk policies are properly discussed on the ref-desk talk page. Bringing it here was simply canvassing.) APL (talk) 21:00, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it is more nuanced than that. The situation here is that LC has two advocates that feed his trolling behavior.  Both Wnt and BaseballBugs in their own way exacerbate the situation.  If Wnt was more understanding of the need not to feed the troll, and if Bugs was a little less strident in his efforts to eradicate him from Wikipedia, it would get boring for LC pretty quickly.  Any one of two solutions would work equally:
 * 1) if all of LC's posts were removed without comment or controversy by anyone, that is if they just disappeared and no one complained, objected, or even noted that it happened, LC would have no satisfaction or
 * 2) if all of LC's posts were left alone, and answered earnestly without judgement; that is when he asks about the color of Uranus we all pretend he didn't just make an asshole joke, and instead just direct them to the parts of the relevent Wikipedia article, there's also no fun for LC.
 * The fun in this situation comes in making an inappropriate question and watching the shitstorm it generates between Bugs and Wnt (or whoever wishes to fight that day). It's not answers he's after, its the shitstorm that his very presense generates.  Until we all get on the same page, and decide definitively how to deal with this WITHOUT a huge fight ensueing from the "What's the harm in AGF and answering his questions" and the "Banned is BANNED" camps, LC will go away.  I personally couldn't give two shits about HOW we resolve this, just that the fight itself is what LC is clearly after, and as long as we keep having this fight, LC is going to continue to push our buttons.  -- Jayron  32  21:09, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * What you've outlined is the reason I have stopped deleting his garbage. I wanted to raise the visibility of it (call it canvassing if you want) and let others do that work, as I am tired of getting yelled at for trying to enforce the rules, especially as I had no part in his original ban. That occurred before I even knew there was a ref desk. So I am not interested in being the "designated deleter". However, when some naive soul attempts to answer one of the troll's stupid questions, I'm going to point out who he is - once the latest incarnation has been blocked. Also, as it happens I am currently under an interaction ban with a particular user I won't name. I take that ban very seriously. I expect others here to take other bans equally seriously. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:28, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I would argue that 1 is impossible. Quiet removal of posts is very problematic. First the questions must be removed before they are answered, or the removal itself becomes confusing and disruptive (As often happens.). And secondly the posts must be removed without errors or potentially innocent questions will be removed as trolls (as also happens.)
 * Who could be trusted to be the silent-but-deadly troll enforcer? Certainly not Bugs, but who could do better than Bugs?
 * It's common for questions that were just sitting, answered, after taking up about a grand total of maybe four person-minutes, are deleted, and the resulting confusion costs far more person-minutes.
 * Causing this disruption for mindless enforcement of "BANNED USERS MUST NOT BE ALLOWED TO POST" smacks of dogmatic thinking where pragmatic thinking would be preferable. APL (talk) 22:01, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not mindless. He was banned for a reason. It is the banned user who's causing the disruption. That's why he was banned. And his recent arguments, that we'll never stop him so we shouldn't even try, are thoroughly bogus. If you don't enforce the banning rule, you might as well not have a banning rule. As I see it, he wants to essentially get de facto "un-banned" without having to go through the proper process to get un-banned; which he would of course fail miserably, because he has not changed his approach since he was banned four freakin' years ago. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:17, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Recently an editor proposed writing an abuse filter. I don't know what, if anything, has come of that. Obviously, we don't want to give any details. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:21, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps "mindless" isn't the right word, but "Dogmatic" certainly is. Your approuch is anything but pragmatic.
 * You seem to be unable to see how completely you've been trolled by this LC fellow. APL (talk) 22:27, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Only because of certain editors aiding and abetting. If they would SHUT UP about it, and help enforce the rules instead of arguing against the rules, there would be no drama. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:32, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Simply put, this user's only purpose is the glee he gets from being "naughty" and starting arguments on the RefDesk. If you're worried about confusion due to questions disappearing... well, LC isn't confused, he knows what's happening. If the confusion is on the part of other users, Template:hat the discussion with a simple WP:DNFTT editnotice. Discussion is ended, troll gets no satisfaction. Wash our hands of him until he finally gets bored and moves on. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 22:48, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That would be fine, IF you could get his enablers to agree. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:06, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * He get's his "Glee" from holding up a hoop and watching Bugs jump through it. If tomorrow Bugs were struck by a meteor, the cycle would end and he'd get bored.
 * Having a nemesis is fun. APL (talk) 23:52, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Wait. Instead of being mildly insulting, Allow me explain what I mean by dogmatic instead of pragmatic.
 * Let's assume the following facts :
 * 1) LC enjoys sparring with you, and using you(and others, admittedly) to create disruption.  This is pretty much the definition of a troll.
 * 2) Even if you educate all current regulars, There will always be new users and readers to the ref-desk who are confused buy your removal or hiding of seemingly innocuous posts. Human nature being what it is, there will be a time-sucking discussion any time someone is confused.
 * Ignore the rules for the moment, and just think of what will lead logically to the best outcome. Does it make sense to continue your actions, despite the fact that (because of 1) it is a self-perpetuating cycle, and that (because of 2) it will always  be likely to cause a disruption?
 * APL (talk) 23:58, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If you're not willing to enforce the rules, then you should lobby for his ban to be lifted. And if you're not willing to do that, then enforce the bloody rules. You're wrong about a troll getting "bored". LC was trolling and socking long before I came along, and will continue to do so if I ignore him. If a troll doesn't get attention, it just pushes harder. But if everyone stops enabling a troll and starts reverting it every time, then eventually the troll gives up. The problem right now is that we have a couple of youse guys who argue about it every freakin' time that someone deletes one of his stupid questions. It is YOU that is enabling and encouraging the troll. And if that's the way you want to keep going, then un-ban him and be done with it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:46, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yep. If you want to start a discussion of lifting the ban because he's especially irritating, have at it.  He's far from the most irritating person amusing himself at Wikipedia, though, and he is easy enough to recognize and revert.  If you don't want to lift the ban, or can't find consensus for it, then we just continue to WP:RBIrevert, block, and ignore, with as little fuss as possible, until he dies.  Or gets bored.  Whichever.  There are thousands of us and only one of him, so it doesn't really have to be that big a deal. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:57, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That's a ridiculous and emotional false dichotomy. There is a middle ground between unbanning a troll across an entire site, and eradicating his posts at all costs and any collateral damage. APL (talk) 01:05, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * What "collateral damage" are you talking about? &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 11:55, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * What "collateral damage" are you talking about? &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 11:55, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Next step?
What would be the procedure for getting "Light current" un-banned and un-blocked? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:57, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey look! It's bug's trademark sarcastic WP:POINT. APL (talk) 01:00, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * At this exact moment, I want to hit both of you with a trout. Could you stand a little closer to one another? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:01, 10 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm deadly serious. I want the guy unbanned and unblocked. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:05, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, to be honest, it'd be a purely symbolic move. He is already capable of evading technical bans, and either way damage to article-space will continue to be repaired in the usual way. APL (talk) 01:57, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * As is any user. So why bother with bans? Why bother with blocks? Why bother with rules? Just let the trolls do whatever they want, and screw the ones who actually try to contribute. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:19, 10 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I was going to suggest that you simply use the same trout twice, but then I realized that I we might then argue over which of us should be trout-slapped first. APL (talk) 01:57, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I call your attention to LC's block log, and especially the comment from the blocking admin: "Has exhausted community's patience, per multiple AN/I discussions, and is now creating a series of sockpuppets to try to vandalize us into submission." Does that complaint sound familiar? It's from February of 2007, long before I had any dealings with that user. The "ignore it" theory does not work. And as long as guys like APL insist on arguing about it, the troll will continue to operate. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:05, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * So, basically your current course of action requires that an entire class of people "like APL" and "like Wnt" stop existing? Even if your cause is just and your will strong, will that ever happen? Will anything you're doing make it happen? APL (talk) 01:10, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you going to enforce the ban, or not? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:26, 10 May 2011 (UTC)


 * My point here is that you're fighting human nature. On two fronts. One one front you're entertaining and encouraging a troll, on the other front you're hoping that deleting or boxing seemingly innocuous posts and their replies will never be found confusing or irritating, brought up, and discussed. You may be able to out-pace the troll, but you will never-ever change human nature on the ref-desk talk page. There will always be discussions of this sort, and no amount of reporting the discussions to AN/I will change that.
 * I'm fully willing to admit that your actions are Right and Just. However, they are also not working. Even if it's not your fault, they still are not working. (Which I'm also willing to admit. The fundamental cause of friction is that your expertise on this particular troll cannot be effectively communicated to all on-lookers. In article-space this wouldn't be an issue, but on a talk page these anti-troll changes are more than normally visible, so they attract and confuse on-lookers. This is not your fault. It's the nature of the system you're working within.)
 * What I'm trying to get at, and apparently not communicating effectively, is that the current approach for dealing with this troll on the Ref Desks has failed. (Through no fault of Baseball Bugs.) In this case I define failure as the cure being more disruptive than the disease.
 * A new approach is needed. I'll be the first to admit that I don't have one off the top of my head, but continuing a failed approach is foolish. Especially as it's been very clearly established that this troll is especially persistent and will not likely give soon. APL (talk) 01:57, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * "...will not likely give soon." Right. Especially if you continue to take his side instead of the side of the rules. It is the continued efforts to enable the troll that keep him going. You are not willing to enforce the rules. So you've got LC now. Enjoy. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:17, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, I am now starting to pursue the question of what it will take to get LC unbanned. With the shackles off, maybe he could contribute something useful. It could be worth a try. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:29, 10 May 2011 (UTC)


 * OK .. first - I wasn't even around (other than an IP and reader) back in 2007 when Light current was banned, so I honestly don't have any dog in this fight. My feeling however is this: If the guys been around trying to get back in over 4 years later, I'd say there's a chance that he honestly wants to contribute here.  I'm all for giving someone a chance to edit, improve their efforts, and mend their ways.  Soooo .. you can put me in the Support unban section (if we could get around to that after wading through all the TLDR stuff.  I suspect it's understood (if it hasn't been said outright) that he'd be on a pretty short leash for a while, and would have to really mind his "P"s and "Q"s, but its a community consensus that counts here.  One last note: Blocks are cheap, and if push comes to shove, then I'll spend one of mine if I have to. — Ched :  ?  04:51, 10 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: The user has made a request at User talk:Glitch Turner to be able to respond to this discussion. They have been told to make any contributions on their talk page, and such contributions should be copied to here. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:42, 10 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I think at this point it may be worth taking a step back to ask whether banning actually includes questions at the Refdesk. After all, banning in general is a prohibition on editing Wikipedia, not using Wikipedia.  True, ironically enough, I actually do think of Refdesk questions as edits that build a database of questions which at some future time might allow people to ask a smart computer program a question and get a relevant answer - but many (most) others simply view the Refdesk as a service to readers.  If that's true, then asking a Refdesk question might not be something that a ban should prohibit at all! Wnt (talk) 22:41, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The reference desk is collaborative and volunteer-driven, just like the rest of the encyclopedia. There's no reason why the volunteers who staff the reference desk should have to deal with an editor that the community has decided is no longer welcome here. I'll also point to the ban policy itself, which addresses the issue of why bans are applied to all editing. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa  (talk) 22:53, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Even so, the bans often don't apply to 'editing' one's own talk page for discussion of the ban - so "editing", in that policy, doesn't mean pressing the edit button, but something more conceptual. Wnt (talk) 23:06, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't believe that site banned users are allowed to edit their own talk pages, although I would appreciate clarity on this point. The situation is different than that of blocked users, or of article/topic/interaction banned users. In any case, I can see a clear distinction between being allowed to edit one's own talk page and being allowed to edit a reference desk page that half the world (est.) has on their watchlist. Orange Suede Sofa  (talk) 23:14, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * They aren't. This is explicitly stated at the banning policy, see here, where it says in the chart showing the difference between site bans/topic bans/blocks that the access to a talk page is "usually not allowed". Note that it states that, An editor who is "site banned" (which may sometimes be described as "community banned" or "full ban") has been completely ejected from the project. This would certainly include participation at the Refdesk. --  At am a  頭 23:30, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

As a contributor to the Ref Desk, I have to say that while there is room for improvement there, I don't see any urgent problems posed by banned users. Surely IAR implies that if a question is interesting enough to be answered, we should do so? Count Iblis (talk) 17:49, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Statement from User:Glitch Turner
Copied by request from User talk:Glitch Turner

Statement: Please consider an unblock of this account. I have exerted much energy and wasted the time of others being disruptive in the past. It was wrong and I apologize for my immaturaty. I believe I can use my time and talents to be a productive member of the encyclopedia. I suggest the following: If allowed, I am going to give 100% effort to turning over a new leaf and devote my energy to improvements here. If someone would be willing to help or mentor me, I think it would be even better. Thank you in advance for the consideration. Glitch Turner (talk) 21:12, 10 May 2011 (UTC) End of copy Peridon (talk) 21:29, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Initially limited access to only articles or their talk pages to show my ability to improve the encyclopedia. I would also ask for access to my user talk page, and to the user talk pages of those that need to communicate with me for the purpose of improving the encyclopedia.
 * 2) A topic ban, restricting me from any edits at the reference desks, as they were my biggest source of behavior problems in the past.
 * This is per a discussion on User talk:Glitch Turner and a note posted here by James B Watson which I can't find for the moment. If this isn't in the right place, would someone kindly sort it out for me - going offline. Peridon (talk) 21:35, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Lifting of ban of Light current

 *  Support  with the understanding he follow ALL policies and guidelines, NOT sock, and attempt to contribute constructively. — Ched :  ?  04:51, 10 May 2011 (UTC) (yea, yea, yea .. I know it's not a vote - it's a !vote)  (redacted per JB Watson diff — Ched :  ?  12:38, 12 May 2011 (UTC))
 * Oppose for now, however if he strictly follows WP:STANDARDOFFER, stays away from Wikipedia for a full 6 months, then requests an unban at his main account, I would then fully support lifting the ban. If he's serious about obeying the rules, he will obey the terms of his current ban and just stay away long enough to demonstrate that.  Given the level of recent sockpuppeteering and disruption, I cannot support lifting the ban today.  I would support, however, lifting the ban if he abides by it long enough to know he is serious about returning in good standing.  -- Jayron  32  05:05, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. He has not shown any interest in obeying the rules.  His edits at the reference desk are still troll edits.  The only reason to un-ban him is in hopes that letting him edit will bore him faster, but I just don't see letting a troll run amok on the reference desk until he decides to stop as a useful way to keep the reference desk useful for other readers.  -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 10:33, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I have seen countless editors have indef blocks lifted in the hope that they'll improve their behavior. Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't. You don't know until you try. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:28, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - Obviously, as this was my idea. It's clear that he really, really wants to edit. I'm willing to give the guy a chance to show he can contribute. And in the meantime, other than this un-ban discussion, I intend to keep my distance. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:17, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you willing to mentor this editor? 28bytes (talk) 00:45, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Support withdrawn: see below.JamesBWatson (talk) 09:23, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Revert, block, ignore . There are ways to request lifting a ban that do not include persistent disruptive socking.  Sandstein   21:02, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Support unbanning, on the clear understanding that it's a trial, that any unacceptable editing at all will result in the ban being reimposed immediately, and that this discussion gives any administrator teh authority to reimpose the ban without further warning. As Baseball Bugs says, unblocked editors sometimes improve and sometimes they don't. If this one does then clearly unbanning will be good. If, on the other hand, he doesn't, then not much harm will have been done in letting him prove to us that the continued ban is indeed justified, per WP:ROPE. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:42, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Support conditional that the user accepts that the topic ban from the reference desks is permanent and he will not ever request it to be lifted. I enjoyed interacting with LightCurrent way back before his ban, and he did make many useful contributions to the project, but the ref desks are a step too far - as he says himself, above. --Dweller (talk) 09:37, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The following comment copied from User talk:Glitch Turner per request. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:43, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed, my intent above was for a permanent topic ban in my problem area. Glitch Turner (talk) 12:28, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Now we're negotiating with banned users and dedicated sockmasters? No thanks. Revert all sock edits (including those to the ref desk), block the socks and ignore. And file abuse reports with his ISP. If he really wants to be unbanned he can email ArbCom. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 13:37, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose - this is a WP:POINTy proposal, because BB is upset that some editors are defending LC's trolling behavior. I find the continuous abuse of the RefDesk quite telling, and have no more WP:AGF left to give on this one. LC has made it quite clear that he/she has no intention of behaving like a reasonable adult. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 14:25, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * [Edit by banned user removed]
 * Oppose per this above statement by the subject illustrating that he still just doesn't get it. "I'll vandalize if I'm not treated the way I like" is absolutetely completely unacceptable. That behavior, if carried out, would lead to a prompt block of any user. As a threat from a long-term disruptive editor who can't not-disrupt even when told not to? No. WP:STANDARDOFFER with a mentor as responsible oversight of it would previously have been my position ("okay, you say you can contribute? Do it and let the community judge") but definitely not with a threat from the banned editor as his counter-offer. DMacks (talk) 15:20, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry .. have a technical question here DMacks. How does that EL "Edit by banned user removed" work to post what it does?  Also, could you post the diff? ... I did look through the Glitch Turner accnt. and didn't see that anywhere.  Not trying to be smart or badger ... just seems to be an old post, or rather an odd way to repost what someone else said . — Ched :  ?  16:27, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Nevermind ... must have been caught up between a cached copy and an edit. Cause I never saw that GT made that contrib. — Ched :  ?  16:30, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose - LC is a competitive troll. He brags about his trolling in other sites where popular trolls try to one-up each other. He has no interest in properly editing Wikipedia. He only wants to get the ability to be a more disruptive troll. -- k a i n a w &trade; 15:37, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose - LC is being disruptive while this very discussion is ongoing. All good faith on this user has been squandered long ago. --Saddhiyama (talk) 15:45, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose - No evidence that he is anything but a malignant troll. We may be fighting "human nature" (according to APL's comment above), but so be it. Favonian (talk) 16:25, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Strongest Oppose, and it frankly stupefies me that anyone is taking this seriously or wasting time on it. —Steve Summit (talk) 16:31, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose Actions speak louder than words.  Stopping the troll edits would have to occur first, before lifting the ban should be considered.   Promising to stop the disruptive editing if the ban is lifted is backwards of the way it ought to be in this case.  Red Act (talk) 17:26, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose It's "I'll stop being disruptive if I get the chance to be unbanned" not "I'll keep being disruptive until I'm unbanned." — Moe ε  19:40, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * [redacted edit by banned user]


 * He's still trolling. If anyone seriously thinks unbanning this guy would be a good idea I have a bridge to sell you. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 21:14, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose - If we let someone back onto the project as capitulation to try to stop their disruption, that sets a terrible, terrible precedent. --  At am a  頭 23:32, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 *  Support  - Normally I'd oppose unban of such a long term problematic user, but I detect here a glimmer he may have finally turned the tide, so I'm supporting ONE LAST CHANCE here, and he must follow all rules and cause no problems or reinstate the ban.BarkingMoon (talk) 01:01, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * (changed my mind) (redacted per JB Watson diff — BarkingMoon (talk) 20:20, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Let's have a go - per WP:PRAGMATISM Egg Centric 09:22, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Very strongly oppose I did support unbanning (see above), but this edit has changed my mind completely. Nobody whose line is "I will be disruptive if you don't do what I want" can ever be trusted to be a constructive editor. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:23, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. One last final maybe chance has long since come and gone.  As he's still socking, trolling, and attacking other editors, there is absolutely no reason to think this will change if empowered through a legit account.   Kuru   (talk)  14:14, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose per JamesBWatson. Do not support negotiating with terrorists. —chaos5023 (talk) 14:29, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

New proposal: Return with mentoring/probation
The community seems disinclined to an instant return for this user.

So perhaps a different proposal might work better. At such time that the community decides to allow LightCurrent to return, I'm prepared to mentor him, conditional on him accepting my terms.

I'd propose:
 * 1) Mentoring for a six month term
 * 2) Mentoring would be a form of probation
 * 3) His editing would initially be very restricted - he'd need to earn the trust to edit more freely
 * 4) ...other than the Ref Desks, which would remain off-limit permanently
 * 5) Anything I deemed a deliberate breach of my terms or egregious behaviour, or unconscious breach that I believed was testament to unfixable behaviour would result in me instantly imposing an indef block and returning here to request a reinstatement of the ban

I have some experience of mentoring a few editors back from bans. None of them have been rebanned to-date.

Perhaps if this were to follow a period of no socking by LC, say a month, to fall in line with the intention of the standard offer, the community may be inclined to approve it? --Dweller (talk) 09:38, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Tentative Support The diff above JBW concerns me. I'd certainly not care to be held hostage by anyone — Ched : ?  12:32, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose I was, I think, one of this editor's strongest supporters, until I saw the edit I have linked to in my last comment, and I also believe have a history of frequently being willing to give blocked editors another chance when others are saying "no". However, I really cannot see my way to supporting removal of a ban from an editor who has publicly declared an intention of trying to hold us to ransom, especially after just a month. After two years perhaps, maybe at a stretch after six months, but not after one month. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:23, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * One more comment. Even as we discuss this, the user is continuing with block/ban evasion and trolling:, so the likelihood that he/she will be a nice cooperative editor and refrain from socking for a month looks thin. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:32, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The user who made that post does not seem to be the same one as the one who has the Glitch Turner account. I'm thoroughly confused. --Dweller (talk) 14:53, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I am willing to be proved wrong. What are your grounds for thinking that? JamesBWatson (talk) 14:59, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * They say in their latest post that they're not the same person. --Dweller (talk) 15:30, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The key quote is "I am not Glitch Turner, but as everyone seems to be usig this page to talk to/about me, I shall use it too" --Dweller (talk) 15:36, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * So either he is and he's lying...or he isn't and there is more than one troll at the party. Does it make a difference either way? Maybe they're both LC. Maybe the LC anagram is actually LC and the anon is the one pretending? Maybe neither is LC and it's just someone looking to have some fun with a banned editor's name? Whoever is or isn't whoever...have any of them shown that they want to edit productively, or are we just wasting time because a ref desk editor got sick of being questioned for removing a banned user's questions to the point where they suggested we just unban them instead? --Onorem♠Dil 16:00, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Why are we giving this troll so much attention? It continues even during this conversation. Has there been any evidence in years that they actually want to contribute productively? Archive this whole mess and go back to RBI. LC, just go away, completely, for a few months at least. Show that if you can't figure out a way to be productive with your socks, you can at least not be a negative for some length of time before you try to lie to us all about how you want to help. --Onorem♠Dil 14:40, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * And another sockpuppet while we discuss it: Special:Contributions/Excrescence. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:56, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. While the offer posed by Dweller reveals an editor who must have an admirable amount of patience, I don't believe the banned user has shown the least bit of good intention in any way, quite the opposite in fact, as the continued socking proves. I think your efforts will be invested much better by editing the encyclopedia, Dweller, than wasting them on this one. --Saddhiyama (talk) 15:09, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Kind of you, but I'd like to think that a small amount of time invested by me now, could result in a ton of constructive edits from someone who did prove themselves capable of useful editing in the past. Besides, I enjoy helping people - it's the only reason I volunteer for additional responsibilities, and it keeps me fresh for content contribution. --Dweller (talk) 15:30, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That is certainly also appreciated, and I hope you will continue your efforts to help people. Personally, I just think this one is beyond help. --Saddhiyama (talk) 18:56, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose - The "LC was banned over 4 years ago. He continues to sock relentlessly to this day" line from the beginning was all that needed to be said, as fair as I am concerned. Sometimes terrorists need to be capped rather than captured, sometimes baseball cheats don't get reinstated despite false apologies, and sometimes we need to stop spending so much time trying to excuse the behavior of bad editors. Tarc (talk) 15:46, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose Kudos Dweller, I agree that if an editor can be salvaged, it's worth a shot. The experiment can be terminated easily enough and I'm sure you'd be on the case. If you are in contact with this person, advise them that we need at least six months without even a sniff of Lc at all, and none of that's-not-Lc either. If someone is impersonating them, they're hanging out with the wrong crowd. Six months of total quiet will cover a few cycles of troll-urge, if they can get that far, I would be willing to look at your proposal favourably. Six months of total quiet. Franamax (talk) 01:48, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose mentoring at this time. I have a lot of respect for the proposal (and the proposer), but this is a prolific long-term nonconstructive editor, and the rest of us only have finite reserves of time and goodwill. The simplest way forward for lc is simply to stop misbehaving. Mentoring is a bad investment decision: $$(P^{reform} . W^{lc}) - (W^{supervision} + W^{mentor}) < -W^{RBI}$$, where:
 * $$P^{reform}$$ is the likelihood that mentoring actually works,
 * $$W^{lc}$$ is the future good work done by lightcurrent,
 * $$W^{supervision}$$ is the time that people still spend looking over the reformed editor's shoulder,
 * $$W^{mentor}$$ is the effort by the mentor, and
 * $$W^{RBI}$$ is the ongoing effort of RBI in the no-change scenario. (And we treat the latter three Ws as negatives; they're time that good editors could spend doing something else instead) bobrayner (talk) 12:13, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Glitch Turner is not Light current
People, we're wasting our time discussing this. A checkuser check would be required for conclusive proof of this, but it looks like Glitch Turner is indeed not actually Light current. IP edits which definitely are LC are saying that he isn't Glitch Turner, and Glitch Turner overwrote one of those statements, presumably to hide it. Glitch Turner's writing style is also different from LC's.  It appears that someone other than LC is checking to see if it would be possible to get LC unbanned by pretending to be LC and acting contrite. That's why LC is continuing to troll as we speak, in contrast with Glitch Turner's above contrite expression of a desire to be reformed. Red Act (talk) 16:35, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Um, bullshit. LC is not above fucking with us in this manner.  I have seen nothing in the behavior of either Glitch Turner or of the IP edits by LC recently to indicate to me that they are not the same person.  Even if what you say is 100% true, I am unconcerned with that.  So we have two indef blocked trolls instead of one.  Does it really matter?  -- Jayron  32  20:28, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Whether the statement of contrition was or was not actually written by LC isn't what I consider to be the important point of my post. The intended point of my post was to argue that Glitch Turner's statement of contrition should not be taken as a sincere offer by LC to turn over a new leaf, and hence there is no reason for us to even consider unbanning LC.  That intended point of my post, that there has been no sincere statement of contrition from LC, is a valid point either way, whether it's because Glitch Turner isn't even LC, or because the Glitch Turner posts are a part of some kind of LC mind fuck.  Red Act (talk) 22:45, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * [edit by banned user redacted]

I'm not in contact with LightCurrent, but would like to be. I suggest this conversation is shelved for the meantime. --Dweller (talk) 09:23, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Ken keisel adding unsourced material
Hi all -- User:Ken keisel has a long history of inserting unsourced or poorly sourced information into articles. He's been warned about this many times by many people.         

Things have been coming to a head over the last month or so, when Ken has been making a large number of such contributions to various aviation-related articles, for example:      

I've been working with him to get citations in place for as many of these claims as possible, with mixed results. However, even while working through this process, he's continued adding unsourced information, most recently to Yankee Air Museum. I reverted that addition and warned him that he might not be able to continue editing if he continues this behaviour. His immediate response was to go on a rampage of adding tags to a variety of articles        until an admin warned him to stop

Today, he re-added the uncited material to the Yankee Air Museum page and left a message on the article talk page explaining why he feels that articles about private organizations don't need citations.

His repeated and ongoing addition of uncited material is disruptive, and based on today's edits, I believe that he has no intention of stopping. I'd issue a short block myself at this point, but I consider myself involved. Could somebody else take a look please?

FWIW, I don't think he's ever deliberately inserted untrue material; just factual material that isn't cited and maybe can't be verified. I also agree that the aircraft articles he tagged could indeed be better cited, but the POINTy behaviour wasn't going to get other editors to work with him on that... --Rlandmann (talk) 12:20, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Is any of the stuff being added in serious doubt and/or controversial? It looks to me that Rlandmann and many people leaving those warning templates are misinterpreting WP:V, which says all info in Wikipedia must be verifiable, not necessarily actually cited.  Verifiable means that a source exists.  Uncited stuff can be challenged and removed as a matter of editorial judgment, but the "challenged" part (at least in the form of a good faith belief that the info is likely enough to be wrong that leaving it in the article is doing more harm than good) IMHO is a vital component of such a removal.  The main exception is negative info in a BLP, which always must be cited.  There is a wikipedia fork called Veropedia in which -everything- has to be cited, but WP doesn't use that approach.  People who want citations for every single addition should look there instead of here. (Actually it looks like Veropedia is now dead, which may convey a lesson of its own). I've seen a number of ANI threads recently where people have been confused about this, as a result of which we've been losing lots of good encyclopedic info that per AGF we're better off leaving alone.   I'm not saying people should go off on OR sprees or spew mindless trivia (including cited trivia) into articles: I'm just talking about uncontroversial relevant info, like the electrical data about obsolete transistors that someone was removing recently.  That stuff is fairly easy to verify if you can get your hands on old data books, and is useful and encyclopedic if you have to fix an old TV set or something like that.  This aircraft stuff sounds comparable.  Articles that are very closely sourced (contentious politics articles, for example) are frankly less credible than less closely sourced ones, because the close sourcing gives the impression of conflict between editors and consequently the likely presence of bad-faith editing.   Ken Keisel looks to be pretty knowledgeable so if the stuff he's adding looks relevant and correct, I'd generally not worry about it.  Just ask for cites for specific stuff that you have doubts about, and discuss his approach to editing with him at a general level (RFC/U if you must) rather than leaving warning templates and opening ANI threads. 67.119.15.96 (talk) 17:10, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks anon, and yes, I believe that each of the recent edits I linked above has specific WP:V or WP:CITE problems, either because they appear to require local knowledge (and are therefore WP:OR), ,  because they're intrinsically "likely to be challenged" (claims of "the largest", "the heaviest")  or they report an opinion . I don't believe that "travel to the place and see for yourself" satisfies WP:V :)
 * This isn't new behaviour; Ken's been adding material based on hearsay or personal experience for some time., so yeah, we have a problem here. Discussion has produced inconsistent results, so I'm happy to take it to an RFC/U if that's the best course of action. --Rlandmann (talk) 21:40, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I would like to add that this user is doing some very bizarre things. I'm not directly involved but my watchlist of aircraft articles recently lit up like a Christmas tree. Uncited original research has been added to some articles where mass 'citation needed' tagging has been added to others (in some cases added for extremely obvious and undisputed facts), that can only be deemed as disruptive editing and I perceived a level of spite coming through (intended or not). Many 'citation needed' tags were added to article leads which shows no appreciation or understanding of WP:CITELEAD. The reversion of this 'spree', as another editor coined it, obviously involved much unnecessary work for project editors. A recent exchange at Talk:Yankee Air Museum implied that Rlandmann was not qualified to edit the article and this rang alarm bells of ownership problems to me, apart from not appreciating at all that any Wikipedia article is open to editing by anyone unless ARBCOM or other restrictions apply.


 * I am not qualified to write about old aircraft engines but I managed to get the Rolls-Royce Merlin and Rolls-Royce R through FAC by using old fashioned books and the previous work/contemporary support of other editors. Another strange request from this user was that all aircraft article editors use the same source for specification sections, it did not gain consensus at WT:AIR and I should note that we don't use US dollars in England even if we could order this (unknown to me) publication. I can understand RLandmann's reluctance to block this user as required but I do feel in this case that more 'boldness' should be applied to protect the encyclopedia (which is the primary purpose of a block). FWIW Rlandmann's neutral judgment and patience level as an administrator over the three years plus that I have been here have been beyond reproach (see User talk:AMCKen for an example). If an RFC/U is filed then I will pitch up there but again it's a lot of unnecessary grief for someone to deal with. A personal thought is that the general level of arguing/bickering/whatever you want to call it has risen to new heights on WP and has dampened my enthusiasm to the point that I don't contribute articles anymore, this episode is just a continuation of the problems that are occurring daily, it's a great shame and I'm sure Jimbo rolls his eyes when he reads this stuff. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)   01:15, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I still think you guys are overreacting a bit, except in cases of info that's actually contentious. Maybe you should try mediation (medcab?) first, as it's less confrontational than my earlier suggestion of RFC/U, if you're having trouble disussing this with Ken directly.  Looking at Ken's overall contrib history, I think he's not that experienced with how we try to do things with regard to sourcing, and he is basically making newbie-like errors despite having 2300+ edits (almost all his edits are in mainspace--he hasn't interacted with other editors all that much).  But he really does seem pretty knowledgeable about aviation.  So it may help if an outsider has a chat with him. Remember always that the purpose of all those policies (V, NOR, etc.) is to make sure the encyclopedia is reliable and mainstream, rather than being ends in themselves.  They have to be enforced pretty rigorously in areas of controversy, like politics and BLP's.  In areas like science and math, they're actually enforced pretty loosely, yet those are the areas where Wikipedia's reputation is the highest, mainly because the editors in those areas tend to know what they're doing and not be pushing agendas.  That's more valuable to the project than any amount of policy observance. The problems in the diffs you've shown look fairly tame to me at most.  They don't make me feel like the encyclopedia is threatened.  If you think something from them has to be taken out of an article, I'd say remove it but put a note on the talk page saying what it was, so people can know about it and look for sourcing if they think it's interesting.  I'm pretty busy with RL stuff this week and sleepy right now, but can probably try to discuss this with Ken next week if you think that might help (I've had reasonable results in this sort of situation before).  I do agree that he should modify his style somewhat. 67.119.15.96 (talk) 06:50, 12 May 2011 (UTC) Added: Nimbus, per Rlandmann's post, it sounds like the thing with the cite-tagging was a reaction to earlier cite requests that Ken felt affronted by.  It was obviously inappropriate but I think it's been resolved.  I also see the current discussion on Ken's talk page is not very friendly, and also it doesn't look like he's been notified of this thread.  Look, he means well, please try to de-escalate the situation some.  I'll try to leave him a note tomorrow but won't be able to spend much time on it.  I also see he has asked for mediation, which seems like a good idea to me. 67.119.15.96 (talk) 07:01, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The user was notified of this thread here. I also thought of 'having a chat' but reasoned that it would not work. The mediation attempt was a direct response to another editor reverting the 'citation needed' tags, an attempt to report that editor's 'vandalism' to the admins. It was the wrong venue (should have been here if there was a case to answer), was malformed and quickly deleted. This recent post on the user's talk page (...is getting to the point where I can file a police report with my local police for pursuing me on Wikipedia. If you wish to test me by all means proceed.) could easily be taken for a legal threat and the user should be notified of the gravity of this wording. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)   09:49, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * This diff is very clearly a legal threat and requires immediate action. - Ahunt (talk) 12:20, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Pointed him to WP:NLT in the section he started below and invited him to rephrase it. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:51, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry to be a bit late to this discussion. I only just learned about it. Reguarding my notification to user Rlandmann to file a police report, that is in direct response to increasingly bizarre and abusive statements made by the user on my Talk page, as well as the users continued efforts to follow me on Wikipedia, altering my contributions on every article I have edited, including articles outside his area of interest. Because this is a very serious matter I have added a discussion on this specific topic to this page below. As for the rest of this matter, I have been very clear about my concerns, and have stated them in discussions held on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft page. I returned ti Wikipedia because other aviation authors have commented to me that the articles are being used as a primary source by the general public, and much of the information contained in them is speculative, or downright incorrect. What I found are articles based on very poor sources that are totally lacking any form of standardization with regard to content, sources, or even the standards by which the sources are judged. One of my first principal concerns was that the performance figures are drawn from a wide variety of sources, if they are sourced at all. These sources do not agree on the methods or standards by which the list their performance figures, making it quite impossible for the reader to make a useful comparison of the performance of any two aircraft (Imagine how hard it would be to compare the performance of two autos if no one could agree what the length of a mile was, and you have a good idea what I'm getting at). I pointed out that there is a publication available for around $5.000 that lists all this data to a common standard, and suggested that they authors employ this for their figures. The objection I received was that no one wanted to spend the $5.00, so there was no consensus. I freely admit that while away Wikipedia's template for posting references has become somewhat complicated, and I am doing my best to learn it. A second, and perhaps more serious problem has been user Rlandmann following my every movement on Wikipedia, altering or deleting every entry I make. If he had wanted to check my use of Wikipedia templates that would be justifiable, but to follow me to critique the content of each of my postings is beyond the function of any editor, and does become abusive when he deletes a passage I added to an article on an organization I have belonged to for 21 years that merely listed the location of their aircraft while their museum is being rebuilt. This information is non-controversial, and non-abusive, and benefits both the article and the organization. Rlandmann did not have any evidence to challenge the information, but deleted it anyway. Another problem that I have seen crop up recently is the use of highly speculative sources as references for articles. The same people who are deleting information I post about organizations I belong to are posting information based on statements made on sites such as "Wired.com", a publication generally regarded as "The National Inquirer" for geeks. I am suggesting ways that this small group of editors could greatly expand the accuracy of their articles and getting no interest, while being threatened with blocking for providing information that is far more factual than much of the garbage that has been added lately. - Ken keisel (talk) 20:13, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

As per User_talk:Ken_keisel and also below at this user has now been indefinitely blocked for making legal threats. I am not sure that any other action on this entry is therefore required. - Ahunt (talk) 11:25, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

AFD topic ban of MoonLichen
This user has some odd activity at AFD, basically adding nonsense or "joke" !votes to AFD's. Examples: This is all very odd. User has been asked a couple of times to use better rationales. I left them a note last night, but they carried on (this morning with the Macedonia summary) without responding at all. In fact they don't seem to have responded to concerns at all.
 * "If Sunday brunch is gay, I don't want to be straight" - Articles for deletion/Gay Sunday Brunch
 * "I've seen C-beams glitter in the dark near there" - Articles for deletion/Tan Haur (2nd nomination)
 * "To honor the Republic of Macedonia" - Articles for deletion/Boosterthon Fun Run

Propose a topic ban to read:


 * MoonLichen is topic banned indefinitely from all deletion related pages until such a time as they can adequately demonstrate understanding of the deletion process and guidelines.

Thoughts? --Errant (chat!) 08:56, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Moonlichen is some kind of troll account for the most part, i noted it when first created.--Milowent • talk<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">blp-r 10:53, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * A review of their contributions indicate a) a familiarity with high-level WP policy b) that this is probably not their first account. This is not an editor who does not know what they are doing. The AfD carry-on is not terribly disruptive, but it is of no value to the process and adds only noise; if they keep it up, issue a block warning and take it from there. Topic-banning is a little heavy-handed at this point I think. <font face="New York">Skomorokh  10:53, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * A single-line comment that disagrees with your sensibilities does not make someone a troll. There are far more policies against being a mean to other editors than against being a little goofy now and then. Lighten up. --MoonLichen (talk) 11:54, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * You've done this multiple times and it has proven disruptive to others with no benefit to the project. If you want to keep playing silly buggers, go ahead, but don't complain you weren't warned if you end up blocked. <font face="New York">Skomorokh  12:43, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I think the topic ban is in order. A quick run through their history show no useful contribution to that process, and a lot of mild disruption by annoying everyone else without being responsive to concerns.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 14:10, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm somewhat on the fence. Some mild goofiness is fine, and the user has made some useful copy edits, for instance. A series of edits a few months ago made me think that this was a vandalism-only account, but it's not. On the other hand, I am an elephant and have not forgotten this edit and the associated mess, where the user had to be admonished by an administrator to a. keep their goofiness within bounds of our policies and b. to at least try and act like an adult. That rudeness is a hallmark of trolling as well and does not indicate a desire for cooperative editing. Drmies (talk) 15:17, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose any sanctions. We're not topic banning humor accounts from AfD are we ? Tijfo098 (talk) 14:46, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not really occasional humour though - but persistent and slightly annoying "keep" comments which are not useful. Topic Ban was intended as a lightweight way of pointing out that the joke is wearing thin :) --Errant (chat!) 15:12, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You realize, of course, that the AfD to which you link is an April Fool's, right? &mdash; Coren (talk) 15:14, 12 May 2011 (UTC) Except that it's not and I'm confusing it with someone else.  It was ridiculous, but not for that reason.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 15:19, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Support I can't see how this is helping the process --Guerillero &#124; My Talk  15:45, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't forget to spank him for colorful violation of WP:TALK!! Make his ass cheeks on red and one blue! Tijfo098 (talk) 17:45, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The admin getting the prize for taking MoonLichen seriously is... drum roll... (did you guess?) Tijfo098 (talk) 18:11, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Huh? No, I didn't guess, and it has nothing to do with this. Sandstein comments, as closing administrator, that MoonLichen's arguments don't make sense. How is that taking them seriously? And why the silly little drum roll? If you have a bone to pick with Sandstein, bring it up at another lame attempt at humor. Drmies (talk) 18:34, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Support a AFD topic ban but I think its not really needed anymore as if he does it again he will clearly be blocked and has been warned of that. I still remember the user redirecting his talkpage to a sexual expletive, he had to be warned he would be blocked before he stopped reverting to that position and one of his AFD comments is even in a foreign language (Swedish). Off2riorob (talk) 21:51, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose any sanctions. My goodness. Really? Take a good long look in the mirror. Giving ourselves just a tad too much importance? Project needs a lighter side. Most funny people overdo it in time, feel silly, turn it down a notch, then resume. So they used profanity. Oh well. I propose that editors voting "support" here go find a real issue on the project, there are people on here with chainsaws (socks, real uncivility, agendas, POV pushers, etc). Ridiculous.<font color="Turqoise">Turqoise 127  22:31, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I take offence at that! You can find me being silly or cracking jokes in the appropriate places! :) MoonLichen is simply ignoring polite requests to scale it back.. that's concerning. --Errant (chat!) 07:49, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. Per nom and Off2.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:59, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Since I first saw this account a couple months ago, I've been hearing quite a few quacks. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  00:11, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Get a life. <b style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 0.4em,#5a0 -0.2em -0.2em 0.4em,#0a0 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;color:#ddd">&mdash;SW&mdash;</b> confer 04:46, 13 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't think sanctions are the best approach. I've also queried this editor, several times, and received no response - other than moving my posts to their odd sub-talk-page and calling my edits 'vandalism'. I'd suggest a strong warning for tendentious editing, and if that fails, a block. If they're not prepared to discuss things, it's detrimental to the project - and their contribs to AfD in particular are more disruptive than they are amusing.  Chzz  ► 10:42, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I see no need for a ban - just warn for disruption and block if it continues -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:19, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Page move during requested move discussion
At 00:40, 10 May 2011 (UTC) Dbpjmuf initiated a requested move discussion of the page Prince Ernst August of Hanover (born 1954) to Ernst August Prinz von Hannover. That discussion continues. Dbpjmuf then moved the page unilaterally to Ernst August Prince of Hanover (born 1954). This is a name the page has NEVER had before - although it was at Ernst August, Prince of Hanover (born 1954) (i.e. with a comma). I reverted this move to the page name at the beginning of the requested move discussion, but now Dbpjmuf has moved the page again unilaterally to Ernst August Prinz von Hanover (1954-). Could an administrator please explain to Dbpjmuf that this isn't the way things are meant to work. I'm sure that he has his reasons for moving a page during a requested move discussion, but .... Noel S McFerran (talk) 22:51, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I moved the page from "Prin eErnst August, Prince of Hanover (1954-)", a title unilaterally intorduced by DWC LR. The pre-dispute title was"Ernst August, Prince of Hanover (born 1954)"" Prince Ernst August of Hanover (born 1954)" was a new title you unilaterally introduced during the dispute.Dbpjmuf (talk) 12:18, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Just curious, why is the DOB in the article's title? I'm not sure that's the way things are supposed to work either. - SudoGhost (talk) 23:09, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The date is meant to disambiguate this Ernst August from his father, grandfather, great-grandfather, and son, all who have (or had) the same name and title. --NellieBly (talk) 23:21, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah...looking at Ernst August, I see what you mean. - SudoGhost (talk) 23:51, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I tried to move it to the title in the RM (Prince Ernst August of Hanover (born 1954)) but clearly I messed up and accidently hit enter on my keyboard. I asked at WP:RM for someone to move it to Prince Ernst August of Hanover (born 1954) as otherwise it will confuse the ongoing RM. I will ask again. - dwc lr (talk) 13:06, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Related to this, I've also had an issue lately where Dbpjmuf has been redirecting the trademark Honey Baked Ham away from HoneyBaked Ham to Ham with a hatnote, even though it has been discussed that branding of a product takes preference from the generic product. I'd like clarification on this.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 05:52, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

User:86.46.188.8
Requesting removal of talk page access, and possibly extension of the block due to continued abuse on own talk page - Happysailor  (Talk) 00:11, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Mario! But our Princess is in another castle! —<font color="228B22">Jeremy v^_^v Components:V S M 00:13, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Fungal friends, have no fear! :-)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:02, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Heyheyheyhey! Stop stealing my shtick, or I'll sic the internet police on you! Half  Shadow  00:28, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks Luigi, but I think I'm in the right castle - I'm not looking for page protection -  Happysailor  (Talk) 00:20, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * RFPP also deals with talk page revocations. —<font color="228B22">Jeremy v^_^v Components:V S M 00:24, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Problem has been solved, user cannot edit talk page as per User:Boing!_said_Zebedee. - SudoGhost (talk) 00:22, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Freddie and the Dreamers
Sockpuppet investigations/Quinn2go

I'm sorry for trying to do this at multiple places (mainly, having this thread, RPP and SPI at the same time) but I'm really getting fed up with this. The article's talk page has been practically dominated by an army of socks that only use it to soapbox and possibly to attack the subject. Since there are now several different IPs doing this, I think in addition to blocking the socks, I think the talk page should be semiprotected for a good while to prevent the accumulation of new chitchat from these socks. I also am highly surprised that Quinn2go, a vandalism-only sockpuppeteer account hasn't been indef-blocked already. Zakhalesh (talk) 14:07, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

EDIT: HJ Mitchell semiprotected the page. This should settle the issue (unless they find another page for their soaping that is). Thanks! Zakhalesh (talk) 14:31, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Editor with phone number in username
So there's a pretty new editor (arriving in mid-April) whose username incorporates what appears to be a full (US) telephone number. To complicate the mix, although the phone number would correspond to a US location, the editor works almost exclusively on article relating to Philippine television. Is this an appropriate situation? (I don't want to call attention to the actual username, so I'm not posting it here). Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:07, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If it is indeed a real, registered number, then it's probably best to advise the user that this is not really a good idea (due to possible phone spam and such) and they should consider a user name change. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  02:17, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * There are probably too many unknowns here to give advice that would be correct in all circumstances. For example, how do you know it's a US phone number and not some other 10 digit number?  Is the editor actively claiming it's their phone number? Is their editing problematic? Have you talked to them about it?  etc. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:26, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Has the user in question been informed of this discussion? &mdash; Alison (Crazytales) (talk) 17:37, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I've notified her tonight. I didn't want to possibly distress a new user unless other folks felt raising the issue was reasonable. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:55, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I have to admit, I am disappointed the number isn't 867-5309. Resolute 04:14, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Me too. Incidentally, a TNID search comes back as an invalid number. Also,  doesn't list 953 as a valid exchange in the 213 area code. &mdash; Alison (Crazytales)  (talk) 16:53, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Legal threat or frustration?
Resolved&#58; user blocked Rklawton (talk) 05:42, 13 May 2011 (UTC) posted this message which appears to contain a legal threat. The user does not state that they will take any action, so I have not blocked them. The message does seem to be designed to intimidate, however. The source of the user’s frustration can be found here, with additional opinion located here. I think the user would benefit from some clue, but my attempts to help have failed and my opinion (derived from their oblique statements) is that the user would rather I did not continue my effort. Thanks for your time  Tide  rolls  03:24, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * As an uninvolved non-admin, If things arent changed quickly her label and lawyers plan to get invovled. and but you need to get back to me, seriously, within a 24 hour period. sounds like a legal threat to me, and maybe I'm taking it out of context, but I can't see it as anything but a legal threat. - SudoGhost (talk) 03:27, 13 May 2011 (UTC)


 * It's a legal threat. From reading the comments she doesn't understand how Wikipedia works and doesn't care, and will "File a compaint" if she doesn't get what she wants.  --OpenFuture (talk) 04:14, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * "Call in and file some kind of complaint" is not a legal threat. In fact, we've got BLP processes set up specifically to handle such complaints. Rklawton (talk) 05:05, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * While that diff isn't a legal threat (IMO), the one posted at the top most certainly is. - SudoGhost (talk) 05:08, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The "threat" at the top is 3rd person, so that's a gray area. The person posting is just big fan and doesn't speak for the artist or the label. I've resolved the main problem, however.  I went to Anita's website (the one we list in her article and maintained by her label), clicked on her Twitter link (so we know it's not an imposter), and found where she posted her birth day and month.  I noted this on the talk page, posted a link, and restored her article back to the last edit containing the correct date.  I see no reason why this shouldn't end the matter. Rklawton (talk) 05:37, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked for continued legal threats. –MuZemike 05:35, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That's good, too. Rklawton (talk) 05:39, 13 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I really wish that someone would have contacted me on either my talk page or my email, which is activated, since the offending comment was made on my talk page, thus somewhat involving me. Often I get so many people contacting my talk page in the same period of time that I miss seeing everything, or don't have time to respond immediately. I would have appreciated being a part of this discussion. I hope that my good faith edits and advice given to User:Empress Ericka (all done only on her talk page, and mine; no email or communication outside Wikipedia) show that I was in not attempting to encourage her either to give up entirely, or to encourage her to continue in the same fashion given the WP:MOS and the WP:COI issues after she identified herself as the A&R employee of at least one record label, never identified for both Kaki King and Cindy Blackman. I had a hard time with another editor who was blocked for the same reason was more than enough for me! I try to learn from my mistakes, and tried to assist User:Empress Ericka as much as possible while still warning her of the importance of WP:NPOV. If there is any scrutiny or problem with the advice I gave her, the feedback would be helpful for me to know how to interact with problems of this nature in the future. Thank you. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 15:07, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism by OpinionAreLikeAHoles and anon IP
has removed referenced content from Women's rights in Saudi Arabia twice, both times with dishonest edit summaries. The first deletion of referenced content was marked as a minor edit and "unclear" (It is a one sentence quote from a Muslim feminist that is quite clear). The second also contained a flatly dishonest edit summary stating that my revert removed content (I was restoring content).

Between OpinionsAreLikeAHoles' reverts, anon IP removed the same content, also with a dishonest edit summary "restored content" (content was removed). . Another edit of the anon IP to a different article also removed referenced material:.

All the IP's edits are related to the MIddle East. And almost all of OpinionAReLikeAHoles' are as well. The latter editor registered a month ago, and immediately began making sophisticated edits.

Neither editor has made any comment in Talk. I'm not sure how long the content has been there, but I went back 500 edits, to August 2010, and it is there. So it seems to be in the "consensus, but controversial" category. The article has been plagued by editors with obvious agendas regarding Middle Eastern politics trying to remove that quote.

Maybe this should a sockpuppet report, or an edit warring report. There is a little of both, and a whiff of vandalism.... Mindbunny (talk) 16:22, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * P.S. I also wonder if OpinionsAreLikeAHoles is an acceptable name. Mindbunny (talk) 16:23, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I shouldn't dignify this with a response..... but what the hey. I am confident any admin will see right through this troublesome editor's report here. 1) Mindbunny has a personal grudge against me since a re-inserted a comment critical of his behavior at Lara Logan, back onto his own Talk page. 2) in my short time here, I've learned to use the Talk page a lot, as a look at my Contributions will show. 3) I only inadvertently removed content the first revert on Women's Rights in Saudi Arabia (an article I came to to see in what other ways Mindbunny has attempted to belittle discrimination against Womyn). I since restored the source. 4) I am obviously not responsible for the actions of anonymous IPs, and he's claim that I am the same person is laughable (I encourage any admin to investigate). I know I've kind of asked for it by delving into these Wiki pages and commenting myself - but I do find this a bit rich. OpinionsAreLikeAHoles (talk) 16:46, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Mindbunny notes above that "Another edit of the anon IP to a different article also removed referenced material". It's interesting that this removal was identical to, and shortly after, an edit by a suspected sockpuppet. RolandR (talk) 16:53, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, one of Nableezy's friends trying to get revenge on me for commenting on his case. As I say, I guess I've brought this on myself for getting involved in all these dramas - but I must say I'm rather surprised by the "wolf-pack" mentality of some on here. Admin: please investigate me, and then kindly punish those who are making the false accusations! :-D OpinionsAreLikeAHoles (talk) 16:58, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * OpinionsAreLikeAHoles should consider requesting a username change, the current one isn't really acceptable. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 17:03, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Really? Who do you really think would find it offensive??? OpinionsAreLikeAHoles (talk) 17:09, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:U is pretty clear that you aren't allowed to have usernames with profanity or implied profanity; not that I personally mind it, but our username policy does say as much. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 17:54, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

<-Some further info. OpinionsAreLikeAHoles is editing via an Amazon Web Services Account although he claimed not to be aware of that. He seems to make a number of edits while logged out, see IP 175.41.171.29 and the edits by IP's starting 175.41. at Itasca High School (Texas) + their contrib histories for example. I think I'm okay providing the IPs here per the privacy policy because there is concern about abuse of the project and whether this user may be a sockpuppet, possibly of prolific sockmaster User:Ledenierhomme. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 18:18, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Or possibly of User:AFolkSingersBeard (which could possibly be itself a sock of Ledenierhomme). RolandR (talk) 18:30, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes possibly...it's difficult to keep track of all the socks nowadays. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 18:42, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Corrections. I said the account was created a month ago. It was created two weeks ago--and immediately knew how to edit in sophisticated ways. OpinionsAreLikeAHoles has never "restored" the material in question, although the user keeps claiming otherwise. Mindbunny (talk) 18:21, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Uh oh. I think Opinions answered NorthernBlades comment about user name on his talk page using the wrong account here...as . He quickly realized it and removed the comment with a "Whoops wrong person". I'm requesting checkuser and will notify Vassos55...does anyone else see what I'm seeing? <b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b>  (<b style="color:#00C">(⊕)</b>) 19:09, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Oops..oh dear. And there was I thinking the box of seaweed we bought this evening with the brand name "Big Sheet" was going to be the funniest thing today... <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 19:25, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * connection based on CU evidence. They both share the same UA, but IPs and geolocation are all over the place. However, webhosts and other gateways are being used, which may explain that. –MuZemike 19:40, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you, MuZemike. I believe they are the same based on the sock's flub. <b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b>  (<b style="color:#00C">(⊕)</b>) 19:52, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Vassos55's edits at Cyprus internment camps were to reinsert material previously supported by User:Telaviv1. I have no evidence of a connection. Zerotalk 23:31, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Someone's playing games. Got another IP doing the same thing - copying text from another section and inappropriately replacing existing content. -- Neil N  <sup style="font-family:Calibri;"> talk to me  20:40, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * This IP claims to be Runtshit. The editing pattern does not bear this out; but it is clear that this and many other IPs and SPAs carrying out similar disruptive edits are part of a big sock farm. RolandR (talk) 22:08, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It looks like OpinionsAreLikeAHoles has walked away from this account. It's currently blocked pending a request for username change. I assume he is now using another sockpuppet account and/or is editing logged out probably via another proxy server. Are both and  going to be blocked for sockpuppetry and if so, when ? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 05:16, 13 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Update: He has just been unblocked as his user name change was approved. Hello? Anybody out there?  T i a m u t talk 21:08, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Teacher / class editing
Teacher asked on helpdesk about using Wikipedia in class, and I advised - mostly, "use drafts", "do not share accounts" - HD.

The teacher disregarded the advice, and allowed pupils to share the account and create live pages, e.g..

I further advised, in clear polite terms, not to share accounts - the teacher claims Jimbo / WMF have OK'd it. See User talk:MrPurcellsClass and User_talk:Chzz.

I gave an 'only warning', but he is insistent that he has permission via WMF. Please advise.  Chzz  ► 12:30, 13 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't take "I have been in correspondence with Jimmy Wales, Wikimedia and associates and they said it was a great idea and the use of just one account he said was 'a great ideas, Mr Purcell! Go for it and don't let anyone stop you'." at face value - at least, not without some actual evidence to back it up. I suppose you could leave a note on Wales' talk page to get further confirmation? —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 12:36, 13 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Note ongoing edits from this user, Wikipedia is committing a crime against humanity and my pupils are very talented and wish to edit and experiment with the Normal wikipedia. Is there any chance you could make me an admin? It would make my job easier. etc.  Chzz  ► 12:37, 13 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Those above comments he made on editors talk pages make me a bit suspicious on the original statements from the editor - Happysailor  (Talk) 12:39, 13 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Interesting development - - just reported to AiV -  Happysailor  (Talk) 12:43, 13 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually, this is a moot point now: KFP blocked the account for disruption and legal threats. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 12:44, 13 May 2011 (UTC)


 * User is blocked now for disruption. I'd guess this could be impersonation by pupils. Perhaps we should delete the user page too? --KFP (contact | edits) 12:45, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I have placed the standard indef block notice, with directions on how to request unblock, on their page. Let them learn how to use that (or not). LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:50, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * User page deleted. Favonian (talk) 12:48, 13 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for all the prompt help, everyone. I was suspecting trolling from early on, but had to balance it with AGF and not wishing to bite, etc. I think we dealt with that pretty well. Thanks,  Chzz  ► 12:52, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Unblock request declined. I suggest that we only deal with the request trough the unblock-en-l mailing list, and require a school mail for the unblock. Right now, i believe we got an impersonation issue, or at least a case where one cannot know who requests the unblock (Teacher or pupil) Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 12:54, 13 May 2011 (UTC)


 * 1) is ✅ as a sock puppet of.
 * 2) As a corollary of the CU results, the user was not editing from a school. Hence, I would bank that this is another disruptive sock account more than anything else.

–MuZemike 21:09, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Changing music recording certifications by several ip-addresses
hello,

these anonymous users change certifications from several discographies. Everything began with the first ip-address, 121.102.105.130, where he upgraded BPI music recording certifications on five discos, see, ,  and. I reverted his revisions, except on Whitesnake discography, where it was correct, and put a warning on his talk page. Then 124.147.88.101 made this revision: (again UK certs!). Now, I warned him with uw-vandalism1, because it is obviously that it was not a good-faith edit. And last but not least 113.197.225.128, who edited again the same discos: and. I put the same warnings as before. This is logical that they are actually the same editors. What do you think? Is a topic-ban appropriate in this case? Or do you have a better solution? Oh and certs are listed on ; just type the name of the band or musician and you will see the certs. Regards.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 14:18, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * All three IPs belong to the same ISP and geolocate to the same area. Looks like a single IP-hopping editor to me. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 14:26, 13 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Clearly these IPs are used by one user. I doubt that there is any point in a topic ban, as it is highly unlikely the user would take any notice of it, and when a user IP-hops over such a wide range there is no effective way of enforcing a ban. I have semi-protected the articles for a month. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:16, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 21:22, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Multiple accounts and more
Bill Huffman appears, from his own admission to be operating multiple accounts. He appears to be using the Bill Huffman account to collect what he feels to be negative information about yours truly. In doing so, he appears to watch conversations that take place on my talk page, then goes to the other editors and tries to recruit them into collecting negative information. I was responsible for highlighting to ArbCom that Huffman, who operates an off-wiki attack site on Derek Smart was trying to get negative information on Smart placed in the Wikipedia article by making suggestions on the article talk page as well as operating multiple accounts see here. After being asked to leave the Smart article alone, Huffman announced that he was abandoning the Huffman account. As his contributions show, he has not done so. This diff appears to indicate that this user may be maintaining this account simply to focus on me. Since admin Atama was also involved in this last year, I'll also ask him if he has any comment. Admins, please resolve the situation. Cla68 (talk) 07:51, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Notified. Cla68 (talk) 07:53, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * My interaction with Bill was on his old account. I had blocked that account because it was being used in a way not in accordance with WP:SOCK. Also, Bill had declared that account to be "retired" and had pledged he would no longer use it, so really my block was just insurance. Bill had claimed that he used two accounts to maintain privacy, however he had edited the same article with both accounts. I decline to identify his previous alternate account because of previous promises made, but my experience is that Bill considers WP:SOCK to be voluntary guidelines to be ignored when inconvenient. --  At am a  頭 17:15, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Bill left a note on my talk page as an IP (I assume it was him), claiming that his account was blocked. It isn't. I did leave some about using an alternate account legitimately, and strongly suggested that he address the concerns on this noticeboard. --  At am a  頭  20:09, 10 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you Atama for posting the update for me. Another IP Address that I frequently use, 153.64.136.150 was blocked from editting. I thought my account was blocked but it was the IP address. Would it be possible for someone to find out why that IP address was blocked? It seems rather impolite to do that to an editor and then say that they need to respond to something. The information on my talk page about Cla68, for example, documents him telling a false story to ArbCom in order to try to get my editting privledges revoked on a specific article. Perhaps Cla68 would like to explain himself about that? At least explain why he would do such a thing if he did not have something personal against me? This account is marked retired because it identifies my real identity and I don't want my article edits associated with my real name. It is not an attack account against Cla68. It is the first account that I ever created on Wikipedia. I am using it right now simply because if Cla68 found out my current account that I use for editting I am afraid that he would continue his campaign against me on the account that I use for all my editting. Please keep in mind that he lied to ArbCom in order to try to restrict my editting here on Wikipedia. I don't see how that can be considered a good faith action on Cla68's part. The other information there about Cla68 documents what seems to be some similar treatment by Cla68 regarding some other editors. Bill Huffman (talk) 23:26, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Based on Bill's reaction to this discussion, I have filed an SPI here. I discovered while filing the SPI that there was a previous sockpuppet investigation into this editor filed in April of last year. Cla68 (talk) 23:43, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

To reaffirm something obvious, an editor who has an off-wiki page attacking another individual should generally not be editing the Wikipedia BLP of that individual. In particular, Bill Huffman should not be editing Derek Smart or urging others to do so. Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:43, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * To confirm, I have never edited that article. I will never edit that article. At one time, I occasionally edited the talk page. In early 2007 ArbCom reviewed my talk page edits to that article and didn't have a problem with those edits. I was more recently, May 2010, asked not edit that talk page any longer by ArbCom. I believe this request was made based on the reasonable more recent abundance of caution approach to BLP's, not based on my edits specifically. I have not edited the talk page nor anything related to that article since then. Thank you, Bill Huffman (talk) 15:35, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I've spent some time speaking with both editors in this conflict, Cla68 and Bill Huffman, at various times over the past year or so. I believe that both editors are well-meaning but have difficulty assuming good faith about one another. Cla68 has concerns about Bill's conflict of interest concerns and use of multiple accounts, to the extent that not following either WP:SOCK or WP:COI perfectly warrants a claim of disruption. Bill tends to jump quickly to the conclusion that he is being persecuted in many situations, which I believe may be one reason why he insists on using multiple accounts. Most recently he was certain that a block of his work proxy was done specifically to block him, secretly, and as retaliation. If you can imagine, mixing those two personalities is like mixing vinegar and baking soda. --  At am a  頭 16:56, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I think Atama hit the nail right on the head about what the problem is between Cla68 and I. It is a lack of good faith. For example, last year Cla68 lied to ArbCom in order to try to get ArbCom to block my editing privledges. I simply cannot imagine how anyone could take such an action and still deserve my good faith. When it comes to Cla68, he cannot AGF for anything to do with me. For example the SPI that just finished and the one last year. He plainly cannot accept either of the rulings. He just posted on user_talk:Orlady a statement indicating that he still can't accept the SPI ruling from last year. His lack of AGF against me has seemed to even tainted his ability to AGF on the part of Orlady. Cla68 is usually a most excellent editor. However, when it comes to certain individuals like me or as another example some of the people involved in the climate change articles, he just cannot AGF. His behavior changes significantly when he doesn't AGF. It appears to me to the point that he goes so far as to believe that the end-justifies-the-means. Bill Huffman (talk) 14:59, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The SPI has been closed after finding that Huffman is operating only one alternate account. Since the Huffman account is only being used as a "bad hand" account to hound me, I request that it be blocked indefinitely.  I have some questions about Orlady's past involvement in dealings with these socks, but I'll take that up with her. Cla68 (talk) 22:21, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * In what respect is it a "bad hand" account? Diffs? The user is concerned that you are hounding him. Mabyue it'd just be best if you both avoided each other.    Will Beback    talk    22:35, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. If any action is necessary, maybe an interaction ban. But I don't even think that's necessary, is it possible for you two to just leave each other alone? --  At am a  頭 22:48, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If he is using another account for building the 'pedia, then why shouldn't this one be closed down? It doesn't meet the exceptions allowed for alternate accounts.  Anyway, if I see a single other edit like this one, this one, this one or this one, I'll be asking again for the account to be blocked.  If you think I have a case, then let him know to knock it off.  If not, then we might be back here again soon.  In the meantime, I have an RfC on a separate matter that I need to get finished and posted.  Cla68 (talk) 01:15, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that Bill isn't 100% in compliance with our policy in how to use an alternate account. But there's a difference between that, and abusing multiple accounts. The only abuse I've seen was a misjudgement that happened a year ago, and that misjudgement along with some other circumstances (such as the outing of the alternate account and resultant uselessness of it) led to the blocking of that alternate account (by me). All of the disruption that you point to in regards to the "bad hand" is only in relation to your actions. So why don't you just ask Bill to stop collecting lists of your activity if you agree to stop trying to get him blocked for abusing multiple accounts? --  At am a  頭 16:31, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * My biggest concern with your actions as described to me are when you told IronDuke, "Anyway, I use this account only for dealing with Mr. Hyde." That doesn't seem to be a valid reason to use your Bill Huffman account. Why do you bother to "deal with Mr. Hyde" at all? If the reason is a crusade to get Cla68 sanctioned in some way, I suggest you stop, because that is textbook hounding. If Cla68 agreed to leave you alone, as I proposed above, would you stop that crusade? You could then both stop stressing out about each other, and you can go back to being productive on Wikipedia. And I know that the both of you make great contributions. Nobody benefits from a squabble between the two of you, especially not yourselves. -- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&action=edit&section=24' At am a ' 頭 16:31, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The main use of this account is not really dealing with Cla68. Months ago I posted on Cla68's talk page to make some sincere suggestions. He was not in the least bit interested. Because he cannot AGF regarding me, it is likely impossible for him to ever accept anything I say. To try to state it more accurately, the main use of this account is to try to help Cla68 victims. I do not hound Cla68. I do not edit articles or article talk pages that Cla68 edits. I don't remember ever asking for Cla68 to be sanctioned. Last year I did ask you, Atama, to tell Cla68 to stop hounding me and to stop trying to get me sanctioned. You made it very clear that such actions were perfectly okay for Cla68 to carry out against me. He even told a total lie to ArbCom in an attempt to get me sanctioned! I agree that neither Cla68 or I benefit from the interaction. My hope is that the project will benefit as there may be some help provided to some editors that Cla68 can't AGF. Bill Huffman (talk) 00:44, 13 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually I told Cla68 to watch it with the outing, since you didn't want the account with your real name connected to your other account he shouldn't be publicly connecting them, and for the most part he complied with that. You're both hounding each other. It doesn't seem that I'm getting through to you. You say that you aren't just dealing with Cla68, you're also trying to help his "victims". That's a confirmation that your Bill Huffman account is a single-purpose account with the sole aim of opposing Cla68. Since you're unwilling to withdraw, I feel compelled to draft a proposal for an interaction ban between the two of you. That means that neither of you will be able to edit each others' talk pages, or reply to each other in discussions, make reference to or comment on each other anywhere on Wikipedia, or undo each others' edits anywhere on Wikipedia (by reverting or otherwise). The only exception will be to ask about clarifications of the ban, or if you need to report a violation of this ban made by the other party (but normally no more than once per infraction), or appealing the ban for a good reason. I would have hoped that a mutual attempt to withdraw would be sufficient, but Cla68 has yet to respond either way and quite clearly you're unwilling. I'll draft a proposal later today. --  At am a  頭 19:00, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposed interaction ban
I propose that an interaction ban be enacted between Bill Huffman (and any alternate accounts he uses) and User:Cla68 to prevent further disruption to Wikipedia. The conflict between these two editors has lasted for more than a year, and has spilled onto numerous noticeboards, spurred sockpuppet allegations and investigations, arbitration requests, and has taxed the time of a number of editors who have been drawn into the dispute. It's my judgement that neither editor is particularly disruptive on their own, but they've made long-term efforts to hound one another in ways that include a cat-and-mouse game of undisclosed alternate accounts and outing attempts. This should stop, and this ban would follow the normal restrictions listed at WP:IBAN. --  At am a  頭 23:01, 13 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Support - As nominator. --  At am a  頭 23:01, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

A page move request
In Requested moves, someone please look at and if possible close, the move request "*'(Discuss) – Pro-life movement → Anti-abortion movement – *A more comprehensible name. And move the existing page Anti-abortion movement (which is a WP:Parallel version of page Pro-life) to Anti-abortion movement/version 2 to get it out from under the incoming page. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 17:07, 21 March 2011 (UTC)", which has run for 51 days. If I try to close it myself, I get complained at, because I started that move discussion. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:56, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, it appears this should be closed as No Consensus Lionel (talk) 08:19, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with other users who have stayed that Anthony Appleyard should not be making the close here because of previous involvement, but I also agree with him that someone needs to close it, and the votes seem clearly enough in favor of the move (given that Pro-choice was moved a little while back to Abortion-rights movement; some users' votes were conditional on parallelism, including my own). However:
 * The move discussion was whacked-out enough without reopening the previous move discussion, and I have no idea how we can get from here to a clean slate that will allow us to have real discussion on these pages (both at once), should we desire to continue discussion.
 * Lionelt, I agree with BelloWello that your post at Talk:Pro-life was inappropriate, but I think the issue doesn't need to go any further; you can just rephrase the post to inform other users that there is a discussion at ANI about the move, without indicating which side you think they should take.
 * --Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 08:48, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * It seems pretty clear that the thread should be closed with No Consensus. The entire discussion was inappropriate as it was opened an extremely short time (about a month) after a consensus to keep the the article where it was.  The discussion has been ongoing for about four months.  People have tired of the conversation and only the editors who feel most strongly about the necessity to move the article remain.  Allowing the move not only is blind to the fact that the new names would not be parrellel (something the people who want the move knew and planned when they changed the title of "pro-choice"), but rewards move requests made in bad faith (immediately after consensus) and fillibustering.LedRush (talk) 14:06, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Here is what concerns me Talk:Pro-choice. If people really think that pro-life discussion should be closed as no-consensus, I strongly believe the discussion that Anthony Appleyard participated in, and then closed in his favor as "page moved" should be re-examined by an uninvolved admin. I believe that discussion was also "no consensus". Or I feel that for similar reasons, someone could close the pro-life debate as "page moved" based on the weight of the arguments, instead of vote counting. I think both discussions should have similar outcomes, but since I participated and am biased, I'm not going to go any further on swaying which way. Read my comments in those discussion for that. Point being, it seems really, really, REALLY inappropriate to allow one side of the debate to use a term of self identity, but force the other side to use a seemingly more 'neutral' term that the AP guidelines suggest. Either use both self identifying terms, or use both 'neutral' terms. Don't mix it up. And based on both discussions, I feel they could both be closed as "no consensus" or, if vote counting is ignored, an admin could weigh the arguments and decide to move both... but I don't see how moving one but not the other is productive, fair, neutral, or in accordance to the outcomes of those discussions (and this whole processes has really made me jaded about what community consensus means, as it seems like the personal preference of a very small handful of Wikipedians, mixed in with the personal preference of biased admins is creating a situation where we DON'T have parity in the naming between these articles. It is very unprofessional to have lack of parity such as this).-Andrew c [talk] 15:58, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Nobody forced "pro choice" to change the title of their article. They did it, in part, as a back door to get the name of this article changed.  As soon as that article name change occurred, everyone flocked to this one to reopen the issue that was closed just a month prior.  It is gaming the system at its worst.LedRush (talk) 16:30, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * This is really simple. We should just use "pro-choice" and "pro-life". These are a) very common descriptors used in reliable sources, b) acceptable as self-identification, and c) parallel to avoid charges of favoritism. For a long time, we just used these terms - even though they're not perfect - as a reasonable compromise approach, and I'm not sure why things have changed. MastCell Talk 16:04, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Things changed because a rouge admin who voted in the move discussion decided to close the pro-choice discussion in his favor, when there wasn't a clear consensus (12 support, 8 oppose). I guess he felt the weight of the support arguments were better than the oppose by a significant amount, and then tried to move the pro-life article to follow suit. Some users want the change because they feel the terms of self identity are not neutral, but because of Wikipedia's wacky voting system of 'consensus', we have a situation where there were enough voters in one admins eyes to make that change in one article, but not the other. I personally don't believe there are a majority of people out there who honestly think the current situation is best (except maybe a few biased pro-life Wikipedians who think there is nothing wrong with "pro-life", but something really wrong with "pro-choice", but perhaps I am mistaken). I see it two ways, either there wasn't consensus on either discussion, or there is for both. I'm a big parity person, and perhaps I am belittling possible arguments that there shouldn't be parity between the naming. -Andrew c [talk] 16:26, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with both self-identifying (as that is the clearly preferable outcome, IMHO), but since pro-choice has a neutral alternative name and pro-life doesn't, it is simply not a parallel to force both to change names.LedRush (talk) 16:33, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You've been pushing this idea that "anti-abortion" is non-neutral across multiple pages, and it simply isn't true. In any case, this shouldn't become the place for more argument in what is already an extremely convoluted move discussion; now that uninvolved admins have been alerted to the presence of a move discussion that should be closed, there's no need to reprise all the arguments here. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 17:14, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I've pointed this out a couple of times over two months ago on the article talk page, and now once here in response to a suggestion to keep both article names in "parity". Your mischaricterization of my contributions isn't helpful, and if you don't want to have arguments here, you shouldn't start them. Your hypocritical conclusory statements about my position is just the icing on the unhelpful cake.LedRush (talk) 17:52, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I think frankly the entire discussion of attempting to tell the closing administrator how to close the discussion is inappropriate as they haven't closed it yet. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 07:09, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I also think the closing admin needs to provide a detailed rationale of how they came to their decision. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 07:51, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If I remember right, I started this move request not spontaneously but because someone asked me to move the article, and I decided to list it as a discussed move instead of directly moving the article. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:04, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * As I feared might happen, this discussion has got wordy and is acting as a continuation of the discussion in Talk:Pro-life movement, which has now run for 53 days. It is time that someone closed it. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:31, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Noone's made any comments for nearly two days, I wouldn't worry about it. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 23:42, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Tex with X Ray Spex uncivil behaviour and disruptive edits
Disruptive and biased edits:

Edit summaries and warnings:  (seems the warnings have been ignored).

91.85.164.100 (talk) 15:22, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Non-admin observation Biased editor is biased. Just looking at the diffs gives me the impression of heavy-handed POV-pushing. I can't assume good faith with a couple of the edit summaries involved; it goes WAY beyond what I'd otherwise call a "content dispute." As far as his Talk page goes, s/he's free to delete warnings as s/he desires, and the presumption is that if it's been deleted it's been read. I have taken the liberty of posting the required notice regarding this discussion on his Talk page. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 15:33, 13 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Don't think any admin action is needed right now -- I cleaned up a bit and gave him a vandal-3 warning over a content-free edit that just added a random string and messed up grammar. Might not hurt for a couple more people to keep an eye on his contributions, though. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:14, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * A perfect case where WP:WQA would have been the correct venue. ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 23:56, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Something is vaguely familiar about the editor's style (such as it is) and choice of articles to edit...I could swear I'm hearing faint quacking, but I can't place it, and without more than a vague familiarity there's nothing to open a WP:SPI case on. Oh well, back to watching... --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 00:42, 14 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Why would WQA have been the appropriate venue here? AIV seems more appropriate.  216.93.212.245 (talk) 00:58, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Sven Manguard
I have been advised by User:John Vandenberg that, despite his attempts to solve it, that the situation has gotten such where, in order to settle the issues caused, I'll have to post myself, despite having no desire to edit Wikipedia again.

Sven Manguard has used me leaving Wikipedia as a chance to launch vicious attacks at me, to improperly edit my posts to claim wrongdoing, and even violated the confidence a private mediation between the two of us by User:John Vandenberg to attack me, in order to preempt the statement that the mediation had come up with.

Sven was under a mediation agreement (quoted below) which required that:

Wikipedia, they will use appropriate dispute resolution.
 * If any party has reason to be concerned about another party’s conduct at the English

He has not done so. Instead, beginning just after I left Wikipedia, he launched this vicious personal attack. The basic claims are false, as will be seen below.

It is further compounded [here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AVillage_pump_%28miscellaneous%29&action=historysubmit&diff=427697644&oldid=427695650]

John, Sven, Tony1, and I were bound by a mediation agreement. Amongst other terms, it required disputes to be settled by dispute resolution. Sven violated this with his backstab. John Vandenberg arranged for a mediation over this; this is the last draft of an agreed statement I have; we had agreed a couple changes, and he was going to run it by Sven before the final comment. I have permission to publish this, and John has confirmed it as his statement. Some awkward phrasing, such as the sentence beginning "It is possible", which gives the opposite impression than the one intended, was going to be smoothed over. This directly and completely contradicts Sven's claims that I have used multiple accounts abusively.

I apologise for commenting in a collapsed discussion, however after consulting with Adam since May 6 it is important to give Adam a response to the above. It goes without saying that Adam disputes most of the above from Sven, but he doesnt want to get into a he said/she said. he wants to walk away with only a few aspects corrected. With regards to the multiple accounts, ArbCom was informed of "Shoemaker's Holiday" as early as April 2008, and Adam asked the arbitration committee in February 2009 for the ability to start using a new 'Adam Cuerden' account, for the purposes of uploading PD-1923 media which are not permitted on Commons. When he did not receive a response from ArbCom one way or the other, Adam publicly requested this in May 2009, informed the committee of his public request, and it was approved by a 'crat. As far as I know, the only person to claim that Adam C has used multiple accounts abusively is an ArbCom&community banned user. it is possible that there is abuse, as "Shoemaker's Holiday" editing the same topics as the vanished account (most notably the Homopathy topics), however nobody has pointed out any problematic edits that cross these two accounts in a way that violates policy. Also, there is no reason to believe Adam would start using an undisclosed account without informing ArbCom (all evidence is to the contrary), and he assures me that he will not.

Sven decided, upon seeing that a statement was going to be posted contradicting his claims, to launch a preemptive second attack. , which used the content he knew was going to be in the statement in an attempt to poison the well.

At this point, I was told by John that the mediation to keep the agreement was finished, and that he could do no more. The agreement we were under stated that if the agreement was broken, and negotiation could not solve the issue within 48 hours (I voluntarily gave the attempt more time, as I was told Sven was busy, and did not want to cause disruption for the others), that the terms of the agreement should be published in full.

I did so, here. I ran this past John, and got his approval of it (by e-mail).

Sven, however, wasn't done. Not only did he edit my post to remove the agreement which he had caused to fall apart, and the draft agreement which he had maliciously preempted, but he replaced them with claims of malfeasance on my part, and even managed to get an oversighter to oversight it, which then had to be undone. - my original post being included in the oversight may have been an accident, but, frankly, I don't see how that could have happened without intent on Sven's part.

The oversighter undid Sven's redaction. Sven redacted it again, putting up a new attack against me as justification. ("I re-redacted them. Sure, I'm involved, but Adam was using private communications in an effort to attack me. Considering that Wikipedia looks poorly upon the posting of off-wiki communications in such a manner, and considering that contrary to Adam's posting, the mediation is still in force, these needed to be removed. I also moved the collapse box down.").

John Vandenberg has stated that I had his tacit permission to publish the letter, and that he had told me that he had given up, thus ending the agreement.

If the agreement was broken, and I'll remind people that it required that

Wikipedia, they will use appropriate dispute resolution.
 * If any party has reason to be concerned about another party’s conduct at the English

- per the terms of the agreement, it may be published:

This agreement will only be published if a party breaks the agreement. Should any party believe that another party has broken the agreement, they are to notify all parties privately, and try to resolve the situation. If it can’t be resolved within 48 hours, any party may publish the agreement in full. It may not be published in part.

Hence, I was in the right to publish it. Sven's claims were therefore false: He has violated the agreement, and thus ended it.

(Note that, per the last sentence of the previous quote, I am required to publish the entire agreement. I'll do that here.)

Background

This incident started when Sven asked John on IRC whether or not Tony's project was still on track or whether it had had failed because John (acting as the president of the Wikipedia Australia chapter) didn't write a letter in time.

John explained that the President can’t write letters until the chapter committee has approved them, and that this hadn’t happened. John appreciates that due to the way he responded, it was within reason to conclude that the project had failed. This was not actually the case: the committee hadn’t voted on it yet due to other factors, and even if the committee opposed the proposal, the members can also approve it at a general meeting.

Sven indicated that Tony had asked Sven to hold back on his own university partnership plan and wait for Tony's to go through. John told Sven that any good project should go ahead, but that strategy about launching their projects is a matter for the Sven and Tony to work out between themselves. Sven then told John that he was going to go ahead with his project. John notified Tony, and provided him with an extract of the IRC log.

Tony brought this incident into the public arena on Sven's talk page, accusing him of theft of intellectual property of the collaboration project and a lack of proper regard for the confidentiality which had been secured by Tony from Sven before he told Sven of the project. In his public comments, Tony did not mention any specifics of the collaboration project, as they were considered private and confidential. This put Sven in a difficult position as he felt he must respond publicly to the accusations that had been made in public.

With the matter raised on Wikipedia, Sven proceeded to describe the Wikimedia Australia collaboration project publicly, in broad terms, as a way of establishing that Tony and Sven each had different types of projects in mind. In the process of doing this, Sven indicated he thought the Wikimedia Australia collaboration had probably failed, and was going to go ahead with his own project. He asserted, regarding his releasing of a broad outline of Tony’s proposal, that he believed that at most he agreed not to share details about the proposal as a courtesy, and did not agree to “confidentiality”. Tony does not agree with this assertion. Sven further stated that he only went back on the courtesy because he felt it was the only way he could properly defend himself against the accusation of theft. Sven described his own program as follows: "I want a few musicians I know to be able to access their university's recording studio and sound related resources without jumping through hoops. .. I'm probably going to sweeten the deal for the people that control the sound equipment by listing the university as the recording location in the description page of a few sound files." And stated that he “doesn't intend on 'stealing' [Tony’s] work”.

In the discussion on Tony's talk page, both parties made attempts at de-escalating, but at the same time they each occasionally said things that caused each other to assume the other party was threatening to do something inappropriate.

At no time did Tony make legal threats. Tony said that, should Sven go ahead with his project, he would inform any participants in Sven’s project that the idea was stolen. Sven took the matter to ANI on the basis that he believed that Tony was threatening him, and that Tony was going to “harass” his friends. Sven did not specifically interpret the threats as “legal threats”, however he did mention that he did not feel comfortable due to Tony's stated intention to contact this partners if Tony felt there was any IP stolen. The notion that the comments were legal threats was added by an observer, and rejected by the admin CBM and neutral observers Nil_Einne and Malleus Fatuorum. Tony also re-iterated that he was not making legal threats, and repeated that he would inform participants in Sven's project if they were participating in a project designed by Tony.

As the situation evolved, Adam tried to seek clarification from Tony regarding the nature of his planned partnership, indicating that based on Sven’s description he couldn’t see anything difference between it and prior unsuccessful attempts by Durova at sourcing sound files from universities, and he feared that Tony was attempting to prevent Sven from replicating collaborations that many people had already attempted. Tony did not answer these questions, as he thought these were loaded questions and because he did not want to provide details in public until the project was officially unveiled.

Sven’s comments made it clear that he had no intention of using the ideas that Tony had shared with him. Tony continued to use the term “IP”; he does not understand the term IP solely in a legalistic, commercial sense, and did not use it as such during this incident. However, it was not clear to some what he meant by “IP”. John tried to explain that the project was sufficiently advanced that the term "IP" was appropriate, as there were real documents. Admins Resolute, ErrantX and Timotheus_Canens thought that the wanting to protect the “IP” could still be blockable as this was against the spirit of 'no legal threats' and/or Wikipedia. Sven noted that Tony had not given him anything as advanced as a document.

Adam presumed his earlier assessment of the confusing situation was correct. Adam asked Tony to voluntarily avoid FSC for a month. When Tony rejected this, Adam requested action, and Elen of the Roads blocked Tony1 on the grounds of legal threats.

Tony re-iterated he wasn’t making legal threats, but rather was making it clear that he had been indicating that he would not stand for his concept being stolen, if that is what was happening, since Sven had previously agreed keep it confidential. On his talk page Tony agreed with ErrantX that using the term "IP" had contributed to the confusion.

Agreement

This agreement is between John Vandenberg, Sven Manguard, Tony1, and Adam Cuerden (the parties). It terminates on April 1, 2012.


 * Sven agrees to not mention, in public or in private, any aspects of the offwiki collaboration project excepting what Tony publicly disclosed.

constitute a theft, and that Sven has said that he is not going to use Tony1’s ideas. Tony1 agrees not to initiate private contact with any participant in Sven’s scheme.
 * Tony1 acknowledges that the ideas Sven has published are different from his own, do not


 * Sven and Tony1 agree to not initiate private communication with each other.

Wikipedia, they will use appropriate dispute resolution.
 * If any party has reason to be concerned about another party’s conduct at the English

this agreement) bring this incident up before April 1, 2012, it should be removed or ignored by the parties. However, Tony may discuss the block, which he disputes with Elen, but agrees to not mention Sven or Adam, by name or reference.
 * The parties agree to not refer publicly to this dispute on WMF projects. If others (not bound by

This agreement will only be published if a party breaks the agreement. Should any party believe that another party has broken the agreement, they are to notify all parties privately, and try to resolve the situation. If it can’t be resolved within 48 hours, any party may publish the agreement in full. It may not be published in part.

Sven makes some other claims about me which I haven't dealt with, and will not: Sven and I were close enough friends before this that he knows about some past disputes I had with previous users, and he mentions these to attack me. While I could try and prove I was right in these disputes, publicly doing so would not be fair on the users I was in dispute with. John Vandenberg has seen my evidence regarding those claims as part of the failed negotiations; I suppose you could ask him, but I think he, like everyone else but Sven, just wants all of this to end.

Sven's behaviour has been abominable. He has lied, fantasised,violated confidences, and launched egregious personal attacks. I must ask that he be heavily censured for his behaviour, as, otherwise, he has shown it will continue, when everyone but him simply wants this situation to end.

Adam Cuerden (talk) 02:39, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Note I will only post replies to this should I be informed that it is necessary by e-mail. Adam Cuerden (talk) 02:40, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Statement by Sven Manguard


 * My initial response to this was 'ignore it' but I really can't ignore something that's hit AN/I. Adam's version of this history is heavily warped towards a pro-Adam telling. Were I to present my own version, I have little doubt that it would be very pro-Sven. I will address a few points directly, however.
 * The oversight had nothing to do with the content and everything to do with the poster; my IP address rather than my account. I had be editing with another computer earlier in the day, and it did not immediately occur to me that this would log me out of my personal computer. The edits that were oversighted were undone, and I made them again under my logged in account.
 * Adam has, by posting the mediation agreement, posted evidence against himself. His primary method of dealing with problems is to try to chase them away. The mediation mentions that Adam tried to topic ban Tony1 at Featured Sounds. I will state again the the reason Adam and my relationship soured is that Adam tried to convince me to monitor KleinZach in an attempt to get him topic banned from Featured Sounds. He is now trying to chase me off of Wikipedia, and realizing that this won't work, is trying to make me look bad. My handing of this situation was less than ideal, but that does not make Adam correct in his actions or his assessment of my actions.
 * I firmly believe that my assessment of Adam is correct. He has linked to my statements about him, and if anyone wants to read them, they should feel free to do so. Yes, coming from an involved party such statements are not something I'd expect everyone to instantly accept as fact, however, Adam's track record speaks for itself in these regards. That being said...
 * I had hoped to move away from this issue, in all its overplayed drama and frivolity, but it seems that is now not a possibility. I therefore have a proposed solution that I think, in the long run, benifits everyone here. I propose that nothing happen. Would I like to see action taken against Adam? Sure. Would he like to see action taken against me? Sure. However at this point it comes down to a he-said-he-said situation between a retired party that wants to distance himself from Wikipedia (Adam) and an editor who would rather move on than keep fighting (Sven). I'm not afraid of the outcome, as much as I am afraid that this would clog up a month and a half of otherwise productive time, and I have no interest in pursuing this further on my end. No one benefits from continuing the drama here, something I should have recognized before I posted my first message. I suggest this whole thing be marked as resolved, stuck in a pretty blue box, archived when its time here is up, and forgotten about.

 S ven M anguard  Wha?  06:38, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Sigh
I think both of you should stop talking to each other, about each other, and anything else involving each other. Don't comment on each other or start new AN/I threads or VP threads even vaguely referencing each other. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  15:02, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Sound advice. Tijfo098 (talk) 15:29, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * After 6 May the whole thing shifted to email. I was content to keep in there, however that has become impossible. I was prepared to post an extensive summary of what transpired there, as well as my rationale for replacing my first statement with my second one, but decided not to in the interests of de-escalation. I do have two statements though, about this;
 * 1) I will not, for any reason, communicate with Adam on non-public channels. Therefore if this is to continue in any form, something that I'd really rather not do, it has do so on Wikipedia.
 * 2) I will not, after this post, make any further posts about Adam unless Adam makes posts about me that warrant a response. I will not make any posts on this thread either unless I believe it absolutely nessacary. This issue should have died quietly four or five days ago. Each party blames the other for continuing it. I, for my part, don't intend on doing anything to keep it going, and intend on ignoring it unless it starts up again. Since Adam has mentioned that he won't respond unless he's emaild and John has thrown up his hands, I'd say this is effectively dead.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  18:11, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but no.
I have been told about these events, and must respond further:

Sven attacked me out of nowhere, in a post not related to him. I left his statements stand for several days to let John have a chance to mediate between us; Sven used this to launch a preemptive attack in order to bash me further.

Sven is fully aware that some of is claims are false; John has explained to him the history of my accounts, and yet he has retracted none of his claims, despite knowing they are false.

I object to the tone of this discussion, that treats me, the person who was attacked out of nowhere, and then immediately took it offline to be mediated in private, as the equal of the person who attacked me out of nowhere, and for no reason.

Any fair examination will show that his attacks come out of nowhere, and, even if they were true - which they are not - would involve him making private conversations public, without good cause. That they are provably untrue on the points I'm willing to make public, and could be shown to be untrue on the ones that aren't, were I willing to drag other users into this dispute, makes this all the worse. Sven, at the very least, needs to be warned under WP:NPA. Even if all of Sven's claims about me manipulating him were true, which, again, they aren't, I would have done nothing wrong under Wikipedia policy, as his only claim regarding this supposed manipulation is that I told him my opinion of various users, and past experiences with them, which no policy can or could prohibit me from doing. The only claims Sven makes that relate to policy, the multiple account issue, has been deconstructed by John and shown to be false, as discussed above.

I want this to be over. But I'm not willing to have this swept under the rug. Sven, at the very least, needs to be warned under WP:NPA. If you can show one point where I have ever attacked Sven, and ever did anything but defend myself from Sven's actions, please do so. But as it is, this is nothing but blaming the victim, to avoid having to examine the issue.

I wish to make a clean break from Wikipedia, but I'm not willing to have my last experience be a former friend spouting vicious lies about me, which tarnishes my legacy forevermore. Sven had no reason to say what he did, and policy WP:NPA, states he had no right to. Adam Cuerden (talk) 04:42, 13 May 2011 (UTC) Adam Cuerden (talk) 04:42, 13 May 2011 (UTC) Adam Cuerden (talk) 04:42, 13 May 2011 (UTC)


 * It's unfortunate that you ignored Fetchcomm's advice, unarchived this thread and deleted Skomorokh's closing comment. I happen to agree with Skomorokh that you're beating a dead horse here. 28bytes (talk) 12:06, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Sven's agreed to what amounts to a voluntary interaction ban. Don't make me put down a ban on both of you and enforce it with blocks. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  03:50, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Tag Team editing by CJCurrie, Bearcat and DigitalC
A la edits on Talk:Thomas Mulcair (see the section: Headline for the recent controversy) and Libby Davies, there seems to be a case of tag-team editing by CJCurrie, Bearcat and DigitalC where all three of the users adopt the same position of removing (unjustifiably I might add) sections that document the controversial statements made by the two Canadian politicians (Thomas Mulcair and Libby Davies). Moreover, here is a post by CJCurrie on Bearcat's userpage requesting Bearcat for his opinion on the Thomas Mulcair dispute. Can any of the administrators here take a look at this and see whether their actions qualify as Tag team editing?Sleetman (talk) 16:14, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm going to make this very clear: nobody removed "sections that document the controversial statements" — in both cases, the statements are still discussed in the article, and the only point of disagreement in this discussion involved whether the statements needed to be set apart as separate subsections in their own right, or simply discussed in an existing subsection without their own special "This person said something stupid!!!!! Fear the scary socialist!!!!!" headline. Kindly stop misrepresenting the situation.
 * And I would also advise you to keep in mind that CJCurrie, DigitalC and I are all established editors who have been around here for years, and are quite familiar with Wikipedia policy — whereas you've been around here for barely six weeks and have already accumulated more than one accusation of biased and/or misleading edits. Bearcat (talk) 16:31, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Ma'am, you are removing the section that documents the controversial statements (Do note that this different from removing the paragraph that documents the controversial statements). I don't where I've misrepresented the situation, and I don't know what fearing the scary socialist (Are Mulcair or Davies even socialists? Perhaps you meant social democrats?) and them saying anything stupid has to do with anything...As for the accusation of bias or misleading edits, feel free to point out where I've made those transgressions. As for you, CJCurrie and DigitalC being "familiar" with Wikipedia policy, well it certainly doesn't show on the Thomas Mulcair or Libby Davies talk page. Sleetman (talk) 18:00, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Removing a headline, while leaving every last syllable of the actual content in the article under an existing different headline, does not constitute removing content or violating policy. And between CJCurrie, DigitalC and I, not a single one of us has "violated" or failed to follow Wikipedia policy in any way whatsoever. Simply disagreeing with your own opinion does not constitute a policy violation — and describing them as "socialist" in the above quote was not meant to suggest that that's what they are (I know perfectly well that they're not); it was meant to imply that that's the way you're trying to skew the article to portray them. I do hope you realize there's a difference there. Bearcat (talk) 18:57, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Miss, I JUST MADE THAT DISTINCTION YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT I'm not accusing you of removing content, I'm accusing you of removing the section (by changing the formatting of the headline) which the three of you are doing. As for calling them socialists I didn't call them socialists and I don't even think of them as socialists, I think of the two politicians as social democrats (which they are) and there's a huge difference between socialists and social democrats, so please stop putting words into my mouth.Sleetman (talk) 19:06, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Where you're tripping up is in failing to give a coherent explanation, apart from the "it's true because I say it is" fallacy, as to how removing a headline, while leaving the content in the article under a different headline, constitutes "bias" or "violating policy". Bearcat (talk) 19:12, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * This appears to be bleedover from an editing dispute; the editors in question appear to be working to ensure that undue weight is not given to certain aspects of the articles in question, where the reporting editor feels that there should be more weight given to those aspects. I don't see tag-teaming, rather an issue of consensus being generally against the reporting editor. A third opinion or RFC might be more appropriate. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:58, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I welcome any oversight and opinions on this matter. DigitalC (talk) 17:00, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Concur with Tony Fox that this is a content dispute that's gotten heated. Recommend dispute resolution before someone gets sent to time-out. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 17:05, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Without any consideration to the content itself, it does appear that Bearcat participated in an edit war at Libby Davies prior to protecting it in their preferred version. There should at least be an extra trout around here somewhere for that. --Onorem♠Dil 21:41, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not a matter of protecting my "preferred" version; Sleetman was simply reverting without explanation anytime anybody changed so much as a comma from his preferred version, his only argument being "your version is biased because I say it is", with no explanation of how that was the case — and all in defiance of the fact that there was already a pretty clear consensus, agreed with by every single established editor who'd bothered to weigh in at all, for not giving the section its own separate headline. In a nutshell, Sleetman's behaviour crossed the line from legitimate editing dispute into clear disruption (possibly even skirting the edge of outright vandalism.) It's not about my preferences at all, as I actually think the article needs work because Davies is too prominent a figure to have such a short stub on here — but Sleetman's contributions weren't constructive at all. Bearcat (talk) 21:54, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You appear to be an involved content editor on that article. Let another admin take care of the admin stuff there. --Onorem♠Dil 22:05, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If you wish I will unprotect and reprotect under my own auspices. This is a case of a new editor trying the familiar tactic of discussing whilst at the same time reverting to their preferred version over and over. That's clear edit-warring and the lesson needs to be learned early, either move things forward when you edit the article, or stay on the talk page until you get consensus. Franamax (talk) 01:33, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No. I'm not asking for stupid process for the sake of process...but when an admin has been involved both on the talk page and on the article with opinions on content, they shouldn't use the buttons. I was pretty much just bringing it up as an aside, but that the issue isn't at least acknowledged once brought up bothers me more than the initial protection did. --Onorem♠Dil 02:44, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Well I wasn't just trying to wonk out on process for process' sake, I wsa primarily endorsing the protection. If it was a dispute about whether or not a certain type of cheese is made in a certain place, or whether '69 Mustangs ever came from the factory painted pearl-grey, yes, there could be a problem. This is a BLP article, so there is discretion allowed when considering the immediate situation. Mirror-bots and mother Google can crawl at any time, it's not worth the risk to allow potentially prejudicial content to stay, consensus was clearly not favouring the reverting editor, and they were clearly pursuing a tactic. The call was right IMO. Franamax (talk) 03:48, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Offering to undo an action just to redo it is wonking out on process for process sake. It may have been an unneeded extra heading that brought undue attention to a portion of the article, but it didn't introduce an actual change to the information. "Mirror-bots and mother google" have nothing to do with it. Oh well...forget I mentioned it. --Onorem♠Dil 03:55, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Let me put it this way then: if the same disruption recurs after the current protection (and block) expire, I intend to act to prevent the disruption. I won't forget you mentioned it, because I think you have a valid concern and I would encourage you to raise it anytime you have questions. In this case, I think we got the right outcome and IAR doesn't even need to be invoked. It was a discretionary BLP call. Whether you agree or not with having a separate sub-heading (something we generally avoid in BLPs when "controversy"s can be worked into a proper recounting), is a matter for the article talk page, and I think you are getting at a general point rather than the specifics. And speaking only for myself, I do think about mirrors and search engines when it comes to BLPs, I have at least once tried to deal with real people on that issue. It's not fun to explain why they have to be patient and wait for Google to reindex. Franamax (talk) 04:46, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If the admin involved wanted to claim BLP, they should have mentioned BLP at some point, and they should have explained their concerns to the other editor directly. Instead, the only communication were edit summaries.  'this does not need its own separate headline' on one side and 'Undid revision 'x' by Bearcat' on the other. After 3 reverts, the page was locked by someone directly involved. 'Remarks on Israel' as a section header isn't going to destroy someone on a Google search. The remarks are still there. It was a common edit war without any explanation up until the admin decided to protect the article that they had traded 3 reverts on. --Onorem♠Dil 05:01, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Threat of editblocking by User:Bearcat
User:Bearcat (who is a Wikipedian Administrator) has threatened to editblock me here because I called him "ma'am. Although no explanation is given as to why he takes offense when I call him ma'am, I suspect that the user is trying to find an convenient excuse to resolve the two disputes through censorship in which the user and I are currently engaged. As the user seems to be pretty serious in following through on his threat of editblocking, I ask that other administrators have a look into this issue.Sleetman (talk) 18:58, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * This should be a quick boomerang, no? Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 19:01, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I think so, yes. Sleetman, when someone asks you not to call them something, don't. 28bytes (talk) 19:03, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree that a block is in order. Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 19:10, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Appears that Tnxman307 just blocked for 31 hours. 28bytes (talk) 19:11, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Bearcat should not make the block. An uninvolved admin should.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:05, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Where on earth do you get the idea that it's even remotely acceptable to call a man "ma'am" or "miss", or a woman "sir" or "mister", in the first place? You might want to read WP:CIVIL if you think you were in the right and I was in the wrong on this one — you do not have a right to call people dismissive or inappropriate names on here. Bearcat (talk) 19:07, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Well Bearcat shouldn't do that per WP:INVOLVED but now that you've posted this here and continued calling Bearcat a female (which judging from his userboxes he will probably find extraordinarily offensive) it's quite likely someone else will. See WP:BOOMERANG. <span style="font-size:smaller;font-family:'arial bold',sans-serif;border:1px solid Black;"> N419 BH  19:09, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

He posted an unblock fairly instantly, it doesn't quite feel genuine to me (and misses the point of the block a little).. so I declined it with advise to pause and think before trying again. --Errant (chat!) 19:21, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Good call. 28bytes (talk) 19:24, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I do not for a second believe a word he has said in his unblock requests and would advise against unblocking. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 20:40, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Dude, you've made him eat his humble pie. He's admitted that his actions were unacceptable, and promises not to do them again.  What more do you want? Buddy431 (talk) 14:44, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I, for one, want them to quietly finish their 31 hour timeout. — Satori Son 02:49, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

BelloWello soapboxing
Bello added a nomination for collaboration on WikiProject Conservatism where he equated conservatives and racists here. I reverted and on his talk page warned him against using Wikipedia as a soapbox here. He ignored the warning, reverted and put the offending remark back on the project page here. I assumed good faith when I warned him for WP:SOAP, but IMO this is vandalism. I request admin intervention to remove Bello's bigoted comment from the project page. Lionel (talk) 08:43, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you might be misreading the statement, though it is worded poorly so it's a bit difficult to tell exactly what BelloWello is saying. He might be equating conservatives to racists, or he might be saying that George Wallace represents a group of conservatives who are (or were) racists (which isn't unreasonable, considering that his most famous quote was a staunch defense of racial segregation). I suspect it was a clumsy attempt to assert the latter, but I think it's best to wait for an explanation. --  At am a  頭 16:33, 10 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The sentence appears to clearly equate conservatives with racists, and is (if not intended to make that claim) in any case extraordinarily ill-worded. I suggest the editor be apprised of the concern about choice of words in future. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:47, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I read it as saying racists were a "crucial component of the conservative coalition in the U.S", and that George Wallace represents that particular component. I.e. the equal sign was actually supposed to be a hyphen (or maybe a colon).  That said, BelloWello's proposal still doesn't seem to show a good approach to editing. 67.119.15.96 (talk) 19:04, 10 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I encountered BelloWello when I happened on his AFD for a Church that looked notable to me College Church. His nomination, which read in full: "Local church with no indication of importance. Makes for amusing reading but not sourced and seems unlikely to be able to source." appeared inaccurate since not only did the article cite a magazine listing this as one of the "50 most influential churches....", but I had no trouble sourcing the church on a quick google.  the article was at the time of the nomination sourced almost exclusively to the church's wab page, but even that made it apparent that this was more than an ordinary church.  Other editors appear to be agreeing with me.  The "edit summary" of his nomination read: "(delete this shit!)".   In the course of our debate he wrote:"you can claim anything you want and it won't make any fucking difference for me."  Then followed me over to an AFD on Carey Baptist Church to urge deletion on the grounds that: "nothing about this church makes it any more notable than the 5000 member baptist church down the road from my house that I am forced to see every sunday."  Other editors may or may not agree with me that Carey Baptist is WP:N; what I am questioning here is the shrill, foul-mouthed tone this editor takes in discussing AFD's on churches.  And also the belligerent attitude that led him to follow me to a new page I had written on a minor, early-twentieth artist who painted watercolors of sites in the holy land Anna May-Rychter and start an AFD  writing: "55% of this article is sourced to, I kid you not, an auction site and a website selling her painting" The artist is minor, I am not arguing otherwise, and other editors may agree or disagree that she merits a page.  But one of the auction houses I was citing is Christie's and reputable auction houses are regarded in the art world as reliable sources of information on minor artists.  From his dismissal of Christie's I surmise that BelloWello doesn't know much about art, and was putting up an AFD merely because I disagreed with him on College Church.  I do not think that editors with this kind of attack and foul-mouthed approach to editing are useful to Wikipedia.   They destroy collegiality and, frankly, why should a sane person want to spend time fighting with such a person?I.Casaubon (talk) 19:35, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I can't argue that BelloWello was being somewhat uncivil with the "delete this shit!" edit summary, but more than once I.Causabon you've been exceptionally aggressive in that deletion discussion, assuming very bad faith in response to some fairly standard deletion comments. Asking that editors who nominate articles for deletion that you think should be kept should be "red-flagged" is extremely combative. I very, very strongly urge you to tone it down a few notches and not personally attack people for simply saying something isn't notable. Aside from your borderline attacks, you should be aware of WP:BURDEN, which indicates that those wishing to add or keep material (or articles) have the burden of proof; you prove that coverage exists, others don't have to prove that coverage doesn't exist to argue for deletion. --  At am a  頭 19:51, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * My objection is not that he asserted that the church was not notable. It was that he asserted ad facts things that were untrue.   Such as that there was no claim of notability (despite the cited claim to "top 50" status, and the calim that it "seem unlikely" that it could be sourced.  i believe that we have to make good-faith attempts to do such things as read the article (he would have noticed the top 50 claim) and google (I instantly turned up many hits on the church's name and town) before putting up an AFD.   Not to do so is a waste of everyone's time.   And before calling him on this in the AFD, I sent a polite not to his talk page suggesting that he withdraw the nomination in light of the fact that he had, apparently, acted in haste or fatigue and put up an AFD that he would not wish to continue.I.Casaubon (talk) 20:31, 10 May 2011 (UTC)


 * WP:BEFORE agrees with you, however, it doesn't give you a justification to attack people. Especially your attack on Hrafn, who had made an objective, reasoned argument for deleting the article, you responded by saying that there was an "aggressive, unpleasant undertone tone in the efforts to delete this article". Whether you were polite before, you were inappropriately attacking people in violation of our no personal attacks policy afterward. What you eventually did was provide more sources, which is the correct way to respond to the notability challenges made in the deletion discussion, or you could have civilly defending the sources that already exist in the article. But the majority of your comments in that deletion discussion are inappropriate. Many of your arguments are simply not true, such as saying that it is "wrong and inappropriately contentious" to argue for deletion due to inadequate sourcing. On the contrary, that is probably the most common argument for deleting an article. An editor should search for sources, but not doing so isn't disruptive behavior. On the other hand, you argued that the church inherited notability because it is attended by faculty of a notable school, and that you had found many Google hits, both of which are listed as arguments to avoid in deletion discussions.


 * I'm not trying to come down on you, I know that you are relatively new to Wikipedia. You should have seen some of the boneheaded AfD arguments that I made when I was new! (Much worse that what you've said.) But since you brought up behavior at that deletion discussion, I thought I should let you know so that you don't cross the line at some point in the future and find yourself in trouble. --  At am a  頭 21:12, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I thought the test for WP:N was whether a topic is inherently notable. Whether or not the article as it stands is well-sourced.  Do I have this wrong?   It was the fact that the Church is so obviously notable (plus the snarky language) that made the attempt to delete College Church seem so absurd to me that it set me off.  I frankly could not and still can hardly imagine anyone missing the scale and impact of this church.   And are you certain that the men who have preached form a pulpit confer no notability on the building?   The map of the world is dotted with churches that people go out of their way to visit because of who preached there. Plymouth Church of the Pilgrims, Capernaum, St. Pierre Cathedral.  Is it really true that the stature of preachers past and and present confer no notability on the building in the eyes of Wikipedia?I.Casaubon (talk) 22:01, 10 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for taking the time to answer my quesitons.  I thought the test for WP:N was whether a topic is inherently notable.  Whether or not the article as it stands is well-sourced.  Do I have this wrong?   It was the fact that the Church is so obviously notable (plus the snarky language) that made the attempt to delete College Church seem so absurd to me that it set me off.  I was ticked.  I frankly could not and still can hardly imagine anyone  (who was taking the time and trouble to start an AFD) missing the scale and impact of this church.   And are you certain that the men who have preached form a pulpit confer no notability on the building?   The map of the world is dotted with churches that people go out of their way to visit because of who preached there. Plymouth Church of the Pilgrims, Capernaum, St. Pierre Cathedral.  Is it really true that the stature of preachers past and and present confer no notability on the building in the eyes of Wikipedia?I.Casaubon (talk) 21:53, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The test is whether something is inherently notable, but the way that is established is by showing that the subject is given significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Yes, I'm sure that a church doesn't inherit notability due to the person who preached from there. However, if you find reliable sources giving coverage to the church because someone notable preached there, then that could satisfy the general notability guideline anyway. This goes all the way back to the basic purpose of Wikipedia, and any encyclopedia really, to be an aggregate of data, not a source of it. We don't make a big deal about how great a church is, we cite other people who make a big deal about it. Sources are critical for any article; by using sources, we can verify an article's accuracy while showing why it is notable. I've been involved in proposed deletion patrolling for years, long before I became an administrator. When I came across an article proposed for deletion that I thought was notable, I would either improve it directly with sources, or show sources that I found on the talk page.


 * Just to clarify, the sources don't have to actually be in the article. But you do have to present them. You can't just claim that they are out there. I've been frustrated in the past because of how obviously notable an article is, for example Daniel Breaker was an article proposed for deletion because there was "no apparent notability" even though the article stated that he was nominated for a Tony Award. I did a quick Google News search and found articles about him (not mentioning him, but completely about him) in the New York Times, Rolling Stone, LA Times, Washington Post, and NPR among others. But even in such an obvious case, it's not right to attack the person who asked for deletion, no matter how ludicrous it might have seemed. --  At am a  頭 22:36, 10 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Atama is correct. Also, as to the statement "the men who have preached form a pulpit confer no notability on the building" that is exactly the point. Notability is not inherited, meaning that one subject is not notable just because a related subject (parent, sibling, location, etc.) is notable. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 22:44, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you both.   Searching both  College Church and Carey Baptist Church  in sundry news archives, for example, tuns up articles going back to the 19th century that briefly discuss the church in the context of sending a particular missionary out.  Or, in the case of College Church, in the course of discussing one or other of the well-known men who have preached there.   These articles, for example, discuss CArey Baptist because it sent Ian Stillman to India, or College Church as the place where Jonathan Blanchard or R. Kent Hughes preached.  So I guess that I can go back and cite them.I.Casaubon (talk) 22:57, 10 May 2011 (UTC)


 * This is fucking hilarious. I am soo sorry for nominating George Wallace and noting that he represents a group of conservatives. Note that I did not call conservatives racists, I said racists are generally conservative, and I also provided a Washington Post reference for that assertion. As for deletions, I.Casaubon, yes, I did find that minor artist off of you, and no, that does not make a difference, I would have nominated it when I found it either way.  b  W  01:33, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, well if the Washington Post says so, then it must be okay. --  At am a  頭 03:26, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I think this edit explains everything in this incident. Tijfo098 (talk) 05:43, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Note how that edits tags with cn statements which are obviously cited e.g. Wheaton City Councilman Dan L. Fapp Jr. told the Chicago Tribune that, "It takes two police officers to get traffic in and out of there on Sunday." College wanted to enlarge its sanctuary space, and the town required that it provide parking to accommodate worshipers, many of whom came from outside of Wheaton. (cited Neil Mehler "Churches` Growth Felt In Wheaton" in Chicago Tribune) It's also amusing that the church's web page is an unreliable source on statements about its values/beliefs. Welcome to H8ipedia. Tijfo098 (talk) 05:49, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Its not that they aren't reliable for their own values/beliefs, its that an article should not be based primarily on primary sources, and that article is. I have no problem with some primary sources in an article.  b  W  17:04, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Bello is also tagging websites of Southern Adventist University at that article, and filibustering on the talk page that the univ. is not reliable when it speaks about itself.Lionel (talk) 07:13, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Bello tag-bombed Southern Adventist University and was warned here. Is this a pattern? Lionel (talk) 07:17, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, and it became clear that the tags were appropriate in the discussion that followed, and I wasn't even the main person arguing so.


 * Bello's incivility is a problem. For another example see WQA WQA   Lionel (talk) 07:21, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * At least I didn't call admins "Nazi", and make constant other accusations like a certain other editor that was a subject of my mild incivility.  b  W  17:04, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Bello is back at College Church, wasting everybody's time by putting up pointless tags. Like  after a sentence saying that the current pastor is the current pastor and citing it to the church's web page, or  following a citation of a news story about the church to the Daily Herald (Arlington Heights).  He goes on like this through the whole article, replacing his old pointless tags removed by User:Nyttend and by me.I.Casaubon (talk) 14:36, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * An article shouldn't be based primarily on primary sources. That article has too many.  b  W  17:04, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Editing like this doesn't seem helpful: almost all of the article was blanked with no explanation on the talk page. Is BelloWello following other editors around? Mathsci (talk) 20:38, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * He has certainly been following me around. From College Church over to this  and then to aAnna Rychter-May where he started an AFD I.Casaubon (talk) 21:05, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * He's still following me around. I.Casaubon (talk)
 * The contents has been moved from there to Wikipedia talk:SDA/Brownsberger since it was unsourced. We are working on a new version of that page with sourcing, etc. in project space which will be moved out when ready to replace that. I didn't leave an explanation since that article hadn't been edited in quite a while and the edit summary clearly stated that a new version was being worked on in project space. Either way, if someone would like to discuss a specific edit with me, please feel free to contact me on my talk page or on the article's talk page (let me know if its not on my talk page). I will be happy to explain. Aside from that, I am fucking tired of these noticeboard threads. I've created two articles to be featured in DYK and that are nominated for GA status since people made the Southern article into a little battleground, that's more than any of the others that are questioning my every edit can say. Thanks!  b  W  21:03, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually I think this edit was done purposely as part of the good work he is doing in collaboration with DonaldRichardSands. You are right though in that Bello is following other editors around. He has repeatedly been harassing, filibustering and making false accusations about those of us editing Southern Adventist University. Fountainviewkid 20:43, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I see that the article is being reworked in DonaldRichardSands's userspace at WP:SDA/Brownsberger, but I still don't see why it was blanked. I don't understand either why there is so much whipping up of controversy on Southern Adventist University. The article could certainly by better written (just from the point of view of grammar). If, as suggested by some editors on the talk page, there is an impasse on the article, one of the first steps in WP:DR is to request informal or formal mediation. Mathsci (talk) 21:00, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Edit-warring on the article has led to full protection for a few days. There seem now to be problems on the talk page, with incivility (BelloWello telling other editors to "shut the f*** up"). The current section in the article on "ideology" contains one wholly negative point of view: it seems unbalanced. Mathsci (talk) 05:38, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You completely left out the context of that, Mathsci, the full sentence puts it in perspective: "Please either assume good faith or shut the fuck up." A user has committed to finding material to balance that section. The way to deal with sections out of balance isn't be removing content, its by adding other information to balance it.  b  W  06:08, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes there was definitely incivility and other forms of edit warring. As for ideology Bello is definitely trying to push his view on that. We've tried to balance it by adding other material by Bello keeps trying to veto it because it would no longer make the "rant" sound so positive. Fountainviewkid 6:20, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Fountainviewkid is one to talk about incivility with his NAZI comparisons, constant accusations of AGENDA, etc. As for the content, I would note that the current version is consensus agreed to that FVK is demanding be overturned by sources that are simply insufficient for the label he wishes to add (as the only uninvolved editor to get involved so far clearly stated). Either way, the content dispute does not belong here, so lets not bring it here.  b  W  06:21, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes Bello you do seem to be on some type of mission w/e it is. You also are engaging in bold faced lies. There is no consensus on the current version therefore why are you saying there is? The sources I have provided are reliable, valid, and provide proper context. Right now there really is no "uninvolved" editor. If you don't want the content dispute here then don't bring it. Fountainviewkid 6:31, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * (ec) What BelloWello wrote was uncivil and uncollegial; see WP:CIVIL. Adding one severe example of criticism in a section later labelled "ideology" doesn't seem like normal editing. There seems to be too much disruption around these articles, on-wiki and off-wiki (cf the comments about facebook in the SPI report mentioned below). Mathsci (talk) 06:24, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If you have a problem with the content, why not go to the talk page and comment (I mean that sincerely, however it comes across). And I am so sorry for violating Wikipedia policy by disruptinv my facebook! :) (I mean that as a joke, please don't take it too seriously). We can rename the section criticism. I don't really gaf. I'm quite frustrated with that article (I had intended to take it to good article, instead, we have gridlock), so I have been focusing on others, two of which are currently good article nominees (Heather Knight and Larry Geraty). On another note, if anyone wants to help me with List of Presidents of Pacific Union College or Richard Osborn which I am currently developing, feel free to stop in! I can focus away from that controversial (for no apparent reason) article, can FVK?  b  W  06:39, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You are editing tendentiously on that article and its talk page. Intercollege rivalry between Seventh Day Adventist liberal arts colleges surely does not need to be played out on the pages of wikipedia. Please respect the fact that uninvolved editors are commenting here. Mathsci (talk) 07:05, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Topic ban proposal
As an uninvolved editor here (who really doesn't dig religion in general, if you're curious) I think BelloWello's edits have been and continue to be disruptive, so I propose to topic ban him from all articles on churches, widely construed.
 * Support own proposal. Tijfo098 (talk) 16:09, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Support Because of BelloWello's continued practice of counterproductive, bellicose editing.I.Casaubon (talk) 16:14, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't dig religion? That's really cute, because I remember sitting in church and participating this past weekend... Furthermore, you are aware that I am currently working on a very well sourced article on a church? I simply ask that they be well sourced, is that really too much to ask?  b  W  16:37, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Strike, I misread the proposal as saying that I don't dig religion.  b  W  17:01, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - this is the most reactionist topic ban proposal ever. The thread that started this is unrelated to churches, but two editors who support above both clearly don't like that I tag unreliable sources (perhaps with a few mistakes here there, it happens when you go through an article with a lot of tagging needed) and nominate articles for deletion which do not meet the notability criteria (take a look at my current nominations, the majority of them have the majority for deletion). Furthermore, a lot of my editing is related to churches. Two articles that I started (Heather Knight (educator) and Larry Geraty) are both church related were recently moved out of project space. I am currently working on more similar, well-sourced, articles in project space (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) that are church related. Furthermore, I would note that I.Casaubon has not been without spot here. If you review the deletion nominations, you will clear assumptions of bad faith and incivility.  b  W  16:48, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It seems nobody but yourself thinks that "a lot of tagging [is] needed" in those articles, ergo WP:DE. Tijfo098 (talk) 05:32, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Support Oppose - I'm not opposing because I don't believe there is a problem here, but I don't know that a topic ban on churches will be a help. What indication do we have that BelloWello's contribution to church-related articles is an issue? Is it a hatred of churches? What anti-church or pro-church bias is preventing him from editing constructively only at those topics? If anything, it seems that there might be a bias regarding the US conservative movement, and that's a big maybe, I'm not sure about that. But if you think a person is disruptive at church-related articles, and most of their edits are at church-related articles, isn't an editor just being disruptive in general? I just don't see that a ban on church topics will be effective in any way. --  At am a  頭 17:59, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't care or want to know what his bias is. I only evaluated his edits in relation to WP:V in general and WP:ABOUTSELF. Tijfo098 (talk) 05:23, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * He does seem to care a fair bit about articles in this area, to the point where posts on facebook about them. See SPI link below. Tijfo098 (talk) 06:17, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay fine, if there does seem to be some kind of a single-minded focus on churches that's driving this behavioral problem, to the point where he rants about it on off-wiki pages to inspire meatpuppets (intentionally or unintentionally) and causes other conflicts, I'll change to support. --  At am a  頭 19:07, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I am confused. BelloWello has now withdrawn an AFD he started on a recent article of mine   But the article Anna May-Rychter still has an AFD.  Was his closing of the AFD perhaps done clumsily?  Usually, the AFD template disappears and a note about it appears on the talk page.I.Casaubon (talk) 18:17, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * A bit, maybe. I took care of it. --  At am a  頭 18:38, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you.I.Casaubon (talk) 18:51, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Support Edit warring. Filibustering. Tag-bombing. Profanity. Incivility. Gaming the system. Filing numerous reports on noticeboards. He is impeding editing on these articles, and attacking editors who disagree with him. If there ever was a case for a topic ban this is it. Hopefully this will send a message that his behaviour is unacceptable. If he continues, more stringent measures may be necessary.Lionel (talk) 01:55, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - an article I wrote in the suggested topic area is currently undergoing good article review: Talk:Larry Geraty/GA1. Another one is waiting review. Four others are currently still being worked on in project space and will soon be moved to mainspace. Two others are still in preliminary stages. Do we really not want these articles to be improved?  b  W  02:08, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I hope you're not suggesting that you are the only editor on Wikipedia who can promote a church article to GA. If you are topic banned your work will be continued by editors who aren't disruptive. Lionel (talk) 02:23, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I was not the one who called anyone a "nazi," that seems rather disruptive. I was not the only one who added the tags which seem to be your entire case (Hrafn added some as well). If you are complaining about the AfDs, about half of them have been successful so far. That means that non-notable content is being removed: GOOD! As Hrafn said, I would argue adding poorly sourced content is much more of a priority than whatever disruption is caused by tagging said content. Either way, I will return to writing WP:SDA/PUCPresidents.  b  W  02:35, 13 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Question BelloWello is an alternate account. At SPI Bello stated, "This wasn't a clean start." This means that his behavior under the previous account can also be considered. Bello, were you disruptive under the previous account? Were you blocked? Topic banned? Lionel (talk) 02:21, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I have disclosed my previous accounts to two admins.  b  W  02:35, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You did not address my concern. Is the disruption being discussed here, under BelloWello, a continuation of disruptive behavior from your previous account? Since this is not a clean slate, previous behavior is relevant. If you prefer not to state, please name the 2 admins so they can address this issue. Lionel (talk) 02:48, 13 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Breaking news Even as Bello was being discussed in this section he was busy edit warring at Southern Adventist Univ. His activity yesterday resulted in the article being protected for 7 days! Unbelievably this is the 3rd time in as many weeks that his edit warring necessitated admin intervention on just this article. On 4/25 his edit warring resulted in page protection, on 5/2 he was blocked for 3RR . Note: this account is not even 1 month old. How much more of this can the community tolerate? Lionel (talk) 05:32, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * By my count the editor is right at 3RR on Historic Adventism. He was informed that this type of editing is gaming the system and warned against this behaviour here. Lionel (talk) 07:23, 14 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Support topic ban on churches, religious institutions, religion, persons associated with such, broadly construed. I looked at the edits.  I normally oppose draconian solutions, but this case passes my limits. Collect (talk) 15:17, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Support topic ban. This has long since turned into a toxic environment, and his uncivil behavior has fanned the flames. Although I am trying to assume good faith, it is also difficult to find ground for a sockpuppet investigation he requested against an editor with whom he had a dispute: (note that the investigation was declined by HelloAnnyong due to a lack of evidence). Kansan (talk) 22:35, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Question - Can I at least finish working on taking Larry Geraty to good article (it's pretty much there) and Heather Knight (educator) whenever a reviewer shows up? I'd also like to finish the other uncontentious projects in project space...  b  W  02:04, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Support BelloWello's editing on articles/article talk pages related to SDA seems unduly combative. This recent posting on his userpage (even more recently removed) underlines problems with his approach to editing articles like Southern Adventist University, which was turned into a battlefield. Off-wiki canvassing (if that is in fact what happened) and tit-for-tat SPI reports were also not helpful. Mathsci (talk) 08:24, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

SPI
See Sockpuppet investigations/BelloWello: "It was not a call to action, just a vent of frustration like I usually do on facebook." Tijfo098 (talk) 06:00, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Borderline outing and battleground behavior by user Skäpperöd
I fully realize that this risks a minor Streisand effect but I'm at the end of my patience and I would rather have it dealt with once and for all before I blow a gasket, so let's get it over with.

I started my account in 2005 under a username which was closely based on my real name (i.e. it identified me). After some controversy, and after I was subject to off-wiki harassment, in November of 2010 I changed my username to my present one. I was not under any kind of sanction when I changed my username. I asked the editors that I often interact with if they could avoid using my prior username (for example here ). as I did not wish to have my real name linked to my account. All but one, including folks I have had disagreements with in the past (some were even courteous enough to ask on their own ), had no problem with it.

The one exception was/is user User:Skäpperöd - I made the same request of him here which he removed (along with other users' comments) in which he made a reference to comments being removed as "nationalist". He then used my old username here despite being clearly aware of my request. I then repeated my request here. He responded with belligerence and false accusations (this was my response ).

Most recently, Skapperod once again used my old username. I once again requested that he cease doing so and redact though honestly, at this point my patience is wearing very thin. He once again responded with a belligerent comment, combined with personal attacks and more false accusations (see here for the entire discussion.

Skapperod seems to be under the impression that unless I request a "clean start" (I don't think I need a clean start and Skapperod seems to be using this as a way to insinuate that I am doing something wrong - I'm not) he is under no obligation to desist using my old username (despite several requests). However, WP:OUTING is pretty clear:

There's nothing in there that the only way to get users to stop using your old username - related to your real name - is by asking for a "clean start". It specifically states that the policy applies to an editor who has requested a change in username (that'd be me).

I was subject to some real nasty attacks off-Wiki due to the original outing of my real life name (as well as personal and private information of my family members) and I should probably note at this point that at the time it was Skapperod who contributed to the outing (I accidentally posted personal info on Wiki, which was oversighted but not before Skapperod took it and posted it all over Wikipedia).

Since Skapperod is 1) aware of the policy on outing and 2) has been asked by myself repeatedly to stop this outing but refuses to do so I have no choice but to conclude that this is a form of harassment, motivated by his battleground mentality (we disagree often on content). He knows this pisses me off, he knows I was subject off wiki harassment, yet he continues this behavior. At some point editing Wikipedia just becomes not worth risking being attacked in real life and these kinds of situations will drive editors away. And I'm starting to feel like that is in fact the actual purpose here.

Note, that I could understand (and have been understanding) if this was a unique slip up or accident, or if this was being done in the context of some administrative discussion where my former username was relevant (and in fact where this situation came up, I didn't object). But this is being done gratuitously and for less-than-legitimate motives. If nothing else, the fact that he continues to do this after being repeatedly asked not to is a violation of WP:CIVIL and WP:BATTLEGROUND.

I want to request an indefinite block for Skäpperöd, until he promises to stop trying to out my former username (which is linked to my real name).Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:34, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You have been sanctioned by ArbCom under this user name, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list. If you want to conceal your old user name I'd assume you'd have to come to some sort of arrangement with ArbCom. Skapperod probably, and quite reasonably, just assumes you want the name concealed for the same reason he thinks you changed it, to escape the effects of your previous sanctions. I don't think it is possible nor reasonable otherwise for you to try to force him into assisting you in this purpose, esp. as you regularly battle with him. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 02:46, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't wish to "conceal" my old identity user name (Skapperod knows who I am, you know who I am, etc), I don't wish to "escape the effects of my previous sanctions" (I am not under any), I simply don't want my real life name being outed on wikipedia. Again. This is just asking a user to follow WP:OUTING. It's a reasonable request and your defense of Skapperod's actions is reprehensible. Should I note that you don't edit under your real name?
 * And yes, Deacon is most certainly an "involved" editor that I have had numerous disagreements in the past so this isn't an impartial opinion. Also, I am sure Deacon would not appreciate me constantly dragging up old diffs of ... let's call them "highly controversial", statements he made under his old username, before he changed it and sneaked through an RfA. Still, at least his privacy would be protected.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:46, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I believe Deacon's comment above appears rather irresponsible of an admin. He should know that people have real lives and professional careers outside of Wikipedia, and editors should abide by people's requests with regard to their current username as WP:OUTING requires, particularly for reasons of off-wiki harassment. --Martin (talk) 04:09, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Skäpperöd, please honor Volunteer Marek's request that you refer to him only by his current username. It appears to be an entirely reasonable request given the history and circumstances, and you are expected to comply. If you believe there is a circumstance that makes it absolutely essential that you reference the old username first (e.g., an Arbitration Enforcement request, though I hope none will be necessary), please consult me. Volunteer Marek, as I am sure is your intention anyway, please use your best efforts to minimize any interaction with Skäpperöd. Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:51, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Response by Skäpperöd
I refute the claim that I ever outed anybody. That Volunteer Marek (VM)'s former username is User:Radeksz, now a redirect to VM, is openly accessible information, and not outing as shown below. In some cases where past behavior of VM is relevant, one even has no choice but using the old name. This is, for example, frequently done at the AE board, where Volunteer Marek's behavior in a different matter is currently under investigation.

The incident that escalated into this very thread was such a situation: I had a dispute with VM on a talk page  and asked for outside input at the 3O board. Then, someone provided a 3O, agreeing with VM, then removed my entry at the 3O board with the e/s "third opinion provided, the discussion is now between more than two editors-as per guidance on the start of the page I am removing the request".

Looks like normal dispute resolution, doesn't it. In particular, one would not relate that to the EEML, since neither participant is listed as a participant (EEML). A completely different picture emerges, however, once it is clear that Volunteer Marek and MyMoloboaccount are the same editors as Radeksz and Molobo, who are on that list, and per e.g. the arbcom's findings there have a long history of off-wiki co-ordinated tag teaming. I pointed that out on my talk, after Molobo opened a section there informing me of his "3O". Molobo and VM then both accused me of outing and lots of other stuff, and instead of neutral, outside input I got that section on my talk page filled with ever more comments of beforementioned users. It can all be read here.

Below, I addressed the allegations specifically:


 * An arbcom restriction was in force by the time of the username change (an still is)

VM said above: "I was not under any kind of sanction when I changed my username" and "I don't wish to "escape the effects of my previous sanctions" (I am not under any)".


 * That is false: while remedy 10 of the EEML arbitration case was not in force anymore by the time of the username change, VM was then and still is restricted per remedy 11 of the same case. Remedies 12 and 13 of that case, though not restrictions, likewise continue to apply.


 * I however assume in good faith that Arbcom has consented to the username change per Changing usernames guidelines: "If a user is currently restricted by arbitration committee rulings, renaming might cause confusion. Generally, approval should be sought from ArbCom before renames are performed in these cases."


 * VM's old username is not identifying him

VM said above: "I started my account in 2005 under a username which was closely based on my real name (i.e. it identified me)" and "stop trying to out my former username (which is linked to my real name)".


 * The username "Radeksz" is not identifying VM's RL identity any more than "Volunteer Marek", even after above-cited comment (which may or may not be true).


 * My alert to Arbcom in 2009 was neither outing nor spreading personal information "all over wikipedia"

VM said above: "it was Skapperod who contributed to the outing (I accidentally posted personal info on Wiki, which was oversighted but not before Skapperod took it and posted it all over Wikipedia)"


 * In late 2009, EEML-member Radeksz was proxying for blocked EEML-member Molobo with this edit while the EEML case was being investigated. This case was basically about a small group of editors coordinating off-wiki to tag team, sway consensus, edit-war, get rid of perceived opponents etc ; it was opened in September 2009.


 * The proxy edit occurred on 3 December 2009 and contained material proving continued off-wiki coordination. I accordingly alerted Arbcom to that edit, who promptly analyzed and oversighted it. This can in no way be interpreted as "posted it all over Wikipedia" - I went straight to Arbcom, who were just in the process of analyzing other instances of the same behavior by the same user(s), who in addition were fully capable of promptly handling the issue and were thus the most appropriate place to take this. And I am sure that they would at once have counseled me if this alert had had anything to do with outing.


 * The cited line from the outing policy does not apply

VM said above that "It (WP outing policy - VM) also applies in the case of an editor who has requested a change in username, but whose old identifying marks can still be found."


 * As detailed above, the "old identifying mark" is oversighted.


 * Changing a username does not make the old name disappear

From Changing username: "Existing signatures and mentions of the old username in discussions are not affected by a rename, and must be edited manually if desired."

From the username policy: "Signatures on discussion pages will continue to use the old name; while these can be changed manually, it is not recommended unless a contributor wishes to remove as much information as possible about their former name for privacy reasons. In such situations the old name will still be available in old versions of discussion pages. Username changes are listed in the user rename log."


 * VM has not undertaken efforts to change remaining mentions of his old username. Accordingly, the old username must be used if there is a need to connect him to such instances of his editing history, e.g. the EEML case (which does not have a "Volunteer Marek" in findings, remedies etc).


 * The policy and procedural guidelines cited above are also clear in that a username change is not disconnecting the new name from the old one, and that the logs etc will preserve this connection "forever" even if old names are edited out manually. WP:CLEANSTART would be the alternative if such a break is desired.


 * I did not remove VM's request

VM said above: "I made the same request of him here which he removed (along with other users' comments) in which he made a reference to comments being removed as "nationalist" "


 * Both diffs given by VM are actually the same diff, and they are not related to his request. The are from August 2010, i.e. months before the username change. The "nationalist" reference in the e/s was obviously to PolskiNarodowiec1985, a self-declared nationalist SPA (PolskiNarodowiec even translates "PolishNationalist") who after some disruption was blocked as a nationalist SPA and whose post to my talk page I removed after tagging it "resolved: Nationalist blocked indef." VM's request was not removed as he claims, it is still there now, and I stand by my comment there. I maintain however that, even though I did not remove this particular request, I am free to remove anything I like from my talk page.


 * Bottom line

There is nothing wrong with saying that Radeksz and Volunteer Marek are the same account, even less so when pointing out issues related to past or current disruption. There is no outing going on here. Skäpperöd (talk) 13:20, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * If there's an actual need to link to my old username, like in an administrative proceeding or something, then as I've already said, I've got no problem with that. What I do have a problem with is the gratuitous point-y battleground linking of the name by Skapperod in completely irrelevant situations. That's harassment.
 * (and btw, yes, apparently there is still one sanction left from the ArbCom case, a mutual interaction ban between various folks, one of them me, but i doesn't involve Skapperod at all. This particular injunction has actually worked very well, so well in fact that I've even managed to forget about it. It is also completely irrelevant here.)Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:47, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Did I mention that Skapperod is the only editor who refuses to comply with my request not to use the old username? Nobody else, even people I've had disagreements with, has taken this attitude.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:15, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Further discussion
@Skapperod, my feeling is that if NYB insists you shouldn't use the name, it is almost certainly best for you if you don't. I'm not supporting VM's claims here (I have some idea of how he operates too): but it is possible that VM does have a real concern, and that he has shared information substantiating such a concern with ArbCom; and that NYB is responding to such concerns. I have asked NYB to clarify this point. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 14:36, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I've accepted Volunteer Marek's statement of concerns on good faith at this time; I hope that it will not be necessary to delve more deeply into the matter. The parties should be able to disengage and to refrain from escalating this dispute. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:54, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

@NYB: If the EEML username changes were logged or applied to the EEML and DIGWUREN cases/logs, there would be no need to refer to the old usernames in cases where e.g. they provide 3Os for each other (as in the situation that led to this thread) or revert to each others preferred version (as in the other incident VM linked above) or at AE (where VM's old username is pointed out right now and where this has frequently been done in the past). It would also make it easier for sysops to identify comments made in mutual support of EEML members, e.g. in the recent Jacurek AE (and one other renamed EEML account commented in this very thread already). While the AE admins frequently dealing with EE issues probably keep up with the "who is who on the EEML", that can not be expected in general. And those who want to link the EEML case in such situations, like me when I wanted to verify that the 3O I got was not from a neutral party, but from a long-time tag team partner, can not be expected to have "outing" yelled at them when they do so, and find themselves in ANI threads like this one calling for indef blocks. Skäpperöd (talk) 22:45, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, I was going to drop this after NYBrad's reasonable suggestion, but the above comment by Skapperod is just astounding in its brazen lying. "(EEML members) provided 3Os for each other". Bullshit. This is plain false. What happened was that MyMoloboaccount pointed out that 3O are for disputes involving two people. In this particular case the dispute involved more parties, hence the appropriate DR procedure was an RfC. Skapperod is trying to pretend that this was "providing a third opinion", it wasn't, though MyMoloboaccount could have been clearer about this. But at this point, MMA already explained to Skapperod what was going on and invited him to start an RfC. Yet, here we are, with Skapperod making stuff up and misrepresenting others.
 * Other than that, the above is the perfect illustration of Skapperod's continuing battleground mentality. EEML was long time ago and most people from both sides of that fracas have moved on. Hell, some of them are on friendly terms with each other. But Skapperod continuous to act as if he's still fighting some long gone battles, and in the process resorts to making false statements (such as above) and harassment (such as outing). It has to stop. It's deleterious in its potential individual consequences (i.e. for me personally in RL) and to the topic area as a whole.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:05, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Short response to refute the "brazen lying" allegation: I asked for a 3O, then came Molobo  and removed my entry at the 3O board saying third opinion provided" in the e/s. I have provided more diffs in my response above. Molobo gave a 3O and called it a 3O, q.e.d. Skäpperöd (talk) 09:43, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * (ec)And even shorter response to show that. this. has. been. explained. to. you. At least seven times. Yet here you are pretending it is something it's not. And here is the actual, edit summary, rather than the edited partial one that you put up above: the discussion is now between more than two editors-as per guidance on the start of the page I am removing the request. Contrary to what some people think, putting a (frankly obnoxious) little "q.e.d" at an end of a statement, does NOT magically turn false statements into true ones.Volunteer Marek (talk) 10:29, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Your diffs only show that you and Molobo wanted to declare the 3O, which Molobo even explicitely called a 3O when he gave it, to not be a 3O anymore afterwards. I provided diffs of what actually happened, you provided diffs of how you tried to redefine this in hindsight. Skäpperöd (talk) 12:08, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Nope, they show that you are misrepresenting what happened with MyMoloboaccount. Which actually had nothing to do with me. BTW, allow me to commend you on th excellent job you've done at derailing this discussion. Executed like a pro. Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:04, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I should also note that Skapperod's suggestion that If the EEML username changes were logged or applied to the EEML and DIGWUREN cases/logs was, if I remember correctly (it HAS been a long time), actually a proposal he made during the EEML case itself, which was shut down/ignored by the ArbCom committee itself.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:11, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Diff? I don't recall that I ever made such a proposal before. Let's just wait for NYB's and others' comments on this proposal. Skäpperöd (talk) 09:43, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * (ec)What proposal? The only proposal here is the one by Newyorkbrad, made in this discussion and on your talk page asking you to stop your behavior. The only question now is whether you're willing to abide by that, or is a block necessary to make you realize that outing people is not a nice thing to do.Volunteer Marek (talk) 10:29, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Sigh...while I don't want to be dragged into another Skapperod dispute here, this is a bit dishonest. I have been active on Szczecin article and commented Skapperod edits 30 April 2011 (UTC), 22:57, 30 April 2011. I also made several edits on the main page like the one here on23:28, 30 April 2011 which Skapperod reverted on 1 May 2011 with rather battleground and insulting comment 1 May 2011 don't sell communist propaganda for real

I and VM than posted two comments about problematic content in the article on 9 May 2011 and 05:35, 9 May 2011

Instead of debating these issues Skapperod started a new section concerning basically the same issues on 9 May 2011

I entered the discussion(as it can be easily observed, I was already editing the article and was involved in numerous debates) on 10:12, 9 May 2011

I noticed then that 3o request has been already provided by Skapperod10:09, 9 May 2011. The 3o request was noticed by only after I already made my comment. Since I entered the discussion on the article where I was already very active in debating Skapperod's edits I removed the request since it was clear to me that the Skapperod is debating several editorsmy edit on 10:28, 9 May 2011 In the hindsight,yes I should have been more clear about what was happening. My statment should have been that this a discussion between several editors.I clarified this on 22:27, 9 May 2011 "Clarified removal. The discussion and dispute on Szczecin discussion page are between several editors and thus fell out of scope of 3o as the discussion is not limited to two editors only" upon Skapperod's complaints.

I basically believed that since Skapperod is being discussed by two editors than 3o doesn't apply and he should use RfC. All in all this seems a bit tedious, I would rather edit articles than get dragged down into another of Skapperod's discussions that only distract editors from creating content.

I suggest to both Skapperod and VM to drop this uneeded conversation and concentrate on editing articles.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 10:19, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * When you gave the 3O, it is very hard to imagine that you were not aware of what you were doing as you explicitely defined your action as giving a 3O, and you could not possibly have been unaware of you being a long-time tag team partner of VM and thus not in any way eligible for providing a 3O, which is for outside, neutral input. In the e/s of the same diff, you also said that the dispute were "now" between more than two editors, so you were fully aware that it was only your own "3O" as you called it that torpedoed the DR process. All your explanaitions now do not change that fact.
 * All this has completely buried my above proposal to log/apply EEML username changes to WP:EEML and WP:DIGWUREN, I hope there will be some comments to that rather than further distraction. Skäpperöd (talk) 12:08, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * When you gave the 3OExcept I didn't Skapperod. Nowhere did I post on the Szczecin discussion page that I am giving a response to 3o request(and yes I wrote 3o provided in summary, because I meant that there are 3 editors involved-a statement which I clarified afterwardsremoval. The discussion and dispute on Szczecin discussion page are between several editors and thus fell out of scope of 3o as the discussion is not limited to two editors only). This was a long debate which I was part of, and hence 3o didn't apply because they were simply more than two editors involved in discussion. You are making a big affair out of technicality-I already explained that you can use RfC on that article. Now can we all go back to writing articles, or will you continue to drag this on? Anyway, I won't be dragged into this. If you want, restart your 3o process, even though you are discussing with two editors. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 13:02, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * This debate over the formalities of 3O is another red herring. Whatever those instructions say, it was an act of disruptive WP:DICK behaviour to use your insertion on the talk page as a formalistic pretext to stop what had been a legitimate 3O request. As if you saw it as a legitimate goal to try to exclude third opinions as much as you could. And this especially since your contribution to the talk page had in fact been nothing more than a mechanical "me, too", and as such hadn't in fact turned the discussion into anything more complex than what it had been, a conflict between two editors' positions. And especially since you have a long history of colluding with V.M. in disputes of this sort, so your agreeing with him was of very little news value. And, most crucially, especially since you have a well-known common history of colluding to subvert dispute resolution processes together. You really should have known better than to stage this completely unnecessary drama over a piece of wikilawyering. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:06, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * FP@S, you are, willfully or not, helping Skapperod to derail the discussion from it's original subject - the fact that he is outing me, a much more serious breach of policy than any kind of imagined "wikilawyering" - to some kind minor side show where you enable his flimsy excuses for his battleground actions. But to be clear, what MyMoloboaccount did here was perfectly legitimate - 3Os are for disputes between two editors, otherwise the DR process to use is RfC. Skapperod seized on the fact that MyMoloboaccount's wording wasn't crystal clear to stir up lots of unnecessary drama. MMA explained to him what happened. Skapperod continued with his (pretend) IDIDN'THEARTHAT. If there was wikilawyering here, it wasn't by MMA. Skapperod then used it on this request here as a means of changing the subject and turning the light away from his own disruptive behavior. You are now helping him.
 * This statement: you have a well-known common history of colluding to subvert dispute resolution processes together. - is completely false. There's never been a proposed remedy, an administrative action or anything of the sort. In fact, MMA wasn't sanctioned nor reprimanded in any of the EEML decisions. Accusations which are not supported by evidence are a blockable offense. Even for admins. Anyway, even if somehow your claims were true (which they're not) that would in no way excuse Skapperod's harassment and outing.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:28, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * FPS-I was part of the discussion well before, hence 3o didn't apply. And I have already stated that if Skapperod wishes he can restore his 3o request, although it doesn't fulfill criteria. I am however forced to note that you aren't possibly a completely neutral party here, since part of the dispute in question concerns presenting Holy Roman Empire as a German state, something that you supported in past and a proposal supported also by VM which I opposed (contrary to your claim that my edit was solely "me too" edit)be careful though about agreeing to name HRE a "German" state. It wasn't.

In any case, as I said let Skapperod restore his flawed 3o request if he desires so, and let us not continue derailing this discussion.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 15:50, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Back on track
The above thread has moved into red-herring land.
 * The issue here is Skapperod repeatedly violating WP:OUTING policy by referring to my past username (which was tied to my RL name) in situations where it's irrelevant. It's significant also that he was the one who re-posted my personal information on Wikipedia right before it got oversighted (which was clearly to be anticipated).
 * I have asked him politely to stop doing this on three different occasions. Each time he refused and responded with personal attacks and false accusations.
 * User:Newyorkbrad, an arbitrator has asked Skapperod that:
 * Skäpperöd, please honor Volunteer Marek's request that you refer to him only by his current username. It appears to be an entirely reasonable request given the history and circumstances, and you are expected to comply. If you believe there is a circumstance that makes it absolutely essential that you reference the old username first (e.g., an Arbitration Enforcement request, though I hope none will be necessary), please consult me. Volunteer Marek, as I am sure is your intention anyway, please use your best efforts to minimize any interaction with Skäpperöd. 
 * and on his talk page : Skäpperöd, from now on please refer to Volunteer Marek on-wiki only by his current username. This appears to be a reasonable request on his part given the history and circumstances.

Note the It appears to be an entirely reasonable request given the history and circumstances.
 * Skapperod has responded to Nybrad in a similar way he has responded to my past requests; with intransingence. He is implicitly refusing to abide by Nybrad's suggestion.
 * Skapperod's response above consists of trying to use completely unrelated issues to change the subject.
 * Skapperod's response above is a pretty nice illustration of the WP:Battleground mentality that the user has. He still wants to fight some two year old battles. He is, once again (for like the 50th time in the past two years), trying to re-litigate the EEML case and is making roughly the same proposals he made over two years ago and which were rejected at the time. Everyone else has moved on
 * Skapperod could not let it go even after his friend and ally, Deacon of Pndapetzim, told him: @Skapperod, my feeling is that if NYB insists you shouldn't use the name, it is almost certainly best for you if you don't. .
 * This problem - outing, harassment, battleground behavior - is pretty much unique to Skapperod out of all the former participants in the EEML case. He just can't let it go, even when an arbitrator instructs him to do so. No one else has had a problem with granting my request not to use my old username. Just Skapperod.

Originally I asked for an indef block for Skapperod until he promises to desist. Of course, if he had just said at this request that he won't do it again, I'd be fine with that too (indef is not infinite). His response and way of conducting himself above shows that his desire to treat Wikipedia as a battleground makes him unable to agree to this reasonable request.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:43, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Just to correct you, Skapperod and I don't know each other and I don't edit in his area of interest. I think you've said enough already VM; and, as one of the leading members of EEML currently going after Skapperod on this very page along with two other EEMLers, Martin and Molobo, you're not really in a strong position to criticize anyone for violations of WP:BATTLEGROUND. Pay attention to what NYB also said, parties should be able to disengage and to refrain from escalating this dispute. You need to think about whether or not pressing Skapperod on not using your old name is really worth the conflict, just as Skapperod has to reflect on whether or not co-operating with NYB is a good idea. The arbs are fed up with you guys, and if you go back before them you'll probably get cleaned out. It's in your interest to be nice to Skapperod (and vice-versa) and refrain from escalating conflict. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 16:05, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * (ec)Deacon, we both the know the history here so let's not pretend and "correct" each other. I don't care whether and where Molobo and Martin have commented - I didn't ask them to, I have made no repy to them, I brought this request here myself because this is a very serious issue which affects ME. Normally this would either be a simple, polite requests, with a simple polite answer - as has happened with everyone else I've requested this of - or a very quick indef block for WP:OUTING violation. But here Skapperod has managed (with a bit of help from you) to turn it into some irrelevant drama fest.
 * I will happily "disengage" as soon as Skapperod ceases his battleground behavior and promises to abide by Nybrad's suggestion. Outing a person's real life name - which is what this essentially is, though one can wikilaywer it - is a very serious matter. So you yes, given that it has potential RL ramifications, I do want to press Skapperod to promise to stop using it. I'm sure you'd do the same where you in a similar position, rather than editing safely under a pseudonym.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:15, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * So would you be happy if all the references to you, by your former name, in previous ArbCom cases and AE threads were systematically changed to your current name? That might allay Skapperod's concerns, as well as helping yourself retain more anonymity. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 21:54, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * As long as Skapperod makes it clear that he is not going to continue with this kind of behavior anymore, I actually think this is a good suggestion. I'd have no problem with it, and in fact I think I might actually prefer it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:32, 13 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I am happy with your agreement to Deacon's proposal. I have no problem with using your current username when linking/referring to respective cases once this is possible. Skäpperöd (talk) 10:51, 13 May 2011 (UTC)


 * After inquiring about it, it seems such a change is not in the cards.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:44, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't see what is difficult in not using an obsolete username. Why Skapperod cannot fulfill this simple and polite request by VM and simply refer to him using his new username? Why would anybody refuse such a simple request and turn this simple complain into a dramu? Why is WP:OUTING being ignored? Why this harassing defense of OUTING violation is allowed to happen at ANI, out of all places? --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk 21:55, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

@Skapperod, no, you need to be "happy" with not using my former username, regardless of whether this happens or not. While I will probably email ArbCom and inquire about making those changes myself, IF it DOES NOT happen, you need to refrain from outing people anyway. I mean, for chrissake, it's just policy, and one of the most important ones on Wikipedia. Your comment suggests that you just "don't get it".Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:46, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Further actions by Skapperod: It seems that Skapperod is responding to this request by showing up on articles I'm active on and just reverting me blindly. He even showed up on an article I had just created Radagosc, and out-of-process deleted it, by making it into a redirect to an article on the Lutici under the pretense it was a "content fork". That's right - he redirected an article on a PLACE to an article on a TRIBE. The other excuse was that it was "unsourced" - the freaking thing was barely two hours old!

At this point it's obvious that Skapperod is intent on harassing and stalking me. I would very much appreciate it if someone did something to get the point across to him.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:44, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Category:Pages with missing references list

 * There is currently a backlog of about 180 pages here at Category:Pages with missing references list.
 * Secondly, I have just noticed that there are about 49 articles listed that are of the name form ""xxx Province", apparently all about Turkish provinces. It may be that these only need to have a References section added, or even just or  —and we'll help in any way we can. Thanks again for explaining what happened. Regards, / ƒETCH  COMMS  /  19:07, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Correct link is "ambassador". NBD. --64.85.214.67 (talk) 01:26, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

User editing strangely and with multiple accounts for thesis
Got a bit of a strange situation here. has apparently been working on his master's thesis, which is by his admission some way of ranking Wikipedia articles. This initially came to my attention as he had created five accounts - wrsuser1 to 5 - and was using them to edit a malformed subpage. I blocked Mihai until we got some actual explanation as to what was going on, but now I'm not sure how to proceed. Is it really acceptable to use multiple accounts like that, or to run some sort of system like this without reporting it? (As a side note, the user created a now-deleted article about his thesis.) Anyone have any recommendations? —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 13:37, 14 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, WikipediaRecommenderSystem can be restored to his userspace as a subpage where he can do whatever he wants with it. As far as the alternate accounts go, by his own admission he won't be using them to edit any other pages except to test his little experiment.. I don't think this is any major WP:ALTACC vio, as long as he provides links between and clearly marks what they're for. I don't see much of problem in letting him use Wikipedia in this way to develop his thesis. -- &oelig; &trade; 15:15, 14 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, I don't really see a problem, but it should at least be documented on a userpage or somewhere. I came across a load of these the other day. They appear to be related via the subpages of . They are:, , , , , , . I think there were some others, as well as some IPs. I traced it back to a university publication somewhere, and it all checked out. Perhaps someone at the Foundation can also provide some pointers. -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:15, 14 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I've unblocked the account and its socks, and have left a fairly detailed note with them about how to proceed. I'll monitor the situation going forward. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 21:59, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#Request for Discussion concerning the future of AfD
I would appreciate your thoughts. - jc37 23:22, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion

Unblock of Jacob Peters
Recently, was unblocked by  with a reason of "one last chance". Jacob Peters had been indefblocked since 7 January 2007, and was generally considered community banned (as his userpage is still tagged at present). His block log shows a long history of block evasion, as does his drawer of socks. Jacob Peters argues that he didn't understand the rules of Wikipedia back then. This just doesn't wash. His talk page shows that he was repeatedly told not to sockpuppet and continued to anyway. He says he hasn't socked since 2009. That's still at over two years of solid sockpuppetry, and that's only if the last sock was in early '09 (and I've seen one suspected sock from November 2009, meaning it was probably closer to three years). I don't believe this long-standing block with excellent grounds in long-term sockpuppetry should have been just lifted without a community consensus on the matter. For my part, I'm very much opposed to unbanning Jacob Peters. The community wasted enough time dealing with his edit warring and disruption; I don't think it should do so again. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 08:32, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, even some of the claims he's making are total nonsense. For example: Just re-indef him already.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:56, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * He says he hasn't socked since 2009. - he's brazenly lying, he was in fact socking, with an intent to be abusive and disruptive, as recently as June 2010. He got caught because he was using one of his socks to violate WP:OUTING - he posted personal info (real life name and work info) as a way of harassing others . When this was looked into by checkuser, six more sock puppets were found:     . At least one of these looks like it was intended to be a 'sleeper' sock.
 * The guy has at least 33 confirmed socks and a few more dozen suspected socks . And I can vaguely recall at least a couple more that got caught but just were never recorded on those lists.
 * He was banned for, in addition to massive abuse of multiple accounts, tendentious POV pushing. You can ask User:Moreschi about how much time had to be wasted to clean up after him. And that's not even counting the huge amount of time that was wasted chasing down his socks and cleaning up after each one of those. This is a user who can do A LOT of damage very quickly if given the chance. He's showed that even with his socks, which caused lots of trouble even in the short time they were operational before being caught.
 * You'd figure a user who was indef banned for three years, if they got lucky enough to get unblocked, would try to stay out of trouble. Instead Jacob Peters immediately jumped into the perennial battleground that is Mass killings under Communist regimes and resumed right where his socks left off; more tendentious POV pushing, etc. In the process, he violated the discretionary sanction that is on that article. Once someone pointed out to him that that wasn't such a great idea, he switched to doing the same thing at Red Terror and Mao Zedong both of which he'd edit war on previously with his socks.
 * He's played of his original indef ban as "something foolish I did in my teenage years long long time ago". I think Jpgordon just didn't pay enough attention here, didn't look into the details and made an honest mistake by taking him at his word (there is such a thing as too much AGF, especially when users like this are concerned). Mistakes happen, and they can be reversed.
 * I'm not so sure if Jpgordon even had the authority to undue this block, though I'm pretty terrible with understanding the bureaucratic intricacies of these kinds of things. A note on Jacob Peters talk page states that the only way he can get unblocked is by appealing directly to ArbCom (along with the statement that it ain't gonna happen).
 * There's also a basic issue of fairness here. Editors who got blocked for things which were nowhere near as bad as Jacob Peters, had/have to go through the proper procedure of an appeal with the ArbCom or a community discussion and show an understanding of what they did wrong, as well as negotiate the terms of their unblock. This includes editors who bring both negative as well as positive things to Wikipedia. JP is pretty much all negatives, yet he got unblocked with a snap of the fingers, while folks far more deserving of clemency are put through the ringer first (for better or worse).

Indef blocked again, for obviously and clearly lying in his unblock request (and for his behaviour since the unblock, which doesn't give much confidence either). I have indicated that further unblock requests should be directed to ArbCom. Fram (talk) 09:11, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Endorse re-block. Among the minimum requirements for the "standard offer" to be considered are complete honesty about any past infractions (socking etc), and a clear self-critical awareness of what was problematic about one's editing in terms of content, with a realistic effort to avoid the same problems (POV advocacy etc). If he lied about recent socks that negates condition one, and the fact that he plunged right back into making POV-sensitive edits on the same old hotspot articles throws into doubt condition two. Also, I agree it was poor style to do an unblock unilaterally and without prior consultation in a case like this. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:19, 13 May 2011 (UTC)


 * indef block again and salt the earth per information in Volunteer Marek's comment. Sock puppeteers promoting extreme political views are the last thing we need here.Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 11:12, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Endorse re-block One of the worst POV-pushers Wikipedia has ever been plagued with. This was the most misconceived unblock since Fred Bauder decided to let User:Ararat Arev loose on us again with no prior consultation. --Folantin (talk) 13:01, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. I declined an unblock request because it ignored the reasons for the reblock and attacked Volunteer Marek instead -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:13, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Endorse re-block. As I said on my talk page, "the lesson learned here is Be way careful when doing admin stuff on Wikipedia while jacked up on Vicodin after a root canal..." Sorry, guys. --jpgordon:==( o ) 14:24, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Ouch. Root canals. I hate 'em. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:55, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Propose community ban
He's tagged as banned, let's make this official. I propose a community ban for Jacob Peters. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 16:03, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Support as nom. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 16:03, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - This person has a clear intent to cause disruption to Wikipedia and nothing else, and has used deceit to accomplish this multiple times. A formal ban will make it clear that this person should only be unblocked following a full public discussion showing support of the community (which I doubt would ever happen). --  At am a  頭 19:19, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd say I'd miss Jacob in some manner but this would involve lying on my part, which is something I just don't do. Half  Shadow  19:30, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. The reason: he constantly appears as different IPs, as recently as April 2011, to make edits like this, and there is no one to fix it. This currently active IP is also suspicious since it come from the same area and removes exactly the same materials as in the previous diff, but only from another article . Ye, that's him. After being blocked by Alison for one month, he came back to do the same. Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 20:28, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Is he hitting few enough articles to semi-protect them? If the little bugger's just going to play whack-a-mole, nothing's really being accomplished here. Half  Shadow  21:06, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * He edits large number of articles, from Mugabe and Hamas to Russian/Soviet subjects. Some of the latter could indeed be semi-protected because there are few active editors in this area. But if we do it, he will create more alternative accounts. The only solution is to watch the entire subject area. I would not say however that all edits by Jacob are unreasonable (I even tried to keep a few of them in the past). He is back because User:C.J. Griffin who watched him is now inactive. Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 21:25, 13 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Support. Per all above. Still leaves looking for his socks, but the point will have been made. P ЄTЄRS J V ►TALK
 * Support. Didn't take him long to start attacking others again... let's revisit this somewhere in 2020s, shall we? --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk 23:08, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Support particularly because of this recent event. Dougweller (talk) 09:58, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Support Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 11:28, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Support Has acquired a well-earned reputation as one of Wikipedia's biggest time-wasters. (BTW I like Half Shadow's initial comment). --Folantin (talk) 12:07, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - because this well qualifies as having exhausted the community's patience--<font color="#999999" size="2">Cailil  <font color="#999999">talk 02:31, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. No mercy. No respite. That's the name of the game. Tijfo098 (talk) 08:41, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Ohconfucios mass-changing date formats
User:Ohconfucius is mass-changing date formats from the allowed yyyy-mm-dd to his preferred format in violation of WP:MOSNUM: "Edit warring over optional styles (such as 14 February and February 14) is unacceptable. If an article has been stable in a given style, it should not be converted without a style-independent reason. Where in doubt, defer to the style used by the first major contributor." Note that according to Mosnum/proposal on YYYY-MM-DD numerical dates, the consensus is to keep this format.

I have consistently used the yyyy-mm-dd format in references in my articles; it's not fun to see all of them instantly changed by this user with no discussion or consensus at all. I find these mass-changes very disruptive - is it time for a block to prevent further disruption? As you can see from his talk page, he has already received several warnings. He was also found by ArbCom to have edit warred on style guidelines: Requests_for_arbitration/Date_delinking/Proposed_decision. Nanobear (talk) 13:18, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I second this as being disruptive. Not only is changing date formats like this disruptive, but so too is going thru articles and removing valid wikilinks. If one has a look at his contribs, he is systematically removing wikilinks such as to Moscow. Perhaps the editor can tell us if they are planning on removing all wikilinks to Moscow on all articles? Additionally, the editor has gone to User:Russavia/Natalya Timakova and made changes to the article, including noindexing it, without rhyme or reason. That's bad form. Additionally, they have continued to make these controversial edits after being advised by Nanobear that these edits have been raied here. I think it is time for the editor to have access to whatever scripts, etc that they are using revoked. --Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 13:29, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * With no comment on anything else in this thread, I will only say that it was correct to noindex the userspace draft at User:Russavia/Natalya Timakova. Userspace drafts can still show up very highly in google search results if they aren't noindexed and if there is no notice on the page saying that it is only a draft, then readers who have come via Google may think that it is an actual Wikipedia article in mainspace. Jenks24 (talk) 13:48, 14 May 2011 (UTC)


 * (ec) Not sure on all points here. In your Natalya Timakova example, it seems he was trying to create consistency, because the footnotes were previously divided, with half of them in "dd MM yyyy" format and half in "yyyy-mm-dd". In such a situation, an edit like his appears legitimate. About the "Moscow" links, WP:OVERLINK advises to "[a]void linking the names of major geographic features and locations, religions, languages, and common professions" – although that's a rule that is more often broken than not, and I'd say "Moscow" is sort of borderline. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:51, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It is not correct to go to user pages and add noindex. If this is the norm, then all userpages would be no-indexed by default, not selectively as is obviously the case. Additionally, when an editor edits pages in another editors userspace, it creates a nightmare for complying with licencing requirements of both the GFDL and CC-BY-SA. This is why it is bad form to edit other people's userpages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Russavia (talk • contribs)
 * As I understand it, minor edits like Ohconfucius' do not cause a licencing problem, as attribution is not required for such minor edits and therefore a histmerge would not be required (it wouldn't be required in this case anyway, as there is no existing Natalya Timakova article, so you can simply move your userspace draft to mainspace and it will all be attributed anyway). Back to the noindexing, you will note that Template:Userspace draft automatically includes noindexing, so yes, it is standard across most userspace drafts. Also please note that your draft is the top hit on google for the search term 'Natalya Timakova'. Jenks24 (talk) 14:27, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * All edits have to be attributed to the copyright holder. But then I did not give anyone permission to go into my userspace and adjust anything. Any date changes have been done without my permission -- it is up to me how I do dates on works in progress in my userspace. I also did not give anyone permission to add a no-index template to the page. And I sure as hell did not give the editor permission to unlink anything. If userpages should not be indexed, take it up with techies. Don't come into my house uninvited and start re-arranging the furniture, otherwise I will take issue with it. And that's a fair enough stance for me to take. --Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 16:36, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, interesting idea. I may well take this up with the techies. Jenks24 (talk) 16:56, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Russavia, watch out for that boomerang. Your personal attacks on Ohconfucius are unacceptable and your threat to unilaterally undo all the changes will only result in further disruption to the project. I'd advise you back off. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 13:53, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I notice that he has proceeded with his threat and begun to revert the changes. Discussion goes both ways, and this is not conducive to the project. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 13:56, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * (ec) was just gonna talk about the "are you illiterate?" edit summary... anyways, linking Moscow is over linking... if someone doesn't know where that is, they need to go back to school. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 13:56, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Well I am sorry, but when editor has an issue raised on their talk page (something which they have been warned about many times previous), and then continue with their contentious edits, then one would assume 1) one they can't read 2) they are stupid or 3) they are just ignoring what is being said. So I will formally apologise now, I am certain that they can read and I am certain that they are not stupid. Given that they have continued with their edits, they are obviously just ignoring what is being written. That's not good. --Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 14:11, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

And now that I've looked at the links to Ohconfucius' talk page given by Nanobear, I must say I don't find them at all compelling. One is Ohconfucius saying 'yes, I made a mistake, I will go fix that now' and the other is Ohconfucius and another experienced editor explaining to a rather inexperienced editor why we don't use ordinal dates in articles (eg May 14, not May 14th), which has nothing to do with yyyy-mm-dd. Jenks24 (talk) 14:16, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Please also see previous thread concerning the user Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive676 Similar issue (using scripts to mass-change yyyy-mm-dd to something else without consensus) as here, as far as I can see. Nanobear (talk) 15:08, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Please see Fut.Perf.'s point above. Ohconfucius was simply making the date format of that article consistent, something that is actually recommended by the MoS. I also see no evidence of edit-warring, when reverted by Russavia, he appears to have simply dropped the matter and moved on. Could you please shows diffs of where Ohconfucius edit-warred or violated the MoS? Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 16:56, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Is anyone going to ask this editor to STOP what they are doing? Or are they going to be allowed to continue? The legitimacy of the edits are being questioned, and yet they are continuing....even when they have been found by Arbcom to have acted disruptively in the past. --Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 16:30, 14 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I think Ohconfucious's script and using it are both wonderful. Many articles use inconsistent date formats, and using the script is an efficient way of cleaning it up. Without rehashing history (I wasn't there), I find the format yyyy-xx-xx to be confusing as some do yyyy-mm-dd and others do yyyy-dd-mm. Drives me batty. Also removing excessive wikilinks per WP:OVERLINK is a joy (in the interest of full disclosure, excessive wikilinking is a pet peeve of mine).--Bbb23 (talk) 16:44, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * (conflict) @Bbb23: Nobody uses yyyy-dd-mm as a format, if that happens it is surely only by mistake. (However, both the m/d/y and d/m/y are popular formats, which *is* confusing, hence the preferred format of writing February 14 2011). --OpenFuture (talk) 17:36, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I've seen the "mistake"; perhaps the format makes it easier to make the mistake? One recent mistake is 06-05-2011, which isn't even an acceptable format. Not sure why you say February 14, 2011 is the "preferred" format. It's just one of the acceptable formats.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:56, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No, the format does not make it easier to make the mistake. It does make it easier to spot, as there is no ydm format, so if that was used, it is a mistake. Your example isn't in ymd format at all, it's a classic example of the mdy and dmy formats being ambigous, which is why spelling out the month instead of using numbers are preferred, which is what I was trying to say above, but said so in an unclear and stupid way. :-) --OpenFuture (talk) 07:36, 15 May 2011 (UTC)


 * (to Russavia) You have not yet shown where he has violated the MoS or edit-warred; could you please provide diffs for this? Although he probably should not have edited the userspace essay, once reverted, he dropped the issue (and one could probably argue that seeing as the article is the first hit in a google search, it may as well be in article space). Jenks24 (talk) 16:56, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Editor makes edit, editor had been asked by that point to STOP on their talk page and to discuss their changes, but they completely ignored this, I revert their change, which includes unlinking US dollar, Public company, etc, they come in and revert their change. This is a point violation on their part - a point that they are going to ignore other editors who are objecting to their edits. They have since responded to FPaS, but have ignored messages on their talk page and this thread here. It is obvious that there is an objection to them mass unlinking to numerous articles, such as Moscow --> Moscow; Public company --> Public company; US$ --> US$. Etc, etc, etc. --Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 17:57, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks for showing some diffs, but I'm not seeing what you are. Ohconfucious makes an edit in which he delinks a few terms in line with the MoS (see WP:OVERLINK), fills in some references and changes some headings to be in line with the MoS (nothing to do with changing yyyy-mm-dd, which is what he was asked to stop doing on his talk page). Then you revert him point blank, adding back the wikilinks, but also removing useful reference info and making the headings incorrect per the MoS. Then Ohconfucious reverts you, presumably because his original edit was in line with guidelines and delinking has not once been mentioned on his talk page (as far as I can see). If you had added back just the wikilinks and Ohconfucious then reverted you, I think he would have a case to answer to, but as it stands the question must be asked; how was he meant to know that you didn't agree with his delinking if you never told him? Jenks24 (talk) 18:43, 14 May 2011 (UTC)


 * OhConfucius is right, and Russavia is wrong. I warned the latter for NPA; may need a block if this continues. --John (talk) 17:59, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Not that I mind the changes from mdy to dmy, like here, but the question then is if they are allowed.
 * I also find what seems to be automatic changes of accessdate like this a bit worrying. A robot or a script can't verify that the page still contains what it did when the reference was made. Is that really OK? --OpenFuture (talk) 18:13, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I suggest contacting OhC on his talk page if you don't understand what he is doing. Russavia, remember "You must notify any user who is the subject of a discussion. You may use to do so." And look out for the boomerang. --John (talk) 18:31, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed, OhC invites feedback. See here ("Feedback is appreciated at User Talk:Ohconfucius.")--Bbb23 (talk) 18:40, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I understand what he is doing, the question is if he should be doing it. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:25, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Subscript text
 * I may be a bit aspergic in wanting to tidy up dates, but >90% of those articles were in desperate want of date alignment as recommended by WP:MOSNUM. I have been working systematically through the Russian articles, because there was significant work to be done. You will notice when going through those categories that I do not necessarily edit all articles – an example would include those with no visible date alignment required. It was whilst working through the categories that I found the categorised indexed userspace article on Timakova. As is the convention, I uncategorised and 'noindexed' it. I fail to understand, upon reading that article, why it remains in userspace so long after its creation, but that's another issue. My action on 'his' article seems to be what angered Russavia, causing him to make WP:POINT violations undoing my work, many of which contained significant improvements he had not expressed any objection to. Yes, I reverted one of them clearly indicating I thought he was being disruptive just to make a point. There were several other similar blind reverts that I did not undo. Indeed, subsequent to his friendly warning [sic], I attended to the script edits with greater care to avoid the two complainants found objectionable. I suppose he may have been angered to continue to see my contributions continue to carry the same edit summary, I used the same script, so the edit summary was the same; the extra care (whether of article selection or manual adjustments to the actual edit itself) would only manifest itself on closer examination of my edits. He should be forgiven for his lapse. -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 02:36, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Corner benchmark disrupting WT:Norway
The above user has recently trolled Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Norway by adding lists of articles on Guantanamo prisoners which do not exist/have been deleted from the Norwegian Wikipedia. Given their contributions, it is likely that the user is a sockpuppet of Sju hav, who has been blocked for soapboxing opponents of the Iraq War (see WP:Articles for deletion/Bjørn Sagvolden). I've tried thrice to delete this threads, but they have restored them each time, with personal attacks in the edit summaries. . Would an admin please delete these threads and block this user? Thank you, Eisfbnore  talk 10:05, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Re-creation of twice deleted Mohammad Shaikh - is it same content?
Mohammad Shaikh has been deleted twice at AfD and now re-created: I can't see earlier versions to know whether it's a G4 speediable re-creation or not. Could an admin perhaps look into it? PamD (talk) 21:46, 14 May 2011 (UTC)


 * No, it's not the same, but there have in fact been three, not two, prior AfDs, plus several speedies in between, and the present version is clearly not better than any of the previous versions, but rather a lot worse, and most certainly has done nothing to overcome the earlier deletion reasons, so I'll take it upon me and speedy it anyway. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:57, 14 May 2011 (UTC)


 * If it's failed a couple of AfDs, then don't forget to salt it. Rklawton (talk) 21:59, 14 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I did just that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:02, 14 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't fully understand these things, but wasn't it already salted on April 14, 2010?--Bbb23 (talk) 22:04, 14 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The April 14 salt disappeared from the log. Gremlins.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:10, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It was created after the salt by admin DGG, so the protection wouldn't apply. After a page is deleted, the protection of the page "wears off". — G FOLEY   F OUR  — 23:47, 14 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Four AfDs, two of them for Mohammad Shaikh, the other two for Muhammad Shaikh. --bonadea contributions talk 09:30, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Can we just create a protected redirect to International Islamic Propagation Center? Buddy431 (talk) 14:01, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Possible range block for the 69.171.163.XXX range?
This user repeatedly vandalises personal life sections on actor bios, mostly adding non-existent children or changing their names. It has been persistent, going on since at least February. He has been warned and blocked several times, but continues adding this false information. I'll just give one example for each IP, but there is lots more, and I probably haven't found all of it:


 * Special:Contributions/69.171.163.7 –
 * Special:Contributions/69.171.163.238 –
 * Special:Contributions/69.171.163.203 –
 * Special:Contributions/69.171.163.38 –
 * Special:Contributions/69.171.163.185 –
 * Special:Contributions/69.171.163.153 –
 * Special:Contributions/69.171.163.176 –
 * Special:Contributions/69.171.163.151 – ; warnings:
 * Special:Contributions/69.171.163.159 – ; further warnings: ; 24h block:
 * Special:Contributions/69.171.163.130 – ; 31h block:
 * Special:Contributions/69.171.163.251 – ; 48h block:
 * Special:Contributions/69.171.163.59 – ; 60h block:
 * Special:Contributions/69.171.163.43 – ; warning:

It has now started up again:
 * Special:Contributions/69.171.163.13 –

Tracking him and fixing the damage is starting to get me down. Blocking individual IPs is no good because his IP is dynamic, so he just comes back the next day and starts wreaking havoc. Is it possible to give him a range block in the actor categories, because I don't think he's going to stop of his own accord? Betty Logan (talk) 09:32, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The IP's correspond to Cricket Wireless, which has a 3G modem service, so they're probably logging on to do their vandalism, logging back off at the end of the night and coming back with a fresh address. Also seeing that they go off actors and actresses that aren't as well known (like Special:Contributions/69.171.163.197, which got two actresses known off Private Practice). Might have to look more into this because a ranger would knock plenty of good accounts using Cricket as their ISP off.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 11:18, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * To check this range, how about you use - it will give you all the most recent edits form this range. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:51, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That's a handy little tool, is there a way to make the search more specialised like searching on range contributions within a category of articles? If I can isolate a solely destructive range within a combination of categories it may reveal a potential block that can be imposed. Betty Logan (talk) 12:33, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Due to the risk of BLP vandalism to less-known articles, I recommend blocking for one month, even though it will also prevent a few good-faith IP edits (perhaps two dozen per week). There is no way to limit a rangeblock to a certain category of articles. EdJohnston (talk) 13:43, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I've blocked it for a fortnight with anonblock set as the block reason. If it starts up again, it's easy enough to reblock it for longer, but let's see if a fortnight has any effect. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   13:52, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Mindbunny making attacks
I just removed an attack made by Mindbunny...being made just to prove a point. I have a history of not getting along with this editor so I won't editorialize here and would rather defer to simply reporting so that others could let me know if I am in the wrong or Mindbunny is in the wrong. I will notify of this thread. Thank you, <b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b>  (<b style="color:#00C">(⊕)</b>) 04:53, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I was reverted, so the attack is back in place. <b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b>  (<b style="color:#00C">(⊕)</b>) 04:57, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, I think Mel Gibson is a jerk. Also, George W. Bush is dumb as a rock. If we are going to block anyone who makes such a comment on a Talk page (on the grounds that it isn't reliably sourced...I mean, huh?), then I'm done here. Block me. Mindbunny (talk) 04:59, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Wait, do I understand this correctly? An editor said that Mel Gibson is a pompous jerk in a RfC page and this is now an ANI issue? Is there more to this that I'm missing? <font color=#AAAAFF>ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ <font color=#D50000>bomb 06:01, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * As an aside, Mel Gibson is totally a jerk. <font color=#AAAAFF>ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ <font color=#D50000>bomb 06:07, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I have commented over at the RfC talkpage something to that effect, and shockingly enough I've called Robert Mugabe a murderous scumbag. Really, don't cry BLP; Mel Gibson made his own reputation, and a flippant comment on Wikipedia isn't going to change that, no matter how self-righteous and important we view ourselves as being. The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 06:09, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * And I'm still not getting how saying something negative about Mel Gibson on a non-article page is an issue at all, let alone an issue requiring the intervention of an Administrator. Also, Derek Jeter is a terrible defensive shortstop and my wife tells me that while he used to be hot, he's kinda ugly now. <font color=#AAAAFF>ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ <font color=#D50000>bomb 06:18, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Two words for your wife: Joey Votto. --NellieBly (talk) 07:20, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * As much as you may complain about Derek Jeter's defense (I'm a Yankee fan myself), Eduardo Munez is proof that there's something to be said for being able to make the play that comes right to you; that, Jeter still does just fine. I don't think he's that bad; he's not Kaz Matsui or anything. The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 06:22, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Mindbunny has a great many issues when dealing with current events, the Middle East, and pages about womens' rights. Perhaps a topic ban is in order, as this is not the first, second, third, fourth, or even fifth time he (under this and his other name) has been warned about his behavior.   <B>Erikeltic</B> ( Talk ) 10:46, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

After brief review, it does seem as though Mindbunny is guilty of POINT here. But frankly, I don't really think the comments highlighted are causing any real harm to WP. This seems like a debate between a WP:BLP purist, and someone who thinks BLP purism is silly. Don't think there's any need to get litigious here. NickCT (talk) 12:50, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Could Mindbunny clarify whether he's ? An SPI page suggested he was, as does the timing of account creation and the interests, and MB didn't deny it. The issue is that Noloop's behavior was similar, and he edited one of the same articles, so CLEANSTART doesn't apply, and there's an outstanding RfAr. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 14:41, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, I saw this as a gratuitous rant on an admin's RFC/U just to make a POINT. I believe that people may have their opinions and I don't know if I would characterize myself as a BLP purist but I do think that this is unacceptable behavior, very unprofessional and unbecoming of what we are trying to be as editors. People are always commenting on the toxic environment on Wikipedia and I think these are the type of actions which contribute to that notion. I think we ought to be raising the bar of acceptable standards.


 * Let me see if I get this straight. People can vent and call anyone anything they want just as long as they aren't editors on this encyclopedia. If they were editors here, however, the slightest disparagement would be a personal attack? Isn't that a double standard? <b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b>  (<b style="color:#00C">(⊕)</b>) 15:25, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Mindbunny was being WP:POINTy, and not being constructive, but saying someone is "a pompous jerk" is just an expression of opinion. Not a good edit by Mindbunny, but it was a minor incident, and reporting it here is a gross over-reaction. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:39, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * It's not a matter of purism. It's a matter of a kind of admin abuse in which 1) the facts are persistently ignored, and 2) the standards are applied selectively, creating an appearance of bias, and 3) (1) and (2) occur in support of other admins. For the record, the hub of the issue is Sandstein's block of The_Artist_AKA_Mr_Anonymous for saying Lara Logan's journalistic standards are degenerate and corrupt. The opinion was given on a Talk page, and treated as a BLP violation, analagous to the comment above that Derrek Jeter is not only a bad shortstop, but ugly to boot. My numbered points:
 * Fact: BLP does not prohibit negative opinions about named living persons. Fact: There is no requirement that editors source their own opinions, expressed in conversation; you can have an opinion that nobody else has. You can express an opinion about a named living person that is unsourcable ("Brian Greene is fool.") Fact: Defamation refers to factual claims not statements of opinion; it is not defamation to say Logan's journalistic standards are crappy or Jeter is dog. The comment about Logan originates in a Rolling Stone article. There is a reason the author isn't being sued for defamation. It isn't defamation. Fact: the blocked editor didn't say Lara Logan is degenerate and corrupt; he said that about her standards. There is a difference, which JamesBWatson distorted. These are obvious facts. They are the opposite of what admins said in blocking and upholding the block of the victimized editor. It's a witch-hunt.
 * The "purism" behind the block is not applied with any consistency at all. If such a principle were applied with integrity, <font color=#AAAAFF>ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ <font color=#D50000>bomb   would currently be blocked: he called a named living person terrible and ugly. I hereby call Robert Mugabe] degenerate and corrupt. It would be POV-pushing to say we can express that opinion about some named living persons but not others, according to whether admins agree. And yet, that is exactly what is being implied. Here, I'll say again what The_Artist_AKA_Mr_Anonymous said, only I'll change the person: Robert Mugabe is degenerate and corrupt. Robert Mugabe is degenerate and corrupt. Robert Mugabe is degenerate and corrupt. Now who is going to block me for BLP violations? I am being POINTY because I am making a damn good point.
 * I won't continue to dwell on the obvious. The rush of admins taking these absurd positions has come in defense of another admin. Wikipedia has an elitist structure, and power leads to powertrips. Mindbunny (talk) 15:57, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Are you ? SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 16:20, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I think this thread should be closed, the violation being minor--though a violation it is--and not actionable. But Mindbunny, are you sure you're not confusing Wikipedia with your blog? Who said that this was a place where you could or should vent your opinions on people? Drmies (talk) 16:20, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Good grief. The principle of NPA is primarily to prevent a toxic editing environment. I highly doubt Mel Gibson was reading that page. Mindbunny's edit was a little POINTy, but probably not as POINTy as opening this up. Nobody's said anything about Ginsengbomb's statement about Mel Gibson, or about any of the statements about Derek Jeter, Joey Votto, or Robert Mugabe, so this (along with the irrelevant, hounding questions about whether she is Noloop) suggest to me that this is just about hounding Mindbunny. Please, can we move on? Kansan (talk) 18:01, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't open the thread to be pointy....and I did not want to be accused of wikihounding (one of the reasons why I brought it here) Past attempts at warning the user on their talk page, either my warnings or others, have never been met with constructive reception. A review on their talk page history is telling. I placed a warning concerning ownership with the Lara Logan article and it was deleted with an edit summary "flush toilet". Mindbunny still has the message on their talk page that reads "Go away". After Mindbunny made this comment to another editor, no mistake was ever acknowledged. Since there has been a communication problem between Mindbunny and myself, I brought it here precisely to keep it from being a personal problem or wikihounding but so that someone that Mindbunny doesn't have a problem with could communicate objectively with him. I do think there is a problem but I didn't start this thread to get Mindbunny blocked. Impartial admin communication was desired. I also wanted to get a feel for what the community thinks is acceptable/unacceptable.
 * At the time I opened the thread, Mindbunny had began a rant in response to an impartial observer upholding Sandstein's application of BLP in the RfC Bunny filed against him...gratuitous insults followed. <b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b>  (<b style="color:#00C">(⊕)</b>) 19:51, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Berean Hunter has been trying to feud with me for a while. See the ANI in which he was warned for attempting to out me, and for personal attacks. . This harassment is just a continuation of that (despite warnings). SlimVirgin is getting into that territory, as she keeps disrupting threads with accusations based on a sockpuppet investigation that was closed months ago, as she does above and elsewhere Mindbunny (talk) 21:28, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Tsk, Tsk, Tsk. Oh Mindbunny, there you go, bald-faced lying again. The result of that thread was that there had been no outing...nor even an attempt, just your false accusations. And there was no mention of attacks whatsoever....what attacks? The fact that you got caught sharing the same IP address as User:Noloop after the SPI case against you closed, pretty much draws out the obvious conclusion doesn't it. One of two things happened. Either you signed into that same IP and saw where I placed a whois tag on it and got upset that you were caught OR it's you stalking me...enough time had elapsed between the thread where I placed that tag and you filing the new ANI thread (from Mar 27 to Apr 2, and I had circa 450 edits in that time)...you would have been stalking my edits, wouldn't you, Noloop? Either way, you got caught.


 * You just keep getting into it with everyone don't you? You've expanded your accusation zone every time someone disagrees with you. You ran from ArbCom when things got hot for you and lack what it takes to own up and finish what you started. The Noloop account just kind of scurried off. If you had the brass, you'd quit hiding behind your sock. <b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b>  (<b style="color:#00C">(⊕)</b>) 23:47, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Bald-faced lying? I admit I'm not bearded. Berean's response makes the feuding clearer than anything I could say. For the record (since I've been called a liar), here are the warnings:
 * "Linking a user to an IP address without there having been a public link made by that user is considered to be "outing". The edit summary is not acceptable. Berean Hunter, please do not repeat this behaviour anywhere in the project. Edit summary suppressed. Risker (talk) 05:51, 3 April 2011 (UTC)"
 * "No, that was not a "good faith mistake", Berean Hunter. The IP address is dynamic, and as such your edit summary could be tarring any number of people with the same brush. Do not post usernames that may or may not at one time be associated with a specific IP address into the history of the IP talk page. Absent an active SPI, this was completely unacceptable. Risker (talk) 06:07, 4 April 2011 (UTC)" Mindbunny (talk) 05:38, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

<--Berean, knock it off please. While I have no love for what Mindbunny has been doing here on this project (less than 100 edits to article space and they're being oppressed all over the place), you're not helping your own cause. Turn off the sarcasm, and let this thread die out--there is a clear consensus that the violation was not sufficient to lead to any kind of action. This SPI stuff is not for here, and bringing it up in this thread is not going to lead to anything else but more heat and less light. Move to close. Drmies (talk) 04:33, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

P.S. Robert Mugabe is degenerate and corrupt. Mindbunny (talk) 05:40, 13 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, I was all in favour of dropping this whole thing as too trivial to bother about, as I indicated above. It also seems to me that a consensus to do so had developed, as Drmies said. However, Mindbunny has chosen to deliberately set out to be provocative in violation of WP:POINT (here, here, etc etc). This is, it seems to me, a different issue from the "attack" which started this discussion, so I decided to block Mindbunny for 72 hours. However, on reflection I have decided that, since the cause of the block was closely related to this discussion, I should not block unilaterally without at least giving others a chance to comment here. In my opinion, considering Mindbunny's past history, that is a moderate time for a block. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:05, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, full support for the 72 hour block. He is being pointy and disruptive all around and posting deliberate contentious comments about living people - to some people Mugabe is a hero, to others something else but we do not opine those opinions we hold about them on talkpages. This has been pointed out to him by multiple users and yet he continues.Off2riorob (talk) 12:12, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * After three hours there has been one indication of support and no opposition, so I will go ahead. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:07, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Without going into more detail, if we misapply WP:BLP to sanction editors for stating their own, clearly recognizable opinion on talk pages, I'll start getting pointy. A statement of ones own opinion is inherently and undeniably self-sourced. Dick Cheney is an immoral asshole who should be hauled before a human rights tribunal. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:48, 13 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I realize I'm late to the game here, but I do not support this block as not a word has been said regarding the other POINTy criticisms of other public figures above. These grossly separate set of standards suggest to me that it's not about what she did, but who she is. Kansan (talk) 17:20, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Addendum: just to clarify, when I used the word "hounding" above, I didn't base this on the creation of this thread alone. I do recognize that Mindbunny should have known better and that she seemed to be deliberately pushing the boundaries; however, the repeated questions from SV and others regarding NoLoop seem to have nothing to do with this current topic (correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't the community dealt with that in the past?) Kansan (talk) 17:26, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not a question of "grossly separate set of standards". Mindbunny has been doing this on a far greater scale than any of the others involved, as far as I know. Mindbunny quite clearly did this repeatedly with the deliberate intention of being provocative and disruptive, whereas although other editors made questionable remarks to make a point, they did not, in my view, do so to such an extent as to constitute deliberate disruption. You may, of course, see it differently, but that is my sincere reading of the situation, and the suggestion that I discriminated on the basis of some other, extraneous issues, rather than on the nature of these comments, is unfounded. Also, as I have indicated above, at first I thought this was all a storm in a teacup, with bringing this report on Mindbunny a "gross overeaction", and I did not dwell on somewhat dubious responses from other editors, as I really thought that the best way of dealing with it was to drop it, with a minimum of fuss. It was later that Mindbunny chose to escalate the whole issue, effectively rejecting the possibility of taking such a minimalist approach to the whole issue. As far as I have noticed there have not been any further examples from other editors since. (If I have missed any, please point them out to me.) In addition, you don't say what "POINTy criticisms" you are referring to, but I agree that The Blade of the Northern Lights has made unacceptable remarks, and I will post a talk page message warning about it. If you are referring to Ginsengbomb, then I really don't think that calling someone "ugly" is the same in character as accusing someone of corruption. If you disagree then you are, of course, free to raise the matter. As for the suggestion of bad faith on my part in the form of the suggestion "it's not about what she did, but who she is", I can assure you that I had never even heard of Mindbunny until this issue came up, and I have certainly not been influenced by anything about her not related to this issue, because I don't know anything about her not related to this issue. In fact, I only said "her" in that last sentence because you have done so: otherwise I would have had no idea of Mindbunny's sex. One more point. If I have picked on Mindbunny not because of "what she did", but because of "who she is", then I wonder why at first I tried to dismiss this report, calling it "a gross over-reaction". I wonder why I didn't rub my hands with glee at the opportunity to leap on this person I had such a prejudice against. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:33, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * For the record, I now realise that Kansan did not mean his/her comments to be a personal criticism of me, as I thought when I wrote the above comment. Consequently I apologise for expressing myself perhaps more forcefully than I needed to. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:41, 14 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Without going into more detail (I'm not familiar with the involved editors), if we misapply WP:BLP to sanction editors for stating their own, clearly recognizable opinion on talk pages, I'll start getting pointy. A statement of ones own opinion is inherently and undeniably self-sourced. Dick Cheney is an immoral asshole who should be hauled before a human rights tribunal. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:48, 13 May 2011 (UTC) This is the first time for me that WP seems to have duplicated a comment instead of eating it...left in both places since it seems to have been taken into account in both. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:51, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * JamesBWatson, thank you for your explanation, and I would like to clarify my comments insofar as I am not accusing you of blocking in bad faith (as I am certain you did not do so); I simply have a different reading of the situation. (Also, I only use "her" because I have seen others do so; I am actually not sure of the user's sex.) Also, upon reflection, I do agree that referring to one's physical appearance, while still inappropriate, probably does not come to the same level as one's moral character. To further clarify, I'm not seeking sanctions/blocks on any editors who have made other comments, just to ensure that this is handled in a consistent manner (and so that we, as a community, can clarify some of the policy issues here should they come up again). As an aside, Stephan Schulz's comments about Dick Cheney above are another of the type of comments that seem to have gone without comment from others, though I do agree with Mr. Schulz's assertion that stating one's opinion, while possibly disruptive in some cases, does not seem to violate the literal wording of WP:BLP. (I also read through Kansan (talk) 22:48, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * As my own comments have proven, I'm somewhat more in line with Stephan Schulz's and Kansan's thinking, but I suggest we let this die out. This is degenerating really fast, and I'd hate to see someone blocked in a fight over something like this.  I, for one, will not make any more comments that could be interpreted as BLP violations (though I don't personally see them as such), and I'd hope now that other people would do the same. The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 23:31, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

As a note; Minbunny asserts that what was written was not a BLP violation (which, Mindbunny claims covers defamation only) and that policy allows expression of editors opinion on a living person. This is very incorrect. For the start BLP is intended to discourage exactly those sorts of expressions of opinion as generally non-constructive. It is even explicit on this point: Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced and not related to making content choices, should be removed, deleted, or oversighted as appropriate. In this case it wasn't a major BLP issue, but it was non-constructive and the sort of statement to be avoided. --Errant (chat!) 20:51, 13 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I think this block is ill-conceived for two reasons. Firstly, there are plenty of others who have made similar POINTy comments. Secondly, it's really not that important and is unnecessarily drawing attention to her "protest". She has a history of histrionics (admin "abuse", conspiracies against her etc.) This is just feeding a martyr complex. It would be much better to just ignore it and let it blow over. DeCausa (talk) 21:38, 13 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Just a note here: it's possible that Mindbunny is a woman, but s/he's almost certainly the same person as Noloop, and some of the edits of that account don't suggest there's a woman behind it, such as adding—and restoring when others removed it—a photograph of a dog to Bitch (insult) with the caption: "Its original use as an insult was based on a comparison of a woman to a dog in heat."     And a few other edits that have felt similarly problematic.  SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 00:05, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * apart from being a strangely irrelevant post, it's simplistic and naive to say this means MB is a man DeCausa (talk) 07:10, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

It is often not helpful to react when an irritated editor vents steam occasionally, but I agree with a comment by Hans Adler (talking about a different case) which included "editors of this kind have reached a critical mass where they can no longer be ignored as they are actually trying to run the place and set its norms" (comment now here). We need to convince the people involved in this case that WP:BLP should and does rule out editors expressing negative opinions on living persons in a manner unhelpful for the development of an article. Mindbunny has placed another WP:POINT violation in a heading at the top of User talk:Mindbunny —Mindbunny needs to understand why that must be removed. Johnuniq (talk) 05:29, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I've given Mindbunny some advice on his talkpage that, if followed, could be a way to take a different tack while saving some face. The reaction on his talkpage was rather unproductive, but I hope it's just venting and that Mindbunny will come back tomorrow with a somewhat better perspective. The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 06:57, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I think there is little chance of that having had dealings with MB. Seriously folks, just ignore her and it will dampen down.If you go poking it her it just feeds it. DeCausa (talk) 07:13, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * We shall see soon enough. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 07:17, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * ..."The real topic here is admin abuse"...better perspective? I don't think so. DeCausa (talk) 20:31, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh well, I can't say I didn't try... although the BLP fanaticism on the other extreme there isn't exactly helpful either. I sometimes think we've lost perspective on the fact that we're really only a website, and we take ourselves way too seriously.  But it's only 72 hours, and the RfC has been deleted, so I think the worst of this is over and done with. The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 21:08, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * This used to be "only a website" until Seigenthaler, which is where WP:BLP originated. Do I think this case is that extreme?  No, but that's where the sensitivity and the perspective originates.   Cjmclark (Contact) 21:47, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I've my own personal thoughts on this issue, but my/your talkpage or WT:BLP would be a much better place to discuss them, should you desire. I'll only say that I've applied BLP a couple of times to remove things from talkpages, and that this particular issue isn't quite on the same level as those. The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 02:27, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If you'd like to discuss the broader issues of BLP there, I'd be happy to. More germane to the issue at hand here are the following:
 * As has been pointed out here, there, and everywhere, Wikipedia isn't a blog, it's not a social networking page, it's not a forum for people's personal opinions. Because this is a private organization, the First Amendment doesn't apply here, so the "I'm being oppressed" argument is moot. Shocking, eh? As I said on the now-deleted RfC, people's opinions about BLP subjects do not matter, and as such cannot possibly be construed as anything constructive. I don't know where the idea that a talk page is an anything-goes forum came from, but it's patently false. You don't own that space; you don't have a right to it; you're allowed to use it within certain strictures that in this case are being willfully ignored.
 * The "it's my opinion, therefore it can't possibly be considered defamation" notion. Check out Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co.. You can be held liable for your opinion (as I've said before) based entirely on the context in which you put it.  In the case of Mindbunny's repeated remarks in question, they aren't couched as statements of opinion ("I believe X is Y."); they are couched as statements of fact ("X is Y."). So even if it were necessary (and allowable) for one to post personal opinions re: BLP subjects, it would be vital to ensure that they were worded in such a fashion as to ensure that no doubt exists that it is the editor's opinion and not an attempt at a factual statement. I don't understand why that distinction has been so hard to comprehend in this case.
 * Finally, the "but Mommmmmm...you didn't punish Jimmy for doing what I just did" argument is so juvenile it's absurd. I don't know what more I can really say. I don't know that it matters if I do say anything more because the vast majority of everything that's been said in this case has been met with WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.
 * So I guess in this case I'm done saying anything at all. Blade, if you'd like to meet over at WT:BLP to discuss BLP as a whole, I'd be happy to. Adios.   Cjmclark (Contact) 03:06, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm beyond even trying to defend Mindbunny at this point, as Mindbunny has only dug a deeper and deeper hole. For me it's the pattern, not the individual instance, that's the issue.  Given Mindbunny's response to what I've said, I'm ready to walk away from it. The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 04:34, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

After receiving a block for expressing continued comments/opinions about living person to make a point, MindBunny did it again last night, which I feel is the same behaviour as before. Support resetting the block in light of this because it appears they do not get why the block was imposed in the first place :( --Errant (chat!) 10:05, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I have extended the block to a week for the reasons given on Mindbunny's talk page. Because Mindbunny believes that I am involved with respect to them, even though I disagree with that assessment, I invite administrator colleagues to review (and if necessary, change) this action.  Sandstein   19:13, 15 May 2011 (UTC)