Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive737

User:Liquid cells disruptive editing
On USS Oak Hill (LSD-51), this user is continuously inserting unsourced, negative commentary concerning a homosexual "first kiss." I reverted them previously, but thought I'd ask whether it should just be reverted or other action be taken. Calabe1992 01:49, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * At this point, I've advised Liquid cells about the three-revert rule and invited them to discuss the matter on the article's talk page. This is probably a matter for WP:ANEW (edit warring noticeboard) rather than this one. —C.Fred (talk) 01:58, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, although I now noticed that it appears he may have been using an IP, as a sock. It it continues, I will take it to that noticeboard. Calabe1992 02:03, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I just reported the user and his IP sock to AIV. Do you disagree that that was the easiest way of going about it? –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 02:04, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually, yes, since this isn't generic vandalism. Calabe1992 02:09, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * "Gays are disgusting" seems like pretty generic vandalism to me. Not all vandalism is nonsense characters. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 02:34, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The editor didn't say that gays are disgusting, he said that some people made such comments, which is quite likely. The problem here is the edit-warring and the lack of a source for the edit. Nothing in the edits fits the narrow definition of vandalism, in fact it looks like good faith but misguided editing to me. CharlieEchoTango  ( contact ) 02:40, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No source for the comment, so it has to go. P.S. The picture of two babes in uniform kissing is hot. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ —Preceding undated comment added 02:43, 25 January 2012 (UTC).
 * Normally I don't like to give those sorts of comments the dignity of a response, as I think they contribute to a hostile attitude towards female editors at Wikipedia, but it really is a nice photo. I wonder if it will become iconic in the same way that the visually similar V-J Day in Times Square did. But, off-topic. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 03:04, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It's actually rather tame as kisses go. I just want to thank Cells for inadvertently bringing it to our attention. :) On a more somber note, Cells admits that it's original research, and he was presumably unaware that OR is not allowed. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:15, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, admitting that it's original research is only half the battle - he's still arguing that the fact that it doesn't appear in reliable sources means that the sources are biased and that we're trying to "silence" him. The section shouldn't be closed just yet. I've got the page on my watchlist and will bring further developments here. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 03:21, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If the "reliable" sources actually are biased, there's nothing we can do about that. However, I would think that if there really was any significant grumbling about the kiss, then some reliable but conservative-leaning publication would have picked up on it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:38, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Ditto the above. Calabe1992 03:39, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't soil my PC by setting foot on Conservapedia, but supposing they have some sourcing standards, and supposing this event were covered, there's at least a possibility of a reliable source to support what Liquid Cells is talking about. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:55, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It was just before Christmas so they were probably too worried about the War on Christmas. Besides, a lot of the people in charge of such things seem to be old men or at least men and probably shared similar sentiments that you expressed earlier in this thread. I.E. It's okay to turn a blind eye (after watching the video 40 times) because it was Helen and Eve not Adam and Steve.... On a more serious albeit OT note, a public domain or otherwise free image would be useful in the article and may be available. And no I'm not referring to those same sentiments, just in general. Nil Einne (talk) 06:49, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I looked for one earlier, and also for a PD/CC video that I could then screencap, but found neither, unfortunately. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 07:31, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind that the tub in question is a warship, and you run the risk of undue weight by placing too much emphasis on a single incident of two females kissing. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:20, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Vandalized page - Hyderabad,_India
Someone added a top level DIV to redirect to a vulgar image. Unfortunately its not shown in the recent history. So I couldn't clean it up.

Please take a look :
 * See a few threads above. CharlieEchoTango  ( contact ) 07:57, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

There have a been a few of these recently, including one that just took us to AN/I continuously. Is this all the work of one editor/former editor, and if so who is it? S.G.(GH) ping! 11:54, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

User:SlipperySalmon questionable edits
Is a disruptive editor?

        

 Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh &#91;chat] 04:39, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, their stuff is pretty bizarre, that's for sure. Calabe1992 04:43, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It all looks utter bollocks to me. Especially the Tenors one. Nothing being ref'd either.  Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh &#91;chat] 04:46, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Whoa whoa whoa. What's your game? I'M THE SLIPPERY SALMON AND THESE ARE MY WATERS 04:53, 25 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SlipperySalmon (talk • contribs)
 * Your talk page is very odd. Calabe1992 04:55, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Okay - this guy need indef'ing. He's just a vandal account.  Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh &#91;chat] 04:55, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * His user page is telling as well. --Mollskman (talk) 04:57, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

✅ deleted by me and blocked by Elen --Guerillero &#124; My Talk  05:01, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Good! We all know what happens when you take a fish out of water. Cheers,  Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh &#91;chat] 05:03, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * For the record, I believe he is a sock of User:LustyRoars. Elen of the Roads (talk) 05:04, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I sensed a sock too, but suspected it was the same person related to the issue above with the image redirected to porn. Seems odd how 2 users would be utilising useless html at the same moment. Was either a WP:DUCK or a WP:DICK. Or both.  Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh &#91;chat] 05:07, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * ^^Win. Calabe1992 05:08, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe it was the one that was shown in the porn image earlier. Calabe1992 05:10, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ as a sock of and others. A previously-blocked IP has now been reblocked due to long-term abuse from these accounts -  A l is o n  ❤ 05:10, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * This this might be related from the earlier issue above?  Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh  &#91;chat] 05:14, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Could someone revoke Mr. Salmon's talk page access please? Calabe1992 05:19, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Done, by CharlieEchoTango. --  At am a  頭 17:26, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Anonymous IP: 70.42.29.3
Please consider limiting edits from this IP only to registered users. Originally it was blocked as an open proxy. Later it got unblocked and identified as an open proxy. The user claims he/she is not trying to post anonymously and that he/she is unable to log in to the Wikipedia account.

The issue is that this IP has been doing disruptive edits. For example in iCloud the user keeps posting information as fact but sources to rumor. I already removed the information twice and indicated in the edit summary that encyclopedic information has to be based on fact not rummor. The user keeps posting back the same information.

Also the user has done disruptive editing in other articles like removal of information and writing nonsense

I ask for requring an account as only some of the edits are disruptive, it appears more than one person is editing Wikipedia from that ip with different purposes. The edits lack summary.

Charles Dayton 16:05, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Editor notified. S.G.(GH) ping! 16:11, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This is a closed proxy operated by Zscaler - so it will be multiple individuals on local area networks appearing as one IP. What I can do is the equivalent of schoolblock it - editors with an account can log in, but anonymous editing is prohibited. It's a big private company, employees probably shouldn't be editing (and intermittently vandalising) Wikipedia on the company's $Canadian anyway. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:57, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Charles Dayton  17:23, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Unblock of User:Kiko4564
Kiko4564 has been blocked since 2010. Under WP:OFFER I asked him to write up a statement for an unblock request which I will put up for community discussion. He is requesting an unblock with the following statement: I am sorry for the childish malicious harm of what I have bought to wikipedia. I understand I was just as wrong to socially engineer my way out of a two week block. However, leaving my terrible past behind I have matured into what could be a decent editor if rehabilitated and given his last length of rope. With regards to my bad history of sockpuppetery, I will agree to cease the use of even nominally permitted alternate accounts, which are also known as benevolent sockpuppets. Yes I see my wasting people's time by my actions as malicious in retrospect, yes I can and will move forward and towards constructiveness. I have given solid proof and fully understand everyone's healthy cynicism against me being unblocked. I also apologize for my immaturity in various places e.g. wikimedia IRC channels. I have already given a long wait without socking (1 year). If given my last piece of rope, I will not be as stupid and immature to hang myself with it. I will instead contribute constructively and act maturely whilst obeying anything I am instructed to (provisos). M D Potter. Any comments? 21:05, 22 January 2012 (UTC) I have no opinion on the unblock. I am merely enacting the standard offer posting the request here. I'm asking for community input on whether or not an unblock should be performed. Regards, Sh i r ik  ( Questions or Comments? ) 17:08, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Is this better at WP:AN? It's not an incident and the WP:AN board is slower to archive, giving people more time to comment.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.137.36.236 (talk) 17:22, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Non-admins are typically permitted to discuss potential unblocks ... AN is usually reserved for admin-only announcements ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 19:05, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not reserved for that purpose that I've noticed... -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:21, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Let bygones be bygones. They'd be on a leash anyway. Drmies (talk) 19:40, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose: This is just trolling by Kiko4564. He has done exactly the same thing in the past and it has not ended well (vandalism and sockpuppetry on multiple occasions after the unblock). All this is just a big game to him. Peter Symonds ( talk ) 19:43, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Support- Why not? It's been over a year since they were blocked, I see no evidence of misbehaviour in all that time and some evidence of trying to behave constructively, and it's unlikely Kiko4564 would be able to do much harm with the scrutiny they'll certainly be under if unblocked. Reyk  YO!  20:20, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. We can't unblock someone who socked without a list of those socks - and full disclosure is a really good way to show good faith on the blocked editor's part. I've made that request at the user's talk page. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 20:26, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment- they have now done so on their talk page. Reyk  YO!  20:55, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Having looked through the contribs, there's not a lot of substantial editing to articles; Kiko's less than 1000 contributions consist, in the main, of minor items such as adding warning templates to user talk pages, fixing double redirects, and things of that nature. In short, I don't see a solid contribution history that would show me that this user was of great service to the project before he was blocked.  Additionally, one has to lie in the bed that one has made - considering that Kiko talked his way out of a block once simply to continue his behavior, and has asked on several occasions in the past to have his block lifted or reduced despite being told otherwise, I also am hard-pressed to believe that the latest unblock statement is any more reliable or believable than any others. MSJapan (talk) 21:20, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Question Has the user edited on other WM projects and if so under whats name(s)? Good editing elsewhere is a mitigating factor.  Also concur with the above statement that a list of socks would be necessary.  N o f o rmation  Talk  21:50, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Support What harm does it cause us to allow kiko to start editing again? Nothing.  If he causes problems, we can easily reblock.  I'd rather have a reformed troublemaker editing under a known user name, than a reformed troublemaker editing under an unknown user name.  Face it, if he wanted to, he could simply create a new account and nobody would know any better unless it resulted in some sort of investigation.  If he did cause problems, under a secret account that didn't result in an investigation, then we'd be treating it like a new account without any history.  By using a known account, it saves us the effort of an investigation and if he does cause problems, then we know the history and can better respond to it.--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 21:55, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


 * PS I believe in second chances. If he has reformed, it is a good moral lesson and ethical lesson that he won't forget.  If he goes underground (eg starts a new secret account) what lesson does that send?  Let him prove himself.  Also, I think it is time for somebody to go ahead and unblock, I don't think it would be appropriate for me to do so based upon my !vote here.--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 16:49, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Support per Balloonman. Indefinite blocks aren't necessary infinite, and we should generally be willing to unblock someone in situations like this, especially since we can watch their work to ensure that they're editing properly.  The worst that can happen is that we implement WP:ROPE.  Nyttend (talk) 03:03, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - Been a year since the block & the resulting sockpuppetry and there's reason to believe that he has the maturity to contribute. I concur with Balloonman's summary; if he causes any harm, we can immediately reblock. There's no harm in giving him another chance. &mdash;Dark 14:02, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - Might as well see what Kiko does with that requested rope. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:21, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Selery's attacks on an editor.
I don't know if this was brought up before, but I think that someone needs to look at Selery. I was aware of Selery's attitude towards User:Michaeldsuarez before, but Selery has started to make attacks against this user as seen here, here, and even here. Selery has some explaining to do.  Flutter shy  !xmcuvg2MH 23:54, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd say that the first one is a blatant legal threat, and thus a violation of WP:NLT Princess Derpy (talk) 00:00, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note that the editor in question has been blocked before for "beyond the pale" personal attacks relating to this matter. Mythpage88 (talk) 00:04, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I invite others to decide for themselves whether Fluttershy and the other editors involved with the GNAA article are more interested in improving the encyclopedia or trolling in such a way as to create a hostile environment for black people. Selery (talk) 00:19, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The edit you linked to was simply maintenance, nothing controversial there. I'd also ask you check the message I left you, detailing why Wikipedia is not censored and that you (no offense here) do not have a valid case against the page. Princess Derpy (talk) 00:21, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I too am concerned about Fluttershy's editing of said page, off site he associates himself with troll groups "BWC" and "NCF" - how do we know he's not playing these games here as well? User:SweetieBelleMLP 13:52, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I gather Princess Derpy and I have different senses of humor. Selery (talk) 00:59, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I found the edit summary particularly instructive. Along with Princess Derpy's user page construction, including this link to an attack site: en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Princess_Derpy&diff=next&oldid=472888721 (note well: that edit places a transparent link to an established malware site over most of Princess Derpy's page; clicking anything but the "Back" button after viewing that diff may infect your computer with malware. Is this group of people interested in improving the encyclopedia or attacking the project?) Selery (talk) 00:33, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No malware there, it's a simple joke. Princess Derpy (talk) 00:45, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Where is this "malware"? Mythpage88 (talk) 00:49, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I suspect it is also at korven dot sajt dot org, as per en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Princess_Derpy&diff=472925190&oldid=472924794 (note well: same as above) but I'm no longer interested. Selery (talk) 01:02, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Selery, as controversial as the GNAA is, the group has repeatedly proven itself to be a notable organization. Plus, WP:NOTCENSORED.  Flutter shy  !xmcuvg2MH 00:26, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Princess Derpy's userpage links to malware and, for an added bonus, uses a fake you-have-new-messages bar linking to a shock image. This, this and this are totally inappropriate. Get rid of it now. All from a person who created their account a week ago, whose first edit was to turn their userpage into a bluelink; I don't think this editor is here to improve the encyclopædia. Is it boomerang time? bobrayner (talk) 01:01, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You know, Princess Derpy seems to be quickly proficient in policy, just a week after creating an account. I'm not saying that the user is a sockpuppet, but someone needs to look into that.  Flutter shy  !xmcuvg2MH 01:07, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Which is worse, Fluttershy, Princess Derpy's malware attack or your defense of a self-referential troll article designed to create a hostile environment for black people? Selery (talk) 01:11, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I say that the malware is worse. Also, despite my support for the GNAA, I was one of the few in a recent deletion review that voted to overturn the speedy close.  Flutter shy  !xmcuvg2MH 01:13, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't realize that. I only saw the offensive edit summary in your history. Thank you for supporting deletion of the GNAA article. Brohoof? Selery (talk) 01:25, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I never said I supported the deletion of the article, but that I supported the fact that people have a right to continue the discussion without the immediate intervention and closure of the discussion by a administratior.  Flutter shy  !xmcuvg2MH 01:40, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I've blocked User:Princess_Derpy for disruptive editing. It's obvious by his/her user page that the editor's intent is not to contribute to Wikipedia but rather to create a hostile collaborative environment. I've also blanked his/her user page, though I'll leave the edit history live for anyone who wants to better understand my block rationale. Rklawton (talk) 01:07, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh, no! 'Cause they seemed to be totally legit, being interested in the 4chan culture and all. Boo! Doc   talk  01:10, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I hope the blocking admin doesn't mind, I have deleted the user page in question. I can confirm it links to shock images or anyway inappropriate images thru a fake new message bar and I see no reason whatsoever to keep it laying around and potentially being disruptive to visitors.  Snowolf How can I help? 01:20, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I have no objection. Thank you for reviewing the matter. I left the page available after blanking because I didn't think the casual visitor would stumble across the edit history. Your approach works, too, since admins can still review the delete page to confirm the problem. Rklawton (talk) 01:23, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * PD is now requesting an unblock. I'll post my opposition to the request, but leave it to other admins to review. Note, though, that I would strongly object to unblocking this user. Rklawton (talk) 01:43, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * PD is now making a 2nd request to unblock. Note that the condition of the user page at the time of the block remained entirely inappropriate and the user is simply begging for more people to click on the link to a graphic image. Rklawton (talk) 02:26, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Meanwhile, back at the ranch, Selery has been warned before for personal attacks relating to GNAA. Last time I blocked him for two days, which was not long enough I think now for his disgraceful attack on TParis . This time, for following Michaelsuarez around and posting a harrassing follow up to anything he posts, I've blocked for two weeks. Perhaps eventually, he will realise that being of the view that Wikipedia should have an article about this organisation is not the same as harrassing black people.Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:35, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh fun, another GNAA discussion to add to the list. Calabe1992 01:44, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * User:Loverpony is indeffed as a confirmed sock of Princess Derpy. -- Pakaran 04:22, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The threats and personal attacks here seem pretty clear cut. The diff linked by Elen is way, way beyond the pale. Silver  seren C 04:52, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The legal threat alone should earn a block until retracted. This isn't really even boarderline...he used a lot of words but he did make a legal threat and specifically to admin. Dang this person seems so familiar.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:39, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It should be easy enough to find all the socks. They're all talking about "Equestria". . By the way, based on that rationale User:Roambassador is another likely sock according to his uploads and his general behavior . - Burpelson AFB ✈ 15:28, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * See also User:SweetieBelleMLP above. It would appear that the brony are here - they may be more than one person and, despite all the cutie pie names, they're probably all blokes (no, I don't understand either).Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:07, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't get what you're saying, but I have no part in whatever group you are talking about. I came here because of a link in a /co/ thread and my past as a wikia editor. User:SweetieBelleMLP 18:32, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Can we please stop acting as if Wikipedia is the only place users where users can learn how to use a wiki? As SweetieBelleMLP has said above, new users could come from places such as Wikia. If anyone wishes to continue to make accusations of sockpuppetry, then WP:SPI is that way. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 19:13, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Prior editing experience is but one of several attributes that makes this user quack like a duck. If you're really interested, compare the two edit histories. Rklawton (talk) 19:16, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:AGF; otherwise, WP:SPI is that way. I would expect fanboys / fangirls of the same media to have similar edit histories. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 19:20, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You'd sound a lot smarter if you'd just read the edit histories. Rklawton (talk) 19:27, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Back in focus
This whole sockpuppet thing is a side issue. What we should be discussing here is Selery's threats (likely legal threats) and extreme personal attacks against other users. Action needs to be taken here. The question is, what action should be taken? Silver seren C 16:24, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&page=User%3ASelery – There isn't any need for further action. I don't feel as if I've been harassed, and I don't need other users starting AN/I threads on my behalf. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 19:08, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Dream Focus blocked
I've blocked Dream Focus for one week for WP:BATTLEFIELD conduct, specifically and. My detailed message to him is here. I am submitting my block for the community's review, and will not object if a consensus is reached to shorten or overturn the block. Jclemens (talk) 10:05, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Good block, though I wouldn't be adverse to it be shortened to a couple or few days as I think it would serve the same purpose. Wikipedia is supposed to a collegial editing environment; throwing tantrums and separating editors into collectives such as "inclusionist" and "deletionist" does nothing to further this goal.  The emotional tone in DF's posts demonstrate that they are attached to the issue to the extent that they are unable to edit objectively.  There is no excuse to resort to personal attacks, even if they are not directed to a specific editor.  Sometimes things don't go the way you think is ideal on WP - when that happens you move on and dedicate your energy elsewhere rather than make passive aggressive talk posts.   N o f o rmation  Talk  10:31, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Dream clearly seems to be harbouring resentment at the template's deletion; the block is a preventative measure in order to stop further disruption. Hopefully, the block is adequate time for him to reevaluate his role within the project. &mdash;Dark 10:34, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Seems a bit much just to block him for the "evil hordes of deletionists" rhetoric. Given the whole debate over the ARS template one would kind of have to expect some post-deletion ranting. 28bytes (talk) 10:35, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I am sure the block is for long-term battlefield conduct, rather than just the one comment. &mdash;Dark 10:39, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Ugh, doing back through their talk page history I'd be willing to advocate an indef until they agreed to stop labeling "deletionists" as evil. Seriously, it's ridiculous.  WP:AGF is supposed to be one of our pillars, not a negotiable guideline, but this user has essentially been working under the assumption that those who think WP should exclude poorly sourced content are evil.  It comes down to a difference in how people view the wiki, but in no way does evil ever enter into the equation.  28bytes, if this was isolated to after the template debate it would be one thing, but this user has used the evil terminology well before that.  It's totally unacceptable and honestly a little obsessive and creepy.  N o f o rmation  Talk  10:42, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Eh, with edit summaries like this it just seems too cartoonish and over-the-top for me to take it too seriously. 28bytes (talk) 10:58, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:AGF isn't a WP:5P, never was, hopefully never will be. You can't demand how people think, that's akin to brain-washing. It's an abstract guideline, and only bears minor relevance to civility. But AGF isn't being civil, in itself, and doesn't represent how the world truly operates. Interesting that rescue is gone, however. Sounds to me that whilst SOPA fails in the real world, and Wiki are happy to let a measly 1,800 votes count as a consensus for 10-million members, it remains a law unto itself and allows personal distaste to override a WikiProject operating under the same "AGF" being quoted here. I fail to see the NPOV when AfD allows for someone to nominate "delete" but nothing is retained to attempt to "keep". ARS have done good work in the past; I'm not entirely on their side, I will note, they often pick up some obviously trivial crap, that even a basic Google search can discredit, and the AfD becomes more like everyone involved being dragged through glass.. naked.. no one comes out unscathed. Dream does need to chill a little, I can understand their concern, though the block seems combative per se, almost counter-pointy. Nothing here that couldn't have been actioned through discussion, and comes across more like a show of power against strong words, to oppress Dream's discontent. Not a good block, really, though possibly a necessary one to prevent widespread disruption, so the better of two evils, but an example of how power corrupts, none the less. In short, shit happens.  Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh &#91;chat] 11:15, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * AGF isn't a pillar on its own but WP:CIVIL is and that definitely applies here, also on the 5P page it does mention that AGF is an essential part of civility. I'm just trying to point out its relevance here, I assume that is what Noformation was referring to above. --  At am a  頭 23:35, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:AGF on Wiki is abstract or written by a liberalist. Anyone who tried to apply that ofrm of AGF in real-life, 24/7, would soon find themselves considered mentally-ill. AGF is like "trust", you can either extend it freely, or you don't and it has to be warranted. I don't buy into the brain-washing method some editors often apply to AGF to make us all sheep, and I see plenty of other editors who openly admit to not extending AGF in part, on in full, a lot of the time, because the situation has to warrant it, not the guideline. In relation to this matter, I do not think DF extends AGF to all "deletionists" because he feels there is a motive behind their attitude, e.g. IJDLI.  Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh  &#91;chat] 23:44, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Assuming good faith is a huge part of academia and people are expected to act with that sort of decorum when discussing all topics, no matter how sensitive, and they do. I spend most of my time in this bubble so that is how I act, irl, and that is how I'm used to being treated - there's no sense in taking anything personally when it comes to ideas. I wasn't around when WP:AGF became a policy but I wouldn't be surprised if it traced its roots to academic discourse.  Above I meant to write "policy" not "pillar".  N o f o rmation  Talk  06:43, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Too strong a remedy for a bit of venting on the user's own talk and ARS talk pages. Did anyone attempt something simpler like "Please stop calling deletionists evil"? Nobody Ent 11:50, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Was there a warning that I have not yet seen? - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 12:01, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This is not something that just popped up after after the rescue template deletion. This comment referring to participants in an AFD as "mindless deletionist drones" was made on my talk page before the template in question was nominated for deletion. This is not a short term rant but a long term attitude. The irony here is that I agree with many of the things he says in principle but I do not support the broad villianization of those with an opposing position. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:00, 22 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Just a week? If we'd made it a two week block we could have had time to MfD his user page and AfD all his articles, like evil, scheming deletionists should. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:22, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Good block. I do like some of the work Dream Focus does, but he needs to realize that while Us and Them makes for a great song, it's an extremely divisive and unhelpful way to edit here. He's entitled to his view of what Wikipedia should be, but really has to express it in a manner more suitable for collaboration.  The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 12:31, 22 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't think this was a really necessary block. I've seen much worse venting recently, including legal threats that didn't result in a block. Reduce to 24hrs. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 12:37, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * As a card-carrying member of the "evil deletionist horde" (we prefer "Legion of Doom" BTW), I have to say I agree with 28bytes. Edit summaries like "civilization is doomed" are way too silly and over-the-top, even for Dream Focus. He seems to have gradually devolved into a Poe's law parody of himself. Reyk  YO!  12:39, 22 January 2012 (UTC)


 * When I occasionally get sarcastic about the whole deletionist/inclusionist thing, I use the term heel for the "deletionists". (and of course face for the "inclusionists"). Example, a withdrawn AFD nomination or a struck delete !vote is a "heel-face turn" :). --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:18, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd have indefed him years ago if it weren't that by virtue of WP:INVOLVED I'm essentially forbidden to take action. This isn't an isolated incident. Dream Focus views this as a war, and strongly contributes to the truly unpleasant mess that AFD has become.&mdash;Kww(talk) 12:41, 22 January 2012 (UTC)


 * per 28bytes, Nobody Ent, and several others above. Seems rather harsh considering they don't even have some huge massive block history (2 previous way back in 2009).  I'm not real keen on the whole concept of "group think" or "hive mind" types of things, and feel that opposing views should be given equal footing. — Ched :  ?  12:50, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

As to the issue of warnings, I agree that formal block warnings haven't been made. However, Dream Focus does have one relatively unique characteristic: his user page has been nominated for deletion as an attack page twice (Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Dream Focus, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Dream Focus (2nd nomination)). It was kept, unfortunately, primarily due to !voting by people that view "deletionist" as a word equivalent to "bogeyman". Regardless, any sentient being should have taken that as a warning that his behaviour was unacceptable.&mdash;Kww(talk) 13:13, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * So you're saying DreamFocus is not sentient? Nobody Ent 14:10, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No, Kww implied DreamFocus's sentience; however Kww is not able to account for the fact that despite DreamFocus's status in that regard, he has not removed the contentious material from his userpage.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:14, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * So should we just go mark Rfc/u as historical and add a note?
 * because, honestly, that how this place looks from where I'm sitting. Nobody Ent 13:41, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Touché!  Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh &#91;chat] 13:44, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I would add "and how many friends they have" at the end of the parenthetical comment.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:18, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I get the feeling that if the community really resented the terms "deletionist" and "inclusionist", amongst other things, it wouldn't have permitted these userboxes, of which there are many at Userboxes/Wikipedia/Editing philosophy in fairly large use. They should only be used to describe ideals though, not to label or ostracise editors, or to use as leverage in AfDs. AfDs are designed to allow everyone an opinion, and labelling in any form of "shaming" is little more than uncivil behaviour and a COI, probably intended to oust an opposing POV, or dissuade other editors from commenting because they don't want to come under attack from groups who aim to keep everything, no matter how worthless.  Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh &#91;chat] 13:35, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree with Marcus about the userboxes of inclusionist and deletionist - I would delete them also. All wikipedia users want to keep notable articles and to improve low quality articles. Clearly Dream is a bit upset about the template deletion and was venting a little. A week block seems a bit harsh, especially considering his recent clean block history. If he requests a good faith unblocking I would support that.   You  really  can  13:48, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * He has, and I've brought it to Jclemens attention. — Ched : ?  13:51, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't motion to delete the userboxes. I simply note that their use should not lead them being used against editors in some wiki-political fashion.  Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh &#91;chat] 20:13, 22 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The thing is, most of us that might be identified by extremeist inclusionists as "deletionists" don't actually consider ourselves allied with that philosophy. I'm including myself here because I have been repeatedly tarred with that brush by past ARS members, all of whom eventually had a similar flame-out when something didn't go there way, all now gone either voluntarily or the other way. All because they got this crazy idea that all articles are worth saving, like they are puppies are small children and it would just be wrong to delete them. It's not wrong, and there is no battle for Wikiepdia's soul, that is just the rallying cry of the most extreme ARS crusaders who give a bad name to all the people who participate at ARS because they genuyinely want to improve articles, not because they believe they are in some epic struggle against an evil horde of wicked deletionist admins and their misguided converts. That's just silly. Dream is certainly not the most annoying of these folks ever to come down the pike, ad I sincerely hope this block will serve as a wake-up call and help him seee that so called deletionists are by and large just normal users who do not adhere to any extremist ideology and take each article on its own merits. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:45, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

comment by DreamFocus
I find I can not post on the talk page of the administrator blocking me. I also can't post a reply in the discussion about me at Administrators_noticeboard/Incidents. Lets see. Some agree my wording was obviously more humorous than emotional. Not sure how anyone could not see that. Some mention I received absolutely no warning ever for this. There was the time I commented "mindless deletionist drones" on someone's talk page asking them to reopen an AFD so people who would actually do a decent job looking for sources could participate. I listed specifically why the guy was obviously notable. His work was clearly notable, thus he met WP:COMPOSER as the links I showed clearly demonstrated. Anyway, that perhaps was a bit emotional. No complaints at the time though. And no, having someone who argues with me in AFD constantly nominate my user page as well as others for deletion, a year or two ago, doesn't send me a message of any sort, since consensus was there was nothing wrong with my page.  D r e a m Focus  13:40, 22 January 2012 (UTC) (reposted by — Ched : ?  13:56, 22 January 2012 (UTC))
 * I'll just point out that "And no, having someone who argues with me in AFD constantly nominate my user page as well as others for deletion, a year or two ago, doesn't send me a message of any sort, since consensus was there was nothing wrong with my page" directly contradicts "There is a widely held view - approaching a consensus - that there are numerous elements of the page that are problematic, because of their divisiveness or potential construction as attacks on other editors." I personally lean towards upgrading this block to indefinite until Dream Focus agrees to stop demonizing people that favor deletion of articles.&mdash;Kww(talk) 14:00, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Strongly disagree, and favor an unblock personally - but talk amongst yourselves, and we'll see if we can find a place to reach an agreement. — Ched :  ?  14:06, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * So, somewhere between an immediate unblock and infinity then ... As per this comment a week seems precarious.   You  really  can  14:13, 22 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Overturn block. If an editor has a strong POV, I prefer to know what it is, and DreamFocus's language makes his/her's crystal clear. And as a blood-soaked member of the deletionist horde, I like to think that I'm tough enough to brush off an occasional "mindless" thrown in my general direction, especially if it makes me stop and think twice, as it does from time to time. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 14:14, 22 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Kww failed to note that Dream Focus feels that ARS are demonised for being in favour of inclusion, if "They insult the ARS constantly, and take subtle swipes at specific editors every chance they get" is anything to go by. So really, Kww, that is a biased block motion, because only Dream Focus' actions are under scrutiny here. Are the ones he means to be granted impunity whilst he gets flailed for having alternative views?  Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh &#91;chat] 14:19, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I noted that I cannot act due to WP:INVOLVED, and won't deny that I have already formed my conclusion. The ARS has the bad reputation it has because of a handful of extremely bad editors that attempt to disrupt the AFD process more than they actually attempt to improve articles. Ban that handful, and the ARS would be a useful tool for article improvement. As a class, inclusionists can be quite reasonable people that are helpful to the project. Dream Focus isn't, and making it clear to him that this "deletionist horde" schtick is unacceptable would go a long way towards making him be helpful.&mdash;Kww(talk) 16:06, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I understand that.. don't feel I was knocking your comment, just noting that there are two sides to every story. You noted he demonises "deletionists", I note he feels ARS are demonised, as the comment on this page seem to infer. Perhaps, given the "mission statement" of ARS, it is time that the community laid down some fair anti-disruptive measures for ARS to abide by. e.g. only one member of ARS can act on behalf of ARS per AfD. That should be on a first come, first serve basis.. if they need to discuss articles nominated for "rescue" they have their own project talk pages, without needlessly disrupting AfDs with bickering. ARS should be acting in the capacity of proving an article is notable via identifying sources and policies with reasonably allow for a "keep" motion, and not disrupting AfDs en masse trying to usurp the outcome, attack "delete" voters, causing guilt and grief, etc. By limiting the "ARS response" to one, and any other ARS members should only respond on behalf of themselves, without repeatedly challenging other !voters in a AfD. Such community consensus agreed guidelines would reduce ARS's influence as an "anti-deletion" body, and could actually give it the chance to reform its ideal, allow them to focus on their efforts within their own WikiProject space, and direct their concerns at the "first come" member of ARS who responds to an AfD with positive reasons to retain an article. Each ARS member could represent ARS for a few AfDs rather than all members attempting to march around AfD like some vigilante group looking to "defend the realm from deletionist dragons". AN/I, in the meantime, would be used as an ombudsman only to respond to issues where ARS have broken the guidelines, which would be clear enough to decide when to block and not block, rather that the current situation, where ARS appears to act like a dog ogg a leash. If members of WikiProject LGBT, for example, went round willy-nilly tagging all BLPs with "LGBT" banners, it would be considered disruptive, the guilty taggers would be dealt with. ARS need to have the "cover each others backs" removed, and each member can then he held accountable for disruptive an AfD, as only one ARS member would be able to speak "as ARS" per AfD. That, would be the sort of thing I would think to impose, which is not as drastic as getting rid of the rescue tag and doesn't lead to all the AfD mayhey and AN/I overflow which follows when the shit really hits the fan. Just a thought, though, and may have some flaws.. but I've only roughly explained what I think might work best for everyone.  Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh &#91;chat] 19:01, 22 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - Could go either way. Clemens has generally sound judgement (when he isn't trying to undercut BLP1E anyways ;)), but Dream Focus' violent rhetoric is so over the top it is hard to take seriously; it's more Bugs Bunny than Reservoir Dogs. Tarc (talk) 15:43, 22 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Wait, so we block a week for generalized statements statements about "evil deletionists", but we do nothing but waffle around people who insult other users and use curse words at them? (Do I even need to point out the people that i'm talking about?) Way to be one-sided guys. Silver  seren C 16:07, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTTHEM. Other comments don't justify what Dream Focus said (not that I disagree with your broader point).  The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 16:33, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Seren, I think what you're saying is why do we block someone for saying things about "deletionists" when other editors openly identify themselves as members of white supremacist groups? What could be more of a battleground mentality than a race war? Good question. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:46, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I feel I should bring this edit to the attention of the board. Rather confusing. Related to this topic or just random? See Special:Contributions/205.185.126.202.  Я ehevkor ✉  16:39, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This is clearly disruptive, but there's nothing immediately obvious to link it to DreamFocus. There are a handful of banned users who have been found to do these sorts of things before, such that it's more likely an agent provocateur.  Notifying the ARS on its talk page, or key inclusionist editors, would make more sense as CANVASS--this is obviously designed to hurt DreamFocus, and I'm not buying it. Jclemens (talk) 16:49, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Dream Focus has been posting these kinds of comments on his user page for years. It's a soap box that clearly shows his battleground mentality. As for him not receiving a warning, I'd say that his user page being sent to MfD where multiple users noted that his user page was problematic was warning enough. How long are we going to let him get away with calling people who disagree with him evil? Support block. AniMate 16:58, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I distinctly remember comments like this, with that being ones of the nicer ones and it's clearly as bad, if not worse than what Dream focus puts on his page. So why wasn't Roux blocked for it? Silver  seren C 18:30, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Once again Silver seren, read WP:NOTTHEM. We're dealing with what Dream Focus posted today, not what Roux posted in May 2011. AniMate 18:39, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It's relevant, because i'm giving examples of things which we don't block for and Dream focus' comment fall fully within that realm. Not to mention that most of the supports in this discussion are people who have had negative interactions with Dream focus in the past and, ostensibly, are deletionists. Silver  seren C 18:47, 22 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Immediate Overturn Block Far from being a call to arms, a good faith intereptation is that the comment was merely a humourous way to release a little tension after the tradgic destruction of the Squad's template. If anything it expressed resignation, something almost opposite to aggression. The multiple comments at the TfD, ludicrously suggesting ARS does nothing of value, were far more provocative. Of course no one does anything about them as its far easier to confront an individual target than face up to the crowd. This block risks depriving us one of are very best contributors. In nobility of character he can only be compared to the Colonel and a few others.  In his combination of innocent goodness and knightly virtue Dream is peerless here,  I can only compare him to Sir Percival of the round table.  One has to reach even further back to find a comparible failing of the concensus making process. This block should have been overturned within an hour at most.  Not since a randomly selected assembly of Athenians sentenced Socractes to death has the consensus based process been brought into such disrepute. FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:39, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Brilliant Feyd, you've done it again. More battle, conflict, good v evil metaphors. pablo 18:33, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It looks like FeydHuxtable is trying to get himself blocked as well, some sort of martyr complex? Tanya Stuart (talk) 19:09, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * For a while I entertained the notion that Feyd's contributions on the discussion pages were a form of performance art, but I came to the conclusion that he is sincere. That underscores my views: it's both sad and dangerous that people can view Dream Focus and Colonel Warden as role models.&mdash;Kww(talk) 20:07, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Kww, you're entitled to your opinion, but I'd like to point out that the Colonel in many important ways is not like DreamFocus. Drmies (talk) 21:42, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That's true: Dream Focus doesn't corrupt the contents of Wikipedia. I've never caught him intentionally falsifying citations and misrepresenting the contents of his edits. I never could quite understand how Requests for comment/Colonel Warden ended without consensus.&mdash;Kww(talk) 21:51, 22 January 2012 (UTC)


 *  Support block Updated below Take a look at my post on DF's talkpage for more detail, but in short I stated "I was once a member of the ARS too. There's nothing wrong with ARS...until one becomes an arse about it. Calling those who believe that a specific article does not meet Wikipedia policy for inclusion "evil" is 180 degrees contrary to the WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA and the collegial editing atmosphere that Wikipedia is about. Again, Dream Focus is not blocked for believing in or supporting ARS ... they're blocked for personal attacks, WP:BATTLE mentality, and the like." ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 18:31, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * UPDATE: Extend block to indefinite This edit alone shows that it's DF's intent to continue to use the same damned terminology, and [this piece really says it all. The key surrounding ANY [[WP:GAB|unblock request]] is that the user show an understanding of why they are blocked, and convince the community it won't happen again.  DF is not even able to be civil, and is repeating the same behaviours that led to the block in the first place.  INDEF him, and close this damned thing up ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 12:19, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm quite conflicted on this one. On one hand we should allow Dreamfocus some space for venting but on the other hand we have a major problem with a very small group of ARS stalwarts demonising a segment of the editing population because they don't agree with their approach to content. I'm not sure its useful for a rampant evil deletionist to put forward a formal position but this battlefield mentality has no place in a collegial environment and some form of action is required to bring this to an end. Its simply unacceptable to tolerate a section of our community continuously attacking another on wiki-political reasons alone. Spartaz Humbug! 18:40, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Good block, I think - this is not a one-off vent (as a look at User:Dream Focus will indicate), nor is it an attempt at humour - a look through his contributions will reveal much hyperbole along the lines of "they want to destroy the Wikipedia zomg to battle my brave warriors" but zero jokes. pablo 20:08, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I had been leaning unblock, but this edit pretty much convinced me that he won't back down from his battlefield mentality. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:49, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Conflicted, along with Spartaz. (Which does not mean I disagree with Jclemens, not at all. Making a possibly contentious block of a well-known editor takes some courage--and to be moderate in the length of the block shows constraint and common sense.) No doubt DF can be disruptive and the hyperbole is ridiculous, and the recent ARS mess has only increased that. But any time someone who feels strongly about what they perceive as the goal of the project (even if they're wrong) is blocked, it's a bit jarring. But Ched favors an unblock, and I'd hate to disagree with him. I don't mind an unblock, really--I think DF's disruptions do not pose any great danger to the project, though I wish fewer new editors would listen to him. But can we conceive of a leash? No more demonization? Hyperbole about camps blockable? (I take real offense to being called an evil deletionist, esp. by someone with 49 articles to his name in five or so years. I'll take evil, sure--but not deletionist.) Drmies (talk) 21:55, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak support block- It's been hard for me to formulate an opinion on this issue and I've tried to put aside my personal dislike for Dream Focus and complete disagreement with most of his opinions. On one hand the outcomes of the two MFDs on Dream Focus's user page might have given him the idea that the community endorses his hate-filled vitriol and deems it acceptable; his disappointment and shock at suddenly finding it's not might suggest a bit of leniency. But a closer reading of the second of the two reveals why this is not a plausible interpretation. The closer made it very clear that the community finds this demonisation of perceived enemies unacceptable and that Dream Focus needed to be careful, so DF can't have been unaware. The other ting you can see in that discussion is the way DF's friends come out in great numbers to deflect and shield him from all criticism and responsibility. There is undoubtedly an attitude on the inclusionist side that, because someone agrees with the inclusionist position, they are one of the "good guys" and therefore their behaviour is above reproach. All criticism can only be bad faith attacks from the evil scary "them" who want to delete the entire encyclopedia and microwave kittens. This approach is a disservice to everyone. I fear DF might be heading down the same ruinous path as User:A Nobody; that user started off as merely a very annoying windbag, but every time someone criticised him his allies would come out in force to shield him from accepting responsibility. As a result, his behaviour got more obnoxious and dishonest until even his strongest and most obstinate defender DGG could no longer protect him from the pile-up of resentment from the whole community. We all remember the final result: a spectacular self-destruct, permanent community ban, and repeated subsequent socking. I think there's a chance this could have been avoided if, early on, one of his friends had taken him aside and said "I agree with your opinions, but this really is no way to behave". I also think that, if there was an organized deletionist support group, to conduct similar defenses guys like TTN and Gavin Collins would still be editing. That's why approve of this block. It sends the very clear message that, no, calling an entire segment of the community "evil hordes" is not acceptable and, no, you don't get a free pass because of your friends' uncritical support. Reyk  <sub style="color:blue;">YO!  21:56, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * In response to "Reyk YO! 21:56, 22 January 2012 (UTC)" I see plenty of people who have been against me in many AFDs support my user page when it went up for deletion both times, as well as strangers. Its not just friends rushing to support me.  There is no "support group" where we all rush to defend one another.  I do however find that certain editors who have been against me at times in the past, always show up to take another jab.  You mention TTN being banned, and he was in fact the definition of an evil deletionist, one that mindlessly went around mass nominating things he didn't like, such as the entire first season episode of the show M.A.S.H, ignoring consensus against mergers, and arguing constantly that consensus meant that even when most people were against his viewpoint, it didn't matter, because he was always right, and even canvasing on a WikiProject he knew his friends were at to get help outnumbering an "inclusionist" who noticed what he was doing.  He even stated on his talk page that he'd target the articles that got less views first, and keep picking them off, to drive editors away, and then take on the bigger articles after that.  Can we agree that calling these actions wrong or "evil" is justified?  Note that not everyone who says "delete" at an AFD is an evil deletionists, nor even a deletionist at all.  If you ever see someone say "just because it meets the requirements for WP:GNG doesn't mean we should have an article on it", then that's an evil deletionist.  Someone who says basically they want the article dead, simply because they don't like it.  I guess we need a more specific term to be invented to refer to the bad deletionists if some people are sincerely confused and bothered by my wording.   D r e a m Focus  22:52, 22 January 2012 (UTC) Copied from Dream Focus' talk by Goodvac (talk) 23:47, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think you're getting the message; you're tossing around the word "evil" far too liberally. Evil, in my mind, is someone like Ne Win, Than Shwe, Thein Sein, or Pol Pot.  It is not someone with whom I have a disagreement on a fucking website.  If you're having a hard time coming up with phrasing to use, let me suggest "disruptive" (as seems to have been the case with TTN), "disagreeable", or "something I'm strongly opposed to".  I know my wording is very strong, but I want to make sure you can't misunderstand my message.  The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 00:17, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Given the above, I think this block should actually be extended to indefinite until DF understands that calling people "evil" because he disagrees with them is not compatible with Wikipedia's editing policy. 86.174.213.12 (talk) 00:22, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Not to mention "If you ever see someone say "just because it meets the requirements for WP:GNG doesn't mean we should have an article on it", then that's an evil deletionist." This ludicrous assertion actually means that DF is describing his buddy Colonel Warden as an evil deletionist, because even CW understands the concept of GNG . 86.174.213.12 (talk) 00:24, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * (Copied from DF's talk page) An IP address with no other edits but in this ANI, mentions something said back in 29 October 2010 which they happen to have recalled, having surely been around at that time. Log in and use your proper Wikipedia user name please. And Warden nominated something he saw as violating the rules of being a guide, he didn't just nominate it because he didn't like it. Do those with a problem with the word evil live in countries other than America? Is it used differently there? The word "evil" is defined as "arising from actual or imputed bad character or conduct" and "disagreeable". So I think it fits well here.   D r e a m Focus  00:36, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I think this complete lack of comprehension on DF's part justifies upgrading the block to indefinite. As I said, only WP:INVOLVED prevents me from taking that step myself.&mdash;Kww(talk) 00:46, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I won't speak for anyone else, but I can assure you that I'm from New England. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 00:47, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the use of the word "evil" is often quite controversial, even in the United States. A few years back there was a big controversy about politicians using the word, this article is an interesting read on the subject. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:47, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, this isn't the whole "cunt debate" all over again, we are all on the same poage about what the word "evil" means, DF included. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:20, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments from JClemens

 * I did not block Dream Focus for the use of the word 'deletionist'--or even the adjective 'evil'--but for the combination of the two, attributing a word entirely inconsistent with collegiality and good faith to a group of editors with whom he has ideological disagreements. I regularly use the terms 'inclusionist' and 'deletionist' myself, because they're useful labels to identify a spectrum of approaches to content.  Tacking an 'evil' on the front is inappropriate.
 * I do not buy Dream Focus' unblock request. As has been pointed out above, he has a history of polemical attacks, which may not have resulted in blocks but have indeed contributed to the poisonous atmosphere in the inclusionist/deletionist discussions.  While I would also be tempted to cite WP:NPA as a reason, it was brought to my attention during the ongoing civility ArbCom case that "no personal attacks" can actually be read as "no individual attacks", in that attacks against groups are not specifically covered. To look at specific problems with the unblock request and its immediate followup:
 * "there is no such thing as a battlefield mentality." denies the fundamental rules of conduct of Wikipedia.
 * "What I put on my user page is acceptable since it is my page, and related to Wikipedia, as past deletion nominations of it have proven." This demonstrates a large degree of WP:IDHT, as a review of the above-linked MfDs will show.
 * I do not buy his "it was only humor" argument, either. There are plenty of ways to indicate humor in text; he used none of them.  He does, on the other hand, have a history of such complaints.  I note that those most familiar with Dream Focus' conduct over the past few years are least likely to give him the benefit of the doubt here--that's because he has had plenty of time and opportunities to demonstrate humor, but has instead demonstrated repeated polemic, as we can see in his unblock request.
 * Ultimately, it is the community's decision, not mine, but given his history of not understanding the impact of his statements, I still recommend against it. If he is willing to admit that there is such a thing as battlefield conduct, and that he has engaged in it, and he commits to improving Wikipedia content without such comments in the future, I'd welcome the unblock.  The week's length of the initial block was in no small part because I don't believe a short block will engender the sort of introspection necessary for Dream Focus to understand and change. Jclemens (talk) 17:05, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I can't see how anyone who has taken the time to read Dream Focus's user page can object to this block. It's practically a novel, so I understand why some haven't. However, a user page where one calls people with a differing philosophy anything from evil to unreasonable, vicious, elitist, and snotty is clearly a violation of WP:BATTLEGROUND. The length of the block is appropriate because he has been pulling this kind of crap for years. If he wrote the things he wrote about any other group of people he would have been indeffed long ago, but somehow his fellow Wikipedians who he has to work with do not get the same protections that other outside groups enjoy. Excellent block and frankly someone needs to take a machete to that user page and cut out some of the polemic statements. AniMate 17:32, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * What about we change the block from a week to indefinite and just add to every AFD - keep DreamFocus thereby removing the need for him to edit? (this is in the spirit of lightheartedness)   You  really  can  17:37, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Not humourous, treats an editor like an object. Unscintillating (talk) 17:49, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Very droll Im sure. A look at Dreams contribs shows that in addition to his quality contributions to AfD he often gives very helpful advice to newbies, makes substantive improvements to articles about games and general interest, and even makes sensitive and well judged contributions to high impact articles such as those about abuse. He's also almost talismatic, acting to inspire others just by being about. FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:53, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, excuse me, I was only joking. He also created Titanomyrma, an article that was eventually featured on the main page. Although often in opposite positions with DFocus I vote commented here to unblock and see a week as a bit excessive.   You  really  can  18:06, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Awestruck "this is an internal matter for the ARS" Wait what? Since when does the ARS get to dictate to the community what we can and cannot discuss?--v/r - TP 21:45, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that if there was one sure-fire method of intensifying the battleground mentality it would be to hand out a contentious block to one of the most prominent participants. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 18:02, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. I'd say this ANI discussion should be closed.  IMO, this is an internal matter for the ARS.  Unscintillating (talk) 19:11, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Except not blocking when it's needed because someone is a "prominent participant" sends a very wrong message as well. FWIW, I would be, most likely, an inclusionist - and I say, good block. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:12, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair point. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 19:14, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * "This is an internal matter for the ARS"...absolutely not. When someone from the ARS ABFs people who aren't ARS members, then it should be settled by an intermediary, not by the ARS.  I support the block, and also support deletion of his user page.  It's a battleground that overly opines, and that's not the only user page policies it violates  Purpleback  pack  89  ≈≈≈≈  20:39, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This isn't the venue for debating whether to delete his userpage. Open yet another MfD on it if you want to do that. 28bytes (talk) 20:42, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * One week is surely excessive, considering 1) as far as I can see we're talking of just a couple of sentences in DF talk page, 2) if he says "it was only humor" a presumption of good faith would not be bad, 3) a long block without at least one warning per BATTLEGROUND seems, as said above, one sure-fire method of intensifying the battleground. Cavarrone (talk) 20:36, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Um, it's not just for any one incident. He's done this a number of times...  Purpleback  pack  89  ≈≈≈≈  20:39, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Personally, I think the block is an unfortunate necessity. Also, I'm very disappointed in the polarisation between "deletionists" and "exclusionists". Can't we all just get along? bobrayner (talk) 21:44, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This is the first time I have come across user Dream Focus. I have just finished skip reading user-page. On the basis of confrontational invective such asthis, I should support this clearly punitive block, especially if such zealously polarised views by Dream Focus permeate  more recent comments.
 * I cannot support this contentious block however because
 * the block has been made by a sitting memberof the arbitration committee whilst a high profile case is still in progress
 * no recent warning appears to have been given. Assuming good faith and thus appear equitable, if someone has over-stepped a mark anumber of times they should still be given a warning such as 'Stop it or else!'
 * the blocking admin openly asks for consensus yetboldly continues to comment, thus unfairly biasing any developing consensus
 * I just don't like it becauseI come to bury editors, not to praise them ...
 * It is my personal belief that sitting arbitrators should recluse themselves from unilateral administrative actions, especial in contentious areas, to avoid being accussed of soap-boxing at best or redacted something else at worse
 * -- Senra (talk) 23:02, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * While in theory, a sitting arb is no more authoritative than any other admin in a blocking matter unrelated to an arbitration committee matter (which this is clearly not), the status ascribed to the position is precisely the reason I immediately brought the block here for community review. If this matter were to come before the arbitration committee while I was serving, I would be recused--unable to participate as an arbitrator, including unable to provide off-wiki input to the arbs participating in the case. The reason I took it upon myself to block Dream Focus for the behavior I observed (I have WT:ARS watchlisted) is that I am as much of an inclusionist as any other sitting arbitrator, and I firmly believe the only solution to factionalism is for administrators on each "side" to police their own.  If you look back through my contribution history, you can see that if I comment in an AfD, it's usually to point out sources and/or urge the article be repaired or merged.  My voice in this discussion is thus not of one of the appeals court judges, but just another inclusionist/mergeist admin who says it's time to take a firm stand against this battlefield rhetoric, and get about the business of actually improving encyclopedic content that needs it. My block is as open for community review and uninvolved admin overturning as any other block. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 01:11, 23 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment The interesting thing here is that there is some fairly typical "inclusionist/deletionist" rhetoric going on. Humor or not, DF's statements are extremist in tone - "no telling what were valid articles" is an assertion that all material added to Wikipedia is valid, when in fact, Wikipedia has never claimed to be an all-inclusive info dump.  OTOH, material that clearly meets WP policy is never deleted out of hand.  So, extremist polarization is neither reflective of community reality, nor is it helpful to said community.  Nobody in the WP community should really be here at all if he or she is unilaterally in favor of either keeping everything or deleting everything, and as long as this "in/out" argument continues to be expressed as it has, it's going to lead to giant wastes of time and nonsensical critiques. MSJapan (talk) 23:20, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * "is an assertion that all material added to Wikipedia is valid". I have not said that, ever.  You are taking my words out of context.  What I said was No matter how many articles we saved, another hundred or so are destroyed each day.[49] No telling how many of them were valid articles, and just needed someone with an open mind, and the will to actually look for sources instead of just mindlessly spouting their deletionist rhetoric and seeking to destroy what others had labored to create. I am of course commenting on the fact that many articles the Article Rescue Squadron saved were originally going to be deleted, before someone showed up and took the time to search for references in Google news and other sources.  Since I have voted delete on things in the past, and even nominated a few at times, I'm not against all deletions.  Just the ones made for the wrong reasons, or by people who don't follow WP:BEFORE.   D r e a m Focus  23:30, 22 January 2012 (UTC) Copied from Dream Focus' talk by Goodvac (talk) 23:47, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to debate a phrase, nor am I going to debate via proxy; the assumptions in the overall position are inappropriate. Your "mindless deletionist rhetoric" claim is inappropriate as is "a hundred articles a day destroyed", you are seeking to state that those who wish to see articles deleted are not at all applying policy, and turning around and qualifying those statements after the fact doesn't change that. Frankly, I also don't buy your moderated stance, considering how vehement your claims are against the "deletionists."  I would also note that, by your logic, the other side of the argument is: "keep per nom" is "mindless inclusionist rhetoric", and "a hundred policy-violating articles are kept a day" by those "who don't find sources before posting," and one in your position "would only be against additions made for the wrong reasons, or don't follow policy".  Isn't that interesting.... MSJapan (talk) 00:36, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * MSJapan, you state that "a hundred articles a day destroyed" is inappropriate. But when I click on AFD  I see 124 results for one day, and the other recent days over 90.  So yes, we do end up with about hundred articles a day destroyed/deleted.  That is what happens.  And I honestly doubt all of them deserve to be deleted.  For years now this has continued.  Does anyone have any stats as to exactly how many hundreds of thousands or millions of articles have been deleted?  The Article Rescue Squadron did a fairly good job of identifying decent articles that should be saved, and helping bring them to the attention of those willing to search for references and help save them.  I have the right to state my opinions on that on my user page.  And I'm not putting everyone into two groups of course.  Evil/bad deletionists are the ones I'm up against, not everyone who says delete in AFDs.    D r e a m Focus  08:56, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, that's enough to convince me the block is good. He gives links to a page which shows a list of AfDs, some in process still, some deleted, and some kept, and tells us they've all been deleted. He then extrapolates from that false figure to an impossible hone - 'millions of articles' deleted. If for the last 10 years 100 articles a day had been deleted, that would be 365000 articles. Now clearly that didn't happen, and even he wouldn't argue I hope they should all have been saved. This is not the sort of mentality we want dealing with AfDs. Dougweller (talk) 12:29, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Excuse me. I should've said "are nominated each day".  Most of them do get deleted I believe.  It changes from day to day, so can't really be certain.  I have no idea how many articles have been eliminated by deletion or replaced by a redirect.  Perhaps not millions.  I didn't bother to do the math.  Bad math skills is not a reason to block someone.  And I didn't say they should have all been saved, I said there is no telling how many should've been.  Its far too easy to nominate mass numbers of articles for deletion, and far too easy for someone to go around and do what the nominator should've done if they had followed WP:BEFORE.    D r e a m Focus  12:43, 23 January 2012 (UTC) - ( copied from Dream's talk on request. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:06, 23 January 2012 (UTC) )
 * Redirecting != deletion. Nothing is lost when an edit replaces the article contents with a redirect markers; the text still there in the history.  DF does not seem to understand this point and makings even suggesting redirect w/ merge a bad thing (see Talk:Ocean County Sheriff's Department for example).  DF's been around long enough to know better. --M ASEM  (t) 14:15, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Everyone please look at that talk page discussion to see an example of a problem. No information is likely to be copied over from a "redirect".  Masem states "But even if zero content was added to the County article, and this remained a redirect, no information is lost. It's within the open revision history any editor can get to."  In cases where absolutely no information is copied over then the article is replaced by a redirect, it the same as deletion since most won't be likely to view it in that format.  Wasn't thinking about that case when I complained about eliminating articles by delete or redirect.  I was thinking of years ago when a certain editor went around replacing a rather large number of manga related articles with redirects and insisting things were "merged" when not one single thing was included in the other article.  Anyway, do I have the right to complain as I did on that talk page, or is that a battleground mentality?   D r e a m Focus  14:38, 23 January 2012 (UTC)copied from user talk <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">pablo 14:57, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The attitude that I'm seeing from DF is both partially right and wrong. I agree with the concern that is this: when we admin-delete an article, all information from that article is effectively lost, all contributions to it nullified, etc.  Thus to delete information in this manner is something to be extremely cautious against and a fight worth fighting to make sure that we're only deleting clearly unencyclopedic content.  I strongly disagree when DF takes the battleground mentality that is shown above, that a redirect is of the same critical problem as a admin-deletion, and thus fighting as much tooth-and-nail against redirect/merges as with deletion.  In the linked convo, I've tried to explain how the material that was once a page replaced by a redirect is far from being lost forever, but again, DF does not accept this fact that is otherwise accepted by consensus. That immediately sets a battlefield starting point, to take a singular position against consensus. --M ASEM  (t) 15:06, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * There was no consensus on the talk page. Different people stated opposite opinions. So, its consider a battleground mentality if anyone disagrees with you.  D r e a m Focus  15:12, 23 January 2012 (UTC)copied from user talk <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">pablo 15:19, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That's not the consensus I'm talking about (though it is up to the consensus on that page whether to merge/redirect or not. The consensus that I refer to is "redirect != deletion" that is well-established across WP that DF is fighting against.  --M ASEM  (t) 16:17, 23 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I support the block, and as usual I recommend the block stay in place until such a time that the community can be reasonably assured the disruptive behaviour won't continue. Given the current level of IDHT engaged here, I couldn't possibly guess when that would be.--Crossmr (talk) 00:38, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I support the block. The blocking admin acted in full accord with policy and deserves support for doing the job they've been entrusted to do. I think an indefinite block would have been excessive but a week is reasonable. I assume the blocking admin would remove the block if DF made a reasonable request and expressed understanding of the negative effects of BFM with a stated intent to avoid recidivism, and believe If DF made such an assertion, he should. To unblock without an inkling of remediation would send an entirely wrong message. So really, the call is DF's to make. Align with reason and the block is removed, maintain the hardline and we'll see you in a week. My76Strat (talk) 02:21, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I wonder how often you say that to or about User:&Delta;. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 03:10, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You are out of line with that comment. My76Strat (talk) 04:07, 23 January 2012 (UTC)


 * This rhetoric isn't anything new from Dream Focus, as a look at his/her user page would indicate, and I think many editors (myself included) have learned to ignore his diatribes. The block rationale for WP:BATTLE was sound. This us-versus-them rhetoric causes more strife than good and we should take action against it. My concerns: 1) the block length was a little long for having no warning or previous blocks for this offense. 2) Blocking for opinions vs blocking for disruption:


 * One may say that Dream Focus was just voicing his opinion. There is nothing wrong with holding and voicing out-of-consensus opinions (I do this quite often myself), but you must do this carefully and with good taste, not by attacking editors with a strawman caricature. I'm a little worried that this block will lead to other blocks for comments that don't synch up as much with WP:BATTLE. Blocking for WP:BATTLE violations should always be done with caustion. Blocking admins must be sure that a user's comments are derogatory and inflammatory before using this policy to issue a block.  Them From  Space  04:09, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I cannot support the block. When Dream Focus has carried on in this manner for quite some time, to block him now without warning it at best capricious. While I have no doubt that a warning would have been to no effect, it should have been given. This was not disruptive enough to skip this vital step. Aaron Brenneman (talk) 05:59, 23 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Not commenting on the block, but it has occurred to me for the first time, although I should have realised it later, that the use of 'squadron' in the ARS title implies a battle. I've seen the template debate and commented on the template but really maybe we should be asking the ARS to change a what I view as an overly confrontational title. Dougweller (talk) 07:12, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Wow. What about the [DR] army from User:Steven Zhang's signature ? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 07:34, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That too, maybe. I have long thought that this sort of militaristic posturing serves only to increase the amount of factionalisation and role-playing on this site. <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">pablo 09:35, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The blocking administrator said I'm being blocked because on the talk page of the recently destroyed Article Rescue Squadron, I said "Anyway, it doesn't matter now since the evil hordes of deletionists seemed to have finally done us in." in a rather jokingly manner. There was no warning whatsoever.  The blocking administrator then opens up a discussion on ANI immediately after blocking me, having a discussion about me in which I can not properly participate in.  While many see the humor, others don't get it, and I'm trying to work out the reason for that, and if it really matters if the word "evil" is replaced by something that means the exact same thing.  Refer to them as "bad" deletionists perhaps.  It does not create a battleground mentality, since nothing I post on my user page is going to change how people act in AFDs.  I have kept my over the top humorous bits on my user page only, with the exception of my last minor bit on the ARS talk page, and off of AFDs and any discussion pages.  So I don't really see a problem here.  If I had used the word "bad" instead of "evil" would Jclemens have impulsively banned me?    D r e a m Focus  08:50, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Block and Support unblock as per My76Strat, If Dream accepts that his comments were "misguided" and agreed to avoid such language in the future. Mt  king <sup style="color:gold;"> (edits)  11:56, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Block and some sort of ban given his recent statement that perhaps millions of articles have been deleted. See my comments above on this. Dougweller (talk) 12:30, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I've been having trouble finding a way to express my opinion on the matter and Mtking has figured it out for me. I support the block because I feel that calling anyone "evil" is a bit (a lot) out of line.  I also support unblock because I think Dream Focus may have intended it to be funny, as in he might be purposefully portraying it as a battle for laughs and not seriously, and because I think Dream Focus is smart enough to get the point by now without extending the block.--v/r - TP 14:10, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The current block was a good block - DF's rhetoric has passed the point of acceptability. Given that even after being blocked, he is apparently either unwilling or unable to dial back on the personal attacks (calling people "evil") and the battlefield behavior, I don't feel X number of days is magically going to fix the issues here, and I would also support converting the block to indef. In recommending an indef, I do mean that in the traditional sense of the word: a block with no fixed end point, but not a block intended to last forever. As soon as DF is able to show that he understands that his current style of engagement is not acceptable and that he intends to fix it, I would support an unblock - despite his problematic engagement style, he has the best interests of Wikipedia at heart, and it would be a shame to lose him permanently. Note: I put DF's unblock request on hold yesterday with a note that the block should be decided by this ANI, not by a single reviewing admin. I hadn't intended to comment here then, but now that I have, if it's felt that my putting the unblock request on hold is a problem, I have no objection to the hold being adjusted/taken over by someone else/removed/whatever. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 14:16, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Support unblock: Dream's comments being cited are no different than how he has been for many years, with nary a block I can recall.  Some sort of discussion first would have been appropriate.  Otherwise, we would have been seeing massing number of blocks in the past for comments such as "inclusionist Taliban" and other things the ARS has been called.  Two wrongs don't make a right, but they do make internet drama.--Milowent • <sup style="position:relative">has<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">spoken  15:11, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That "Taliban" comment was struck by another admin and the editor warned. But it's a single incident - DF and other ARS editors have been doing this for years, whilst squealing loudly if anyone dares to criticise them.  It's clear from the above that DF still doesn't understand collegial editing even after being blocked (from above - "if it really matters if the word "evil" is replaced by something that means the exact same thing.  Refer to them as "bad" deletionists perhaps") and he's not really being helped by other ARS editors like FeydHuxtable (who even yesterday was using exactly the same language that got DF blocked).  The sensible members of the ARS must be sitting there with their heads in their hands. 86.174.213.12 (talk) 18:28, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The "Taliban" incident is but one illustration, claiming its a single incident is wrong wrong wrong. The "sensible members of the ARS"?  Who are these straw men Obama-like people who allow outrages to occur and simply shake their heads "oh well, we lost another new editor today and some worthwhile content, but that's what Wall Street wanted."  No, when I see a horrible AfD nomination, I call it out as such.  90% of AfD nominations are fine, its the bad EVIL ones that concern me.--Milowent • <sup style="position:relative">has<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">spoken  21:10, 23 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Support block, though not (on the grounds that surely, surely DF will see the problem) a conversion to indef. Disagree with Milowent that just because DF has continued acting as "he has been for many years" that makes it all right; he's been advised, strongly, to remove the battleground mentality, but has declined to.  Maybe a week will help him to take the advice seriously. Cheers, LindsayHello 19:49, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Its capricious to block someone for doing what they always do without warning, that's my point there.--Milowent • <sup style="position:relative">has<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">spoken 21:10, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * "been advised, strongly, to remove the battleground mentality, but has declined to." Uh no, most people said it was fine. The few people I see complaining are the ones I see insulting the ARS constantly and arguing with me in AFDs.  I broke no rules, and received no official warning for anything.  Some people consider anyone posting their opinions about Wikipedia related matters "a battleground mentality" if they simply disagree with them on something.   D r e a m Focus  20:25, 23 January 2012 (UTC)posted from user talk. AniMate 21:30, 23 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment – it seems that whilst everyone is looking to criticise Dream Focus and his attitude, and ARS, no one has offered a "safety line" that might be considered, here. Given that DF is reading and often responding to comments here, perhaps he might do himself a favour by considering this. Let's assume ARS is a means to an end, and ask him to justify it. The rescue template was offered to editors as a means of giving editors concerned that an article at AfD was indeed notable. I am interested in DF/ARSs "success rate". i.e. a sportsman who competes in 100 events but never scores high is not really that good, compared with one who has 10 titles under his wing. In a similar way, nobody is going to really thankful if DF/ARS saved 100 stubs from AfD that never developed beyond stub/start level. What I want to know, is can DF name all those AfDs he, as part of ARS, rescued that have actually developed into GA or even FA status, shortly after rescue, and therefore were worthy of keeping. Perhaps, by justifying ARS, DF can justify his role, rather than solely defend his attitude towards deletion. If there is good from retention/inclusion, there surely mush be just-rewards to boast?  Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh &#91;chat] 23:06, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Good block Of a regularly tendentious editor who likes disrupting processes. Also, noting that when groups begin to take via that they are outside the normal processes of the encyclopedia and exempt, that usually isn't a good sign, see WP:Esperanza.  MBisanz  talk 00:13, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * What processes am I disrupting? Can you link to one example of this?   D r e a m Focus  00:32, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * COI editing, Deletion process, Deletion process, Deletion process (WP:V/BLP), Deletion review.  MBisanz  talk 06:36, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You link to a place where I made a simple mistake, got reverted, and didn't pursue the matter farther. Have you never made a mistake before? Is that a reason to block someone? The second link shows me responding to someone who is accusing a certain editor of messing with the Rescue Squadron by tagging something the editor complained doesn't believe should be tagged, and I mention a previous article the person in question had tagged to mess with us about zoophillia vegetarianism or something. I don't remember its exact name. I then make the joke I already explained, which most people commented on say was clearly humor, "Anyway, it doesn't matter now since the evil hordes of deletionists seemed to have finally done us in." since the ARS had been deleted anyway. Your third link makes no sense at all. What are you complaining about here? You then link to an AFD where I, among others, thought all rumors covered in reliable news sources about Sesame Street should be in a separate article, while some felt they should be included in the existing character articles themselves, or not be featured at all. Are you trying to have me blocked because you disagree with my stance on things? The next link is something I already said I regretted saying, "mindlessly deletionist drones", I was just stunned at the time that someone whose well reviewed music is heard by millions and who has a detailed interview easily found about him in a reliable source, got deleted. I offered ample links and rational as to why the article was clearly notable, which it of course is. I'll bring that to deletion review once this block is lifted.   D r e a m Focus  09:26, 24 January 2012 (UTC)copied from user talk <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">pablo 09:55, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Support block, and per the recent comments at User talk:Dream Focus (copied to here), the block should be extended to indefinite until a convincing statement regarding collaboration with the community is forthcoming. The meme that evil deletionists are a problem has got out of hand due to a small group of mutually supporting editors—the longer that is allowed to fester, the more they will convince themselves that anyone opposing WP:BLP1E or WP:NOTNEWS violations must be evil. Please stick to improving the encyclopedia without the drama. Any unblock request should be accompanied by an undertaking to remove the blogs and rants from User:Dream Focus. Johnuniq (talk) 00:54, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Very bad block, a warning should have been given first. Just imagine that you make some statement that leads to you being blocked because it is judged to be against community norms. For argument's sake we can assume that the statement actually is against community norms (as e.g. some later AN/I thread will make clear). Then, unless the block was needed as an emergency action to protect Wikipedia (in case of inappropriate comments like we're discussing here, that's hardly a possibility), your block would not have prevented any problems. Apart form this violating Wikipedia's blocking policy, the block is also counterproductive. Thing is that while you may have felt that your comments were not over the top when you made them, you could in principle be open to be persuaded that these sorts of comments should not be made here. However, because you are now blocked, that is likely going to make you argue differently. You may now defend your comments because, even if they are against community norms, they are not so much over the top that it should have led to a block (from your POV). So, the focus now shifts from the comments to the block and it leads you to dig in. The net result may be that when the block is lifted, you won't take on board the community feedback about your comments as much as you would otherwise have done. If you persist in making inappropriate comments after multiple warnings that are supported by the community, then you can always be blocked. In such a case, when writing an inappropriate comment, you make a deliberate choice to violate community norms about which you were warned previously. Count Iblis (talk) 00:56, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Support block: DF's battleground mentality and incivility has been a long standing problem. Even during this discussion, he does not seem to grasp the fact that he has been acting inappropriately, and rather than demonstrating any sincere and contrite resolution to improve his behavior, he espresses disdain for consensus and a flippant disregard for his fellow editors. I'd have nothing against extending the block to "indef" until he gets the point and sincerely promises to change his ways. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 03:33, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Overturn block He might be blunt, and fond of hyperbole, but unless someone is going to write "WP:TELL ME WHAT I WANT TO HEAR ALL OF THE TIME" I think the project would be better served by reserving this type of action for occasions that are actively disruptive. Grumping on his talk page seems about as passive of a form of expression that I can think of. Fortheloveofbacon (talk) 09:13, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Confused. Could I have missed some context? There's no way on earth that an editor could be blocked under Wikipedia policy for calling deletionism or deltionists as a class evil without there being more to the story, and to do so would be to take a side in a schism. Deletionism is a kind of evil. So there, are you going to block me? There is some serious thought as to why otherwise sentient good willed people would make it their urgent business to undo other people's contributions, and some would say this is a problematic attitude on the one hand, and process fault run amok on Wikipedia on the other. I know I've missed any current wikipolitics about article rescue squadron, or any dispute that led up to this. And for sure, the vast majority of new pages on subjects of questionable notability are simply not fit for the encyclopedia. But how did it come to this? If blocks are supposed to prevent disruption, what possible disruption is there from railing against deletionism on one's own page? - Wikidemon (talk) 09:16, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Three questions
The above discussion is convoluted in part because three separate questions are being discussed as if they were one question. (See False dichotomy). Nobody Ent 22:05, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Was the block good
No. While improper behavior by an editor is a necessary condition for a block, it is not sufficient. DF has been engaging in similar behavior since 2009 ; the fact the community has long since tolerated the behavior implies there was no urgent need to bypass lesser sanctions. Arguments that WP:RFC/U et. al. "wouldn't have worked" show a lack of good faith. The WP:NOTBUREAU pillar exists to not let WP-this and WP-that get in the way of article improvement, not to justify violating consensus and civil. (It's rude just to block an editor without engaging is lesser sanctions first, and consenus for a block based on mild long term disruption should be achieved before the block). Nobody Ent 22:05, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with that view. Imagine if Kiefer.Wolfowitz were blocked the first (or the second) time he disparaged some other editor instead of holding Requests_for_comment/Kiefer.Wolfowitz. It's possible (but not very plausible) that he might not have disparaged anyone else after that, but Wikipedia would have also been deprived of all his other contributions. Dream Focus does appear to do occasional stuff that builds the encyclopedia (article edit picked at random from his recent contribs). ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 01:56, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes WP:BATTLE, and refering to individuals and groups of people as "evil" ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 12:44, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Is DF's behavior appropriate
No. Nobody Ent 22:05, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the most inappropriate part is his inability or unwillingness to see the matter from the other side or accept that hyperbole can become counterproductive. He does seem to have saddled on the proverbial WP:DEADHORSE at this point, although blunt confrontation can sometimes have that effect. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 02:24, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I do see that some people are sincere in not seeing any humor there and thus bothered by it. I can reword things, it isn't a problem.  I tried editing my user page already, but the block prevents me from doing that.  I asked specifically what people were bothered by and examples.   D r e a m Focus  02:34, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Hell no And the lack of understanding, lack of sincerity, and incompetence by continually suggesting that they can simply replace "evil" with "bad" and still do it is mind-boggling ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 12:45, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Should DF be unblocked
No. Regardless of the fact that block was inappropriate, DF's arguments for unblocking indicate they "don't get it." They should be indef'd and a volunteer should carefully outline the necessary steps for them to be unblocked; I would support immediate unblocking as soon as DF agrees to a set of appropriate behaviors. Nobody Ent 22:05, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you tell me EXACTLY what "appropriate behaviors" you are referring to? Don't be vague and expect me to somehow read your mind.  I asked if I replaced the word "evil" with "bad" would that solve that problem?  No one answered me on that.  You need to be specific.   D r e a m Focus  22:16, 23 January 2012 (UTC) Copied from Dream Focus' talk page by Goodvac (talk) 22:44, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Changing evil to bad won't work either. It's still that same battleground mentality. The people who disagree with you aren't bad or evil, and until you stop looking at them like that I'm not sure you should be unblocked. AniMate 23:00, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone expects you to read their mind. However you should read WP:NPA, WP:CIVILITY, and WP:EQ to research "appropriate behaviors". When you are finished reading, you will also know the answer to your second question. I will give you a hint however, the answer is no. My76Strat (talk) 23:13, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No personal attacks isn't valid here. I'm not targeting anyone personally.  I am not attacking all deletionists either.  I'm am complaining about specific Wikipedia related problems.  And this  bit on my user page, with the edit summary "The barbarian hordes have overwhelmed us at last! Civilization is surely doomed." is clearly done in a joking manner as most clearly understood.   D r e a m Focus  23:31, 23 January 2012 (UTC)


 * You say "NPA isn't valid here." Consider the following where quoted text will be directly from policy while the corollary is mine:
 * Personal attacks are "Derogatory comments about another contributor". Does not require that you name or identify the contributor. Obviously you are talking about some, or several contributors. And the comments are derogatory. "Wikipedia encourages a positive online community". You are not achieving positive results or bolstering a positive editing environment and in fact are promoting disunity. Comments "should be directed at content and actions rather than people." Again you do not have to name the person for me to know that your comments are about people, rather than content or actions. "Editors should be civil and adhere to good wiki etiquette when describing disagreements." Even with your explanation that you are describing 'specific Wikipedia related problems', you are not following the first part which is to remain civil and follow good wiki etiquette. Specific examples of "types of comments" that "are never acceptable" include, "using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views." The affiliation is deletionist the ad hominem is delitionist equals evil or bad or 'mindlessly spouting their deletionist rhetoric and seeking to destroy' and the means dismiss and discredit their views. "Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done." Over the top humor does not justify the disparaging comments. "A pattern of hostility ... can be considered disruptive editing." Which also answers another query of yours where you demand to know where you have ever been disruptive. In summary, I disagree with your premise that NPA doesn't apply. The next move is yours, frame a civil request to be unblocked, be sincere, and curtail all of the BFM nonsense. My76Strat (talk) 04:27, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Although I do think the block could be shortened, I also think that swapping out adjectives won't keep this from cropping up again. A little snark now and then is more or less harmless (open editing ain't for the faint of heart). Calling other editors "evil" or "bad" and the like is beyond the pale mostly because it only stirs things up, makes folks mad, clogs things up and slows down editing. As an aside, I began editing here years ago as a strong deletionist. Bit by bit, I've become a very strong inclusionist. I'd even be so bold as to say I think that's where en.WP is headed, though it might take years. Meanwhile I think there are a few bad faith, many good faith, sundry mistaken and not-so-mistaken inclusionists and deletionists. Setting up fake dialectics such as going on about "evil deletionists" is what WP:Battleground is all about. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:01, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


 * So those that disagree with me calling me a bad editor is fine, but I can't do the same to them? Can I say only bad editors nominate something for deletion without following WP:BEFORE and doing a quick Google news search? Can I say only bad editors nominate the same article for deletion more than once? Wouldn't taking something others have worked hard on and mindlessly destroying it calling it "junk", make someone a bad person? I'm not talking about articles that violate specific rules. I'm referring to people who seek to destroy something simply because they don't like it. That seems pretty evil to me. But, once again, this is only on my userpage, I don't call anyone out by name, posting on their talk page, or mentioning how wicked their actions are in an uncivil manner during AFDS or article talk pages. You can't censor how people think, and I see no reason for any obviously fake and forced smiles. Dream Focus 23:14, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You have a real problem with your battleground mentality. Few if any editors mindlessly put articles up for deletion. Assign sinister motives or stupidity to those who disagree with you isn't going to get this block shortened. Frankly, until you agree to remove some statements from your user page I think you should remain blocked. AniMate 03:24, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Whereas I fully support the existing block, I'm not following your logic in this thread. Taking the essential points of your three things, you're saying, "This initial block was wrong, but not only should it be kept, it should be extended to indef".  I think a better approach would be to stick with this block now, and then if he keeps up with the battleground mentality, give him a longer one later  Purpleback  pack  89  ≈≈≈≈  00:55, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't support any aspect of this block and seriously question the reasoning under which it was applied. I certainly don't think any conditions should be laid on DF for his/her return. I state on my userpage that I'm more towards the inclusionist end of the spectrum does this mean that I'm advocating for a WP:BATTLEFIELD between inclusionists such as myself and deletionists?

The fact is WP:AFD is a deletionist paradise at the moment. People nominate articles on the flimsiest reading of the article and almost no attention paid to either WP:BEFORE or WP:Guide to Deletion. 151 school articles were nominated in less than 3 weeks around the Xmas/New Year's period by one user severely stressing WP:WPSCH's capability to actually consider each AfD on it's merits. Several of those nominations were within minutes of each other, and I strongly doubt that WP:BEFORE and WP:Guide to Deletion were followed.

This is further complicated by the fact that many people seem to !vote at AfD with scant regard for anything that's already been mentioned. They see the title, may actuallly click through to it, then vote with their feeling on the matter. This results in situations like that with primary schools where there is quite literally almost nothing that can save them from deletion, not the age of the school, not it's achievements, not any special status conferred on the school, nothing. The process is broken. DF was speaking out of his unhappiness with the situation. <span style="font: Tahoma, Arial, San-Serif; font-size: 8pt;">&tilde;danjel [ talk &#124; contribs ] 02:29, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * How does Epeefleche nominating articles for deletion excuse DF's continual incivility? With regard to those articles, Epeefleche (and to be fair, I joined him in nominating some school AfDs, albeit in much smaller numbers).   Epeefleche was simply cleaning up a mess that has existed for years based on a rough consensus on the topic.  That consensus is that elementary schools are inherently non-notable, regardless of age or awards (incidentally, the age of something is not an indicator of notability or non-notability for any topic).  If you don't like that consensus, create a broad-based discussion that the default should be all schools are notable.  And remember, WP:BEFORE is not policy; it doesn't always have to be carried out.  This isn't Epeefleche's fault, it's squarely DF's  Purpleback  pack  89  ≈≈≈≈  02:54, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No, you're flat out deadset completely wrong. Elementary/primary schools are not "inherently" non-notable (see WP:OUTCOMES and WP:WPSCH/AG) unless you can show me where a consensus generated policy or guideline has stated that. As with all Org's, Elementary schools are generally not notable unless they can be shown otherwise. This has been pointed out to you at AfD on numerous occasions.
 * But thanks for your response as it actually typifies the problem. You come to AfD with a complete misunderstanding of the situation and vote as such. That means that you turn AfD into a WP:BATTLEGROUND because in a straight up !vote, people with such misunderstanding outnumber the people who don't come into such discussions with a pre-existing agenda. <span style="font: Tahoma, Arial, San-Serif; font-size: 8pt;">&tilde;danjel [ talk &#124; contribs ] 03:59, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Separately, and because my mind blanked before I mentioned it, your "AfD first, ask questions later" shown in your view of WP:BEFORE doesn't "have to" be carried out is a real problem. WP:AFD is not WP:CLEANUP. <span style="font: Tahoma, Arial, San-Serif; font-size: 8pt;">&tilde;danjel [ talk &#124; contribs ] 04:19, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * What's the difference between "not inherently notable" and "inherently non-notable"? Besides which, why have you changed the subject to school-related AfDs of all things? Reyk  <sub style="color:blue;">YO!  04:11, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I said "not inherently non-notable", i.e., it's not the case that all primary schools are non-notable. You seem to have missed the "non" in your quote of me.
 * I'm bringing school articles up as an example, because I'm involved with them, to show that WP:AFD is already a "deletionist" arena. <span style="font: Tahoma, Arial, San-Serif; font-size: 8pt;">&tilde;danjel [ talk &#124; contribs ] 04:19, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Um, part of the point of this discussion is it's a bad idea to go around calling stuff "deletionist", "inclusionist", etc. Especially since you're stepping dangerously close to NPA with the "flatout deadset" comment.  You seem to be saying that because I don't toe your line, I don't get it.  That's not right, nor does it have anything to do with DreamFocus  Purpleback  pack  89  ≈≈≈≈  04:25, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * . There is a long established consensus that primary or elementary schools almost never pass the bar of notability, and should not have stand alone articles. That doesn't mean that every person involved in forming that consensus is a " deletionist" which, as I've mentioned, very few Wikipedians actually identify themselves as. This is just more of the us-vs-them rhetoric that is the root cause of this situation and the overall problem with a segment of the ARS. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:26, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I have my own opinion on this matter, which I won't share here because it's not relevant, but I will say that yelling "you're wrong, you're wrong" isn't going to help deescalate the situation. It's not a good idea to try to defend someone who was just blocked for a week for "evil deletionist" comments by racing in, guns-a-blazing, saying "it was a reaction that they caused, it's their fault"!!!! There are more constructive ways to deal with it, and I have to agree that this sounds like typical rhetorical bluster borne of adherence to an ideology over behavioral guidelines. The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 04:33, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Purplebackpack89: If my saying "flatout deadset" is incorrect, then show me how I am incorrect by pointing to where it is stated that primary schools are "inherently" non-notable in policy or in guideline. Until then, it's a perfectly valid appraisal of your completely incorrect statement that quite adequately demonstrates the problem in AfD with which DF seemed to be frustrated. This isn't about "toe-ing [my] line" (until you can point out that my line runs against policy/guideline, and that you are indeed correct that primary schools are inherently nonnotable), this is about a completely wrong statement that is, unfortunately, quite representative of the situation at AfD.
 * Beeblebrox: "Almost never" does not mean that they are "inherently non-notable", just that they're !voted against in practice. What I'm pointing to is the problem: the push at AfD is for articles to get deleted, i.e., deletionist. DF railing against that is symptomatic of the frustration that editors feel in dealing with the mindset at AfD.
 * Blade of the Northern Lights: No escalation. I am simply pointing to the problem underlying what DF said. Purplebackpack89 decided on his/her own volition to further demonstrate the problem for me. <span style="font: Tahoma, Arial, San-Serif; font-size: 8pt;">&tilde;danjel [ talk &#124; contribs ] 04:40, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Now, given that there are folks wholly supportive of the block, or an indef., I have a few questions: My big question here is: Where is the history and documentation to support such a harsh sanction? Or is it that we simply "don't like" the ARS inclusionists, or DF specifically? And yes, I do agree that DF does need to dial it back a few notches; I'm just saying he should be given the chance to. — Ched : ?  11:26, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not really sure how the notability of schools relates to a DF block section, but I had a few question. Now admittedly I've only looked at the surface of this user/incident, but several items come to mind.
 * 1) The offending comment was made at an undefined sub-set of editors (deletionists), rather than an identified editor.  I understand that some editors may self-identify themselves as such, but still ...
 * 2) The last block (as far as I can see) was back in 2009, and there were only a total of 2 blocks at the time the one week/current block was imposed.
 * 3) I understand there are obviously issues with DF, as there are folks saying it (the block) should be upgraded.  I'm guessing this is respect to our wp:civ and wp:npa policies.  I note that there have been no final solutions posted where we can draw reference from here, .. yet.
 * 4) The deletionist vs. inclusionist scale is a large one, with folks at both ends of the extremes, and some more toward the middle.  I also agree that it is wrong to paint any person here as "evil" or "bad" - we just have different views as to what our policies dictate, and what we consider to be encyclopedic.
 * 5) I note that there was no escalation of blocks (that I saw) in the sense that there weren't recent `12/24/31/48 hour blocks issued, but rather we went straight to one week.
 * 1) Were there any warnings issued to DF prior to the block?  We do typically provide a set of 4 warnings to even the "I like poop" vandals.
 * 2) Have there been previous AN or AN/I threads which show a disruptive pattern?
 * 3) How was this preventative?  On the surface it has the appearance of being punitive.   Were these "evil" comments an ongoing thing?
 * 4) Has there ever been an RfC/U drawn up which established that DF's behavior is unacceptable?
 * Good questions. I'm guessing that DFs refusal to get the point after the block is encouraging a lot of people to say he should be blocked until he does. Conversely, a genuinely conciliatory response along the lines of," message understood and I'll tone down the invective" would have seen the block dialled back to time-served a couple of days ago. Spartaz Humbug! 11:32, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * As many have already stated, there was no legitimate reason to block me. Apparently no one else has even been blocked like this, a full week, without warning.  So why is it continuing?  I already stated I would reword things on my user page.  A proper conversation could've been done making this entire thing unnecessary.  There is no valid reason to continue this ridiculous block.  Some are mentioning the ARS and inclusionist and even linking to AFD and whatnot where I dared to disagree with them, as a reason for them to want to block me.  But that isn't a valid reason to block anyone.    D r e a m Focus  12:01, 24 January 2012 (UTC)copied from df user talk <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">pablo  12:18, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It is continuing because there is no justice here. DF, asking what pejorative descriptions are acceptable for editors with a historic trend of tending to favor deletions misses the point entirely; there is no positive purpose in either describing or classifying other editors. You should agree not to discuss other editors, or question their good faith, at all, and strictly limit yourself to discussing the notability of specific articles that are being considered for deletion. Nobody Ent 12:47, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I do limit all AFD discussions to the articles being discussed. I have the right on my own user page however to list changes in Wikipedia I find troublesome, and how I think things should be done.  I just need to change the wording here and there, to avoid any misunderstanding.  If I want to complain about drive-by tagging, people rudely referring to things they don't like as fancruft or junk, people arguing that something should be deleted simply because they don't like it and believe it makes Wikipedia look bad to have articles that some might not take seriously, or other Wikipedia related things, I have the right to do so.   D r e a m Focus  12:57, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You're mistaken: see WP:OWNTALK Nobody Ent 13:11, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * As soon as you start talking about "deletionists" or claim that editors are using AFD to delete things they don't like - making it personal even if you don't name any specific person - you've moved the AFD conversation from about the content to about the person/nominator/persons !voting "delete". That's a BATTLEFIELD mentality, making no assumption of good faith on the nominator/participators' part, and never helps in the conclusion of an AFD process. There's ways to still respond and debate an AFD without evoking personal attacks.  If someone tags an article as "fancruft" or "junk", argue how the article meets all WP policies and guidelines for a stand alone article, and make it a strong argument so that others will agree and support you to counter the nomination.  It also probably doesn't help taking the attitude that deletion is evil, in general.  Admins know well enough that deletion is (generally) irreversible removal of content, and should be very cautious of taking a step that removes content without consensus. They don't need to be reminded in a rather exaggerated fashion that it is a heinous procedure. --M ASEM  (t) 14:34, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I was talking about schools as an example of the frustration to be found in AfD. <span style="font: Tahoma, Arial, San-Serif; font-size: 8pt;">&tilde;danjel [ talk &#124; contribs ] 11:30, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Not whatsoever - extend to indef Until they actually understand the reason behind their block, and can prove to the community that it won't happen again, no. let me say that I have been mentally drafting possible unblock conditions, but until the understand and accept the reason behind the block there cannot be any such conditions put forward ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 12:47, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Per, indef. Nobody Ent 13:20, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I have no intention of weighing in on this crapfest, but it's an embarrassment that this thread's been open this long. I suggest resolving this or accepting it won't be resolved.  Since I only nom at AfD on the sixth Tuesday of each month, I have no more to say.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:28, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Its disappointing that while theres close to 20,000 words here, with many clever and even eloquent position statements, no one favouring the block has made any sustained effort to civility communicate to Dream what he needs to change. He's all but pleaded for an understanding person to have a straightforward conversation with him on his talk. FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:11, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * WTF? I have an extremely sustained conversation on his talkpage on what he needs to change in order to move forward.  He simply fails to understand, and fails to see what led to the block, and fails to adapt to community standards.  I can lead a horse to water, but I cannot force him to drink.  Let's change to indef and finish this off. ( talk→   BWilkins 

←track ) 14:56, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


 * You didn't do a very good job. "Sighs", scare quoting "defence" and "rights", "bullshit," and even "WTF" are escalatory, not de-escalatory. A very calm, extremely patient discussion is called for, not agression. Nobody Ent 15:04, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * True, WP:SOFIXIT. Said the same yesterday . (There have been times in the past when I would do so, but my Wiki-head isn't in the right place right now. First rule of DR should be "first, do no harm") Nobody Ent 14:58, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


 * For the love of God, will someone please remove their talkpage access for the duration of the block? I'm likely far too involved, and their sudden "turnaround" is making me sick to my stomach ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 21:24, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * For the love of Satan, Oppose – DF represents one POV, you clearly represent another, so such a move would be WP:POINTY and conceited. The best thing you can do, it leave the lion caged without teasing it, and wait until the week ends. You won't gain anything by arguing with him, and it could lead to you being accused of baiting, if it persists. WP:ROPE comes to mind.  Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh &#91;chat] 21:39, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Probably best to just unwatch it, BW. <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">pablo 22:26, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Extend to Indef per this, Dream Focus just doesn't get Wikipedia and that it isn't a street fight or a battleground. If DF doesn't get Wikipedia after more than 5 years, I can see no logical reason we should pretend to ourselves that next week week will be any different, or next month for that matter. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  01:13, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * End block - Since it seems like this was prematurely ended and others are chiming in, here's my two cents. In my opinion "battlefield behavior" was begun by the deletionist crew when they attacked, yet again, the Rescue Squadron template and by the nose-counting rather than principle-following administrator who closed that as "Delete." Dream Focus was frustrated and JClemens went rogue, in my view. And not a word is being said about the obvious badness of that block, while the frustrated inclusionist is being menaced. Yes, there is a battleground. Now ask yourselves — from whence does this nastiness come? Carrite (talk) 02:48, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Also to chime in; I didn't nose count. I thought I'd made this clear by specifically saying, in the close, that I wasn't nose-counting. Ironholds (talk) 15:08, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Overturn Excessive Block Immediately Dream Focus is a valuable member of the Article Rescue Squadron and our rescue activities are harmed by his absence. CallawayRox (talk) 18:27, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Ahh, so his contributions excuse his behavior? Hmm...I could swear there was another discussion going on about this recently... Note that this comment should not be taken as endorsing the block.  Nolelover   Talk · Contribs  19:00, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I did not block him for his activities sourcing articles, nor for his AfD participation, but for calling people "evil deletionists". While we can legitimately disagree on the length of the block or whether the behavior was egregious enough to skip a warning, saying that free speech trumps collegiality and civility ignores our pillars.  If this were an AfD, it would be a non-policy-based argument and rightly discounted by the closing admin.  As far as helping the ARS, I would say that Dream Focus' BATTLEGROUND conduct over the long term has exhausted the community's patience with the ARS such that the rescue template was deleted in response.  If you look at some of the responses in that discussion, many comment on a few hyper-inclusionists using the template as de facto canvassing--it would be a bit odd to presume that Dream Focus' conduct was in no way responsible for those comments. Jclemens-public (talk) 19:16, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Collapsed per WP:STICK. From the original discussion, it's obvious that the block is unlikely to be overturned. If you want to move for indef, I'd recommend waiting until it expires and/or the user in question does something further. -- N Y  Kevin  @222, i.e. 04:19, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

JohnChrysostom
This user's userpage contains extreme anti-Islamic sentiment (see the "Footnotes" section). It describes the Prophet Mohammad (peace be upon him) as the most immoral man who ever lived and generally denigrates Islam. This is contrary to the policy on userpages. Would an administrator please remove this offensive content and warn JohnChrysostom that this sort of bile is unacceptable on Wikipedia ? Thank you, --206.217.205.96 (talk) 17:27, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I have removed the issue referred to above from his/her user page per WP:UP and issued a warning. Toddst1 (talk) 17:38, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I would like to state for the record that while it was indeed polemic, it was not hate-speech (hate-speech is something which incites to violence against a certain group) and although I have removed it pursuant to the relevant policy, a Muslim being offended at non-Islamic characterizations of Muhammad or negative portrayals of his religion (indeed, the specific man's immorality/lawlessness by UN-UDHR standards can be cited using reliable sources) can not be, in itself, grounds for suppressing freedom of expression on such topics, such as in the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoon controversy, passing of "blasphemy laws", etc.: religious offense or outrage counts for nothing, and can dictate nothing whatsoever (or else we'll have constant edit-wars between Creation/Evolution, Torah/NT/Koran, God/Allah, Trinity/Not, etc.). No more than a Christian can suppress "Christ-myth" articles on Wikipedia because he personally disagrees with them, or a Muslim can paint the Bible as "corrupted", etc. That having been said, I am aware of the fact that the Internet is not a democracy, but a (hopefully benevolent) dictatorship, and I bow to the wisdom of the consensus of the community, comrade ;-) St John Chrysostom view / my bias 18:07, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not a Muslim, nor I suspect is Toddst1, and yet I agree with him that it was a clear violation of WP:UP. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:11, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * After reading the policy, I agree it was in violation as well (that's why I concurred with the removal of it). However, the IP who brought the matter up is clearly a Muslim who has made six edits to Wikipedia, and clearly made it an issue due to religious outrage at my (accurate) portrayal of Muhammad as an immoral/lawless man although couched in polemical rhetoric (as I'm sure the portrayal itself can be found on a Wikipedia article about "Muhammad" or "Criticism of Muhammad"). I am merely warning that it can never be that only religious outrage qualifies a statement as "inappropriate", or when guidelines begin to represent or protect the views of any religion (whether it be Judaism, Christianity, or Islam: it that Muslims tend to be much touchier about their religion than members of other faiths): thus is the beginning of the end for freedom of expression, where no person or belief is above criticism, for whoever implements such regulations, as is demonstrated in some of the "blasphemy laws" that have been passed or are being debated in Europe. I see danger and fear when religious knee-jerk reactions can get results. St John Chrysostom view / my bias 18:24, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Request: I thought I had read every guideline and policy on Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons, including over 100 demoted ones and essays. However, in the past week, I have come across two - a manual of style for date formats, and userspace policies that I didn't know existed (as I said, I thought it was "anything goes, as long as it's not copyrighted") - is there any conclusive listing of every policy for every part of Wikipedia, including userspace, and any other *spaces I don't know of?St John Chrysostom view / my bias 18:29, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Your use of ANI above to reiterate your "accurate" attacks on Islam suggests that you don't really get it, and that this issue may not be as resolved as one would hope. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:33, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I did not say that the entire tirade was accurate, but one statement about Muhammad himself (which is what the originator of the incident posted, and the assertion is on Wikipedia namespace in the form of Criticism_of_muhammad, which I had no hand in writing or editing). I have said that I shall not repeat it, as I follow guidelines and policies (as long as I am aware of them). If this is an inappropriate forum for my responses, please let me know. St John Chrysostom view / my bias 18:47, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You are free to have your opinion on Islam and express that opinion. But that freedom is from Government oppression.  Wikipedia does not give anyone the right to express their "dislike" of anything on their user page.  See WP:SOAP.  Feel free to do it on public property, but Wikipedia (Wikimedia) is a private entity and you don't get those rights here.--v/r - TP 18:57, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I reiterate my request: so such an incident does not happen again, is there any conclusive listing of every policy for every part of Wikipedia, including userspace, and any other *spaces I don't know of? Please link me to it if it does exist. St John Chrysostom view / my bias 19:02, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * List_of_policies_and_guidelines. Your request is very broad.  Policy is heavily interlinked and so you'll find bits and pieces everywhere.--v/r - TP 19:05, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Personally, I think everything important can be deduced from WP:FIVEPILLARS. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:12, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the help. Please do not hesitate to immediately contact me if I breach any other policies or guidelines I am unaware of, with a link to the relevant one. St John Chrysostom view / my bias 19:18, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

To be clear - I don't think anyone thought you had placed the tirade on your userpage in bad faith. The fact that you agreed, said that you were ignorant of the policy and did not restore it confirms that. Similarly, you need to consider that the request to have the content removed was also made in good faith and that we didn't go knee jerking (at least beyond the enforcement that any similar event would have engendered). Regards, Syrthiss (talk) 19:26, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * ... although I was tempted to block for the rather disturbing continued attacks on a faith group above. Holy crap, Batman.  You have a personal opinion - keep it personal ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 00:21, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Soapfan2013
I am reporting Soapfan2013 because they are continually adding information regarding Van Hughes' take of Cole Thornhart going onto General Hospital and it's cast list, despite no official third-party source confirming his crossover. It's merely listed as "reportedly". And instead of edit warring this user, I am reporting them. This user is ignoring what I say, and has done so in the past, claiming they're right over everyone else. And they're continually undoing my edits, with I've told them both the sources they are claiming (SoapCentral, Twitter) are not falling under WP:V and through a consensus on the Soap Project Talk Page. They also said: "SoapCentral and twitter are allowed cuz I said so. If you don't like it tough beans" I don't think a user with that kind of attitude should be editing our pages. Music Freak 7676 TALK! 01:37, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Best is to follow 3rr. I've left the uw-3rr warning on the user's talk page. Nobody Ent 02:40, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you. However, I highly doubt that could possibly stop them. They've done something like this before and have been persistent and their attitude towards it is very nasty. Please keep an eye on this member following this warning. Thank you. Music Freak 7676 TALK! 02:54, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, looking further, it appears both Musicfreak and Soapfan were edit warring, and neither was using Talk:Cole_Thornhart. Consider using WP:3RD or a content noticeboard rather than edit warring inappropriate additions. Nobody Ent 03:32, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Pieter Kuiper
If the allegations made by the user Fae on Kuiper's talk page are true (off-wiki outing as revenge for a block here), it occurs to me that a permanent ban on Kuiper needs to be considered, both here and probably on commons as well, though that's out of reach from here. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:59, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Have the user who may have been outed been notified (probably by email is best)? -- RA (talk) 17:01, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know who he allegedly tried to out. I posted a reference to this discussion on Kuiper's talk page, right after where Fae brought it up. I think Fae needs to comment here. I have also raised this question on Commons now. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:05, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Might this be related to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive736#Attempted_outing? Wildthing61476 (talk) 17:22, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Possibly related, but a new incident. I don't know the specifics and don't want to know. Fae has told me he will talk offline to an admin, for the sake of confidentiality. My question is, IF someone is guilty of outing, THEN should they be banned? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:35, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

One can safely assume that any such comments by Kuiper were made on Wikipedia Review, which Fæ is known to follow closely. I have found a comment of Kuiper's in which they state the reason for their block (it is the same material linked to above). I see no other comments which correspond to Fæ's statement on Kuiper's page "By the way, your revenge off-wiki post maliciously outing two contributors here, within minutes of receiving a decline for your unblock review, will hardly be taken as a step in the right direction", although the mention of two contributors is puzzling. As Fæ mentions, they are involved in a dispute on Commons about the correctness of their uploads ( is a choice example), so they should not be assumed to be at all neutral in this matter. Kuiper has already been blocked for their comments on-wiki, so suggesting a ban for repeating those same comments off-wiki is absurd. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:42, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * He's blocked for 1 week. I don't know if he's truly guilty of malicious outing or not. I'm simply asking, IF a user is guilty of malicious off-wiki outing, THEN is it grounds for a ban here? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:44, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * So you have no knowledge of any outing, but you are suggesting that a user be banned based on comments made by an editor with whom they are currently in a somewhat heated dispute on Commons? That doesn't seem very responsible, nor does it seem like an appropriate way to treat fellow editors. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:51, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Let me ask a hypothetical, no naming any users. If User A goes on an off-wiki site and outs User B, which then comes back to affect User B in some negative fashion in anyway ON-WIKI, what, if any action is taken? I think that's the question, not about this user, but the situation in general. Wildthing61476 (talk) 17:56, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I would also like to ask a hypothetical. If someone were to write on wikipedia that "By the way, your revenge off-wiki post maliciously outing two contributors here, within minutes of receiving a decline for your unblock review, will hardly be taken as a step in the right direction" and it turned out that the person they accused had actually done no such thing, what should be done to police the well-poisoning exercise (seems as if he's trying to use tactics to get someone banned unfairly because he's in dispute with them on commons).Bali ultimate (talk) 18:03, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * How strange to see Delicious carbuncle and Bali ultimate turn up so promptly here and turning this thread to be all about me and about Commons; particularly considering both these accounts have a history of blocks on Commons for harassing me there. --Fæ (talk) 18:21, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Fae of wikimedia uk. Nice to see you here. Rather than trying to poison the well some more (have a history of blocks on commons for harassing me) perhaps you could explain why you've accused kuiper of "outing" two editors "maliciously." There is no evidence provided for this rather strange and serious assertion (particularly your divining of "malice.") This is a reasonable question to ask. An answer would be enlightening.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:24, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Wait a tic, wouldn't posting the evidence on-wiki be just as much OUTing as posting them off-wiki in the first place? UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 19:00, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I have looked at the WR comment in question. My assertion is that no outing whatsoever took place there, let alone of two people, and as someone who has dealt with actual malice, i found no hint of it there. It is a neat loophole to use to accuse others of bad behavior without having to back it up though, isn't it?Bali ultimate (talk) 19:21, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The particulars of any given outing complaint should be discussed behind the scenes. Obviously, posting those details openly here would only serve to make any such outing worse than it already is or might be. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:40, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * There's no need for such measures. The complaint can be read at the ANI thread here (as already linked above). You may wish to read it, Bugs, and withdraw your proposal for a ban before someone suggests that there should be repercussions for repeating what turn out to be entirely spurious accusations. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:54, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't issue an outright proposal for a ban, I posed an IF-THEN statement. Outing is a very serious charge. Outing is bad. It's as bad as, or worse than, a legal threat. If an admin takes a serious look at it and determines that there is no real outing of another editor, then they can mark this "Resolved". If there is real outing going on, then something needs to be done. Surely you wouldn't disagree? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:16, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Fæ, Basball Bugs started this thread because of your remarks about an editor who is curently blocked and unable to defend themselves here. I'm sorry if you think that I have "made it about you". Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:57, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If the purported outing is of the user in the archived discussion and Kuipers comment there counts as an outing, the user have been outed several times on sv-wiki. For example: here, here and here. The additional damage from further outings is therefor somewhat limited. Personally I think Kuiper are somewhat to sarcastic in his comments - especially in this case as he knows how personal this users takes all content-criticisms - and thus needs to shape up. However, blocking on the grounds of outing is undue in my view. Steinberger (talk) 18:10, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Unblock Pieter Kuiper. This is ridiculous; there is a long history of controversy on Swedish Wikipedia about Serge's apparent CoI edits about Jacob Truedson Demitz, and his book Throne of a Thousand Years, and his contributions here follow exactly the same pattern. See earlier ANI threads –, Pmanderson's comment here: " Serge Woodzing is objecting to edits of Throne of a Thousand Years - the article he wrote, and which used to read like a publisher's blurb (the talk page suggests that this is because he represents the publisher)." If someone comes here and writes puff pieces about a borderline-notable author and his borderline-notable self-published book, and then tries to cite said self-published book in Wikipedia for historical fact (I wonder whether the book has any citations here in Wikipedia that were not inserted by Serge himself), they should not be surprised if COI questions are raised. -- J N  466  19:57, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to agree with JN466 here. Having no prior knowledge of this kerfuffle, the edits that were presented here as outing appeared to me simply as rather acerbic comments on a source that is probably failing WP:RS standards. I doubt that a random editor reading that summary and talk page comment would have been able to make any connection to some (unnamed) Wikipedia editor, especially one as complicated as JN466 says it is. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 21:01, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

This seems to be an unwarrented block. Certainly no grounds for a ban unless these so-called off-wiki posts are proven. The dealings after the first ban do appear to be regarding strickly sourcing, hardy harrasment. Outback the koala (talk) 18:11, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The sekrit evidence should be sent to ArbCom, if it exists. There's no point in the back and forth IF-THEN above. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 21:20, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That should be spelled "sekrit eveedenz". Yes, if Fae has evidence of malicious outing, he needs to get with someone offline and find a resolution to this matter. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:05, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe any "sekrit" evidence was taken into account for the current block, which means Kuiper was blocked for calling Jacob Truedson Demitz a retired hotel manager. Granted, an unnecessary remark, but how does it warrant a week long block? I wasn't aware being a hotel manager was a position of such low esteem, that to consider a person one would be likened to a personal attack. And who is personally attacked anyway? Per WP:OUTING, I'm not to assume any link between Demitz and a Wikipedia editor, yet the blocking administrator seems to do so, in violation of WP:OUTING. Just trying to wrap my mind around the reasoning behind this block here. --Atlan (talk) 22:23, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * For avoidance of doubt the block today was for harassment, not outing. I blocked Pieter Kuiper for 48hrs on the 20 January for attempting to out SergeWoodzing as the author of a certain book they are in dispute over. This comes on the back of a long history of accusation of harassment by Pieter Kuiper from SergeWoodzing. In the same incident, SergeWoodzing agreed to a six-month interaction ban with Pieter Kuiper. Pieter Kuiper declined a similar offer on his talk page (as is his prerogative) but I warned him to desist in making comments or taking actions that may be seen as harassment of SergeWoodzing on his return. I told him that by SergeWoodzing agreeing to an interaction ban, his approach to interacting with SergeWoodzing would become more visible.
 * Anyway, no sooner was Pieter Kuiper's block for attempting to out SergeWoodzing as the author of this book over than he leaves needless acerbic comments about the author (who he believes to be SergeWoodzing) in an edit summary and on a talk page. Clearly these were meant to as a dig at SergeWoodzing (regardless of SergeWoodzing real-world identity) so I blocked him for a week for harassment. I've made it clear to him that if he recognises his fault that I will substantially reduce his block.
 * Incidentally, I've seen the off-wiki comments that Fæ refers to. They are not much more than what has appeared here already. Since Pieter Kuiper is already blocked for a week (and these comments were in reaction to that), I don't see any benefit in pursuing it further. Let him chill out and when he returns I hope he will have a better attitude towards his colleagues here. -- RA (talk) 22:56, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation. It still seems like a heavy-handed block to me, considering I find nothing remotely offensive about hotel work. I read it as an unnecessary attempt at marginalizing Demitz' supposed importance, rather than a dig at another editor.--Atlan (talk) 23:15, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Just one question about all this: wouldn't it be a good thing to know if an editor is the author of a book that is being discussed/referenced by said editor, per WP:COI? - The Bushranger One ping only 04:29, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * There's a fundamental conflict between the COI policy and the outing policy, a good balance for which has not, in my opinion, yet been found. In many instances, it is difficult, if not impossible, to discuss an editor's conflict of interest without running afoul of the rules against outing. Personally, I would like to see things change somewhat, as I believe it's much more important to the project that the encyclopedia be as neutral as possible and free of outside influence than it is to preserve editors' anonymity once they have attempted to bias articles in their favor. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:32, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

It appears that users make claims of COI or self-promotion all the time, not least in AFDs and PRODs. There are even tags for article pages, such as autobiography and COI that imply that the creator or main author of a page is a certain person or someone closely connected. I very much doubt that every page in Category:Autobiographical articles or Category:Wikipedia articles with possible conflicts of interest (and their numerous subcategories) has an author whose identity is explicitly self-declared on their user page. Nor that this is the case for every article brought to AFD as "autobiography" or "self-promotion". And these tags are used in article space, which is available to search engines and call attention to the issue to a broader public to a far greater extent than edit comments or comments on discussion pages.

So is the use of these tags, or casual claims of "autobiography" or "self-promotion" in AFD discussions supposed to be a offense carrying the risk of blocking or banning? If it is, there are obviously many users out there who ought to know. --Hegvald (talk) 05:43, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments 1) I don't have much problem with the 1 week block even if the most recent incident isn't sufficient justification all by itself, given PK's long-term battleground conduct contributing to these many ANI reports concerning himself and SergeWoodzing. I do think PK is usually more correct than SW in most (not necessarily all) of the underlying content disputes.  2) On principle, it certainly is obvious to me that off-wiki outing should be sanctionable on-wiki, by the same logic as WP:NLT. The main threat of outing is off-wiki consequences for the person, not just on-wiki, and editors must not be allowed to chill other editors' participation through outing or outing threats, whether on-wiki or off. But, I don't know if a real outing attempt happened in this particular incident. 3) In an earlier ANI thread, SW expressed willingness to work with a mentor, which still seems like a reasonable idea to me. It didn't go anywhere because the first two people I thought of asking are no longer active.  I've just asked for advice from User:SilkTork who mentored Mattisse a while back (her issues had some resemblance to those of SergeWoodzing).  Maybe s/he'll have some useful suggestions. 67.122.210.96 (talk) 07:28, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

86.24.143.245 persistent personal link spam
The Giffgaff article regularly suffers from users who post their own giffgaff links onto the wikipedia page in the hope of getting a £5 referral fee if users sign up through their link. There is a section on the Talk page which describes the problem. The user 86.24.143.245 has been persistently posting his own links over the last couple of days. Can this IP be temporarily blocked for a while?

This has been reported before here and the same user was temporarily blocked for 48 hours. A semi protection was also added to the giffgaff page but that seems to have been removed since anonymous addresses can now post to the page.

Can I suggest also that the semi protection be restored again since this page suffers persisently from the same problem whether this user or others due to the nature of the giffgaff product.

Note: giffgaff is a UK phone operator which allows existing members to earn money by recruiting new ones. This is why the wikipedia article suffers from this as users think it's a good way to advertise their own links. ChrisUK (talk) 20:12, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * They are now blocked again. Note their ridiculous edit summaries. A longer block is more than warranted. Drmies (talk) 20:34, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Maybe you should consider referring it to the blacklist. Shadowjams (talk) 21:54, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * url was added to XLinkBot yesterday, as documented on article talk page. Nobody Ent 02:46, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That's different than the blacklist, but probably sufficient. Shadowjams (talk) 07:30, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Competence
has made several nanostubs on various albums, putting no text at all, just track listings. Most have been deleted via A1 already. He has also been removing peak positions from Conway Twitty discography. It's clear that we have a WP:COMPETENCE issue here, but I'd like to know how it should be handled. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 22:32, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Given that ArbCom is now handing out bans for unprofessional behavior, I think a (topic) ban would be appropriate in this case. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 22:57, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * (Non-admin opinion.) All the creations seem to be in a short space of time. Despite the large red notices, I get the sense sometimes time is necessary. Perhaps a short block - time to reflect? Might make the user pay more attention to the advice and warnings. ("Non-admin" with fair reason.) Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 23:03, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * We don't do cooldown blocks. They appear to have stopped as of 21:15, January 25, 2012 (UTC), about an hour before this ANI was filed.  I don't think admin action is needed here just yet, though I'm not an admin so maybe you want to wait for a second opinion.  Furthermore, the user has not been notified of this discussion; I've done so now.  -- N  Y  Kevin  @147, i.e. 02:31, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 *  N Y  Kevin  - thanks for taking care of that. Manning (talk) 03:14, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't say that would be a "cooldown" block, as I don't think it's aimed at an angry (i.e. abusive, that sort of thing) user. Have we really avoided blocks on this basis before? I think it's more the disruptive type mentioned. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 09:38, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Disruptive edits by unresponsive anon editor
has been engaged in a long-term pattern of editing that ignores Wikipedia guidelines and makes unnecessary work for other editors, but has been completely unresponsive to attempts to deal with this situation. This user is a fairly frequent editor (and a decent proportion of their edits appear to be constructive ones), but has a troubling pattern of failing to respond in any way to messages and warnings on their User talk: page. In fact, this editor has never edited any page in any of the "talk" namespaces. The editor also has a consistent pattern of never using edit summaries. In short, the editor apparently is either determined to avoid interaction with the rest of the Wikipedia community, or unaware of how to conduct such interaction.

Unfortunately, this editor has a particular bee in their bonnet when it comes to hatnotes and "see also" links to disambiguation pages. We have an editing guideline at WP:INTDABLINK that very specifically says that when a hatnote (or any other link) intentionally directs readers to a disambiguation page, it should "link to the title that includes the text "(disambiguation)", even if that is a redirect" (emphasis in original). Many of the hatnote templates contain code to do this automatically. This IP editor, however, has repeatedly edited hatnotes to change the links so that they do not contain the word "(disambiguation)", even replacing hatnote templates with manually-written hatnotes in order to achieve this. All this is pointless and disruptive, since it just makes work for other editors who have to undo these edits when they come upon them. The IP editor has also added comments to many of these links with (erroneous) exhortations to other editors demanding that they not insert correct links containing the text "(disambiguation)".

The IP editor has been asked several times on their talk page to stop doing this; but, in keeping with the pattern described above, has never responded to these messages. I frankly do not know whether the user is unaware of the messages or is deliberately ignoring them. However, the behavior described above has continued after each message.

Some example diffs:
 * [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Amazons&diff=prev&oldid=462196079]
 * [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Woman_warrior&diff=prev&oldid=462196225]
 * [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Johnny_Morrison&diff=prev&oldid=463622145]
 * [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Black_Tortoise&diff=prev&oldid=463812426]
 * [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Original_video_animation&diff=prev&oldid=467042308]
 * [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=OOO&diff=prev&oldid=468285831]
 * [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tiebreaker&diff=prev&oldid=469090715]
 * [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sh%C5%8Djo&diff=prev&oldid=470048859]
 * [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commuting&diff=prev&oldid=469424248]
 * [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Baxter_(name)&diff=prev&oldid=473156251] - just this morning, after the latest warning
 * [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Level_(video_gaming)&diff=prev&oldid=473157573] - ditto

I am frustrated with having to undo repeated disruption by this editor, and by their refusal or inability to discuss their behavior. Although I am an admin, I am not going to block or take any other action against this person because I am too involved in the dispute. I think the intervention of a neutral party is essential at this point. Thank you. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 16:16, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Reviewing their edits now. I didn't see that you left a message for them about this thread, so I left one . Calabe1992 16:20, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * We stepped on each other. Calabe1992 16:20, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, the other edits seem to be good faith, but the unresponsiveness to the messages would lead me to recommend a short block if it happens again. That would probably be the only way to get their attention and ultimately have it stopped. Calabe1992 16:32, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The same conduct has occurred again today:


 * [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bighorn_sheep&diff=prev&oldid=473319855]
 * R'n'B (call me Russ) 12:36, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Blocked for 24 hours, specifically for their refusal to discuss the issue in spite of several stern warnings and a note regarding this discussion. Favonian (talk) 12:49, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Asiaworldcity continuing disruptive actions of banned IP 70.42.29.3
Earlier today I reported anonymous IP 70.42.29.3 for making disruptive edits. An administrator quickly acted implementing an anonymous ban on the IP, so only registered users could edit.(Previous solved incident)

Later in the day User:Asiaworldcity registered and is making the exact same disruptive edits that IP 70.42.29.3 did.iCloud history Most probably it is the same person that decided to make an account to bypass  the anonymous ban, since the edits are identical.

Charles Dayton  (Talk)  01:47, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Added a note to user's talk page explaining reliable sources. Note the edit should not be called vandalism, as the user is attempting to add information to Wikipedia. Nobody Ent 02:35, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Note that I used the words vandalism because the user continued to repost the information multiple times even after he/she was warned. Also there was a section in the talk page discussing the unreliable source. Charles Dayton   (Talk)  14:51, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * We use vandalism for the malicious, not the misguided. Nobody Ent 16:49, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Persistent sneaky long-term vandalism/promotion on FL Studio
Anon-IPs continually add artists to the "Notable users" section of, including false citations in order to make the added information look credible. I took the issue to VPP and asked what the policy was for dealing with sneaky insertion of false citations. It was suggested that I take the issue here, however the page was then, so the issue was (temporarily) resolved.

This is not simple vandalism (and I took the issue here instead of AIV) because:
 * 1) There is an edit notioce stating that addition of artists to the notable users section must be "verifiable via a reliable source".
 * 2) There are large comments in the source of the page specifically saying that artists added to the notable users section must have "a reference to an independent source mentioning the artist's use of FL Studio" and directing editors to the talk page.
 * 3) An editor who knows how to use a   tag is experienced enough to know that this type of edit results in unsourced information appearing on the surface like sourced information.

Initially, Anon-IPs would simply add artists to the notable users section and to the lead of the article—this is pretty common on articles with sections for "notable people". After consensus on the talk page was reached that each mention of a notable artist must be independently sourced, IP editors then began adding false citations to their edits. Most of these edits come from different IPs, so user warnings are not effective in stopping them. Recently I have started leaving "final warning" templates on the talk pages of Anon-IPs who have continued these vandalous edits, however the same IP is rarely used again.

It seems as though one or more people are watching the article and editing from different IPs (not realizing that it is terribly obvious what they are doing). Here are some relevant diffs (there are many more; I've included only ones with false citations):

Also, these edits are give a large red error in the references section.

The IP addresses from the above diffs are:

—danhash (talk) 15:27, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * While annoying, the vandalism is really low-volume. The IPs you listed geolocate all over the globe, and are likely mostly unrelated. A vandal who wants to add a fake entry and hits "edit" sees all these s in the wiki source and will naturally emulate that in their addition; I don't agree this indicates a level of sophistication.
 * Another question is if we really need a section listing notable users; such sections are known vandal magnets. Most widely-used tools will have several users that happen to be notable, but it is unclear what the encyclopedic value is of listing some. It is a virtual certainty that, for example, Avid's Pro Tools has several notable users, such as Mike Oldfield, but the article does not attempt to list them, nor should it IMO. --Lambiam 00:39, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. Douglas Adams was a notable user of Apples, because he wrote extensively about it. Someone who  is merely notable and happensto use  something is not significant to the article.  Obviously there are possible exceptions, people  who are notable in relation to that field, but basically the sources will speak.  Rich Farmbrough, 20:06, 26 January 2012 (UTC).

Getting a little out of control
Removing other editors user pages and entirely rude and insulting edit summaries. A non-involved admin should post appropriate warnings. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 04:22, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Where did I remove other editor user pages?????? What is going on here???? Cite sources if you claim such things!Huayu-Huayu (talk) 04:27, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I concur with User:Huayu-Huayu, after briefly reviewing their contributions. They have not made any nondeleted userspace edits, and their usertalkspace edits don't appear absurd (note that it is perfectly acceptable for a user to remove comments from their own user talk page; although archival is preferred, it is not required).  There do appear to be some civility issues, but that's best handled at WP:WQA or through dispute resolution, not here.  Am I missing something?  -- N  Y  Kevin  @234, i.e. 04:37, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Accusing other editors of editing drunk and the repeated attitude is beyond what I would send to WQA. My mistake on the user page issue, I was following Anna's page but he removed her notice from his own. This is strictly based on being insulting. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
 * Fair enough. I'm not experienced enough in matters of civility to have an opinion, but I do think that accusing users of editing drunk is probably not a great idea.  -- N  Y  Kevin  @240, i.e. 04:46, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

So, SchmuckyTheCat, after you stroke one of your claims, now you made the next. Where did I accuse anyone of editing drunk? Huayu-Huayu (talk) 05:57, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Here. If you're going to deny something, it would do you well to be certain there wasn't evidence of it lying in plain sight.  -- Jayron  32  06:00, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Mildly uncivil, but ANI material? He might even have meant "drinking the Kool-Aid", "hemlock", or anything (although I doubt it).  Seriously Schmucky ... ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 12:34, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree the edit summary wasn’t the best, but it doesn’t rise to the level of requiring admin action.-- SPhilbrick  (Talk)  13:17, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I concur with Sphilbrick. S.G.(GH) ping! 13:58, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree entirely that the edit summary isn't worth bringing someone to ANI for. This is completely and totally a waste of this boards time to be discussing this here, if that edit summary is the worst thing that has been done today.  However, if User:Huayu-Huayu is going to deny doing something, they should at least choose to deny doing the things they have actually not done.  Denying something which one has done is generally a bad idea, especially when the evidence of one having done it is in plain sight.  That was the point I was aiming for, which is why I stated "If you're going to deny something, it would do you well to be certain there wasn't evidence of it lying in plain sight."  What I meant by that was that if he was going to deny saying something, it does not good to deny something anyone could check on.  The fact that the thing he was denying having done isn't something we should be bothered with at this juncture was entirely irrelevent to my point.  Yes, I don't really care what he said, or how unoffensive it may have been.  He still said it.  -- Jayron  32  14:15, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, there are several more in his contribs, but, yes, agreed, this is premature. He is obviously getting 'hot' as an editor. Closing this is not a problem, but a few eyes and advice to the editor would be useful. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
 * Funny you say that ... I left him advice a few minutes ago, and am watching his talkpage LOL ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 14:16, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

@SchmuckyTheCat - What do you mean I did deny? Please show a diff, otherwise I regard your story as a fake story. Also you still didn't show evidence that I accused someone of editing drunk. Huayu-Huayu (talk) 18:25, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not Schmucky, and was not when I made the above comments. But Here is the diff.  Again, please stop denying that you said this.  -- Jayron  32  18:27, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Could someone please kindly ask him to stop making Hainan Province vs. Island edits, until he gets consensus first? I've asked him at his talk many times and is just ignoring me now. Many thanks if you can help. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 18:58, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * HH blocked as sock . Nobody Ent 23:34, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Threat of bodily harm
An ip address posted a lengthy message to me explaining why their edits ,that I on the spot considered vandalism and gave a warning, were justified. The user said that they were one of the members of the brotherhood to which the article that was edited and said a former member was posting inaccurate details on their page, The Brotherhood of Eternal Love, and gave me his email if I want to contact him further and said not to give the email or initials to Robert (the other guy) because Robert has threatened to bodily harm anyone revising the article. I haven't heard back about where the threat took place. The ip also said that is why he is contributing anonymously. I don't really know what to at this point because I don't have the diffs to email emergency@wikimedia.org and I'm stumped. P.S. I have reverted the message on my talk page due to the nature of this, however it can be found in the page history. Ramaksoud2000 (talk to me) 22:51, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Here's the diff in question. Posted without judgement, I've yet to work through it all. Manning (talk) 23:10, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * P.S. I'd like to request a full protection of the page to prevent anything else. Ramaksoud2000 (talk to me) 23:13, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * From the looks of the message left to you, the IP said there were only two editors going back and forth on the content "himself and Robert", and the only one that would appear to be is User:Brotherhoodofeternallove, and based on the information given by the IP about the 'Aquarian Temple BEL", that matches the edit made by this particular editor . Having said that, there was no threat made on-wiki from this user, so I don't think we can do much on here. — Moe   ε  23:25, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Well I've read through the comment left on your talk page, and looked over the article. As far as the 'threat of bodily harm', there is not much we can do there as there is no direct evidence of a threat being made (on or off-wiki) and we can't accept a claim by a 3rd party without some form of supporting evidence. (Post ec, agree with Moe).
 * As far as the article, it's a mess anyway. Here's a diff showing the two conflicting viewpoints. The best approach to managing it is to delete anything without supporting evidence. The article is now so bloated with unreferenced claims that to clean it would eliminate 80% of the article - which would not necessarily be a bad thing. I don't think protection is the answer just yet, just start enforcing WP:RS. If you get any heat from either party, drop me a line and I'll provide backup. Thanks for your efforts so far. Manning (talk) 23:27, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Unless the threats were made on Wikipedia, there's not much to be done by anyone regarding the editors themselves. However, the article is another matter ... and appears to be loaded with unsourced first-hand accounts and original research. A side effect of this ANI thread may be more eyes reviewing the content over there; and from what I can see, the article needs it. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:32, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * User:Brotherhoodofeternallove is blocked by Toddst1 per username violation —  Moe   ε  23:35, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I've semi-protected the page and removed some massive WP:BLP and WP:OR issues from the article. There is still much cleanup needed on that article. I suspect it's being written by someone connected with what appears to be an upcoming movie about the group in an attempt to promote the movie. Toddst1 (talk) 23:40, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Toddst1 - nice work. Manning (talk) 23:55, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Violet Fae
I'm not sure where to report this editor. If it was just a WP:3RR issue, then I'd report it at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. If it was just a civility issue, then I'd report it at Wikiquette assistance...but that has already been discussed at Wikipedia talk:No personal attacks. It's a combination of both. The editor reported me and others at WP:No personal attacks (which is more about an IP's comments/actions and Violet Fae feeling outnumbered), but has made personal attacks herself. She has continued to make them. She also continues to edit war and violate WP:TALK, even after declaring that she is leaving Wikipedia for good. Like I stated at WP:No personal attacks, I don't consider these to be personal attacks any more than what Violet Fae [also] stated in [the Asexuality] discussion. Saying that someone is throwing a temper tantrum is commonplace on Wikipedia (so is calling an editor ignorant), without any consideration that it should be reported as a personal attack. Just about any comment about an editor that the editor doesn't like can be considered a personal attack. The main example of that is how WP:No personal attacks has a tiny problem defining it. Basically, Violet Fae makes it out as though she was confronted by a gang of "e-thugs," simply because editors advised her to follow reliable sources and that doing so is how Wikipedia functions, as well as because she was reverted several times for removing other people's comments (in part or in whole). I'm just not sure how to handle this user anymore. Like I stated, she says she is leaving, but she keeps violating WP:TALK. Flyer22 (talk) 22:00, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Here's some supporting material for this what I consider a justified ANI report. On Talk:Sexual orientation, Violet Fae engaged in what gave every appearance of a crusade including persistent vandalism to at least one talk page after final warning. Chronology: Violet Fae takes umbrage at being indirectly called "ignorant" by another editor, persistently deletes talk page content in the apparent belief that s/he is being harassed in violation of Wikipedia policy. Several editors revert Violet Fae's deletions and try to explain that while "ignorant" might not be a very nice thing to say, it doesn't warrant talk page content deletion. Violet Fae carries on deleting, hitting out with accusations of a campaign of abuse and harassment at those who revert the deletions.


 * Diffs of Violet Fae's persistent content deletion:.


 * Diffs of various editors reverting Violet Fae's deletions without themselves violating 3RR:


 * Violet Fae venting spleen regarding this matter on my talk page:
 * Several editors trying (again) to educate Violet Fae on his/her own talk page:.
 * —<span style="font:bold 11px Arial;display:inline;border:#151B8D 1px solid;background-color:#FFFF00;padding:0 4px 0 4px;">Scheinwerfermann T&middot;C 02:09, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Mentoring recommended. Violet Fae may be learning. A few comments about her/him were excessively personal as attacks, but s/he seemed to be conflating those with critiques of her editorial view and s/he repeatedly deleted wholesale from Talk (reverted by others). However, s/he has since narrowed her/his objection to be closer to Wikipedia's standards. If that's a predictor of her editing, that's good. I recommend that s/he work with a mentor who doesn't care about sexuality articles or edit them, so s/he'll have confidence in the mentor's neutrality toward her/him. The mentor should discuss Wikipedia's standards while Violet Fae researches sources for editing s/he might want to do in the future. Nick Levinson (talk) 17:20, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Eyes on Eggner Ferry Bridge
Eyes may be needed on the Eggner Ferry Bridge page in case things start getting out of hand. Apparently, the bridge just collapsed. :( - <small style="white-space:nowrap;border:1px solid #900;padding:1px;"> Neutralhomer •  Talk  • 03:26, 27 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The WAVE-TV source cited says 'partially collapsed' - I've revised the article to follow this. No doubt there will be clearer reports of what has happened later. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:51, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Offensive language

 * Discussion thread: WP:WQA
 * User:
 * User warned:
 * User reply:
 * User notified:
 * User edits:
 * 03:49, 25 January 2012
 * 03:13, 25 January 2012
 * 03:10, 25 January 2012
 * 02:29, 25 January 2012

The language used in these edits is extremely offensive and unacceptable. I would ask that they be struck out and that the editor be asked to avoid this type of writing in future. This editor has a history of offensive language on talk pages, which he uses in order to illustrate what should not appear on article pages (example or in the remarks of other editors. TFD (talk) 16:43, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes it is, and no nothing can be done about it. General consensus is that the use of words is never, of itself, sanctionable.  Until the user directly attacks another editor, it is unlikely to generate any result.  For the record, it would be better if he toned it down a bit, but other than saying "It would be better if he toned it down a bit", theres nothing that is likely to be done to force him to do so. -- Jayron  32  16:50, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * My hyperbole was a response to tfd using the edit summery, "jesus fucking christ". i am not for censorship either and was appealing to tdf to voluntarily clean it up a tad.  Darkstar1st (talk) 16:56, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Wait--"maybe you are fucking right, may the blood of 1000 vagina's fill your cup" is OK? It's stupid and insensitive, and it was directed at a specific editor. Only in a death metal song could this be considered appropriate. Darkstar, if you are going to say eminently stupid shit like that, can you at least check for spelling first? Drmies (talk) 16:59, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Uh, that wasn't directed at me; it was a colourful emphatic. Darkstar1st was trying to argue a point through the use of hyperbole, attempting to make the case that profanity was fundamentally uncivil.  It isn't.  The community has rejected language gags. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:15, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * For me, the issue isn't the language; it was the language was used not to communicate or meaningfully participate in the discussion., but rather consisted of pointedly flaunting the lack of language restrictions in Wikipedia. Sanctions could be applied not for "bad language" but rather disruptive editing. I had decided for me the best response was ignoring childish behavior per WP:DFTT; additionally, I'm fence sitting on issues like this until ArbCom tells us how heinous (or not) "dishonest cunt" Nobody Ent 17:00, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * if you read closely, you will see the to examples provided previous, were also attempts to REMOVE offensive language from articles in wp, not add. Darkstar1st (talk) 17:02, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Either I can't parse your sentence, or I don't see where the blood of a thousand vaginas actually washed clean earlier offensive language. Drmies (talk) 18:13, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * When I see posts with excessive profanity I just skim or skip them altogether. Hyperbole and humor require knowledge of the audience to be successful; they generally don't work well in dispute resolution areas. Nobody Ent 17:16, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * @Darkstar1st - so you mean "But he started it first!"? Not the most convincing excuse. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:34, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Hmm, so I use "jesus fucking christ" in an edit summary, Jehochman has a tantrum and RevDeletes it, but this one goes by without comment? That's the great thing about standards; there's so many of them to choose from. Tarc (talk) 17:05, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I've just revdeleted two of edit summaries;, this is the very epitome of WP:POINT. I must say I'm tempted to block you... Salvio  Let's talk about it! 17:09, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Give into temptation. You have my blessing. I don't think I'm a prude, but "the blood of" and all those other comments made to make a point, that's too much. Drmies (talk) 17:13, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, right now, the disruption has stopped, so I don't think a block would be much preventative... Salvio  Let's talk about it! 17:53, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Hm. Eh, Darkstar1, would you kindly refrain from such language? Thank you very much. Drmies (talk) 18:13, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Darkstar1st, could you please refactor your edit, I did not use the edit summary you mentioned. Also, please see WP:VANDAL:  "Intentionally making abusive edits to Wikipedia will result in a block".  TFD (talk) 18:22, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * tdf, let's both strike the offensive language and agree not to use it in the future. Darkstar1st (talk) 18:26, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * What are you referring to? I'm not aware TFD has used inappropriate language. Nobody Ent 18:31, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * scroll up, my original comment was a protest to tfd using "jesus fucking christ" as an edit sum Darkstar1st (talk) 18:42, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you provide a diff of the edit? Nobody Ent 18:53, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WQA#Incivil_edit_comment_at_Austrian_School you can also find the same info at the top of this thread.  Darkstar1st (talk) 18:59, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * He means can you link to where I used that edit summary which you cannot because your claim is false and I am asking you again to strike it out. TFD (talk) 19:10, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * fine i give up, continue to litter wp with this kind of filth, and i will continue to try to convince entire school districts to not ban the site, cheers!   Darkstar1st (talk) 19:15, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I never used that edit summary, now strike out your false accusation. TFD (talk) 19:23, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Darkstar1st, I just looked back through TFD's last 500 edits (which go back to December 2011). I can find no evidence that he ever used "jesus fucking christ" as an edit summary, nor any evidence of a deleted edit summary that would indicate such had been revdeleted. Digging deeper into the various places you linked, I did find this edit by a different user,. Are you sure you haven't gotten the two users confused? If so, I would suggest striking through your comments about TFD having acted inappropriately. No matter who said the word "fucking", however, that is not a justification for spouting whatever offensive nonsense you can come up with in a tit-for-tat response. Please don't do that again - disrupting Wikipedia to make a point is not acceptable. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 19:42, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Darkstar1st was in conversation with me when he engaged in some low (but improving) quality swearing. I was arguing, as I have continuously done, that language gags have been thoroughly rejected by the community; and further, that you can't "backdoor" in a language gag by claiming that the language is "disruptive."  Darkstar1st's language wasn't obvious vandalism (even the non-grammatical sentence).  Nor was it a personal attack.  I'm not sure what I'd do with a large amount of menses, but he seemed to mean it as a compliment while trying to make an argument about language.  There's no personal attack, there's no vandalism.  Moreover, Darkstar1st wasn't engaging in tit-for-tat; they appeared to be attempting to argue a point, and made use of swearing to argue a point about—swearing.  There was a tendentiousness to their arguments, and I tried to point them to the forum that considers sitewide language gags; but, small amounts of related off-topic discussion seems to be a habit in consensus formation, and not disruptive. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:21, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * So, a variety of "may the hair on your toes never fall out"? I read/read it very differently. I couldn't tell whether they were trying to insult you or not, but I am having a hard time reading their comments anyway, apostrophes aside. See above: they claim TFD said x in an edit summary, but cannot produce a diff; no one else can; they say "bwuah what's this filth." So, a false accusation is made but it's not their fault. Or something. BTW, Fifelfoo, I'm glad you came by and cleared up that point: not a personal attack. Drmies (talk) 22:45, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * In the old days, it was "Jesus H. Christ". Where are people's sense of propriety? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:26, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * It was kind of a "May the hair on your toes." And the stuff in discussion with me wasn't a personal attack, nor a characterisation of me.  I think Darkstar1st could be reminded to more clearly remember which editor they wish to talk about, particularly when making claims about other editors.  In immediate reply to Baseball Bugs, there are some beautiful colourful working class idioms relating to Christ.  But I quite like the archaic 'swounds. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:22, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * indeed i am sorry for disrupting wp. perhaps my plea for a more child friendly wp is misplaced, apologies and fluffy bunnies all around.  Darkstar1st (talk) 06:27, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * So your idea of a more child friendly Wikipedia is making up stuff about other editors and engaging in pointy behaviour? I think you have mistaken "child friendly" for "childish". --Saddhiyama (talk) 21:29, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Good point, consider that matter closed, forgive me for my abstract ideas about wp, peace!  Darkstar1st (talk) 00:41, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Request review of NLT block
I've blocked for making. Specifically the statement "I am confident there are many other individuals such as myself, if merely a single other reader who would join with me in a 'class-action lawsuit' against 'Wikipedia' and the 'authors' of 'Santorum' as depicted and published here on Wikipedia." - as well as the following sentence which then solicits for time or resources to enact the threat.

Their post was to the talk page of a user who had previously warned them against an earlier disruptive edit - and appeared to be an attempt to intimidate the user who gave the earlier warning.

The only reason I bring it here is that they never actually stated that they were going to proceed with legal action. However, given the solicitation as well as the perception that it was meant to intimidate the user who had warned them - I believe that it is a violation that NLT is meant to try to prevent. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:04, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Good block. He's trying to intimidate, and that's why we have the NLT rule. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:15, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. Good block. S.G.(GH) ping! 22:15, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I should point out that I agree philosophically that the "Santorum" bodily fluid thing made up by some media character has way-undue weight here and runs the risk of being a serious BLP violation. Legal threats ain't the way to fix it, though. And my guess is that Santorum himself wouldn't dignify that garbage by even commenting on it, never mind filing suit. He's running for President, and if he gets the nomination, he'll get a lot more heat than just this silly bodily fluid joke. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:20, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I like how the web address for their mailing list is NIMBY. You can't make this stuff up. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 16:09, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Should the legal threat be removed? VanIsaacWS<sup style="margin-left:-2.9ex">contribs 22:22, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Why? The threat was never retracted in any way. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  22:33, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Personal attacks and socking
Ip 94.2.8.11 posted the following comment at WP:Footy Some of these adolescents have clearly struggled to get out of their bedrooms, let alone their backward wee country! . I strongly suspect this to be a sock of User:PorridgeGobbler who waged a war previously against myself and various other users regarding a content dispute over the Scottish First Division. He previously used ip User:94.14.78.108 to post messages to me  which ultimately led to it being blocked at ANI by User:Black Kite on 9 August. He then used PorridgeGobbler and was blocked warned about socking and is now clear he hasn't listened to it and is continuing personal attacks again. Edinburgh  Wanderer  23:26, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Ive had a look for the ANI in archive 9 but can't find it. There seems to be a lot missing from that archive. Edinburgh  Wanderer  23:36, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Contributing from IP is not socking, please AGF. I am entitled to state the fact that the Scottish First Division is NOT professional. "Waging a war" is embarrassing nonsense. Please comment on the issue not the editor! 94.2.8.11 (talk) 23:34, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It is socking i also suspect this ip User:94.14.194.24 to be a sock when they posted this comment at WP:Footy back in december.. This is obvious socking previous ANI here . Edinburgh  Wanderer  23:46, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * He also started a Dispute res this along with this discussion show  there was no consensus for what he was proposing.  This is no longer a content dispute just personal attacks and socking further disscusion is welcome but not when users go to this extent to be disruptive.  Edinburgh   Wanderer  23:53, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Technically, editing from an IP can be considered socking; based on our definition sockpuppetry can occur while "Logging out to make problematic edits as an IP address". So a defense that it's not sockpuppetry if you edit from an IP isn't a strong one. --  At am a  頭 00:05, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict)Looking back, you were pointed to DRN because the ANI was pathetically premature and inappropriate. You then threw an apparent tantrum and threatened to "resign" because no admins would close down the argument in your favour. I'm telling you there are legitimate reasons for me having to contribute by IP - no deception whatsoever is intended. Also I have made no "personal attacks". Stop forum shopping and get back to the discussion. Sooner or later the presence of a part-time, semi-pro league on a "fully professional" list will be found out. 94.2.8.11 (talk) 00:07, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You got blocked at that ANI for personal attacks and harassment you now make the following comment Some of these adolescents have clearly struggled to get out of their bedrooms, let alone their backward wee country! One thats a personal attack and two its a nationalist attack how ever minor. You were warned to use one account and engage in discussion instead you decided to ignore everyone else in all previous discussions and used multiple accounts. Im sorry but there is also a clear competence issue here as well. Please detail the legitimate reasons you have for using these ips other than for disruption. You could easily of taken part in every discussion but when other people disagreed you resorted to this sort of antics. I also note you dont appear to be disagreeing that you are PorridgeGobbler. Edinburgh   Wanderer  00:18, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd just like to point out that the 3 IP addresses here vary in location. 94.14.78.108 is from Nice, France. 94.14.194.24 is from Stansted, England, while 94.2.8.11 is editing from London. I'm wondering what the connection is supposed to be between these three IPs aside from the fact that they have all conflicted with you.


 * Also, assuming they are the same person, the sockpuppetry claims don't seem to be relevant. None of the IPs mentioned are currently blocked, and neither is PorridgeGobbler. I see claims of harassment and personal attacks, but no diffs to back them up. --  At am a  頭 00:26, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry what are you reading PorridgeGobbler talk page shows discussion about not socking so does other ip that he was blocked on by Black Kite. This diff shown above is a clear nationalist attack . This is qucking so loud you can hear it in the jungle. look through the contributions on the ips and Porridge and it clearly is the same user. This is a sock as clear as day. It was also noted by black kite that they used a dynamic ip. He is also clearly in replies above not denying he using multiple ips in fact he said i have valid reasons for doing so. If we aren't taking socking seriously which is a founding principal here then we certainly should be taking no personal attack seriously. Edinburgh   Wanderer  00:33, 28 January 2012 (UTC)


 * (conflict)I think you'll find Porridge Gobbler was blocked (and swiftly unblocked) for some alleged offence which changed as it went along and was never ultimately made clear. It certainly wasn't for "personal attacks and harassment". It appears as though you are deliberately misrepresenting the situation here, in breach of WP:UNCIVIL. 94.2.8.11 (talk) 00:36, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It is no wonder people who contribute consistently giving there all to this project feel hard done by. They give everything only to be attacked personally and there country. They also have to face someone who uses multiple accounts was warned for it yet they do it again and all they get is  the sockpuppetry claims don't seem to be relevant. Please tell me how his use of any account other than PorridgeGobbler which he was advise to use as part of unblock condition isn't a valid concern. Edinburgh   Wanderer  00:37, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Blocked for disruption ip Porridge gobbler blocked for socking and then for harassment. Black kite warning that he must use this account and this only as part of unblock. Edinburgh   Wanderer  00:42, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * We can't force someone to edit as an account. One of the founding principles of Wikipedia (and all Wikimedia projects) is that people are allowed to edit without being logged in. I also don't see that Black Kite specifically stated that PorridgeGobbler couldn't edit as an IP, he did say that he could only edit from a single account (which is not an unusual restriction). Again, if you allege harassment from the current IP you should show exactly where the harassment occurred, not link to a page and expect people to find it. The orange box at the top of this page that appears whenever you add a comment reminds you to use diffs. --  At am a  頭 00:58, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * And another personal attack this is exactly what happened the last time.. Edinburgh  Wanderer  00:58, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Please explain clearly how these are not personal attacks and why you think its correct that he is using multiple accounts purely for disruption when clearly warned by an admin not to do so again as part of unblock conditions. Edinburgh  Wanderer  01:02, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, here is a formal warning. 94.2.8.11, cut it out. You can discuss matters with editors without referring to them as bigoted adolescents from a wee backward country. Any further comments like that, and I will block you. --  At am a  頭 01:07, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Im sorry but thats no warning at all. It needs to be clearly warned on talk pages also i think other admin comments are required as I'm not convinced that Nationalist comments with a long term history clearly shown should only be warned Thats two attacks in less than 2 hours. Edinburgh   Wanderer  01:12, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Editing from a single account clearly means that account. There is a clear history of editing using various ips to disrupt. If you discount socking which is absurd then you need to look at behaviour the comment he left on my talk page was a clear repeat of the behaviour of before when he disagreed such as this and this  when other editors got involved similar reaction at least a bt more polite to adam.. Edinburgh   Wanderer  01:13, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Warning accepted. Can we get back to the issue now? This transparent attempt to shut down debate is becoming embarrassing. 94.2.8.11 (talk) 01:18, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This was much ado about nothing, until 94.* started trolling EW's talk page. That's quite enough of that.  Now, you've had your free shot at Scotland and your free troll of another editor.  Feel free to discuss the issue using an IP, if you want, but the discussion needs to be on the straight and narrow from here on out. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:22, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Honestly as before you were invited to discuss but have no intention of being constructive thats why this happens every time. No apology for your personal attacks and harassment no explanation of why you choose to ignore your unblock conditions. Im sorry but i can take personal attack but not nationalist ones.
 * Floquenbeam how is breaching unblock conditions not an issue. How is nationalist attacks against scotland and attacks against me nothing. This will end in tears because he will continue to troll and use multiple accounts. If he want to be constructive then he should use Porridge gobbler and that alone and I'm not convinced a block isn't warranted for returning to same behaviour he was blocked for in August 2011. Edinburgh  Wanderer  01:27, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm just not convinced about the socking being an issue; if he's not using more than one account/IP in that particular discussion, I have a hard time getting excited about it. I understand your point of view, but I don't think the use of the IP is a terrible issue.  The shot against Scotland and kids in Scotland was not kosher; if it doesn't happen again, I'm not going to block someone for it.  The trolling on your talk page is much more serious, and if it happens again he'll be blocked. If he continues to discuss like an adult, then please discuss it with him.  If he veers back into childishness, then he'll be blocked. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:34, 28 January 2012 (UTC)


 * (conflict)"Personal attacks" as mild as are an issue for the wikiquette noticeboard. Perhaps a passing Admin here might help to guide EW away from his vexatious and lame attempts to have other editors blocked. Again, I want to discuss the issues. 94.2.8.11 (talk) 01:36, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I also repeat the above warning isn't a proper warning he hasn't been notified formally on there talk page. Also why shouldn't and SPI be run to see if using other multiple accounts. I just don't see looking at the edit history and edits at all that help the project which shows non willingness to contribute. I really want to be uncivil to you as you have been to me Snowman, DuckisJammy and chris over the last whilst but  you don't see me hounding you. If you want to contribute use your username which you know fine well you should be using per your unblock. You clearly don't deny your socking and making personal attacks because the majority are against you is wrong.  Edinburgh   Wanderer  01:39, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Love how you miss out all the other personal attacks. it should be noted i strongly suspect there are more accounts out there given a lot of the terms ip used are something a long term editor would use which none of these accounts show. I think a check user should be asked for to clear this up once and for all. Edinburgh  Wanderer  01:43, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not using "porridge gobbler" because, to be honest, it was many months ago and I'd forgotten all about the farcical block and signing up for the account. In any event I have only commented, not edited, with this IP so am not in breach of the unblock. There is no grounds for a "check user". You make accusations of multiple accounts and personal attacks, but can't back it up with any credible evidence whatsoever. Also I note you are canvassing your pals from the Scottish football taskforce again. If anything Admins ought to be issuing warnings in your direction for these disruptive behaviours. And also for subjecting them to this storm-in-a-teacup ANI and wasting everybody's time. 94.2.8.11 (talk) 01:54, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If an admin wants to block me then fine but all the evidence plus you admitting porridge gobbler is you account clearly proves my point. You know fine well what your unblock conditions were. A personal attack is not a waste of anyones time in fact calling me disruptive is a farce look who's talking the one who's talking you attacked me and my gang as you call it. There not a gang they are group of editors who work bloody hard to improve coverage of scottish football unlike you with no edits that make a damm bit of difference to this encyclopaedia. You are in breach of the unblock it clearly said use this and this only. Edinburgh  Wanderer  02:00, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Notifying people is a requirement of ANI. I notified the blocking admin from last time. Thumperward who you had an issue with last time who you again posted on his talk page and duck who you also had a run in. Hardly forum shopping. Plus all your accounts. Edinburgh  Wanderer  02:03, 28 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm flattered (if slightly creeped out) that you remember me and the circumstances of our previous discussions so well. Frankly I'd forgotten all about it! Why don't we agree to keep away from one another, as there is obviously a personality clash? I'm happy to delimit my contributions to factual discussion of the topic at hand. Unless you have any actual evidence of "personal attacks" or "multiple accounts" I suggest you do the same. 94.2.8.11 (talk) 02:11, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone would forget you in a hurry. especially people at WP:Footy. Edinburgh  Wanderer  02:18, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Other ip addresses he used some blocked others warnings User talk:94.2.38.154 User:94.4.165.172, User talk:94.2.51.78 and User:94.14.62.195. Edinburgh   Wanderer  02:14, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it is quite obvious the user is sockpuppet, the last time round last time round the user used 3 ip addresses to avoid detection & appear as if he had only been warned once. When in fact he was warned several times by four different users. If he was using a single IP he would having been banned a long time ago. The user tried to appear reasonable by adding his opinions occasionally to discussions & then doing whatever he wanted regardless, adding inappropriate deletion tags to articles, making sarcastic comments, nationalist attacks & personal ones. Initially when user was unblocked he continued to make sarcastic comments for which he was again warned before becoming inactive. The user has now returned with yet again another IP & persisted with both personal & nationalistic attacks. Let me be frank the user is clearly both a sockpuppet & vandal I think it’s about time admins take this issue seriously before WP:FOOTBALL is severely affected once again. What do we have to do warn the user numerous time over his array of IP's while in the meantime he pops up on another IP & continues with his poisonous actions? Don't be fooled the IP can appear both ration & reasonable when he sees fit especially when he's defending himself but in reality he is no more than disruptive nuisance & it’s about time he suffered consequences of his actions. I think this case if pretty clear cut. &#9733;&#9734; DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 04:09, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, what would you do with someone who edits under various IPs spanning multiple countries? That's not a rhetorical question. My mop isn't wand-shaped. --  At am a  頭 04:26, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * When its clear they are using a dynamic ip i would block the known accounts. Its clear they are the same and its very clear they are here to attack other users. Im sorry but you don't explain why you think the attacks are ok and why obvious socking is allowed here specifically when the user does not deny it in fact openly admits it above. Edinburgh  Wanderer  12:16, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:SOCK says Creating new accounts to avoid detection and Logging out to make problematic edits as an IP address and that The misuse of multiple accounts is considered a serious breach of community trust. He clearly is doing that. And No personal attacks says the following are considered personal attacks: Racial, sexist, homophobic, ageist, religious, political, ethnic, sexual, or other epithets (such as against people with disabilities) directed against another contributor. A pattern of hostility reduces the likelihood of the community assuming good faith, and can be considered disruptive editing. He has displayed ageist and ethnic by having a go at my age and ethnic by having ago at my country. Edinburgh   Wanderer  12:36, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * What I would do with this someone who edits under various IPs spanning multiple countries is ignore them.
 * What we have here is a troll, and a very well fed troll.
 * This started off as a discussion about whether past players meet project guidelines here. Just a contribution on how to improve a WikiProject? No.
 * Quick Q&A. Q: what is the quickest way to provoke a Scot? A: call them "Scotch".
 * Look at the language the IP user uses: This has been pointed out a few times before only for the disproportionate number of Scotch editors...
 * And at that point I stopped assuming good faith. Then we come to "Some of these adolescents have clearly struggled to get out of their bedrooms, let alone their backward wee country!"
 * What I see here is comments made to provoke a reaction, under the guise of advancing a discussion. The first response to attention-seeking behaviour should be to ignore it. Alas, we have paid attention; even my comment here is troll-food.
 * --Shirt58 (talk) 12:48, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It is clear trolling i agree however he never gets warned properly by admins like what was down above uses multiple accounts attacks other editors he has a clear grudge against scotland. He has started various threads all with the same intention and attacked in all of them when other editors go the other way. If he is being clearly disruptive then admin action is necessary. If we agree its trolling should comments just be reverted. Edinburgh  Wanderer  12:54, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I would like to point out from the beginning we suspected a pre existing grudge from before at the WP:Footy as none of the edits of Porridge or others have enough history it lead to the belief that there may be other accounts out there. All of the above still make me believe this which is why a said a check user should be carried out to determine this. Its been pointed out to me that it may have been due to the fact that he didn't accept that the league of ireland in which no team is fully pro was not regarded as notable. There is a clear socking on other accounts so an SPI report is appropriate. I can fill an SPI in if deemed necessary would do it now but don't want to be accused of forum shopping although it seems very justified. Edinburgh   Wanderer  13:03, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * To show why i said he wasn't interested in discussions is that back in august he was constantly told to discuss on talk page but reverted us on the main page constantly when advised to discuss even after he had left comments. one two  three  4  5  6  7  and then blocked. Does this look like someone who really wanted to discuss.  Edinburgh   Wanderer  13:34, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * ok my strongly held position that Porridge may have used other accounts has been heightened just now. An editor User:Murry1975 who i have never had any interaction with made the following comment you get all huffy when personal remarks are made towards you. As i have never spoken to him he wouldn't know that. And he won't explain why. Also he went on to talk about irish Leagues something Porridge did with his Ip's. He has never edited the project or edited anything to do with Scottish football so the appearance just now is causing me great concern. Im happy to discuss further with him and other editors if confirmed he isn't related to Porridge. His comments about ANi also reminds me of what the ip stated above. Full discussion found here.. Edinburgh   Wanderer  14:53, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Murry1975 has been notified. Edinburgh  Wanderer  14:55, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Please use WP:SPI for the sockpuppet accusations. Nobody Ent 15:00, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Given that we are also talking personal attacks which still haven't been given a official warning for just note above which isn't official this is a valid forum as well. I will open and SPI as well but there are other issues still to be addressed here. Edinburgh  Wanderer  15:06, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The IP has been given an official warning. File your SPI.  This is becoming disruptive, and quite childish at this point. ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 15:16, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * How is it childish and no he has not been officially warned. I fail to see how a user who openly admits above he has socked is childish. Edinburgh  Wanderer  15:19, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/User:PorridgeGobbler Edinburgh  Wanderer  15:32, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I've seen this flagging up several times in my watchlist, and have observed the conversation thoroughly. As it has of been no business to me I refrained from saying anything. However from things being said, it is starting to sound like a group of kids in kindergarten fighting over who's turn it is to play in the sandpit. EW you requested that the IP be warned. A warning was given above. Now you're demanding the warning be more official. At the end of the day, a warning is a warning regardless of how and where it is issued. When you stated a warning be issued, then why not be more specific and say "official" and not leave it open to interpretation? We're all human at the end of it all, and not equipped with in-built crystal balls. I have noticed several editors give their input and advice on this topic, and from what I see in response from EW is throwing the rattle out of the cot. Isn't best at this stage to just drop the stick and walk away from it all. If it was me in a situation like this, I'd have took it on the chin and moved on. A lesson learned is a a lesson earned. It isn't the problem along the way that make us or break us. It's how we learn to stand and face them that makes the difference. Wesley Mouse (talk) 15:59, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok first of all as far as I'm concerned a warning should be given directly to the user. The reason I'm so moved by this is his previous behaviour towards me was harassment that just about led to me giving up editing which I'm thankfull i never. The behaviour here was similar to what he started before and I'm extremely concerned he will start again. When an unblock says you must use this and this only all i can see is he is in clear breach of this and none of the advice on this page explains why this isn't the case. In all honestly I'm sick of people making nationalist attacks. This has happened repeatedly to me not just in this case but in others. Its just not on and is something thats needs dealt with more strongly across the board and this isn't happening ever. Dropping the stick is very hard when it keeps happening. I will back off but explanation is required about why they feel no action is warranted re socking. Edinburgh  Wanderer  16:07, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * (EC) Yes I agree that nationalist attacking comments happen everywhere, even in everyday life. But if we were to all start having these rants about it, then we'd be smacking our heads against a brick wall.  I hear nasty homophobic comments in my day-to-day life, some of them even aimed at me.  But by ignoring them and moving on, I know within myself that I have taken a bigger and bolder step than the person making the attacking comments.  To walk away and ignore things like that shows who is the better person in it all.  But choosing to stoke the fire instead of dropping the stick is just making the matter worse than it needs to be.  Don't take the bait and be the victim.  Show your bravery by ignoring the attackers and showing them who is better.  Remember the saying EW "what goes around, comes around".  Karma is by far the best form of defence.  Wesley Mouse (talk) 16:16, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Brother of article subject - deletion of sourced content.
Jocelyne Couture-Nowak was a professor and one of the tragic victims of the Virginia Tech Massacre. An editor, User:Just, who has identified himself as the brother of Couture-Nowak has begun making edits to both articles. Firstly in the Virginia Tech Massacre article, the editor removed what appears to be straight forward detail of what occurred in Couture-Nowak's classroom. The detail was properly sourced, but the user removed the source also. No comment was made.

Later in the Jocelyne Couture-Nowak article, again the user has removed sourced straight forward detail of events of the tragedy, in this case how it specifically related to Couture-Nowak. The source was The Washington Post and again that source was removed. No comment was made. When the edit was reverted, the user reverted with the comment "Contents of deleted section irrelevant for this page concerning my sister Jocelyne Couture. Other edits will follow shortly."

I left a note on Just's talk page suggesting they read the Close relationships section of Conflict of interest that explains potential bias issues when editing articles. User Just seemed quite defensive and included the ironic statements, "The question is all about consolidation of pertinent and relevant facts put forth in any Wikipedia page. If one is to write any superfluous detail which may lend to bias, confusion, or promote ambiguity, then such content should never be allowed on Wikipedia."

The user seems to believe there's a "bias" involved with this content existing and promises to make more edits. I don't know what to make of this. The user doesn't seem to have a lot of experience with WP and might be unfamiliar with some of the website's standards. Perhaps administrators who are familiar with WP:COI issues might want to weigh in on this. --Oakshade (talk) 02:39, 28 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Just has been editing WP on the VTM for a long time. Your diff shows he did not delete sourced material from the VTM article but rather added a sourced line about deaths and injuries in room 211. What is the problem?
 * The edit of the Jocelyne Couture-Nowak article does alter the narrative, but the dispute is about the article content and not Just's behavior. Just is at two reverts right now. You've pointed out the COI. You can point out 3RR. But take the content dispute to the article's talk page and get it resolved there.
 * Glrx (talk) 03:37, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Just registered in 2003, but has had only 52 edits since. That's not a lot of experience.
 * You are correct about the VTM article. I have struck that paragraph.  The the problem of removing sourced content from the Jocelyne Couture-Nowak article stands.  Again there could be WP:COI issue here.  When the brother of a deceased article topic begins removing sourced content that has been there for years, that's a problem.  The issued has been taken to the user's talk page, but the COI issue still exists. --Oakshade (talk) 04:02, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * While a source was given for the deleted phrase, it is not clear that the content as presented was adequately covered by the source. The deleted phrase presented it as a fact that Violand told Couture-Nowak to barricade the door, while all we learn from the source is that he recounted telling her to "put that desk in front of the door" – and while we have no reason to think he made this up, personal memories of such events are notoriously unreliable. --Lambiam 13:14, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If contents of Wikipedia is to derive from relevant objective facts which are pertinent to a subject in question, then for the sake of brevity, relevancy, and coherency among other things, content which conflicts with the relevancy of the topic should never be allowed, especially where it provokes a conflicting issue regarding the underlying rationale behind the usage of the deleted contents. Where there is a conflict of relevancy the impugned details should never be published, regardless if those details derive from "reputable" sources. I respectfully submit that the quality of edits of a registered editor should take precedence over the quantity of edits. I dare believe that my future occasional edits - including the rationale supporting them - shall continue to be perceived as "Just" and according to guiding and evolving principals of Wikipedia directives. Thank you all for your assistance in making Wikipedia more notable. just (talk) 16:25, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Please review my closure of an RS/N discussion
RS/N discussions occur under a culture of limited discussions soliciting outside involvement. As a long term RS/N editor, I have taken to closing discussions early that do not fit within the RS/N culture or mission, or where IDHT behaviour is occurring. I recently closed such a discussion. The closure was reverted, and then another editor reverted back to my close. One user is unhappy with this closure. Please review my closure (as stated in the diff) in the context of this evidence for the closure:

Diff notes:
 * Movement over previous discussion
 * Competence failure to comply with RS/N requirements
 * Suggestion that initiator feels free ("If editors here feel this discussion is of no use they don't have to comment.") to ignore RS/N culture 2
 * and related ("draw") battlefield
 * tag teaming; (this) and (this) by an involved editor (this) and (this) by the same editors
 * editors fail to restrict general discussion 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
 * over contribution by an involved editor 2 3 4 5 6 7
 * and noted in dicussion 2 3
 * Core points for the closure 2 3 (regarding the business model of the publisher) 4 (regarding currency of RS/N reliability, future reliability can be determined in the future) 5 (regarding publisher quality) 6 (MEDRS context) 7 (journal indexing)

I have notified WT:RS/N; and the user who expressed concern (and reverted my closure), and the user who reverted back to my closure on their talk pages. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:43, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I can understand why some editors are annoyed if the issue hasn't been resolved, but personally I think it was the correct call in the end. If the editors want impartial assistance then they need to respect the spirit of the board; there is no way I would read through that mountain of crap just to help them out. Betty Logan (talk) 06:08, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I also think it was correct to close this. The underlying aim appeared to be to find a hospitable page on which to argue out the editorial policies of a publisher: such discussions could not have answered the specific issue that was raised. And rew D alby  13:13, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments per RS Notice Board action
I assume Fifelfoo acted in good faith. However, his action in closing a NB discussion was ill considered and inappropriate:

General:

There is no standard on NB which allows for an editor to randomly close a discussion, warn other editors, to make judgements about sources under discussion, and/or to make comments and judgments about sources not under discussion, for example (Anderson and Taylor-see closing statements). . The NB discussion was closed after less than a day and a half.

Specifically:
 * Fifelfoo's close was based on the misassumption that, "I am closing this as the discussion is moving towards the exclusion of RS/N editors..." Granateple is not an involved editor.


 * Graneteple and 7 uninvolved editors (LeadSongDog, Granateple, Yobol, RexxS, Andrew Dalby, David Eppstein, Short Brigade Harvester Boris), with occasional comments by 2 involved editors (Fladrif, Littleolive Oil) made pertinent comments per the specific question posed which was based in the reliability of the publisher,  whether a vanity press,  and open access publication. The discussion was appropriately  online with the issues on the source.


 * Tag teaming assumption is based I presume on the idea that Graneteple was an involved editor. He's not. And lining up two editor comments and assuming they are tag teaming is highly presumptuous and in this case dead wrong.


 * I did not forum shop as Fifelfoo accused me of. LeadSongDog suggested moving a more general discussion here to the RS Notice Board here which I did.

My concern:

It was inappropriate to publicly criticize an uninvolved editor, Granateple, for commenting, and especially to issue reminders in the manner of an arbitration. This:

-discourages good-faith participation at a noticeboard

-discourages use of noticeboards

-discourages participation by an uninvolved editor such as Granateple

That said, I assume Filelfoo acted in good faith with the best interest of Wikipedia at heart. I believe closing of NB postings needs further discussion. I've opened a discussion here (olive (talk) 16:37, 26 January 2012 (UTC))


 * I think Filelfoo's problem was mostly the way in which the discussion was conducted. The purpose of the board is to get outside objective opinion, so when the discussion is taken over by the involved editors and made inaccessible to impartial editors it ceases to be productive.  If the issue still needs to be resolved, you should restart the discussion but limit yourself to stipulating your opinion on the matter, and the opposing editor can do the same, and then let uninvolved editors judge for themselves. Betty Logan (talk) 20:02, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * To clarify: The discussion was in the hands almost exclusively if uninvolved editors. Fifelfoo assumed one of the uninvolved editors was involved which was not the case. He in good part based his close on that misassumption.(olive (talk) 20:10, 26 January 2012 (UTC))


 * I rely on my impression of tag teaming between you and Granateple; Granateple's gross over contribution to discussion; and the "uninvolved" editors wandering straight back to the topic of the general discussion of the reliability of open access journals. (See diffs above).  In particular your attempts to control the discussion (again, diffs above) indicated a stewed discussion excluding outside editors.  Fifelfoo (talk) 22:14, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Your comment is absurd. You are accusing all of the uninvolved editors of some sort of conspiracy to skew a discussion. That's ridiculous. Attempt to exclude outside editors?  They were all outside editors with two exceptions, Olive an Fladrif, Please feel free to accuse Short Brigade Harvester Boris and others of being part of some "stewed" discussion. And control the discussion? You're grasping at straws. My intent was to  prevent an escalation of a few angry posts. I made very few posts.  My real concern here is that an editor who will skew events as you have here, is closing NB discussions and has taken an advisory rule in Wikipedia, and in doing so in this case is willing to blacken the reputations of all of the editors who commented on the NB rather than admit to a mistake. This is a serious concern.(olive (talk) 22:47, 26 January 2012 (UTC))


 * Please do not misread my comments, in particular, I am not "accusing all of the uninvolved editors of some sort of conspiracy," I have accused your behaviour and the behaviour of another editor as constituting "tag teaming" and supplied diffs. I have suggested that the discussion wandered off into general discussion and supplied diffs.  Your ownership and battleground behaviour excludes other editors—RS/N editors do not need to be invited by an involved party into a discussion on the noticeboard they frequent, and supplied diffs.  As you may note from the extensive list of diffs, Short Brigade Harvester Boris' contributions were not contributive to the poorly constructed discussion.   "that an editor who will skew events as you have here, is closing NB discussions and has taken an advisory rule in Wikipedia, and in doing so in this case is willing to blacken the reputations of all of the editors who commented on the NB rather than admit to a mistake. This is a serious concern." do you have any evidence for this, or would you like to make accusations without demonstration?  Fifelfoo (talk) 23:30, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not the one who needs to prove something. You have made assumptions and then found diffs to prove your case. I've never met or worked with Granateple. I came to a NB in good faith to deal with a troublesome source, to make sure that whatever was done with the source was compliant. The discussion was civil and helpful with many good comments. I question your closing of that discussion after a day and a half, and I'm telling you your comments about what went on are misguided. I am, as I said concerned because you made some massive misassumptions, closed a case based on those assumptions and warned an editor in the manner of an arb which can only serve to chill the NB environment. I have nothing more to say. (olive (talk) 23:43, 26 January 2012 (UTC))

Awesome!
I think it's awesome that a civil single-purpose POV pusher can try to push a vanity published journal article into a wikipedia article where they have a massive conflict of interest, then, once totally uninvolved editors realize that the journal article is crap argue for pages and pages about how everyone is just behaving oh-so-terribly, and nothing is done to stop them! That's AWESOME! We should DEFINITELY have more of that! Hipocrite (talk) 18:38, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * While my personal opinion of Hindawi is that it's not in the same rank as the really top-notch journals (and I'm annoyed at getting spam from them), casting Hindawi as a vanity press is going too far. The editorial board for their journal in my field includes a number of highly regarded researchers, some whom I know well personally. (If you want to check for yourself see and do a Google Scholar search for e.g., Guy Brasseur or Klaus Dethloff.) They wouldn't be on the board if there were shenanigans going on; these are people with established reputations to uphold. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:38, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Stating that one journal is a vanity published does not mean the publisher is a vanity publisher. If you have any reason to believe that the "Journal of Nutrition and Metabolism" (ironically named almost identically to Nutrition and Metabolism, wonder why!) is a reliable source, that can be discussed at RSN. It might be - I don't really care or know. What I do know is that anyone who finds an article in "Journal of Nutrition and Metabolism" and thinks it's a good source for Wikipedia was either furtively directed their by someone who is an expert in the field as their meatpuppet, is an expert themselves, has a massive conflict of interest, or is googling for dollars. If olive is an expert, she'd know how to find the OTHER side of the arguemnt (you know, the one that the experts believe in). If she's googling for dollars, then she needs to be topic banned. If she's being directed by someone, perhaps the meatpuppetry needs to end. Of course, we know the answer is that she has a massive conflict of interest, but dare we say what it is? No, we'll be wikilawyered with OUTING OUTING OUTING all day. Hipocrite (talk) 21:47, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * What is amazing here, is that an editor can attack another editor on an admin  Notice Board and no one says anything. That seems a conspicuously strange and ironic event.  (olive (talk) 22:50, 26 January 2012 (UTC))
 * Hipocrite - tone it down. I also strongly advise you strike some of your more accusatory comments above. <BR>olive - If you've got a problem with how admins are reacting to a situation, there are FAR better ways to bring it to our attention. <BR>Now this case requires a bit of examination before a newcomer can meaningfully weigh in, and I'm sure all parties would prefer a measured response rather than a kneejerk one. In the interim, both sides should focus on presenting the core elements of the dispute without descending into incivility. Manning (talk) 23:05, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I have not been uncivil and I have been treated to Hipocrite's foul comments both here and on the RS NB talk page. My sense was to stay out of this after I did present the core element of my concerns, but this foul comment has been siting here for a good part of the day. Normally I would apologize for any kind of forceful language . Tt's not my style but in this case. No. I'm fed up with being bullied. Hipocrite has not been part of this discussion. His purpose seems to be simply to attack and bully. Thanks for your comment, I will take it to heart.(olive (talk) 23:21, 26 January 2012 (UTC))

Note: Olive has been topic banned by arbcom in the past for WP:TE and POV pushing on Transcendental Meditation and it was pointed out in the AE report that she has a conflict of interest, so there is merit to what Hipocrite is saying. N <sup style="color:red;">o f o rmation <sup style="color:black;">Talk  00:06, 27 January 2012 (UTC)


 * There is no merit to bullying. NoFormation. One of the reasons poisoning the well is frowned on is that first, one has to be very careful to get the facts straight, and second one can be lacking in  the understanding and nuances of some environments. Editors who edit in contentious areas can be set upon by all manner of those wishing they would disappear. What counts is that the arbitration committee has never sanctioned me for anything. (olive (talk) 00:38, 27 January 2012 (UTC))


 * User:Noformation - I'm not disputing (or endorsing) any of Hipocrite's claims, just asking that they be toned down a bit. <BR>::olive - you WERE put under Arbcom sanctions by an Arbcom clerk, in accordance with the discretionary sanctions ruling handed down by Arbcom. (For the record I note that those sanctions have long since expired). These are considered equivalent to direct action by Arbcom, so you will achieve nothing by disputing that fact. Manning (talk) 00:53, 27 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Manning I was referring specifically to the TM arbitration, where I was not sanctioned in any way, nor warned...and NW did not act as a arbitration clerk. Noformation has some of his information wrong and given what has gone on in this thread I'm reaching my limit on false accusations.  I would request that you do not accuse me of being untruthful which is not the case.(olive (talk) 01:04, 27 January 2012 (UTC))
 * You were topic banned by arbcom, I didn't say that it was during the initial TM case so congrats, strawman successfully torn down. How can you state that NW wasn't acting as an arbclerk?  What does this even mean?  He's an arbclerk, he banned you, he logged your ban at the TM log of blocks and bans.  You cannot separate NW's position as an arbiter from his actions in an administrative role and your attempts to do so come off as wikilawyering.


 * What does it matter when it happened anyway? The fact of the matter is that you were topic banned for bad editing practices and pushing your POV.  Further, you were also sanctioned with a 1RR restriction as arbcom believed that you, Timidguy and Edith Sirius Lee tag team reverted edits in order to keep your POV in. You then tried to wikilawyer yourself out of the ban by claiming that you weren't properly notified about discretionary sanctions, and your appeal was denied.  This was what, a year ago?  And it seems as though you're still pushing your POV.  The first three results searching for "User:Littleolive_oil prefix:Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement" are the three AE incidents with which Olive was involved (though these do not contain the topic ban, which can be found here).  N <sup style="color:red;">o f o rmation  <sup style="color:black;">Talk  02:05, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I am telling you what I said and what I meant. You can make out of that what you want to, but none of that is true to what I said or meant. Wikipedia is one dimensional. There is no way of explaining the multi dimensional environments which accompany what you think you see. I shouldn't have tried to given what has gone on here. Best wishes.(olive (talk) 03:01, 27 January 2012 (UTC))


 * I will continue a little bit because of the strange incident with the excommunication. I meditate very seldom.


 * I think this journal is tolerably reliable and okay, and that it suits the topic, which is limited and doesn’t belong to larger journals. Preliminary findings suggests that relaxation might cause a drop in blood pressure. Not very remarkable, and why should it not be mentioned on Wikipedia? We are not talking about the “Hypertension” article. On the 17th of February 1600 Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake because he dared to say that the Earth revolves around the Sun, and that the Universe is infinite, with an unlimited number of stars.


 * But the sheeps need a shepherd. Every movement, when it becomes messianic, has its purists and priests, more catholic than the Pope. Take a look at the reputation of Hindawi, and the editorial board of the journal in question. What do we tell the researcher and professors on that board, many from reputed universities around the world? What do we tell Cindy Davis, now at the National Cancer Institute? What do we tell assistant professor M. Shauwkat Razzaque at Harvard? What do we tell Professor Dr. med. Hans Konrad Biesalski at Universität Hohenheim in Germany? This editorial board consist of more than 40 respected researchers, and they also have some self-respect. To say that Hindawi or their journals are unreliable, that is not in accordance with a scientific outlook, as I perceive it.


 * I hope you admin folks will read through the discussion (rather lengthy) on WP:RS, and judge fairly regarding this unexpected excommunication. Granateple (talk) 02:15, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This board is for discussing behavioral issues not content. Further, RS/N has already dealt with the source; it's time to drop this.  N <sup style="color:red;">o f o rmation  <sup style="color:black;">Talk  02:20, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Australasian Journal of Bone & Joint Medicine anyone? 67.119.12.141 (talk) 22:10, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * My thoughts exactly --Guerillero &#124; My Talk  21:01, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Block not recorded in the block log
I saw the totally unacceptable post at the start of this user talk page thread. I checked the block log and was surprised to see it was blank. Knowing that a username that declares an editor "=F4g" cannot be acceptable, I requested a block at WP:UAA. My request was removed by a bot in secoinds on the grounds that the user is already blocked indefinitely, yet looking again at the block log it remains blank. Why would an indefinite block not appear in the block log? I obviously wouldn't have wasted time suggesting a block for an obvious attack account if the log had shown action was already taken. Would someone please explain how and why blocks can be missing from the logs? EdChem (talk) 03:27, 28 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The log action may have been concealed due to the gross unacceptability of the username—so the user is blocked, but certain classes of editors aren't able to see that a log entry exists documenting the block. —C.Fred (talk) 03:38, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The user is blocked. You can't see it in the block log because it has been changed or otherwise hidden from view to diminish the harm done by the name. Note that while the actual diffs are revdeleted, Fæ has copied the content to his talk page. I suggest that this thread be collapsed to avoid repeating the same slur in the username. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:41, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Would someone please explain to me simply why a block log showing that an editor with a grossly unacceptable username has been blocked increases the harm that a block log showing that an editor with a grossly unacceptable username is free to edit does not? Remove the posts from view I understand, hiding the block I don't. EdChem (talk) 04:10, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Suppose an attacker creates user "[well known person] is [some offensive term]". If the attacker is blocked and the name logged for the world to see, that is a win for the attacker (which encourages further attacks). Johnuniq (talk) 04:21, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Is this standard practice for blocks of offensive names? Or was this a decision in just this particular case? Maybe because (if memory serves), the editor also blatantly tried to "out" Ash and/or Fae? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:24, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * For example, this one, from this past November, which was blatantly over the line, but no attempt was made to hide the block log. However, it was not directed at another user. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:26, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This one, which was directed at me, doesn't have its block log hidden either - but it also wasn't an insult as such, but merely a lame attempt at copycatting. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:29, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I think there is a difference between a username that may offend some editors and a username that targets a specific user and contains offensive slurs. I believe it is common for the latter to be removed from view, as the username itself is the problem. In this particular case, the targeted user has chosen to copy the revdeleted attack on their talk page, which makes the revdeletions and username hiding ineffectual, and drew the attention of the user who opened this thread. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:49, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That makes sense. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:37, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Every so often I go through and rename most of these accounts to a random string and then have the log suppressed so that there is no evidence the user ever existed. I've been meaning to request a new database query of names and will try to get around to it later this month.  MBisanz  talk 17:52, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Good deal. I'm taking the liberty of re-boxing. Revert it if you want. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:37, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Requesting block of IP of banned user User:Picker78
The 79.107.38.160 is a sock of banned user User:Picker78 who has a history of attempting to avoid this ban. See User:Foot Hunter, and User:Dionisia Bekri. As evidenced in this comment on my talkpage, (since deleted) he blatantly explains who he is. Please get rid of him. Thank you. Lost on Belmont (talk) 17:03, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello, this is Picker78. I would like to say that my blocking (as Picker78) was unfair and based on an edit that I never did. I can explain this further. 79.107.38.160 (talk) 17:13, 28 January 2012 (UTC)


 * IP blocked. As a prolific sockpuppeteer and edit-warrior, nothing "unfair" about their block.  Acroterion   (talk)   17:22, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Rubinkumar, rollback, and competence
Rubinkumar has requested the rollback tool four times within the past 10 days on-wiki, and at least twice on IRC. He clearly does not have enough experience fighting vandalism, and thus was told to request it at a future date. I notified him that repeated requests could lead to an ANI discussion resulting in a rollback-request ban or a block on his talk page. He asked about the concerns raised by reviewing admins, to which I responded with a list of their concerns. He then proceeded to lie to me about his editing history, claiming that he has "over 100 edits reverting vandalism." He has a history of incorrectly tagging articles, such as a lead too long tag at stub Ojas a few days ago.

I then went ahead and checked his editing history after my last reply on his talk page. I noticed he replaced an image of an elementary school with a digitally-altered image (which looked awful, IMO) that removed people, a fire hydrant, and a pole in the foreground, but he did not attribute the work as required by the license, and I deleted it as a copyvio. I received this message today in which Rubinkumar threatened to "raise a discussion about" my behavior, "get another administrator to revert it," "REPORT YOU TO AIV," and gave me some "useful links" as if I'm the inexperienced user. I am requesting a review of Rubinkumar's behavior, and maybe a review of my image deletion, as Rubinkumar does not appear competent enough to edit Wikipedia and is being disruptive. This edit, in which he reverts a good-faith edit on his talk page by another user, only to make the same edit immediately after, shows the disruption I am referring to, among other edits.  Eagles   24/7  (C)  18:03, 28 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment. I have checked the edits for this user, and he/she dosen't seem to have done anything wrong. I think that the edit this user made on their own talk-page was fully okay. After all, its their OWN talk page. IAmWarrior (talk) 18:52, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * And who are you?  Eagles   24/7  (C)  18:59, 28 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I've blocked IAmWarrior indefinitely as a DUCK sock of Rubinkumar. Note the first version of IAmWarrior's talk page where he claims to be Bongwarrior, and then the third edit above showing behavioral similarities to Rubin. I haven't blocked Rubinkumar yet, as I'm waiting for their response here or confirmation via the autoblocker, however the standard block for this sort of thing is one week on the master account. Anyone's welcome to apply that if they feel it's appropriate and I'm not around, if not, I'll probably do it later unless this turns out to be a mistake on my part. No comment on the incident this section focuses on though, I haven't looked into it. <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold  (t/a/c) 19:15, 28 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Creating a sock to support oneself at ANI, and claiming to be an alt account of an admin? I don't see any reason to wait for a reply, there is no explanation that can excuse such manifest acts of bad faith. I'd personally favor an indef block, this behavior brings to mind several other recent users with competence problems (unhealthy obsession with "leveling up" clueless sock puppetry, trying to take credit for more experienced users' work, general incompetence at actual editing, useless warnings to other users, etc) . Having long dialogues with them just prolongs the inevitable. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:17, 28 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, I see you've blocked now. <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold  (t/a/c) 20:26, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for stepping on your toes, but having dealt with several similar cases recently it has become clear to me that users with these types of issues do not benefit from a "wait and see" approach as it gives them the impression they will be given infinite "second chances" whereas a block makes it clear we are serious. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:30, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Good block, in my opinion. Thanks, Beeb. Salvio  Let's talk about it! 23:20, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No stepped-on toes here, I agree with your assessment and I did invite anyone to block away if they felt it was warranted. <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold  (t/a/c) 02:18, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Personal attack
A vile PA on T.Canens .Murry1975 (talk) 00:11, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeffed. Thanks for reporting him. Salvio  Let's talk about it! 00:15, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

ClaudioSantos violates topic ban??
ClaudioSantos has one of the widest topic bans ever issued (see: Topic bans. I would like to know if he violated his topic ban by takling part in an AfD (Articles for deletion/Ian Dowbiggin) about a person involved in the abortion/eugenetics discussion. It is a borderline case, but allowed or not? Night of the Big Wind  <sub style="color:maroon;">talk  10:26, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * A topic ban that wide is contrary to reason. I consider an OTRS ticket to be something far past that sort of "ban" - especially since I could readily see significant problems with the BLP. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:55, 24 January 2012 (UTC) Note: This would include editing any section of of any biographies that deal with said subjects. does not seem to extend to "opining on noticeboards thereon" as that sentence is clearly the outer limit of the "widening".  Collect (talk) 13:59, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I think I am free to ask if it is a violation or not. Night of the Big Wind  <sub style="color:maroon;">talk  14:21, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Nobody said you couldn't ... you were just given an opinion. ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 19:07, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Technically it could be considered a violation, since a topic ban is intended to apply to all areas of Wikipedia; "Unless clearly and unambiguously specified otherwise, a topic ban covers all pages (not only articles) broadly related to the topic, as well as the parts of other pages that are related to the topic." It's not clearly and unambiguously specified otherwise in this ban. And it doesn't seem right to oppose the ban through selective enforcement, if the ban is considered improper then it should be modified or removed after a new community discussion.


 * However, looking into the history of this, and the discussion that led to the expansion of the older ban that only covered euthanasia, I don't see that this ban was enacted due to problems that occurred outside of article space. So in my opinion, the ban shouldn't extend to AfD discussions. --  At am a  頭 02:08, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It is difficult again. The topic ban is so widely set because he kept searching the limits of his prior topic ban. And that is just what happens here again. But if this allowed, so be it. Night of the Big Wind  <sub style="color:maroon;">talk  04:15, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Interesting, besides his usual rant against Jabbsworth et al, he now also comments on the content of the article about Ian Dowbiggin. Night of the Big Wind  <sub style="color:maroon;">talk  18:17, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If it was really possible to comment in an AfD without referring to the content of the article, at any rate my comments about its content are not dealing about the banned topics. I did take care of avoid that. But my comments in the AfD, about the article content, exclusively illustrate how the article actually violates the BLP policies and that the controversial edits were made by the expulsed user:Jabbsworth on purpose to discredit this author, in order to remove him as a reliable source in other wikipedia articles (Details and proofs here:). It should be noticed that the AfD was precisely opened because the own subject requested the deletion of the article based on BLP concerns after his entirely unattended (but punished) attempt to correct those controversial edits made by the expulsed user. -- <span class="texhtml" style="font-family:Berlin Sans FB; font-size:small; text-shadow:orange 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em;"> ClaudioSantos  ¿?  19:41, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It does not matter what Jabbsworth et al did. The fact is that mr. Dowbigging never got involved in any discussion but furiously is trying to "tweak the article to his wishes" (polite term for censoring). And what matters at this page, is that you are involved. I get the idea that the admins are allowing your edits, but it is again exploring the fringes of your topic ban. Night of the Big Wind  <sub style="color:maroon;">talk  21:08, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Just because there is an OTRS ticket doesn't mean he needs to comment on that AfD. Lots of other users around to do so. I'd say this does clearly violate his topic ban, he should be blocked and the counter reset.--Crossmr (talk) 23:12, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - That's a euthanasia-related piece, narrowly defined, and a clear violation of the topic ban. Carrite (talk) 04:13, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * ClaudioSantos's current ban doesn't actually include euthanasia. His old ban did (which expired the first of November), but the current ban in effect through April of this year is "to include Abortion, Planned Parenthood, Eugenics, and Nazi related topics, broadly construed, including all biographies of notable persons involved in such subjects, broadly construed". Euthanasia is related to eugenics somewhat but they aren't exactly the same, so according to the ban as written he is not specifically excluded from euthanasia topics.


 * On the other hand, this particular biography is about a historian involved just as much in eugenics as euthanasia, and is controversial for tying the two closely together, so the topic ban would still apply at this article. Again, though, I'm not completely sure it should apply at the AfD. --  At am a  頭 17:21, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Euthanasia was part of the Nazi eugenics program, so "broadly construed" would bring it into the topic ban as well, in my opinion, not just for one article, but generally speaking. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:16, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't agree. Just because euthanasia was used for that purpose doesn't mean that anything related to euthanasia would fall under the ban. The article euthanasia itself would fall under the ban, of course, because that article includes everything in the ban except Planned Parenthood (check it out, you'll find eugenics, Nazis, and abortion included) but an article like animal euthanasia wouldn't. Many euthanasia-related articles (the Dowbigging article being an example) do intersect with one or more of the topics that ClaudioSantos is banned from, but that would be determined on a case-by-case basis. If the community feels that he is being disruptive on euthanasia-related articles that would fall outside the scope of his current ban, then that ban can be reenacted, or his current ban can be modified to include it.  When his current ban was originally set, his older ban on euthanasia (and interaction ban with Jabbsworth) was still in effect, so it's possible that the intention was for him to remain banned on that topic as well, but I'd hesitate to personally make that assumption. By the way, if anyone wants to know my history with this, I was the person who initially instituted the older ban from euthanasia and the interaction ban (just as an admin closing a community discussion, I didn't participate in it myself of course). --  At am a  頭  17:35, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think euthanasia is the issue here. The article under discussion at AfD contains a section entitled Sterilization which specifically mentions eugenics and its use in fascist regimes (including Nazi Germany). It is that aspect which violates the topic ban. Mathsci (talk) 10:03, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

If I am counting correctly, ClaudioSantos did not just chime in just once at an AfD debate about the biography of an academic/author who has written about eugenics, but the editor has commented nine times at length in that debate, engaging in extensive discussion of the matter. It is difficult for me to accept an argument that ClaudioSantos has not violated the topic ban.  Cullen <sup style="color:purple;">328  Let's discuss it  05:03, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I refrained to refer about the banned topics but solely and strictly about BLP concerns. I also did not accept your invitation, Cullen, to suggest in your talk page additions to the article. And I continued to comment in the AfD as here the admin Atama has expressed that for him the AfDs were not included in the topic ban. At any rate, I think I have said everything I had to said and also I have said everything without engaging in any sort of personal discussions which in the past was the reason claimed to topic banned me. -- <span class="texhtml" style="font-family:Berlin Sans FB; font-size:small; text-shadow:orange 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em;"> ClaudioSantos ¿?  13:53, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Legal threat
I am involved and cannot block the user myself. I would like an uninvolved sysop to review the legal threat currently sitting on my talk page and act accordingly, see more specifically "If it is proved that you are knowingly costing the campaign to lose exposure, (hence lost revenue) because you disallowed the article based on you own inability to follow through, then you may find yourself financially liable". The whole conversation with this user has been unproductive, but that's not the point : if I'm financially liable to anything, then I need to be made aware of it through the proper channels. Until then, this stands as an unacceptable legal threat. CharlieEchoTango ( contact ) 08:33, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I do believe a week is long enough for him to read the relevant policies and redact his threats. If not, I am able to give him a longer break. &mdash;Dark 08:56, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure thing, thank you! CharlieEchoTango  ( contact ) 09:00, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, a week is not good enough. Legal threats are normally blocked indefinitely, until or if the threat is withdrawn. This one is not only a blatant legal threat, but also a blatant attempt at using wikipedia for marketing reasons. A single-purpose account with no value to wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:31, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Bugs is right. This is a clear-cut legal threat, and hence an indefinite block is the only option. Manning (talk) 09:46, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * "If it is proved that you are knowingly costing the campaign to lose exposure, (hence lost revenue) because you disallowed the article based on you own inability to follow through, then you may find yourself financially liable." Goodbye... Doc   talk  09:50, 28 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Indef'd under WP:NLT. Manning (talk) 09:51, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks from a passer-by who noticed this when the week-long block had been given—I thought that was quite inappropriate under the circumstances. Johnuniq (talk) 03:25, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

User:GlamMetalANIKILATOR
is a classic example of a genre warrior. Their entire contribution history consists of making POV-based genre changes without any explanation, discussion, or reference, leaving maybe 3 edit summaries out of about 80 such edits. They have received & ignored multiple final warnings for this behavior from multiple other editors, yet they've never been blocked. Time for a block, IMO. --IllaZilla (talk) 21:14, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I am very temped to indef block but since I might have done a revert in there, I will save this for another admin --Guerillero &#124; My Talk  22:57, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Three "final warnings" in the same month for this activity is a bit disturbing, and I agree that some form of action needs to be taken against this user... not as punnishment, but as a means of protecting the articles and their content. -- WikHead (talk) 22:59, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Blocked one week for disruptive editing. CharlieEchoTango  ( contact ) 01:46, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * As a side note, looking at the contribs, I see at least two, maybe more, examples of that editor making the sort of edit mentioned, followed immediately by a null edit, presumably to try and prevent other users from easily reverting it. While that hasn't happened since the 10th, it should probably be noted by anyone reviewing this.  rdfox 76 (talk) 13:56, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Yopie
I hope that I have come to the right place now.

The user Yopie has been involves in several disputes and complaints. Here is a selection:


 * 2009: Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive109
 * 2010: User_talk:Yopie/Archives
 * 2011: Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive151
 * 2011: Wikiquette_assistance/archive111

For many years, the user


 * has misused various functions, especially by that he, in combination, reverts legitimate and/or rule-supported edits and threatens his opponents with 3RR,
 * has demonstrated unwillingness to contribute to clean and neutral articles of academically good quality,
 * has demonstrated disruptive patterns of behaviour.

The cases 2 and 3 in the following complaint in Wikiquette assistance, which is among several reactions against this, broadly describes the problem, which remains unchanged since September 2011 and earlier: Wikiquette_assistance/archive111

As concrete and recent examples, I would especially draw the attention to False titles of nobility and Alexander Montagu, 13th Duke of Manchester. The last-mentioned is a so-called BLP. Despite rules stating that challenged (poorly sources, biassed, etc.) content in BLPs must be ‘immediately removed’ and must not be re-added without discussion, the user has re-added it.

I allow myself to suggest that administrators, independently of me as a user and of my limited explanation, seek to investigate the user’s broader history on Wikipedia in order to determinate whether there exist problems that require a solution. Indications are strong for that the user is related to problems which have consisted for a considerably long time and which, without administrators’ intervention, likely will continue as before.

&mdash;&#32; Breadbasket 18:05, 28 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Unless there is an urgent problem requiring an immediate block turns out he's blocked right now for edit warring. I don't think you are in fact in the right place. WP:RFC/U would be the correct forum for an in-depth discussion of one particular user. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:03, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh trust me, Breakbasket has been advised a half-dozen times about WP:RFC/U, but refuses to listen (simply deletes my posts from his talkpage). In fact, he's gone off and filed an ArbComm case.  He has forum shopped all over Wikipedia today, from AN/3RR to here, to RFArb.  It's becoming blockable in and of itself. ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 20:11, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, so he's into Australian throwing sports. Gotcha. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:18, 28 January 2012 (UTC)


 * No, no, wait a minute. The so-called ‘forum shopping’ is a result of an unnecessarily complex bureaucracy. The 3RR process(es) was (were) initiated earlier and is (are) not directly related to yesterday's Arb etc.


 * My thought when reporting the user, was that the problem is not limited to one article and one opposing user, but involves several articles and several opposing users, and this over at least three years. I might not be a user who does everything correctly, but I have contributed more than I have reverted, and I have not, unlike Yopie, acted like a complete ... ever since I came to this site.


 * Thanks.


 * &mdash;&#32; Breadbasket 15:53, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Article creation
I want to create article Dmitry Mezentsev why I cant???--94.228.193.11 (talk) 15:31, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You would need to create an account in order to start an article. And please read WP:NOTE to determine whether the article will be about something notable or not. NHRHS2010 the student pilot   ✈  15:34, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Starting an article. GiantSnowman 15:35, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Please somebody create - he is a governor and of cource notable--94.228.193.11 (talk) 15:37, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, then create a userid ... or submit it at articles for creation. This has been standard practice at Wikipedia for years. ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 15:38, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Why anonims cant? Thats unjust like SOPA. Now I have an account!--Enemyofmuslims (talk) 15:42, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * (EC)Subject appears to be a current Russian political candidate with no prior notability. Minimal search results in English language sources means reliable sources are harder to locate and verify; be sure to provide some sort of RS for your new article. Doc  Tropics  15:43, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Started the article, yes you have an account, but your username is a violation of policy. Change it. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:44, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I had reported this username to UAA as part of normal patrolling before I even noticed the edit was to ANI. Nevertheless I stand by the report that this is a blatant violation. My76Strat (talk) 15:48, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This response doesn't bode well. Voceditenore (talk) 15:50, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Worrying response. GiantSnowman 15:50, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I can see it's going to be one of those mornings.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:56, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I've hard-blocked for username violation. Initially soft-blocked, but thought better of it considering the statements made. Sorry for mucking things up. Danger High voltage! 15:58, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I understand that it's annoying that anonymous IP addresses can't create an article, but creating an account on Wikipedia is easy. Very easy compared with creating an account on other websites, like YouTube. Besides, anon IP addresses were able to start articles up until, like 2005 (long before I even became involved in editing Wikipedia) but due to excessive creation of non-notable pages, usually in a form of vandalism, Wikipedia is no longer allowing anonymous creation of pages. So if you want to start an article, please create an account. Not that hard. NHRHS2010 the student pilot   ✈  16:00, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Nothing left to see here ... turns out the complainant was a rampant xenophobe with an axe to grind. World's better off without that type of people, as is Wikipedia ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 16:21, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Islamic Golden Age
has been restoring conspiracy views by an unreliable author back into the Islamic Golden Age article (1, 2). The author, whom "Doc Tropics" acknowledges that he's not a specialist, calls the entire period a "myth...intended to distract attention from modern Islam". Another editor stepped-in and removed the harmful content. But I wanted to bring to your attention the insults by "Doc Tropics", where he wrote: "sorry [Al-Andalusi], but you are entirely untrustworthy and your edits are suspect. this needs to be defended on the talkpage". I also left him a note on his talk page and notified him about this discussion. Thank you. Al-Andalusi (talk) 20:58, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think calling someone "entirely untrustworthy" is appropriate. But nor is using insults like "racist", "retarded", "hypocritical", and "idiotic."  You should both make your points without personal attacks. Superm401 - Talk 00:29, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Darkness Shines editing content in dispute at DR/N while himself in a content dispute there
I am sorry if this is not the right place, but I thought this was a bit odd and should be brought up here as I percieve this as innapropriate behavior. It seems User:Darkness Shines has taken it upon himself to add content back on one article while it is currently in dispute instead of adding to the discussion to help form consensus. The behavior comes across a bit agressive, in that he himself is in the middle of a DR/N for content and gives the perception that he is disrupting the process. I left a note on his talk page requesting a self revert and asked that he weigh in on the discussion as well as leaving a note at the mediators talk page (User:Steven Zhang).--Amadscientist (talk) 22:08, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * OMG! Toddst1 (talk) 22:49, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * ?? Am I in need of a good trout slapping?--Amadscientist (talk) 22:55, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I really don't see any issue here. Toddst1 (talk) 23:02, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I actually do. I also don't think your behavior in this matter is helping or your assumption of bad faith from forgetting to notify the user. Do you often handle ANI in this manner?--Amadscientist (talk) 23:06, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Anyone else you want to lash out at while you're at it? If not, we're done here. Otherwise, keep typing.  Toddst1 (talk) 23:09, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You should not be an admin here. That was uncivil and very off putting and I think you are stepping over a line to make such remarks. You done here sir...I am not. How exactly was this resolved? It wasn't....you blew me off. You didn't resolve it.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:13, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm lost. You have a dispute about Occupy Wall Street at DRN that doesn't involve Darkness Shines. Meanwhile, Darkness has a dispute at DRN on a completely different topic. And you're complaining about Darkness's edit to the Occupy article because of the other dispute at DRN?? I see absolutely no relationship here, just a content dispute at Occupy Wall Street (how surprising).--Bbb23 (talk) 23:11, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yep, that's it. Toddst1 (talk) 23:13, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * While you may have grounds to complain that Toddst1 was perhaps being a bit more flippant than was strictly required, his assessment seems accurate. To make you happy I will immediately deal with the first issue - Toddst1, consider yourself trout-slapped. Hopefully this fully resolves the matter. Manning (talk) 23:13, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I think just plainly saying that to begin with and not treating editors in such uncivil manner would have been a lot better as I was prepared to strike the whole thing out. Thanks to the two civil comments I will not pursue this further.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:16, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the bad-faith lack of notifying DS coupled with canvassing all about a non-issue with someone you're in a content disupte with speaks for itself as Tendentious editing. Perhaps you should stay away from DS for a while.  Toddst1 (talk) 23:23, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Avoiding AN/I until you have a genuine incident wouldn't hurt either. Manning (talk) 23:30, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * What canvassing are you speaking of? You don't mean the poke I was asked to make at DR/N on mediator pages? If so you prove to lack any sense.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:30, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * This was the single most discouraging thing I have experianced on this site in 5 years. Thanks for showing me how things are handled here. While it may not have been an issue....all that was needed was simply to say that and not begin with a cryptic statement that gave no information at all.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:38, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Amadscientist - You have a golden opportunity here to walk away and have everything forgotten. I am one of the most lenient admins around, but you are seriously starting to get me offside with these insults against another editor. Please consider dropping this and going away, before a less lenient admin becomes involved. Manning (talk) 23:42, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Post-hypnotic suggestion
I prodded this article on 1/22/2012 because it consisted of two lines, was covered in Hypnosis already, and apparently had no citeable material in four years of edits. Four hours after the prod expired on 1/29/2012, DGG, as an administrative action, declined to delete it (diff). His rationale says "If Encyclopedia Britannica has an article, so do we. Easily expandable or redirectable." The first part of the rationale is not defensible - we are not a carbon copy of EB, and just because EB had an article in it 100 years ago doesn't mean we need to have one now. That's very much OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The second part is partially defensible - it can be redirected, but if it was expandable, it would have been in four years. The problem is that much of the material doesn't meet RS, and therefore it's got more potential as a FRINGE fork than it does as an article. If DGG had a concern, it should have come up during the week prior, not be summarily adjudged by him after the time period for comment had elapsed. The prod ran its course and should be deleted. MSJapan (talk) 22:29, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It was a PROD. That means that, even if the article had been deleted, any editor could have asked for its restoration at any time. If you want to pursue deletion, you'll have to go to AfD. CIreland (talk) 22:36, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Since the article was uncited except for one deadlink, per WP:BOLD I redirected it to Hypnosis, which coincidentally is also an uncited one line section. If someone wants to dig up some WP:RELIABLE sources and expand, they can remove the redirect.  He  iro  22:47, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * ...Which was, almost certainly, the right thing to do. If EB has an article, that suggests that it's a topic that we ought to cover in some way, shape or form&mdash;or at least, that it's a term for which someone might reasonably expect to search, and for which – if we don't have an article – we ought to at least have a redirect to a relevant topic.  Deletion was never the correct course here, and DGG's action was appropriate. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:54, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

On this day correction
I noticed this help request - User_talk:Jetstreamer. I think it needs attention because it appears valid, and would require an admin to alter the relevant Selected anniversaries item. Begoon &thinsp; talk 00:57, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Fixed. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:30, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Many thanks. Begoon &thinsp; talk  01:39, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Unacceptable edit
recently made this post, which I've said on his talk page is unacceptable. As I've said there, I would have blocked him for that already, but I'm not sure I can be totally objective here. Lecen replied at my talk page here. I'm not sure exactly what needs to be done here, but I can see that something needs doing. There is some background to this, but that edit by Lecen really crossed so many lines I don't know where to start. The following edit also needs reviewing. I'll put a link from Lecen's talk page to this thread. Carcharoth (talk) 23:06, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Do I have the chance to explain myself or decisions will be made without bothering to learn what were my reasons? --Lecen (talk) 23:11, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Unless your explanation also contains an apology, I don't think it'll make much difference... Salvio  Let's talk about it! 23:14, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Since I'm being judged and condemned without hearing, you may call in the firing squad. --Lecen (talk) 23:15, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It might help your case if you would post a diff as to where someone actually threatened to snuff you. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:18, 28 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The reason you're notified about this discussion is to give you a "hearing". Instead of asking what you can do and complaining about a result that has not yet been reached, why don't you "explain"? Salvio is just giving you fair warning that on the face of it your comments look awful and trying to prevent you from digging yourself deeper into a hole.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:19, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * He said it wouldn't make much difference, so what could I do? Let's begin, then. Give me 15 minutes, please. I need to write it down. --Lecen (talk) 23:21, 28 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Might I add that the following statement opens up an even bigger can of worms: "Even less when I know that a highly respected FA writer is thinking on opening a RfC about her" . Since when did FA writers become part of plots to block users due to differing opinions? Whatever happened to WP:AGF?
 * Either I'm being paranoic or there is something going on here bigger (and much uglier) than it seems at face value. I hope Lecen can explain. Best of wishes.-- MarshalN20 | T a l k 23:28, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, he said to give him 15 minutes to find that diff, and now it's been more like 20. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:40, 28 January 2012 (UTC)


 * You guys need to show a little respect here and allow the man the time he needs to prepare his statement. Thank you. --Dianna (talk) 23:44, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 10-4 on the little respect. We're showing as little respect as possible. 0:) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:15, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

horrifying statements & his failure immediately to apologize at ANI merit at least a one-day block (and perhaps the usual indefinite block that can be removed by contrition and a pledge to avoid sexist insults, etc.) Kiefer .Wolfowitz 23:45, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

What explanation is imaginable? That nearly all-powerful demons threatened to sacrifice an innocent child or aliens threatened to vaporize the earth unless Lecen violated NPA with sexist insults? Save such explanations for freshmen philosophy! Kiefer .Wolfowitz 23:52, 28 January 2012 (UTC)


 * People you need to stop posting here. He is busy writing his own eulogy. --Dianna (talk) 23:54, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Now there's some little respect. Kudos. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:16, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * "Need"? Let him write it on his talk page. WP doesn't tolerate sexist insults. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 23:59, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I've reviewed the comments presented in the diffs here. Where do you see evidence of sexism?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:04, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The sexism can be seen in a subtle manner. For instance:
 * Case 1: "I wonder if she has a family, boyfriend, or even a dog." . So, women need boyfriends to keep them sane?
 * Case 2: "We should buy her a puppy nonetheless" (same diff as above). Women need puppies to keep them busy?
 * Case 3: "Nevermind. It would be a bad idea. She would end up eating the poor puppy in a fit of rage" . A terrible case of female hysteria?
 * Of course, assuming good faith, he probably did not mean to be sexist. However, that his statements can be seen as sexist (which, I believe to have demonstrated that they can be seen as such), is another matter. Note that I am not accusing Lecen of sexism, but I do see a reason as to why Kiefer.Wolfowitz finds his statements sexist. Considering Lecen is already blocked, unless this will somehow "accumulate" to his block, this explanation is pointless. In any case, I was writing this prior to him getting blocked, and I do believe it is important to at least be aware that, given the accusation of sexism, there do exist reasons to believe Lecen made sexist comments regarding Sandy.-- MarshalN20 | T a l k 01:02, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Case 1: No. If Sandy were a man, just substitute girlfriend, and it's the same. Case 2. Same as Case 1. You're adding your own gloss. Case 3. It's bad enough people believe hysteria is sexist, but at least there's an argument for that position, but you want to read sexism into "fit of rage"? Now, Lecen may be sexist (I haven't a clue whether he is), but there's no evidence of it here.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:54, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Assuming Sandy was a man, then my argument makes no sense. The key assumption for my argument is that Sandy is a woman. I italicize "argument" because I am using it in a logical sense, not as in me actually trying to argue with you. You can be certain that I analyzed the matter prior to posting it, and I also exchanged "female" to "male" (which made me doubt as to whether posting the material would be relevant). What I realized was that Lecen knows that Sandy is a female (or at least he thinks that), and then assuming he is trying to be aggressive (which goes against WP:AGF, which is why I am not making a formal accusation; better evidence is obviously required), the outcome is that the statements are in fact sexist. On the other hand, if he was trying to be aggressive towards a man, he probably would not be making mention to "puppies". Alas, this matter is really beyond the purpose of this ANI (which is already resolved). Nonetheless, I would love to discuss this on our personal talk space (I enjoy logic). Best regards.-- MarshalN20 | T a l k 02:53, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

My comments
I have no direct contact with SandyGeorgia, this must be made clear right at the start. Although I have successfully nominated several articles leading them to raised to FA standard, I was not involved in the ongoing FAC crisis.I din't take part in the discussion on the FAC talk page, nor did I took part of the discussion here, between SandyGeorgia and Wehwalt. To be frank, I simply don't care about it. For some reason which I'm not entirely aware of, SandyGeorgia has been nurturing a sheer hatred toward me for at least a month.

How do I know that? There was a discussion a few weeks ago right here, at the Administrators' noticeboard, where an editor complained about ed17, an administrator who closed a move request. I was indirectly involved because I voted on that move request. However, even though she didn't take part neither on the move request, nor had ever shown any kind of interest on the subject being discussed, for some reason she appeared out of nowhere and called for my block and threatened me by saying that she would open a RfC about me. See here: Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive735

These were her words:
 * "Why is it that admins hestitate to ... well .. do what admins are supposed to do? And why is it that Alarbus, who has all the hallmarks of being a returning editor and who shares a position with Lecen and Ed on the FA director issue (and a review of their editing histories and talk pages shows that Alarbus came to support Lecen over the "Wehwalt for FA director" issue-- a phrase first seen from Alarbus on the Lecen issue are now editing on the same side of a conflict? As Lecen has already shown, there is an abundance of articles that refer to John by his name in English, this is the en Wiki, and we have naming conventions here. That there are slightly more sources that refer to his Portuguese name than the translation to English is irrelevant to the issue: there is an abundance of sources that support his English name and that translation, so it should be used on en Wiki. WP:SOVEREIGN says "Monarch's first name should be the most common form used in current English works of general reference ... " English! Feel free to point out what I'm missing. And by the way, besides the curious nexus of the apparently returning editor Alarbus suddenly supporting Lecen's content positions after they came together on the FA issue, there has been a long history of canvassing on this suite of articles, so again, why the heck aren't admins looking at the things they're supposed to be looking at: disruptive behaviors, returning editors with a possible agenda, possible meatpuppetry-- is it rocket science or did we not have an arb finding a few years ago about coordinated editing? Why must we have an RFC when we have policies and conventions? Why are admins unable to sort this here and be done with it? SandyGeorgia"

And also:


 * "More background: before I knew him at FAC, I had edited with Lecen at Hugo Chavez. While we share views on what has gone wrong in that article to make it POV (the who, how and why it came to ignore reliable sources to become a pro-Chavez hagiography), Lecen was so argumentative and disruptive on the talk page that he effectively shot any effort to NPOV the article in the foot, using the talk page for long anti-Chavez rants, leading me to recuse on his FACs, where he then went on to alienate reviewers and delegates alike with the same intransigent, IDHT, argumentative and confrontational style,[94] leading him to sour grapes at FAC, leading to Alarbus's post about the Wehwalt for FA director campaign. Lecen is very difficult to edit with, which is why he's having a hard time getting FACs reviewed-- he argues with everyone about everything. So give the poor fellow who came here with a legitimate issue a chance; solve the problem. SandyGeorgia"

I repeat: she didn't take part on the discussion and I was not the reason of the opened thread. In fact, there weren't a single moment where she and I had exchanged any kind of conversation. She appeared out of nowhere and asked for my block. Read the text and you'll see that she claimed I'm disruptive and no one wants to review my FACs. In fact, according to her, I have an "intransigent, IDHT, argumentative and confrontational style". Keep this in mind.

Time passed, and she and I had not a single moment where we bumped into each other. Accoding to her, no one can tolerate me. Then, why was I interviewed on Wikipedia Signpost/2012-01-16/Featured content a little more than ten days ago? Because of this interview, Maryana from the WMF came talk to me, and gave her support. See here. Out of nowhere, SandyGeorgia appeared, and complained to her about her remarks and again started accusing me. See here and here. Notice how rude, aggressive and ironic SandyGeorgia was to someone whom she never met and because of something that had absolutely nothing to with her. Again, and to someone who didn't know me, SandyGeorgia appeared out of nowhere to defame me.

I repeat again: I was not discussing with SandyGeorgia in any place, I was not arguing with her, nor anything similar. In fact, I believe the last time I talked to her was a few months ago on her own talk page, where I gave her my support for something she had passed through. However, we aren't done yet. I'm right now taking part on another move request, where I complained about the other side. Why did I made complaints? Well, because they were using sock puppets, canvassing and erasing comments. One of these editors made a threat on my talk page and I asked him to stop bothering me. He was quite angry and went to complain about me on Wikiquette. Because I was complained about his side use of sock puppets, canvassing and message erasing. What did happen? SandyGeorgia appeared out of nowhere. She ws not taking part on the discussion, nor has even demonstrated any interest on the subject being discussed. What did she do? She defamed me and threatened to open a RfC about me.

As you can see, it has been months that I don't talk to her and for some reason which I'm not aware, she keeps harassing me, defaming me for people who don't know her and who don't me. What about my comments? Well, I made a joke. It's quite obviously I wasn't serious. Or do anyone belives that she would be capable of flying to Brazil to kill me? Does she now my adress? Has anyone here seen Brazil? It's the size of USA. I was clearly joking and it's quite obvious I don't believe she would be capable of eating a puppy. I made a joke to a friend so that I wouldn't waiste my time arguing directly to her. As all of you can see, I wasn't talking to her (the last time occurred months ago) and she was not involved in any of the discussions I was taking part of. She is clearly wikihounding me, harassing me and defaming me. Others would have lost their temper a long time ago, but I chose to make a joke. --Lecen (talk) 00:01, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * @Lecen,
 * That is an unacceptable cop out. You didn't apologize for stating that she needed to get a boyfriend or a dog or engage in the real world. Just hit the road. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 00:04, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Humor depends on a shared context between the teller and audience; user talk pages are open to the entire community. Your personal attacks and speculation about her were not appropriate. I'd suggest you remove them immediately, apologize, and never do it again. Nobody Ent 00:06, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * So, there is nothing wrong with whas she did and has been doing? --Lecen (talk) 00:08, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * P.S.: Out of curiosity, where did I made sexist remarks? --Lecen (talk) 00:09, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

That's an interesting one-sided account, Lecen. But I'm stil curious: where did I, in the words of Bugs, threaten to "snuff you" or anything close? Since I most certainly have lived in Argentina, worked in Brasil and throughout Latin America, and frequently travel there, your post is most disturbing. Did you miss that the crux of the matter is that you suggested that I might kill you??? Some of Lecen's other recent activity (in fact, it was the WP:WQA where I'm a watcher that alerted me to the requested move, which is on a topic involving two countries I've lived and worked in) include: I don't see a retraction or an apology, or even an acknowledgement of the gravity of his statements, and don't know why this is still going on, but I do know that we can count on Diannaa to defend Lecen. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 00:15, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 1)  Here, Lecen tells another editor to "learn his place" (while flauting his FAs), and
 * 2) Here, he encourages BATTLEGROUND for a young editor who had just made his peace with another editor.
 * 3) The post to Maryana was about her claims of bad faith as they relate to groups of other editors-- something that WMF employees shouldn't be doing.
 * 4) FAC had quite a time with Lecen (see this sample), so these latest behaviors are not entirely surprising.
 * Could you explain why, since we haven't talked for months, you've ben appearing out of nowhere to defame to people who don't know me? And if Diannaa can't be here, neither can Kiefer.Wolfowitz, who is your friend. This "learn your place" comment was made to the person I mentioned early, whose side was using sock puppets, canvassing and message erasing. --Lecen (talk) 00:17, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * He is? Thanks for letting me know.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 00:19, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I admire SandyGeorgia's contributions on WP, and I address her with the respect due her for those contributions. I suggest you do the same.  Kiefer .Wolfowitz 00:24, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Lecen, I have carefully read your explanation, but I don't think it's good enough. Nothing in what you've described warrants those attacks. You don't have to apologise, forced apologies are meaningless, but I strongly suggest you redact those posts. Salvio  Let's talk about it! 00:18, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with Salvio. We are discussing Lecen's conduct. Even assuming he was provoked, the comments are unjustified. So, Lecen needs to understand that and take remedial action. As a separate matter, if he has a complaint against Sandy, let him bring it. But first he needs to correct his own behavior.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:20, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Lecen - There may well be a deeper issue concerning Sandy Georgia that merits investigation. However Wikipedia does not recognise the "she hit me first" argument. Even assuming that you had been outrageously provoked, your response is still not acceptable. You have clearly been here long enough to know the correct procedures for complaining about another editor's conduct.

So in summary, this current issue only concerns the statements you made about Sandy Georgia. Even if every allegation you make about her conduct were true, this still does not justify your statements.

Hence you have no option but to retract them, and apologise for any offence caused.

Once that is done, then if you wish to open an incident with us about the conduct of Sandy Georgia, I assure you it will be examined fairly. Manning (talk) 00:22, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I will be glad to apologize, and even erase my comments, if SandyGeorgia also apologizes to me for having openly defamed me to people who don't know me and if she promises to stop wikihounding and harrassing me. As you saw, I don't even talk to her, I don't even contribute on the same articles as she. All I ask is to her to stop defaming, wikihounding, and harassing me. That's fair. --Lecen (talk) 00:22, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No, that's not fair. I've just blocked you for a week for displaying a battleground mentality. As usual, review is welcome and fellow admins may tweak the block. Salvio  Let's talk about it! 00:32, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Lecen - I have been trying to ensure your fair treatment. This case is about YOUR conduct, which the admins have concluded is unacceptable. Your response above is basically just a reworked attempt of the "she hit me first" argument, which I have already said doesn't work here. Also using the language "defamed" is specifically identified in our NLT as a bad practice. While I am probably a bit softer than Salvio, I must support the block decision. Please indicate a willingness to redact your original statement, indicate to us that you understand that YOUR conduct is unacceptable, and then we shall move on. And I repeat, once that is done the issue with Sandy Georgia will be examined fairly and impartially. Manning (talk) 00:35, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * No mention of me here five days ago, or here three days ago, or here two days ago ... shall I continue?  "Defaming" you sounds somewhat Wikilawyerish, especially when coming from someone who says he's a lawyer.  Wikihounding and harassing?  Lecen, I lived in those countries.  I watchlist WP:WQA.  Expecting an apology from me for editing the 'pedia when you suggested I might kill you, when you know from our editing together on Hugo Chavez that I do know my way around South America?  (I started this post before seeing that Lecen was blocked, so will go ahead and post it, FWIW, but done.) Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 00:38, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Is there anything sexist in assuming SandyGeorgia is a female editor? If this is well known forgive that I am out of the loop, but my take on the username is a reference to Georgia and its often sand laden countryside. My76Strat (talk) 01:14, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Sandy is a gender-ambiguous name.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:57, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Lecen appears to be accepting his block. I've advised him that if he abides by our request for redaction and apologizes for his conduct, then we will listen to his allegations about Sandy Georgia, and review the matter fairly and impartially. Conversely, if no redaction is forthcoming, then I am neither inclined to lift the block or hear his grievance. Until then, the matter should be considered as closed. Manning (talk) 01:20, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with what Manning has said elsewhere that the matter should be dropped for now, but I would like to comment on a side issue: I noticed the WMF staffer making the comments mentioned above, and I found them to be highly inappropriate. I was watchching their talk following an exchange at User talk:Beetstra where I made two comments to strongly disagree with a line being pushed by two WMF staffers. Johnuniq (talk) 03:44, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * To be fair, my reading was that the staffer was just expressing sympathy with Lecen over the socking isssue they expressed, which certainly is bad-faith editing. I didn't read it as the staffer expressing an opinion on the merits or claiming to have investigated the issue. Nor did they appear to be aware of Lecen's history on-project, they were just trying to be nice. Franamax (talk) 04:39, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Reads like Lecen is getting wronged
It's not like I haven't had my ground-scraping nuts referred to by Sandy or Moni. (Or had an incredible set (even just in number) set of conspiracies alleged against me (I am in the employ of WMF, Wehwalt, Alarbus, Croaton HighSchool, and the USEP). Sometimes her rants don't even make sense (like I spoke out against USEP issues and it was her little clique that messed up the Barking Fish thing, not me.)  Or the girls haven't giggled about how the Wiki nerds don't get laid.  In any case, it is so lame to be trying to find out who was wrong (or more wrong) and then run to mommy with complaints.  And the all holy "diffs".

Sandy who loves to defend Mallman or Ceoil has taken to using the run to ANI like it was going out of style. I don't think the problem is all the thugs. I think the problem is Sandy. There is just a huge clique going back years here. And Sandy is basically not a fair individual.

I don't think Lecen should apologize (it was not that harsh). Basic point of it was that Sandy is very focused and drives these clique battles on the site (and has done so for years, we have all seen it). The whole idea that Lecen should have to crawl and then prepare some counter charges is just Wiki lawyers stuff. You all should adjuticate on what you see instead of expecting people to spend time on these legalistic defenses and then assuming if they don't, that they must be in the wrong. Or...that they are just not playing the Wiki drama game the way you expect.

Oh...and just on a note of "justice". Even IF LECEN IS WRONG, his apology is irrelevant. If Sandy was wrong too...then she was wrong too at that time. That's just trying to use some lever to drive behavior...to threaten not to look at both sides unless he says he was sorry first.

Lecen: do what you think is right. If you think you were wrong, apologize. If not, don't. In any case, don't decide off of "if I don't apologize, the moderators won't look at both sides of the flame war."

TCO (talk) 04:32, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * TCO - I understand your argument. However the complaint against Lecen was raised first, and ignoring all other factors, Lecen was in the wrong and needs to redact. The reason I am being so rigid on this point is twofold. (1) If it were acceptable to demand resolution of a separate issue before accepting our judgment on the first issue, then everybody would do this and we would be enmeshed in permanent chaos. (2) By resolving this first issue we can look at the second issue cleanly. If during a second investigation anyone attempts to raise this first issue, we can dismiss it on the grounds it has already been dealt with (and probably admonish the responsible party for doing so). I hope that makes sense. Manning (talk) 04:46, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Damn.That is actually a fucking excellent argument. Where did you come from?Never seen you, man! Yeah, disaggregation totally makes sense (and we like...uh...totally never do it).  Still don't think his remark was that rough, but it was definitely directed at the person. Give him the night to think it over.  And some cardio (lifting weights angry gets you hurt, cardio is the way to go when angry.)TCO (talk) 05:00, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes Lecen was wronged, Carcharoth could have blocked immediately. That would have avoided this venue, with the free shovels and chants of "dig dig dig". There is no provision here that you can dramatically escalate a dispute, then claim that all issues must be treated at once with prizes for all. We don't work that way, editors are expected to present their problems calmly and rationally. I'm pretty sure SG has flown to fewer than 10 countries to kill WP editors, but if you notice a contrary trend, please do report it here. Franamax (talk) 04:56, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but often when new issues are raised, they're addressed. While a block might be appropriate for Lecen, SandyGeorgia's behaviour probably needs a check as well. I'd suggest Lecen use the block time to put together any other evidence they might have with a more coherent timeline. Though honestly, I can't count the times I've heard established editors try and excuse another editor's behaviour because they were "provoked". It is pretty much the go to defense for certain groups of editors on certain topics. Perhaps that only works if you have a large enough group of friends.--Crossmr (talk) 08:49, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The excuse "They hit me first" is not valid in a playground, in a court of law, or on Wikipedia. I'm sure someone has written an essay on this point somewhere. Manning (talk) 09:25, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I never said it was an excuse in this case or that Lecen shouldn't be blocked because of it. I pointed out though, that it is frequently used by some people as an excuse on wikipedia and I've often seen it used successfully. I hope in the future the people who are here hanging Lecen out to dry will remember that. And for the record, he hit me first, or was about to hit me, is valid in a court of law. This is not the case here, and while Lecen may have been dealt with, there may be a larger issue here that needs addressed in the form of SandyGeorgia.--Crossmr (talk) 00:23, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I realsise my name is mud here, but to give context, TCO is a just a gear-head who thinks he's a lot more clever than he actually is, and his excitable bursts do not impresse thoes that bother to listen. Carchold is an oppurtunist with an axe to grind against Sandy, for whatever long forgotten reason. Both are gaming, and thinking in a longer view; x 10000. Fact of the matter is Lecen is an extreamly difficult person, hes unwilling to accept help or advice, and is prob . The obvious under a cloud Allarbus, TCO and Ch sees this, and are using an exception to beat a political horse. For shame; if ye guys really gave a fuck ye'd be helping him and guiding h as to how to interact, rather than making capital. Ive seen this before with Ottova, and it makes me want to vomit. A talented writer who only needs guidance and hes tossed about and used up in gaming and in-fighting. Jesus christ. Shame. Ceoil (talk) 12:08, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Ceoil, I think you could have made your point adequately without insulting everyone on the autistic spectrum, which had to be redacted by someone else here. A reference to someone else's mental health is way out of line.  Surely you can comment on the substance without your perception of the mental framework of another editor, and without disparaging several tens of million people.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:31, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Wehwalt, you misunderstand me completly, to the extent that I can even be bothered to explain why. If you are so egar look past my point and to rush towards an o poor me on an others behalf, I dont even know what to say to you. Except this; you are the one exploiting here, and you know it. My position is to help, yours is towards capital. Ceoil (talk) 16:30, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I suppose I misunderstand this as well. That is an appalling thing to say about your fellow editors, especially by a editor already blocked for incivility.  However, it is for us to take insults; failure to do so is disruptive and of course, the terrible incivility is excusable if you know the whole history.  Not.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:21, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * SandyGeorgia's behavior and actions should not go unnoticed. She needs to be held accountable. Lecen is not wrong in the way he feels. People need to read his post and links. I've looked at the whole situation and it's clear that Sandy is watching his edits. She's not just showing up out the blue. She has him on her watchlist and appears to be stalking him. I'm not sure why, but it's obvious she has it in for Lecen. She's harassing him from what I can tell. And she hasn't exactly been civil either in regards to Lecen. I do not believe he owes her an apology. Sandy owes him one. Sandy also needs to remember WP:AGF and WP:NPA. Her actions and behavior are unacceptable. Completely wrong and so unacceptable. I should also note that Sandy's commments in this thread about User:Diannaa (an admin) was done in very poor taste.  Caden  cool  01:22, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I have not had time to follow up on all this, but certainly Lecen should retract, since SG claims to be offended (and others on her behalf). To retract something said in jest (as he claims, and as seems self evident from the whole tone of the paragraph) is not onerous request. I recently said a user had accused me of risking "destruction of most of the known universe" - this was obviously hyperbole, but if that people were offended on that user's behalf, and took it seriously, I would bow to their lack of perception and retract the claim explicitly. Having dealt with that (or not) the substantive matters should be looked into.  Rich Farmbrough, 17:57, 30 January 2012 (UTC).


 * I just wish that Lecen would stop calling some editors xenophobic. Though, it's only his opinon. GoodDay (talk) 18:06, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring on South Vietnam and North Vietnam
Could someone take a look at the recent edit warring on articles North Vietnam and South Vietnam? This involves IPs 24.52.193.213 and 24.52.193.213, and myself. My talk page has been caught up in this dispute, as you can see here. Perhaps these pages can be semi-protected or protected until this issue dies down. Kauffner (talk) 00:07, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm asking now: why do you mean that North VIetnam was "client state" while South VIetnam was not? I don't really understand what you mean. 188.113.91.110 (talk) 00:23, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * This also involves user Mr.A as well. I ask if Wikipedia can please fully protect the 2 articles permanently, as there has been content issues for a few years already, so that way both new and more older editors, both registered & non-registered users cannot change the articles, which is the scenario here which involved non-registered users and logged-in ones. Thank you for your concern — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.52.193.213 (talk) 09:06, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Is administrative action required here, or can this thread be closed?--Mollskman (talk) 22:36, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Uh.. rather a mess up... NV has been protected and the "Client state" comment removed subsequently (with an amusing "WP:wrong version") SV is not protected and the edit warring has continued so that "Client state" is in there. To be even handed either someone should remove the client state from SV and someone else should protect it, or Molksman should be reverted, (preferably by self reverted) and SV should be protected. Rich Farmbrough, 18:05, 30 January 2012 (UTC).

Competance issue
There appears to be a WP:COMPETENCE issue with User:Ananthutom. Although he has some useful edits, he has a penchant for blanking content without explanation, the first warning for which he received on November 11th, and has since received four more warnings for. I gave him a final warning for this behavior yesterday for this which he attempted to deny was him on my talk page. He also as of today has moved his user page and talk page to User:Ananthu Tom, without the normal name change process, thus complicating article history (the original history of his talk page is located at now). Although not forbidden, he also has a penchant for removing the warnings, which leads me to believe that he has read and understood them - despite denying that he does. Could someone take a look at this? Thanks.  Falcon8765  (T ALK ) 18:53, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I have untangled the moves and restored the history of his talk page, and told him how to apply at CHU if he wants to change username. JohnCD (talk) 19:07, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Upon further investigation it also appears that there is a vague overlap between User talk:Bothiman's edits and that of the subject of this section.  Falcon8765  (T ALK ) 19:07, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

See, I am so sorry for my previous edits. I will try my level best to do my edits carefully. I renamed my username because I thought that it was better. I don't know how to change my user name. Please say to me how to do it. I blank out my content because I don't like anything to be in my talk page. You may not believe all these things, but I am saying this most sincerely. Please don't criticize me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ananthutom (talk • contribs)


 * The problem isn't that you attempted to change your username incorrectly, and you are allowed to blank anything you want on your own talk page. However, your blanking of sourced content on article's and then trying to deny that you just had, and multiple warnings for the same thing warrants scrutiny here. An administrator left you instructions on your talk page on how to correctly go about changing your username after fixing the mess created by your last attempt, and you have apparently done the same attempted thing again.  Falcon8765  (T ALK ) 14:36, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Pacynka Sobkowskiego
Hi. I report here violations by User:Pacynka Sobkowskiego. "Pacynka Sobkowskiego" means "Sobkowski's sockpuppet" (in Polish). Actually, it is not my sockpuppet but presumably, a blocked user from Polsh Wiki (where I am an admin). Thus, "Pacynka Sobkowskiego" impersonates me and violates Username policy, I guess. Moreover, tonight he or she has marked my user and user talk pages with the sockpuppetProven template, which I consider as a malicious vandalism. I ask for appropriate action. Michał Sobkowski (talk) 10:05, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Admin status on Polish WP confirmed (User rights}. The username does indeed translate to "puppet" as our Polish colleague says. Marking the user page as a sockpuppet seems pretty egregious to me. I'll send him on his way. Manning (talk) 10:17, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for speedy action! Michał Sobkowski (talk) 12:59, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring by IP-hopping anon
Over the last couple of days has there has been a lot of edit warring at Saint Thomas Christians by clearly related IP accounts. So far accounts have included ; ;  ( ;  ;  ;  ;  . I warned one of the accounts about edit warring and removing sourced content here and here and tried to explain the situation on the talk page here, to no avail; they never make more than one revert from the same IP before switching.--Cúchullain t/ c  16:36, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Fully protected for two days -this needs to be sorted on the talk page instead of reverting back and forth. TN <b style="color:midnightblue; font-size:larger;">X</b> Man  16:53, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

206.15.252.30
The IP editor has been adding the GA nominee template to articles that cleary don't meet theWP:GA? criteria (Pink Friday: Roman Reloaded, Down in It or Invaders Must Die). I, and others, assmued good faith on this user, but after I see his edit at Talk:Arab Spring I noticed that his edits are the same edits that  and , this last is blocked from editing as he is User:Guitarherochristopher, a banned editor. This IP needs to be stopped. Tb hotch .™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions.  17:55, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Post by banned (and now blocked) IP sock removed. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:20, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Unacceptable edit
recently made this post, which I've said on his talk page is unacceptable. As I've said there, I would have blocked him for that already, but I'm not sure I can be totally objective here. Lecen replied at my talk page here. I'm not sure exactly what needs to be done here, but I can see that something needs doing. There is some background to this, but that edit by Lecen really crossed so many lines I don't know where to start. The following edit also needs reviewing. I'll put a link from Lecen's talk page to this thread. Carcharoth (talk) 23:06, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Do I have the chance to explain myself or decisions will be made without bothering to learn what were my reasons? --Lecen (talk) 23:11, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Unless your explanation also contains an apology, I don't think it'll make much difference... Salvio  Let's talk about it! 23:14, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Since I'm being judged and condemned without hearing, you may call in the firing squad. --Lecen (talk) 23:15, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It might help your case if you would post a diff as to where someone actually threatened to snuff you. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:18, 28 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The reason you're notified about this discussion is to give you a "hearing". Instead of asking what you can do and complaining about a result that has not yet been reached, why don't you "explain"? Salvio is just giving you fair warning that on the face of it your comments look awful and trying to prevent you from digging yourself deeper into a hole.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:19, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * He said it wouldn't make much difference, so what could I do? Let's begin, then. Give me 15 minutes, please. I need to write it down. --Lecen (talk) 23:21, 28 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Might I add that the following statement opens up an even bigger can of worms: "Even less when I know that a highly respected FA writer is thinking on opening a RfC about her" . Since when did FA writers become part of plots to block users due to differing opinions? Whatever happened to WP:AGF?
 * Either I'm being paranoic or there is something going on here bigger (and much uglier) than it seems at face value. I hope Lecen can explain. Best of wishes.-- MarshalN20 | T a l k 23:28, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, he said to give him 15 minutes to find that diff, and now it's been more like 20. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:40, 28 January 2012 (UTC)


 * You guys need to show a little respect here and allow the man the time he needs to prepare his statement. Thank you. --Dianna (talk) 23:44, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 10-4 on the little respect. We're showing as little respect as possible. 0:) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:15, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

horrifying statements & his failure immediately to apologize at ANI merit at least a one-day block (and perhaps the usual indefinite block that can be removed by contrition and a pledge to avoid sexist insults, etc.) Kiefer .Wolfowitz 23:45, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

What explanation is imaginable? That nearly all-powerful demons threatened to sacrifice an innocent child or aliens threatened to vaporize the earth unless Lecen violated NPA with sexist insults? Save such explanations for freshmen philosophy! Kiefer .Wolfowitz 23:52, 28 January 2012 (UTC)


 * People you need to stop posting here. He is busy writing his own eulogy. --Dianna (talk) 23:54, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Now there's some little respect. Kudos. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:16, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * "Need"? Let him write it on his talk page. WP doesn't tolerate sexist insults. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 23:59, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I've reviewed the comments presented in the diffs here. Where do you see evidence of sexism?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:04, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The sexism can be seen in a subtle manner. For instance:
 * Case 1: "I wonder if she has a family, boyfriend, or even a dog." . So, women need boyfriends to keep them sane?
 * Case 2: "We should buy her a puppy nonetheless" (same diff as above). Women need puppies to keep them busy?
 * Case 3: "Nevermind. It would be a bad idea. She would end up eating the poor puppy in a fit of rage" . A terrible case of female hysteria?
 * Of course, assuming good faith, he probably did not mean to be sexist. However, that his statements can be seen as sexist (which, I believe to have demonstrated that they can be seen as such), is another matter. Note that I am not accusing Lecen of sexism, but I do see a reason as to why Kiefer.Wolfowitz finds his statements sexist. Considering Lecen is already blocked, unless this will somehow "accumulate" to his block, this explanation is pointless. In any case, I was writing this prior to him getting blocked, and I do believe it is important to at least be aware that, given the accusation of sexism, there do exist reasons to believe Lecen made sexist comments regarding Sandy.-- MarshalN20 | T a l k 01:02, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Case 1: No. If Sandy were a man, just substitute girlfriend, and it's the same. Case 2. Same as Case 1. You're adding your own gloss. Case 3. It's bad enough people believe hysteria is sexist, but at least there's an argument for that position, but you want to read sexism into "fit of rage"? Now, Lecen may be sexist (I haven't a clue whether he is), but there's no evidence of it here.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:54, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Assuming Sandy was a man, then my argument makes no sense. The key assumption for my argument is that Sandy is a woman. I italicize "argument" because I am using it in a logical sense, not as in me actually trying to argue with you. You can be certain that I analyzed the matter prior to posting it, and I also exchanged "female" to "male" (which made me doubt as to whether posting the material would be relevant). What I realized was that Lecen knows that Sandy is a female (or at least he thinks that), and then assuming he is trying to be aggressive (which goes against WP:AGF, which is why I am not making a formal accusation; better evidence is obviously required), the outcome is that the statements are in fact sexist. On the other hand, if he was trying to be aggressive towards a man, he probably would not be making mention to "puppies". Alas, this matter is really beyond the purpose of this ANI (which is already resolved). Nonetheless, I would love to discuss this on our personal talk space (I enjoy logic). Best regards.-- MarshalN20 | T a l k 02:53, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

My comments
I have no direct contact with SandyGeorgia, this must be made clear right at the start. Although I have successfully nominated several articles leading them to raised to FA standard, I was not involved in the ongoing FAC crisis.I din't take part in the discussion on the FAC talk page, nor did I took part of the discussion here, between SandyGeorgia and Wehwalt. To be frank, I simply don't care about it. For some reason which I'm not entirely aware of, SandyGeorgia has been nurturing a sheer hatred toward me for at least a month.

How do I know that? There was a discussion a few weeks ago right here, at the Administrators' noticeboard, where an editor complained about ed17, an administrator who closed a move request. I was indirectly involved because I voted on that move request. However, even though she didn't take part neither on the move request, nor had ever shown any kind of interest on the subject being discussed, for some reason she appeared out of nowhere and called for my block and threatened me by saying that she would open a RfC about me. See here: Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive735

These were her words:
 * "Why is it that admins hestitate to ... well .. do what admins are supposed to do? And why is it that Alarbus, who has all the hallmarks of being a returning editor and who shares a position with Lecen and Ed on the FA director issue (and a review of their editing histories and talk pages shows that Alarbus came to support Lecen over the "Wehwalt for FA director" issue-- a phrase first seen from Alarbus on the Lecen issue are now editing on the same side of a conflict? As Lecen has already shown, there is an abundance of articles that refer to John by his name in English, this is the en Wiki, and we have naming conventions here. That there are slightly more sources that refer to his Portuguese name than the translation to English is irrelevant to the issue: there is an abundance of sources that support his English name and that translation, so it should be used on en Wiki. WP:SOVEREIGN says "Monarch's first name should be the most common form used in current English works of general reference ... " English! Feel free to point out what I'm missing. And by the way, besides the curious nexus of the apparently returning editor Alarbus suddenly supporting Lecen's content positions after they came together on the FA issue, there has been a long history of canvassing on this suite of articles, so again, why the heck aren't admins looking at the things they're supposed to be looking at: disruptive behaviors, returning editors with a possible agenda, possible meatpuppetry-- is it rocket science or did we not have an arb finding a few years ago about coordinated editing? Why must we have an RFC when we have policies and conventions? Why are admins unable to sort this here and be done with it? SandyGeorgia"

And also:


 * "More background: before I knew him at FAC, I had edited with Lecen at Hugo Chavez. While we share views on what has gone wrong in that article to make it POV (the who, how and why it came to ignore reliable sources to become a pro-Chavez hagiography), Lecen was so argumentative and disruptive on the talk page that he effectively shot any effort to NPOV the article in the foot, using the talk page for long anti-Chavez rants, leading me to recuse on his FACs, where he then went on to alienate reviewers and delegates alike with the same intransigent, IDHT, argumentative and confrontational style,[94] leading him to sour grapes at FAC, leading to Alarbus's post about the Wehwalt for FA director campaign. Lecen is very difficult to edit with, which is why he's having a hard time getting FACs reviewed-- he argues with everyone about everything. So give the poor fellow who came here with a legitimate issue a chance; solve the problem. SandyGeorgia"

I repeat: she didn't take part on the discussion and I was not the reason of the opened thread. In fact, there weren't a single moment where she and I had exchanged any kind of conversation. She appeared out of nowhere and asked for my block. Read the text and you'll see that she claimed I'm disruptive and no one wants to review my FACs. In fact, according to her, I have an "intransigent, IDHT, argumentative and confrontational style". Keep this in mind.

Time passed, and she and I had not a single moment where we bumped into each other. Accoding to her, no one can tolerate me. Then, why was I interviewed on Wikipedia Signpost/2012-01-16/Featured content a little more than ten days ago? Because of this interview, Maryana from the WMF came talk to me, and gave her support. See here. Out of nowhere, SandyGeorgia appeared, and complained to her about her remarks and again started accusing me. See here and here. Notice how rude, aggressive and ironic SandyGeorgia was to someone whom she never met and because of something that had absolutely nothing to with her. Again, and to someone who didn't know me, SandyGeorgia appeared out of nowhere to defame me.

I repeat again: I was not discussing with SandyGeorgia in any place, I was not arguing with her, nor anything similar. In fact, I believe the last time I talked to her was a few months ago on her own talk page, where I gave her my support for something she had passed through. However, we aren't done yet. I'm right now taking part on another move request, where I complained about the other side. Why did I made complaints? Well, because they were using sock puppets, canvassing and erasing comments. One of these editors made a threat on my talk page and I asked him to stop bothering me. He was quite angry and went to complain about me on Wikiquette. Because I was complained about his side use of sock puppets, canvassing and message erasing. What did happen? SandyGeorgia appeared out of nowhere. She ws not taking part on the discussion, nor has even demonstrated any interest on the subject being discussed. What did she do? She defamed me and threatened to open a RfC about me.

As you can see, it has been months that I don't talk to her and for some reason which I'm not aware, she keeps harassing me, defaming me for people who don't know her and who don't me. What about my comments? Well, I made a joke. It's quite obviously I wasn't serious. Or do anyone belives that she would be capable of flying to Brazil to kill me? Does she now my adress? Has anyone here seen Brazil? It's the size of USA. I was clearly joking and it's quite obvious I don't believe she would be capable of eating a puppy. I made a joke to a friend so that I wouldn't waiste my time arguing directly to her. As all of you can see, I wasn't talking to her (the last time occurred months ago) and she was not involved in any of the discussions I was taking part of. She is clearly wikihounding me, harassing me and defaming me. Others would have lost their temper a long time ago, but I chose to make a joke. --Lecen (talk) 00:01, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * @Lecen,
 * That is an unacceptable cop out. You didn't apologize for stating that she needed to get a boyfriend or a dog or engage in the real world. Just hit the road. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 00:04, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Humor depends on a shared context between the teller and audience; user talk pages are open to the entire community. Your personal attacks and speculation about her were not appropriate. I'd suggest you remove them immediately, apologize, and never do it again. Nobody Ent 00:06, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * So, there is nothing wrong with whas she did and has been doing? --Lecen (talk) 00:08, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * P.S.: Out of curiosity, where did I made sexist remarks? --Lecen (talk) 00:09, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

That's an interesting one-sided account, Lecen. But I'm stil curious: where did I, in the words of Bugs, threaten to "snuff you" or anything close? Since I most certainly have lived in Argentina, worked in Brasil and throughout Latin America, and frequently travel there, your post is most disturbing. Did you miss that the crux of the matter is that you suggested that I might kill you??? Some of Lecen's other recent activity (in fact, it was the WP:WQA where I'm a watcher that alerted me to the requested move, which is on a topic involving two countries I've lived and worked in) include: I don't see a retraction or an apology, or even an acknowledgement of the gravity of his statements, and don't know why this is still going on, but I do know that we can count on Diannaa to defend Lecen. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 00:15, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 1)  Here, Lecen tells another editor to "learn his place" (while flauting his FAs), and
 * 2) Here, he encourages BATTLEGROUND for a young editor who had just made his peace with another editor.
 * 3) The post to Maryana was about her claims of bad faith as they relate to groups of other editors-- something that WMF employees shouldn't be doing.
 * 4) FAC had quite a time with Lecen (see this sample), so these latest behaviors are not entirely surprising.
 * Could you explain why, since we haven't talked for months, you've ben appearing out of nowhere to defame to people who don't know me? And if Diannaa can't be here, neither can Kiefer.Wolfowitz, who is your friend. This "learn your place" comment was made to the person I mentioned early, whose side was using sock puppets, canvassing and message erasing. --Lecen (talk) 00:17, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * He is? Thanks for letting me know.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 00:19, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I admire SandyGeorgia's contributions on WP, and I address her with the respect due her for those contributions. I suggest you do the same.  Kiefer .Wolfowitz 00:24, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Lecen, I have carefully read your explanation, but I don't think it's good enough. Nothing in what you've described warrants those attacks. You don't have to apologise, forced apologies are meaningless, but I strongly suggest you redact those posts. Salvio  Let's talk about it! 00:18, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with Salvio. We are discussing Lecen's conduct. Even assuming he was provoked, the comments are unjustified. So, Lecen needs to understand that and take remedial action. As a separate matter, if he has a complaint against Sandy, let him bring it. But first he needs to correct his own behavior.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:20, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Lecen - There may well be a deeper issue concerning Sandy Georgia that merits investigation. However Wikipedia does not recognise the "she hit me first" argument. Even assuming that you had been outrageously provoked, your response is still not acceptable. You have clearly been here long enough to know the correct procedures for complaining about another editor's conduct.

So in summary, this current issue only concerns the statements you made about Sandy Georgia. Even if every allegation you make about her conduct were true, this still does not justify your statements.

Hence you have no option but to retract them, and apologise for any offence caused.

Once that is done, then if you wish to open an incident with us about the conduct of Sandy Georgia, I assure you it will be examined fairly. Manning (talk) 00:22, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I will be glad to apologize, and even erase my comments, if SandyGeorgia also apologizes to me for having openly defamed me to people who don't know me and if she promises to stop wikihounding and harrassing me. As you saw, I don't even talk to her, I don't even contribute on the same articles as she. All I ask is to her to stop defaming, wikihounding, and harassing me. That's fair. --Lecen (talk) 00:22, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No, that's not fair. I've just blocked you for a week for displaying a battleground mentality. As usual, review is welcome and fellow admins may tweak the block. Salvio  Let's talk about it! 00:32, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Lecen - I have been trying to ensure your fair treatment. This case is about YOUR conduct, which the admins have concluded is unacceptable. Your response above is basically just a reworked attempt of the "she hit me first" argument, which I have already said doesn't work here. Also using the language "defamed" is specifically identified in our NLT as a bad practice. While I am probably a bit softer than Salvio, I must support the block decision. Please indicate a willingness to redact your original statement, indicate to us that you understand that YOUR conduct is unacceptable, and then we shall move on. And I repeat, once that is done the issue with Sandy Georgia will be examined fairly and impartially. Manning (talk) 00:35, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * No mention of me here five days ago, or here three days ago, or here two days ago ... shall I continue?  "Defaming" you sounds somewhat Wikilawyerish, especially when coming from someone who says he's a lawyer.  Wikihounding and harassing?  Lecen, I lived in those countries.  I watchlist WP:WQA.  Expecting an apology from me for editing the 'pedia when you suggested I might kill you, when you know from our editing together on Hugo Chavez that I do know my way around South America?  (I started this post before seeing that Lecen was blocked, so will go ahead and post it, FWIW, but done.) Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 00:38, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Is there anything sexist in assuming SandyGeorgia is a female editor? If this is well known forgive that I am out of the loop, but my take on the username is a reference to Georgia and its often sand laden countryside. My76Strat (talk) 01:14, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Sandy is a gender-ambiguous name.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:57, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Lecen appears to be accepting his block. I've advised him that if he abides by our request for redaction and apologizes for his conduct, then we will listen to his allegations about Sandy Georgia, and review the matter fairly and impartially. Conversely, if no redaction is forthcoming, then I am neither inclined to lift the block or hear his grievance. Until then, the matter should be considered as closed. Manning (talk) 01:20, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with what Manning has said elsewhere that the matter should be dropped for now, but I would like to comment on a side issue: I noticed the WMF staffer making the comments mentioned above, and I found them to be highly inappropriate. I was watchching their talk following an exchange at User talk:Beetstra where I made two comments to strongly disagree with a line being pushed by two WMF staffers. Johnuniq (talk) 03:44, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * To be fair, my reading was that the staffer was just expressing sympathy with Lecen over the socking isssue they expressed, which certainly is bad-faith editing. I didn't read it as the staffer expressing an opinion on the merits or claiming to have investigated the issue. Nor did they appear to be aware of Lecen's history on-project, they were just trying to be nice. Franamax (talk) 04:39, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Reads like Lecen is getting wronged
It's not like I haven't had my ground-scraping nuts referred to by Sandy or Moni. (Or had an incredible set (even just in number) set of conspiracies alleged against me (I am in the employ of WMF, Wehwalt, Alarbus, Croaton HighSchool, and the USEP). Sometimes her rants don't even make sense (like I spoke out against USEP issues and it was her little clique that messed up the Barking Fish thing, not me.)  Or the girls haven't giggled about how the Wiki nerds don't get laid.  In any case, it is so lame to be trying to find out who was wrong (or more wrong) and then run to mommy with complaints.  And the all holy "diffs".

Sandy who loves to defend Mallman or Ceoil has taken to using the run to ANI like it was going out of style. I don't think the problem is all the thugs. I think the problem is Sandy. There is just a huge clique going back years here. And Sandy is basically not a fair individual.

I don't think Lecen should apologize (it was not that harsh). Basic point of it was that Sandy is very focused and drives these clique battles on the site (and has done so for years, we have all seen it). The whole idea that Lecen should have to crawl and then prepare some counter charges is just Wiki lawyers stuff. You all should adjuticate on what you see instead of expecting people to spend time on these legalistic defenses and then assuming if they don't, that they must be in the wrong. Or...that they are just not playing the Wiki drama game the way you expect.

Oh...and just on a note of "justice". Even IF LECEN IS WRONG, his apology is irrelevant. If Sandy was wrong too...then she was wrong too at that time. That's just trying to use some lever to drive behavior...to threaten not to look at both sides unless he says he was sorry first.

Lecen: do what you think is right. If you think you were wrong, apologize. If not, don't. In any case, don't decide off of "if I don't apologize, the moderators won't look at both sides of the flame war."

TCO (talk) 04:32, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * TCO - I understand your argument. However the complaint against Lecen was raised first, and ignoring all other factors, Lecen was in the wrong and needs to redact. The reason I am being so rigid on this point is twofold. (1) If it were acceptable to demand resolution of a separate issue before accepting our judgment on the first issue, then everybody would do this and we would be enmeshed in permanent chaos. (2) By resolving this first issue we can look at the second issue cleanly. If during a second investigation anyone attempts to raise this first issue, we can dismiss it on the grounds it has already been dealt with (and probably admonish the responsible party for doing so). I hope that makes sense. Manning (talk) 04:46, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Damn.That is actually a fucking excellent argument. Where did you come from?Never seen you, man! Yeah, disaggregation totally makes sense (and we like...uh...totally never do it).  Still don't think his remark was that rough, but it was definitely directed at the person. Give him the night to think it over.  And some cardio (lifting weights angry gets you hurt, cardio is the way to go when angry.)TCO (talk) 05:00, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes Lecen was wronged, Carcharoth could have blocked immediately. That would have avoided this venue, with the free shovels and chants of "dig dig dig". There is no provision here that you can dramatically escalate a dispute, then claim that all issues must be treated at once with prizes for all. We don't work that way, editors are expected to present their problems calmly and rationally. I'm pretty sure SG has flown to fewer than 10 countries to kill WP editors, but if you notice a contrary trend, please do report it here. Franamax (talk) 04:56, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but often when new issues are raised, they're addressed. While a block might be appropriate for Lecen, SandyGeorgia's behaviour probably needs a check as well. I'd suggest Lecen use the block time to put together any other evidence they might have with a more coherent timeline. Though honestly, I can't count the times I've heard established editors try and excuse another editor's behaviour because they were "provoked". It is pretty much the go to defense for certain groups of editors on certain topics. Perhaps that only works if you have a large enough group of friends.--Crossmr (talk) 08:49, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The excuse "They hit me first" is not valid in a playground, in a court of law, or on Wikipedia. I'm sure someone has written an essay on this point somewhere. Manning (talk) 09:25, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I never said it was an excuse in this case or that Lecen shouldn't be blocked because of it. I pointed out though, that it is frequently used by some people as an excuse on wikipedia and I've often seen it used successfully. I hope in the future the people who are here hanging Lecen out to dry will remember that. And for the record, he hit me first, or was about to hit me, is valid in a court of law. This is not the case here, and while Lecen may have been dealt with, there may be a larger issue here that needs addressed in the form of SandyGeorgia.--Crossmr (talk) 00:23, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I realsise my name is mud here, but to give context, TCO is a just a gear-head who thinks he's a lot more clever than he actually is, and his excitable bursts do not impresse thoes that bother to listen. Carchold is an oppurtunist with an axe to grind against Sandy, for whatever long forgotten reason. Both are gaming, and thinking in a longer view; x 10000. Fact of the matter is Lecen is an extreamly difficult person, hes unwilling to accept help or advice, and is prob . The obvious under a cloud Allarbus, TCO and Ch sees this, and are using an exception to beat a political horse. For shame; if ye guys really gave a fuck ye'd be helping him and guiding h as to how to interact, rather than making capital. Ive seen this before with Ottova, and it makes me want to vomit. A talented writer who only needs guidance and hes tossed about and used up in gaming and in-fighting. Jesus christ. Shame. Ceoil (talk) 12:08, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Ceoil, I think you could have made your point adequately without insulting everyone on the autistic spectrum, which had to be redacted by someone else here. A reference to someone else's mental health is way out of line.  Surely you can comment on the substance without your perception of the mental framework of another editor, and without disparaging several tens of million people.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:31, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Wehwalt, you misunderstand me completly, to the extent that I can even be bothered to explain why. If you are so egar look past my point and to rush towards an o poor me on an others behalf, I dont even know what to say to you. Except this; you are the one exploiting here, and you know it. My position is to help, yours is towards capital. Ceoil (talk) 16:30, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I suppose I misunderstand this as well. That is an appalling thing to say about your fellow editors, especially by a editor already blocked for incivility.  However, it is for us to take insults; failure to do so is disruptive and of course, the terrible incivility is excusable if you know the whole history.  Not.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:21, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * SandyGeorgia's behavior and actions should not go unnoticed. She needs to be held accountable. Lecen is not wrong in the way he feels. People need to read his post and links. I've looked at the whole situation and it's clear that Sandy is watching his edits. She's not just showing up out the blue. She has him on her watchlist and appears to be stalking him. I'm not sure why, but it's obvious she has it in for Lecen. She's harassing him from what I can tell. And she hasn't exactly been civil either in regards to Lecen. I do not believe he owes her an apology. Sandy owes him one. Sandy also needs to remember WP:AGF and WP:NPA. Her actions and behavior are unacceptable. Completely wrong and so unacceptable. I should also note that Sandy's commments in this thread about User:Diannaa (an admin) was done in very poor taste.  Caden  cool  01:22, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I have not had time to follow up on all this, but certainly Lecen should retract, since SG claims to be offended (and others on her behalf). To retract something said in jest (as he claims, and as seems self evident from the whole tone of the paragraph) is not onerous request. I recently said a user had accused me of risking "destruction of most of the known universe" - this was obviously hyperbole, but if that people were offended on that user's behalf, and took it seriously, I would bow to their lack of perception and retract the claim explicitly. Having dealt with that (or not) the substantive matters should be looked into.  Rich Farmbrough, 17:57, 30 January 2012 (UTC).


 * I just wish that Lecen would stop calling some editors xenophobic. Though, it's only his opinon. GoodDay (talk) 18:06, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring on South Vietnam and North Vietnam
Could someone take a look at the recent edit warring on articles North Vietnam and South Vietnam? This involves IPs 24.52.193.213 and 24.52.193.213, and myself. My talk page has been caught up in this dispute, as you can see here. Perhaps these pages can be semi-protected or protected until this issue dies down. Kauffner (talk) 00:07, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm asking now: why do you mean that North VIetnam was "client state" while South VIetnam was not? I don't really understand what you mean. 188.113.91.110 (talk) 00:23, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * This also involves user Mr.A as well. I ask if Wikipedia can please fully protect the 2 articles permanently, as there has been content issues for a few years already, so that way both new and more older editors, both registered & non-registered users cannot change the articles, which is the scenario here which involved non-registered users and logged-in ones. Thank you for your concern — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.52.193.213 (talk) 09:06, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Is administrative action required here, or can this thread be closed?--Mollskman (talk) 22:36, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Uh.. rather a mess up... NV has been protected and the "Client state" comment removed subsequently (with an amusing "WP:wrong version") SV is not protected and the edit warring has continued so that "Client state" is in there. To be even handed either someone should remove the client state from SV and someone else should protect it, or Molksman should be reverted, (preferably by self reverted) and SV should be protected. Rich Farmbrough, 18:05, 30 January 2012 (UTC).

Competance issue
There appears to be a WP:COMPETENCE issue with User:Ananthutom. Although he has some useful edits, he has a penchant for blanking content without explanation, the first warning for which he received on November 11th, and has since received four more warnings for. I gave him a final warning for this behavior yesterday for this which he attempted to deny was him on my talk page. He also as of today has moved his user page and talk page to User:Ananthu Tom, without the normal name change process, thus complicating article history (the original history of his talk page is located at now). Although not forbidden, he also has a penchant for removing the warnings, which leads me to believe that he has read and understood them - despite denying that he does. Could someone take a look at this? Thanks.  Falcon8765  (T ALK ) 18:53, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I have untangled the moves and restored the history of his talk page, and told him how to apply at CHU if he wants to change username. JohnCD (talk) 19:07, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Upon further investigation it also appears that there is a vague overlap between User talk:Bothiman's edits and that of the subject of this section.  Falcon8765  (T ALK ) 19:07, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

See, I am so sorry for my previous edits. I will try my level best to do my edits carefully. I renamed my username because I thought that it was better. I don't know how to change my user name. Please say to me how to do it. I blank out my content because I don't like anything to be in my talk page. You may not believe all these things, but I am saying this most sincerely. Please don't criticize me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ananthutom (talk • contribs)


 * The problem isn't that you attempted to change your username incorrectly, and you are allowed to blank anything you want on your own talk page. However, your blanking of sourced content on article's and then trying to deny that you just had, and multiple warnings for the same thing warrants scrutiny here. An administrator left you instructions on your talk page on how to correctly go about changing your username after fixing the mess created by your last attempt, and you have apparently done the same attempted thing again.  Falcon8765  (T ALK ) 14:36, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Edinburgh Wanderer
has been engaging in some disruptive and bizarre behaviour over the last couple of days. He has shown WP:OWN and WP:COI issues over the inclusion of Scotland's second level league in the football project's list of "fully professional" leagues. EW flooded a recent discussion over the league's suitability for the list with repetitive and false spam. here. He has been spoken to previously by admins over this habit.  EW then circumvented dispute resolution and raised an ANI, trying to have people who disagreed with him blocked. Accusations of personal attacks were made with no evidence. When prompted, diffs like were supplied.

Despite EW's repeated breaches of WP:AOHA, I accepted a warning at the ANI for comments I had been provoked into making. However it was not long before 3rd parties at the ANI were making similar comments about EW's tiresomeness and apparent lack of maturity. Since the ANI failed EW began hostile wikihounding of other editors who disagreed with his viewpoint. was dragged to a spurious SPI and subjected to more unfounded and hysterical accusations. Although EW now claims to have "retired" for three months, I feel a temporary block to run consecutive to the retirement may be in order. At the very least a topic ban for EW may allow users at the Football project to discuss the issues in good faith without further disruption. PorridgeGobbler (talk) 18:57, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * PorridgeGobbler is shit-stirring, and knows he's shit stirring, and has been warned by me and Atama a day or so ago. If I wasn't leaving the house this second, I would block him myself, but instead I'll leave it to others to review.  The fact that EW is not reacting gracefully to pressure is no reason to tolerate intentional poking. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:10, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, PorridgeGobbler has all the appearance of a disruptive POV troll. Support block.   You  really  can  20:35, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Its just as well i always watch ANI as its clear he wasn't going to notify me. I think this latest response by him about me and other editors says it all.. Edinburgh  Wanderer  20:38, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You were (briefly) "retired" after not getting your way and had instructed no messages to be left at your talk page. See also legal threat by . PorridgeGobbler (talk) 20:49, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * And you haven't notified him either. Edinburgh  Wanderer  20:52, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Your latest allegation is incredibly unfounded. That's just a standard template, that's not a legal threat in any way. Please, stop grasping at straws to get your opponents blocked or you might discover it boomeranged on you... Salvio  Let's talk about it! 20:56, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * From WP:NLT: "For example, if you repeatedly assert that another editor's comments are "defamatory" or "libelous", that editor might interpret this as a threat to sue for defamation, even if this is not intended. To avoid this frequent misunderstanding, use less charged wording (such as “That statement about me is not true and I hope it will be corrected for the following reasons...”) to avoid the perception that you are threatening legal action for defamation." It doesn't say who or what I am supposed to have defamed. PorridgeGobbler (talk) 21:04, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * All you have to do is read the previous discussion above to see that there were clear personal attacks not just this time but when he was originally blocked.. Given that he is accusing another editor of something its only correct they are notified which i will do now. Regarding the diff that i was spoken to by an admin i was not warned or anything infact I'm part of a group of editors who are now trailing it and it was about an issue which involved technical aspects of wiki code and has nothing to with this. I re affirm my point above that this is clearly someone who has a clear knowledge of our policies and is not a new user. Im not going to comment here again as this is clearly a boomerang attempt. Edinburgh   Wanderer  21:21, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * We have a bigger problem now hence why I'm posting another comment. He has been constantly advised that first division footballers are considered notable and there currently no consensus to change that look at discussion at WP:Footy. Back in August he attempted to get articles deleted by prod using various ips and he is now doing it again see here Articles for deletion/David McGurn he just won't listen to anyone. Even if we decided future seasons were non notable a player who played in any season prior is notable as notability is permanent. This is clear attempt at disruption Edinburgh   Wanderer  21:31, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * EW, last night you made a spectacle of "retiring" while making worrying declarations about your own mental health. I think that a spell away from WP may benefit you and certainly benefit the project. I was disappointed that my geniune efforts at going through conflict resolution were all rebuffed. You opened an ANI (then a SPI) to throw dirt at me and none of it stuck because you didn't have any evidence. I think the issues I've raised above are more serious and should result in you being formally warned at the very least. PorridgeGobbler (talk) 21:42, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Please note that I wasn't informed of this discussion despite the fact a user is making false rumours I made a legal threat. I find it highly hypercritically that PorridgeGobbler didn't notify me when he is the first to scream from the rooftops when he isn't informed when he actually was. As Salvio stated I didn't make any legal, just a standardised template. As for Porridge Gobblers claims that he is unaware the reasons why such a warning was given is also a lie, With the warning I added an additional message quoting what he had said so it's quite obvious the reason for the warning. His associated IP (which he has admiited is his) was given a warning by myself for a personal attack specifically directed earlier & now his user account was warning for defamation not specifically directed as it was placed on another users page who it wasn't directed toward.I think it's about time Admins take PorridgeGooblers disruptive action seriously & I suggest this case should most definitely boomerang, Since returning from an indefinite ban, he has continued to use different IP's to enable his behaviour, making nationalistic attacks, personal attacks, indirect acttacks, extremely sarcastic comments on talk pages, Project pages & on Wikipedia:Administrators associated pages & don't forget the constant antagonism. He's know taken out this frivolous case against Edinburgh. He seems to some have avoided being re-banned due occasionally appearing reasonable & showing a knowledge of the policies but it's a time for action to be taken. &#9733;&#9734; DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 21:45, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Genuine I don't think so, he's acting against consensus adding inapproatte deltion tags, one of the reasons he was banned the last time, & his above comment yet another attempt at goading & shit stiring. His indefinite block needs to reapplied quickly he has not reformed. &#9733;&#9734; DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 21:52, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Multiple admins have already looked into these malicious allegations and concluded there was absolutely nothing there. Please do not harass me by repeating them. PorridgeGobbler (talk) 22:23, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This is getting out of hand now your being harassed you started this as a boomerang then displayed further evidence of what you were blocked for before. You were warned at the Above Ani which you clearly accepted but continue attacks such as this one if already linked to above, trolling here again saying we have a conflict of interest voting delete because a player wears pink boots accusing other editors who have done nothing wrong starting AFD's when you know that they are not founded is clearly showing your previous behaviour. Given you are using admins comments out of context you really should be notifying them as well. This is disruption. Its up to the admins to decide what to do but this needs sorted promptly one way or another quickly. Edinburgh  Wanderer  22:44, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Does anyone think this article he has just created is appropriate Roddie Clark it would meet WP:Footy but its clearly a joke also he then adds it to WikiProject Football/Scotland task force/New articles which he knows me and duck are very likely to see he is clearly trying to wind us up. This SPI also still needs admin close Sockpuppet investigations/PorridgeGobbler one way or another this isn't a new user this is someone who has prior wiki knowledge he knows loads of policies always misquoted. The miss use of Ips and possible other accounts out there mean this does need checked some of the Ips were linked at the time of Porridge original block and one he has used in last few days although he is clearly hopping a check was required. Edinburgh  Wanderer  23:27, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It's really is getting ridiculous he has started creating pages, like this & then adding them to the Scottish Taskforce new article section & then Afd the article he just created just five minutes later because he knew it wasn't notable & created it as a joke. He is directly trying to provoke Edinburgh who started the taskforce. &#9733;&#9734; DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 23:33, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This is getting ridiculous he has just AFD the article he created Articles for deletion/Roddie Clark. Something needs done promptly. Edinburgh  Wanderer  23:38, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I have blocked PorridgeGobbler for 36 hours for the Roddie Clark incident alone, given past warnings and blocks.  Superm401 - Talk 23:48, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok i need some advice then. He is likely to go back to ip editing which is why i created the SPI or return to this after 36 hours i strongly suspect he's been an editor before. What do i do when he returns i was not believed at the previous Ani and nobody has touched the SPI i just need formal advice on what to do to deal with the situation then. Edinburgh  Wanderer  23:52, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, give the sockpuppet investigation a little time. I'm not sure how long it usually takes, but it's only been a day and there are no comments from checkusers in the "Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments" section.  In the meantime, if you have evidence of sockuppetry, post it here and preferably notify me on my talk page (though I'll try to check back here).  Similarly, if he continues disrupting after the block, open an ANI and contact me if you wish.  Superm401 - Talk 23:59, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the advice i just to know clearly what i need to do. The article should probably just be speedy deleted and AFD closed though no point in wasting peoples time. Edinburgh  Wanderer  00:10, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Good block; if trolling resumes after block expiration it can be upped to indef fairly rapidly. But can I make one more plea to Edinburgh Wanderer and DUCKISJAMMMY to dial back the full throttle reaction several notches?  These things are 10 times easier for people to look into and deal with when the signal isn't overwhelmed by so much noise.  Just because someone who upsets you says something doesn't mean you have to answer back. Seems to me this section can be marked resolved, so I'm doing so. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:37, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm more than happy for now and fully understand what to do if this happens again. I feel I was pretty calm this time but I needed to show all the things that was happening again this time was the same as the last time. Edinburgh   Wanderer  10:02, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I just want to note that I was involved in the old discussion regarding IPs in use by PorridgeGobbler (and the IP admitted that they were that editor). Given the behavior above, and the history of that account, I wouldn't object to an indefinite block. I'm not going to extend the existing block to indefinite, but further disruption from this account (or IPs from the account) and I will extend an existing block to indefinite, or re-block the account indefinitely. --  At am a  頭 19:53, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

User:TheREALCableGuy readding fair use images to userspace
I reverted a userspace edit by TheREALCableGuy which added non-free images and he (or she) undid my edit. The editor claims they are under fair use, however they're violations of WP:NFCC as they are being used out of article space. Cutecutecuteface2000 (Cutecuteface needs attention) 01:16, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It's been about 8 hours since the last revert; hopefully the note on his talk page & in the edit summaries should be enough to stop this. If he does start this again, please re-file a note here! Thanks.  Skier Dude  ( talk ) 08:04, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

He did the edit again. Cutecutecuteface2000 (Cutecuteface needs attention) 20:07, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

He now filed a personal attack against me. Cutecutecuteface2000 (Cutecuteface needs attention) 20:10, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * He now has a 1-week block (not his first block either). DMacks (talk) 20:14, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

You should also remove this edit summary. Cutecutecuteface2000 (Cutecuteface needs attention) 20:18, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ DMacks (talk) 20:21, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Pacynka Sobkowskiego
Hi. I report here violations by User:Pacynka Sobkowskiego. "Pacynka Sobkowskiego" means "Sobkowski's sockpuppet" (in Polish). Actually, it is not my sockpuppet but presumably, a blocked user from Polsh Wiki (where I am an admin). Thus, "Pacynka Sobkowskiego" impersonates me and violates Username policy, I guess. Moreover, tonight he or she has marked my user and user talk pages with the sockpuppetProven template, which I consider as a malicious vandalism. I ask for appropriate action. Michał Sobkowski (talk) 10:05, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Admin status on Polish WP confirmed (User rights}. The username does indeed translate to "puppet" as our Polish colleague says. Marking the user page as a sockpuppet seems pretty egregious to me. I'll send him on his way. Manning (talk) 10:17, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for speedy action! Michał Sobkowski (talk) 12:59, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

IP editor evading block
This IP 86.184.209.127 user is currently blocked for one week for disruptive editing.Magog the Ogres block. Would someone please block his new IP. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:19, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * that is not me and I have not been blocked on the other hand you have been blocked and warned over edit warring and pov pushing as your block log clearly shows 86.184.209.127 (talk) 15:33, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Same ISP, same country, same reverts as the blocked editor. WP:DUCK applies. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:17, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ blocked 1 week to match prior block. -- Jayron  32  19:02, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring by IP-hopping anon
Over the last couple of days has there has been a lot of edit warring at Saint Thomas Christians by clearly related IP accounts. So far accounts have included ; ;  ( ;  ;  ;  ;  . I warned one of the accounts about edit warring and removing sourced content here and here and tried to explain the situation on the talk page here, to no avail; they never make more than one revert from the same IP before switching.--Cúchullain t/ c  16:36, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Fully protected for two days -this needs to be sorted on the talk page instead of reverting back and forth. TN <b style="color:midnightblue; font-size:larger;">X</b> Man  16:53, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

206.15.252.30
The IP editor has been adding the GA nominee template to articles that cleary don't meet theWP:GA? criteria (Pink Friday: Roman Reloaded, Down in It or Invaders Must Die). I, and others, assmued good faith on this user, but after I see his edit at Talk:Arab Spring I noticed that his edits are the same edits that  and , this last is blocked from editing as he is User:Guitarherochristopher, a banned editor. This IP needs to be stopped. Tb hotch .™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions.  17:55, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Post by banned (and now blocked) IP sock removed. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:20, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Persistent WP:ERA violater
Persistent WP:ERA violations, has been warned here but continues to randomly change date styles against policy.  He  iro  20:53, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Chiang Kai-shek rollback
There was a significant amount of IP vandalism on Chiang Kai-shek earlier today (January 30). I need an admin to roll back the page to the last legitimate edit, by Shrigley.Ferox Seneca (talk) 21:15, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅. 28bytes (talk) 21:24, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks!Ferox Seneca (talk) 21:31, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Requests for comment/Fæ
What's up with DC insisting on retaining a two year old "endorsement" on an RFC, when that endorsement was posted by the since effectively-banned user Merridew. I don't see how a banned user's comments from 2 years ago have anything to do with a current RFC. But I might just be dense. I've asked DC to come here and explain this oddity. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:37, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * And DC is also edit-warring to keep Merridew's comment in there. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:40, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The validity of the certification is certainly open to question. I suggest we leave it in place, with a note indicating its status is under review and that it should be considered suspended until the question is resolved. Manning (talk) 00:07, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * As explained in the RFC/U itself, I reopened the request following a WP:AN discussion about a similar situation. The original RFC/U was delisted because User:Ash claimed to have left WIkipedia. It was never closed, simply dormant. I would have preferred to simply relist it, but given the amount of time that has passed and the new user name, I felt that this was the best way forward. I was asked by an admin to include the certifications from the previous RFC/U. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:14, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I did ask him to include it because it seemed odd that it was just a link to an old RFC. I also noted that I thought something was fishy and violated process that one of the certifiers being unavailable to confirm if they thought it should be re-opened because they were banned. I don't see why if there is a problem with this user's behavior warranting an RFC, DC cannot produce a second, active, unbanned user to certify with him.  MBisanz  talk 00:19, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Given the reception I have received so far, I would not ask anyone to add their name to the RFC/U (in fact, I would discourage it unless they wish to be similarly maligned). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:25, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It's very moot now that others have come forward and signed on, so all my concerns as to process and validity are satisfied.  MBisanz  talk 01:20, 27 January 2012 (UTC)


 * No opinion on much else in this thread, but since repeating something that's untrue often enough leads to people assuming it's true, a point of order: Merridew isn't banned, effectively or sotherwise. There's one restriction on his editing that he evidently is unwilling to agree to, but if he agreed to it, he could start editing tomorrow without breaking any rules. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:21, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * My apologies. He is in a situation such that he cannot confirm if he thinks the RFC should be re-opened, nor can he engaged in collaborative dispute resolution with the subject of the RFC, no?  MBisanz  talk 00:23, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That's correct; like I said, my only interest is trying to shut down the "banned" meme. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:37, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * He's been blocked here since June, he's globally "locked", he's been charged with sockpuppetry, and his most recent edits were rev-del'd. That's "effectively banned", in my book. However, the thing that irked me a bit was DC's attempt to hide the point that Merridew has nothing to do with the current RFC. Assuming DC doesn't edit-war against the admin Manning's posting in that RFC, that should keep things clear to anyone looking at it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:33, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I originally had a link to the certification section of the earlier RFC/U. I was asked to cut-and-paste the old certifications in the newer version. Merridew has nothing to do with reopening the RFC/U, but they did certify it originally. In what possible way am I attempting to hide anything? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:05, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I made the point that he's not a valid user anymore, and you deleted it and tried to bury it on the talk page. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:14, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * But he is a valid user; he's not community banned or anything like that, as Floquenbeam rightly points out. Reyk  <sub style="color:blue;">YO!  01:18, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * "Users should not edit other people's summaries or views, except to endorse them. All signed comments other than your own view or an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page." Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:19, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Indef'd users don't get to edit. I didn't edit anyone else's comment. As noted below, others have rendered the Merridew issue moot. So you're going to delete it now, right? :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:25, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Two current users, in addition to DC, have now certified the RFC so the Merridew issue is now moot.   Will Beback    talk    01:21, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * What Will said. Manning (talk) 01:22, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah...just because an editor is banned doesn't mean everything they did is wrong or wiped away (Can't remember what guideline says that, but there is one that says that)  Purpleback pack  89  ≈≈≈≈  01:44, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Once an editor is banned, any and all edits he makes after that are subject to removal, and edits made prior to banning are subject to scrutiny, depending on what the ban was about (copyright violations, for example). Merridew is not "banned", but he's not allowed to edit either - nor is it appropriate for his words to be proxied. However, Merridew's comments are now struck from the RFC, so dat's dat. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:48, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Page deletion
I had just commented at this RfC/U – I think I was about the 30th person to have done so – to find that it has just been deleted. Isn't that a bit irregular? -- J N  466  07:46, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * As I discussed on the talk page previously, no one added evidence that Ash and Fae are the same person. I indicated I would delete it if no evidence was provided in a timely manner. I was told to ask the ArbCom, which I did. In their responses they also did not provide any indication that the two users are the same person. Since the entire RFC/U was predicated on them being the same person, it was an invalid RFC/U. Editors are welcome to start an RFC/U on Fae alone, and they can also request an admin recall. However no one should allege that Ash and Fae are the same person without providing proper proof.   Will Beback    talk    08:03, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Sheesh. I urge all users to avoid dealing with the ArbCom if they can. They can't be relied on to give honest answers to simple questions.   Will Beback    talk    08:26, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, this deletion was a gross misuse of the admin bit, and should be considered grounds for at least temporary desysoping. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 08:37, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Will, suggestion. Undel the page yourself. I don't think the community might see this positively. A timely undeletion would save us this discussion thread. Kind regards. Wifione  Message 08:45, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * John Vandenberg already did. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 08:47, 28 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Improperly certified RFC/Us are routinely deleted. Based on the best available evidence, and numerous requests for more evidence, I understood that the RFC/U was improperly formed and certified. A number of exchanges with the ArbCom led me to believe that there was no identified connection between Ash and Fae. I gave plenty of warning that I'd delete it if no evidence of the connection was added. Only after the ArbCom discussions, and after I'd deleted it, did user: John Vandenberg decide to give his still incomplete input. I sincerely apologize for relying on the ArbCom to give useful information and I promise never to do so again.   Will Beback    talk    08:48, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The issue is Wikipedia policies (RFC/U and cleanstart) aren't coherent, so (as usual) discussion and consensus are necessary to resolve the situation. While I disagree with the deletion, I don't doubt WB's good faith; calls for desysoping are over the top. Likewise I'd encourage editors to be nice to ArbCom -- it's a crappy job but someone has to do it. Nobody Ent 11:37, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The deletion was done in quite bad faith, as Will was threatening deletion using by his personal criteria regarding Fae's identity rather than any question of the certification. A desysop is certainly on the table, but perhaps it might be best to deescalate all-around and just let the RfC mosey along. Tarc (talk) 13:37, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I had hoped to avoid having to do it on-wiki for various reasons, but I have made a connection between the two accounts at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/F%C3%A6. I have attempted to find a balance between limiting the amount of personal information disclosed and making a connection that reasonable people could agree was conclusive. Given that the connection between the two accounts was fairly well-known when I re-opened the RFC/U, I had hoped that an ArbCom member would appear to make a suitably vague statement that would put questions about identity to rest. If any admin genuinely had concerns that the two accounts were not connected, I would like to think that the RFC/U would have been deleted immediately instead of allowing it to remain until an arbitrary deadline had expired. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:10, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for providing that, which should have been part of the RFC/U from the beginning. We can't just make allegations of serious wrongdoing without providing proof or relying on unverifiable claims like "common knowledge". I'm not sure I understand your reluctance to post evidence of something that you were comfortable asserting. However now that this is cleared up you can continue resolving the dispute over sourcing BLPs.   Will Beback    talk    22:41, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I endorse the deletion of this page as both being well within community norms and WB having stated several times he was going to do it. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 23:05, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * While I don't approve of the deletion, I can say, thank goodness it's gone, now it has, let us now look forward not back. Rich Farmbrough, 01:18, 30 January 2012 (UTC).


 * Actually, the page is not yet deleted, even if a reference to it is. CycloneGU (talk) 23:01, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

ethen12
Interesting user here,. I'm tempted to call a block for WP:COMPETENCE, based on this evidence:


 * Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/kamehameha:the king who changed everything, a completely nonsense article about something that already exists
 * User:Ethen12/How to install windows 7 and User:Ethen12/computers and what they are, sandboxes on either things that already have articles or should not have articles
 * Not one, but two attempts to create a bot despite obvious lack of know-how, using one of the aforementioned sandboxes as "source code"
 * Vandalism which was self-reverted
 * Another bad-faith edit
 * Asking another user to nominate him for admin

The user's been here for a month, but out of 141 edits, only three are to article space: two tangential edits to Kamehameha I, and a clever vandalism on Mother.

I'm betting that the user here is very young, as evidenced by their highly impulsive nature and the borderline MySpace-y feel they're going for by awarding themself barnstars and brownies. If you've been here for over 100 edits, and still haven't done anything of note in article space, you just may not be cut out for the big leagues yet. I say block, as the signal to noise ratio is just too much here. They seem not to be here to build an encyclopedia, but rather to socialize. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:35, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I realize that this probably won't count for much at all, but after I left him a message about his adding himself to the list of adopters, he immediately removed the "adopting" userbox from his page and asked another editor to adopt him. Yes, I may be reading too much into that, but it tells me that he might just be okay at taking directions, and actually learning the rules of this place. As to his rather large myspace-y edit count...well...who here didn't add userboxes for their first 50 edits? Ok, maybe/probably everyone except me. Regardless, we couldn't give him just a little longer of a chance? Just my $.02...will let others more suited decide on the block.  Nolelover   Talk · Contribs  03:51, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/kamehameha:the king who changed everything seems like a good faith attempt to help build an encyclopedia, though misguided. But obviously the pattern of editing is not exactly encouraging, and I'm on the fence here, on the one hand there is some competence issues, on the other hand these issues are not too serious (yet) and the edits are not malicious. I would personally be more comfortable with some form of mentorship by a more experienced user, but then I would also agree with the idea that the editor may not be cut out for the big leagues yet and that mentorship/adoption can't make up for an apparent lack of maturity... :| CharlieEchoTango  ( contact ) 03:56, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * They also asked for their talk page to be moveprotected and somehow it passed. And asked for rollback. And and and. Seems all they want is to gather trinkets, which is not what we're here for. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 04:12, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Greetings. I am pretty sure I'm the "other editor" mentioned by Nolelover above. I first encountered this user when they posted a tag on their page asking about that Kamehameha article. I've continued to offer assistance whenever they've asked, and I possibly would have already accepted his request but I've been on the road much of the weekend. Anyway, I log back in and see this ANI issue pop up, and had no idea he had even attempted to deploy a bot; it seems to me it's an issue of seeing that other users have bots and he believes he can have one too, if I were to guess (but that's purely my first impression). The request for rollback and other such requests mentioned by Ten Pound Hammer seem to confirm this. I would not be opposed to adopting the user, and think there is something to work with there, and I certainly don't believe any malice is intended by his edits. But I do agree they're a bit on the young side and would need to have relatively strict limits in place regarding editing. I'll follow this thread and am open to discussion/suggestions regarding this. -- McDoob AU  93  04:14, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually no. He also asked WLU (who I stalk and who I think I now need to notify?).  Nolelover   Talk · Contribs  04:21, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If someone can take up the mantle to adopt this user and put some restrictions on them, that'd help. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 04:19, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, for what it's worth, my adoption program has been quite effective in teaching new users the ropes in the past. It won't teach someone how to be mature, but I suppose it can explain we are a serious encyclopedia, not a social website. I've a relatively light workload at present, but I want to see what others think first. Steven   Zhang  Join the DR army! 05:07, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I doubt he'll be sticking around for very long anyway, but he should probably be linked to WP:YOUNG. -- &oelig; &trade; 07:37, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Also.. I know it's proper and all.. but do we really need to inform him of this (discussion) on his talk page? -- &oelig; &trade; 07:43, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Either a very young editor or a more than usually subtle troll, only time will tell. I'm willing to give him/her some rope (and explain what s/he does right or wrong) but also bring in an admin if things get too ridiculous.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 13:44, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * So what kind of action should we take? They haven't edited since this ANI post, but I'd ask you guys to help keep watch on him. If they do get back to editing, maybe they should be restricted in some way — stick to mainspace, don't edit their talk page unless responding to someone else, don't edit their userspace extensively, no helpme spam, that kind of thing. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 19:46, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I can't guarantee I'll track his contributions, but if anyone notices anything and drops me a line, I'm perfectly happy to mentor him/her or explain why it's a bad idea. I don't think there's sufficient evidence to permablock, but for some reason despite being an absurd stickler for the rules, I always seem to give people way, way, waaaaayyyy too much rope.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 23:33, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I likewise am able to keep an eye on them if required. Steven   Zhang  Join the DR army! 23:40, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Same as above. He'll remain on my watchlist, and I'll try to keep tabs on him.  Nolelover   Talk · Contribs  14:30, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

User:69.124.114.170
Over the past two weeks, this editor has made some 200 edits. All but a handful have consisted of adding categories to articles, mainly food related. In nearly all cases, these have been inappropriate, often adding categories such as "Australian cuisine" or "Czech cuisine" to all foods eaten in these and other countries. These edits have been reverted by several editors, and the editor has received numerous warnings from many others regarding inappropriate categories. I have pointed out that "If a dish is listed as the national cuisine of every country where it is eaten, the category ceases to be useful", and others have added warnings for disruption. Deepite this, the editor continues, repeatedly performing the same edit.

The editor has also repeatedly added unsourced (and contradictory) ethnic origin categories to a BLP.

The editor has also made many similar edits to articles about the Chinese zodiac, and about fashion. I am not well-enough informed about these topics to assess whether these are helpful, but given the practice elsewhere, I doubt this.

Despite the regular reverts of their edits, and the many comments and warnings, the editor has not made any attempt to discuss these edits on the article talk page or their own talk page. Nor have they ever used an edit summary. It would seem that admin intervention is necessary in order to oblige this editor to act within the guidelines. RolandR (talk) 09:36, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I can watch, but as there has been no bad behaviour since the 'final warning' was issued, there's not much else to do at the moment. Manning (talk) 09:50, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Stepping in since I spotted this, the user's last edit was at 2:05 on Jan. 30th, to Meatloaf, which I reverted (and warned them for). Since most of their edits seem to be happening around that time of night (where I'm from), that's likely when we'll hear from them again. I didn't see that they had been notified of this thread, so I have done so. Calabe1992 22:38, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I forgot to notify the ip. They are now back, continuing to make disruptive edits with no attempt to discuss or explain these, nor any response to the multiple warnings and the notification. RolandR (talk) 01:05, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Blocked 24 hours. I realise they have not editied now for some hours, but they have very regular times and patterns of editing and it seems very ikely they will be back on again in about 12 hours time and they show no sign of heeding the requests on their talk page. A 24 hour block will prevent further damage and hopefully will get them to take these requests more seriously. Kim Dent-Brown   (Talk)  13:22, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Terrorism infobox
The terrorism info box seems to be broken, I have no idea on how to fix it. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:15, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Fixed it. An IP removed the top line of coding of the template. Number   5  7  14:21, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Audit Subcommittee vacancies: Call for applications (2012) - second call
The Arbitration Committee is seeking to appoint at least three non-arbitrator members to the Audit Subcommittee.

The Audit Subcommittee ("AUSC") was established by the Arbitration Committee to investigate complaints concerning the use of CheckUser and Oversight privileges on the English Wikipedia, and to provide better monitoring and oversight of the CheckUser and Oversight positions, and use of the applicable tools.

Matters brought before the subcommittee may be time-sensitive and subcommittee members should be prepared and available to discuss cases promptly so they may be resolved in a timely manner. Sitting subcommittee members are expected to actively participate in AUSC proceedings and may be replaced should they become inactive. All subcommittee members are subject to the relevant local and global policies and guidelines concerning CheckUser and Oversight.

If you think you may be suitably qualified, please see the appointments page for further information. The application period is scheduled to close 31 January 2012.

For the Arbitration Committee, – xeno <sup style="color:black;">talk 18:00, 19 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy. [[Image:718smiley.svg|20px]] - - Burpelson AFB ✈ 17:42, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Vote scam
Votes and comments are repeatedly deleted with no concrete reason by User:Eraserhead1, to frame towards his favourable result, at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese). The same thing happened with Talk:China too. He is now requesting for semi-protection to seal his fraud. 61.18.170.113 (talk) 17:09, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The amount of sockpuppetry and pure disruption from single purpose accounts and IP addresses in Hong Kong has risen to the level that Eraserhead1 needed to ask for semi-protection on talk pages. That is extremely serious and I support it. I'm currently compiling a list of IP ranges from problematic ISPs (HK ISPs commonly use rotating address proxies to overcome IPv4 shortages) so that this could at least be geographically confined. This will need further discussion and this isn't the place for it. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
 * I couldn't give a damn about the vote. What I do care about is stopping enormous levels of disruption coming from Hong Kong IP's. I suggest we block all Hong Kong IP's from being allowed to edit Talk:China and Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese).
 * I also find it very interesting that as soon as one IP address is given a warning the IP editing the page co-incidentally changes. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 22:41, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Out of curiosity, do you think this is the work of one individual or a group of some sort? Prioryman (talk) 22:47, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Those two pages have become extremely problematic. Discussion has become incoherent at times, partly because of Eraserhead1's definitely good faith but also somewhat disruptive attempts to clean up the discussions by removing large numbers of comments. There are many other problems with the pages, including what I personally suspect are solicited votes, the fact that a vote was held in the first place (WTF was someone thinking?), some ideologically driven posters still fighting geo-political wars from half a century ago, language difficulties (obviously a lot of people involved for whom English is not their first language) and, from many posters, a general failure to Discuss at all, just lecture. Even that initial post here, containing the expression "to frame towards his favourable result" shows the language problem. If an editor cannot write English well, can they really understand arguments presented by others in English? Yes, (some) Hong Kong posts are a problem, but there's FAR, FAR more. HiLo48 (talk) 22:58, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * HiLo, the backstory you've missed is that Hong Kong IP editors have been problematic for a while by going on, and on, and on - and there have been very few (if any) other IP editors contributing to the discussion. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 23:04, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh I'm sure that's true. I know you wouldn't be taking the actions you did otherwise. My concern is always for innocent victims in situations like this. It's likely that there will be interested, reasonable AND rational editors from Hong Kong who would want to contribute. But I guess they can if they register, and there did seem to be some irrational aggression against that suggestion from some. It's an area of Wikipedia that's simply not working as it should right now. Despite a lot of words being typed, Discussion isn't occurring. And that "vote" should never have happened. It proved nothing. HiLo48 (talk) 23:35, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * No evidence has ever been presented to prove any sockpuppetry so as to justify your actions. I don't know your intentions. But you got a strong position, and what you did was effectively gearing towards a result that you favoured. And you keep removing comments left by other IP editors from across at least four ISPs, even if those comments aren't relevant to that section of controversial discussion. This is disruptive. 61.18.170.215 (talk) 11:30, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

This item was marked "resolved" 12 hours ago. In what way has it been resolved? It's obvious all participants still feel the way they did before the discussion started, and no actions or directives have been put in place to change anything. Editors' behaviour can only be expected to continue exactly as before. Exactly what has been resolved? HiLo48 (talk) 00:20, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Query to closing admin. How was this resolved, and what was the rationale for the action or non-action taken? --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 02:54, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The IP is now rangeblocked by Elockid, who is a checkuser. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:38, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Attempted outing on Talk:Evolutionary psychology
I have this page on my watchlist. has made these consecutive edits which seem unduly aggressive and appear to be an attempted WP:OUTING. Mathsci (talk) 18:23, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No outing is possible of a dead person -- David M. Schneider. Memills (talk) 19:32, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I just restored what you removed above. Asking somebody to say whether they are X (in this case a living person) is WP:OUTING. Mathsci (talk) 19:48, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * has now confirmed that he is not Maximilian Holland. But why was he asked in this way by Memills? Mathsci (talk) 19:54, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Mathsci -- I did not give you permission to revert my comment above to a previous version. I removed my concern about a sockpuppet account because it was irrelevant to the issue of OUTING.   Please do not do not restore material that I have deleted from my posts again without my permmission.  Memills (talk) 20:12, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Memills, the edit you left was deceptive. If you want to check that and  might be the same undisclosed person, then you should just  file a request at WP:SPI. A checkuser would be no good since Maximilianholland has not edited since August 2011. In the same way,  people are not allowed to make inferences from your own user name on wikipedia. Mathsci (talk) 20:25, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[[


 * Mathsci -- no, my edit was not deceptive. Again, you do not have my permission to revert my posts to previous versions, whether you believe them to be "deceptive" or not.  That is unacceptable behavior on WP. [User:Memills|Memills]] (talk) 20:53, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * More WP:IDHT? On wikipedia you cannot confront another user by telling him that they are "John X, Smith", or another real life identification. That is WP:OUTING. But you seem to do as you please. Mathsci (talk) 21:35, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Mathsci is quite correct. For an example of the sort of thing that is unacceptable, see here.  Even in conflict of interest situations, "be extra super-duper careful about outing, which includes speculation of an editor's identity." "Outing is grounds for an immediate block" "just remember, and I mean this in the strongest terms, be careful"  William Hickey (talk) 21:47, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for restoring my original post (although you still have the portion that I deleted included above in the box).
 * used his real name as his WP identifier, and he also previously identified himself as that person on the Talk page. He outed himself.  I cannot out him once he has done so.  There was good reason to ask DMSchneider if that user name was a sock puppet account of Maximilianholland given the similarity of the content posted by these two accounts. DMSchneider said that was not the case; I'll take him at his word. Memills (talk) 21:53, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If one person edits under their real name, that does not mean that you can ask a completely different user whether they are the person with that real name. In this case you could have asked whether their account was an alternative account of . Mathsci (talk) 22:11, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I will take your advice re this -- it is an unusual situation when an WP editor uses their real name as an identifier. I would ask too that you refrain from reverting others' comments to previous versions without their permission.  Deal? Memills (talk) 23:33, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Commenting here with my admin-hat on. Mathsci, whether you feel that Memills was editing deceptively or not, it's inappropriate to edit their contribution here. Per WP:TPO there are a limited number of situations when you can edit another person's comment. If you feel that a person was being deceptive by redacting part of their comment, there's a very simple and uncontroversial way to handle that; just say it. You can even quote what they had said before or offer a diff to show it. There's nothing wrong with doing so and it is more effective than doing what is essentially a minor edit war over another person's comment.


 * Memills, as to the outing, Maximilianholland hasn't edited for 5 months, and DMSchneider has only had an account for a month. If they were the same person, then it would give the appearance that the old account was abandoned and a new one created. This is explicitly allowed under our clean start policy as I see that Maximilianholland has a clean block record and certainly had no active sanctions when DMSchneider was created. An account change could have been done for privacy reasons, and I'd suggest honoring that need for privacy, until and unless the older account becomes active again. DMSchneider has denied a connection and I think it's good that you're taking them at their word.


 * But was the question itself outing? I don't see any difference in asking someone if they edited under the account Maximilianholland or if they are someone named Maximilian Holland. If someone asked me if my name was Atama in real life I wouldn't consider that outing. As to the appropriateness of asking the question, it's acknowledged that questions like that will be asked in a situation like this. Our clean start policy warns editors who continue their old editing patterns with the following:


 * "Editors who make a clean start and then resume editing in the same topic areas may be recognized by other editors in that area. If the previous and clean start accounts are not linked, this can result in direct questioning and/or sockpuppet investigation requests, and the linkage between the two accounts may become public knowledge. Clean start accounts should not return to the same topic areas or editing patterns if there is a strong desire to separate from the initial account."


 * So I think we can let this one be for now. Take DMSchneider at their word, and I see nothing sanctionable from anyone else in this discussion. --  At am a  頭 19:47, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Atama, the comment has been restored for a long time and the previous version is in a quote box, so your advice is a little late. If somebody has the username DMSchneider, why would anybody ask them if they were, for example, Monique Elouise Moulins? That would appear to be attempted outing. Mathsci (talk) 08:02, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, the previous version is in a quote box, which is not only okay, it's what I suggested that you should have originally done. I just wanted to remind you not to fiddle with others' comments, but I also wanted to respond to Memills's objection to the quote box; "although you still have the portion that I deleted included above in the box". I don't see a problem with the quote box as it is now.


 * If someone named Monique Elouise Moulins was showing particularly similar edits to another account, then I don't see how it's harassment to ask them if they're the same editor. Basically, if you want to edit Wikipedia under your own username, you're taking a risk. If you later decide to edit under a different account and in a similar manner than before, you're practically telling people who you are. We explicitly warn people about such things in our policies. We can't just turn a blind eye, otherwise a person could make themselves effectively immune to sockpuppetry charges by claiming a username that is the same as their real life name. We try to respect editors' privacy, but editors must take efforts to maintain that privacy. --  At am a  頭 18:07, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Collins Island, Newport Beach
Could an admin with a moment assist me here; I have a user who can't seem to understand that copy>paste moves aren't acceptable. He copied the page to Collins Island, California and keeps redirecting the original title to there. Could someone assist with the speedy of the new version so the old one can be moved? Thanks. Calabe1992 01:07, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Taking a closer look, this user has made multiple copy>paste moves. Could someone help out with getting them straightened out. Thanks. Calabe1992 01:15, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Blocked for 12 hours for 3RR violation. Hopefully the point was made and the editor is willing to discuss and not editwar. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:13, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Blocked for sockpuppetry, see Sockpuppet investigations/Toronto2503. Nothing else to do here. WilliamH (talk) 10:43, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Need a rev del
Forwarded to oversight, redacted to reduce visibility. My76Strat (talk) 03:18, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Revdel'd, made my own request for suppression.  Acroterion   (talk)   03:20, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Possible Sockpuppetry of user
I would like the administrator community to view the possible practice of creating multiple accounts and sockpuppetry related to HereToSaveWiki. The original account holder is Seeta mayya. Since I, and several other editors, are highly familiar with her and her tremendously disruptive behavior and her style of speaking, I found an immediate similarity. Please note, I have been very short-tempered with Seeta mayya mainly because of some unacceptably foul personal attacks which went unreported mainly because some supportive editors veered off consensus. The user has a history of making very irrelevant and inflammable attacks, especially against me and Meryam90. In addition, she seems to have a great fondness for Shahrukh Khan-related articles and often trolls them; the new editor has also begun the same trend on Talk:Shahrukh Khan. If this user is proved a sockpuppet, I suggest an immediate indefinite IP ban on the user, as well as indefinite bans on all the accounts the user has. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 08:27, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I would like the administrator community to go ahead and perform a sockpuppet check on my account HereToSaveWiki and if in fully true sense, I'm found to the one accused here as Seeta mayya, then I would myself request the community to block me or ban my IP or whatever Wiki does. But if I'm not found to be the one, then I would like you to take the same action against the above user who has accused me of being a sockpuppet. Please read my below points.
 * I would request the administrators here to have a look at my contributions and see that I've created this account today and so far have just one main edit about a controversy (published in most of India's leading newspapers today) that too on a talk page to discuss about the matter rather than editing on the article page directly. Does this prove that I'm not a vandal atleast?
 * Rest of my edits here are on several user talk pages asking them to provide their comments to gain consensus over that matter. Does this prove that I respect Wiki policies and avoid edit warring or violating 3RR?
 * Next if you read my edits, you'll notice that I've not mentioned any specific editor in my edits thereby preventing a personal attack on any editor on Wiki.
 * Further, as stated by above user "Please note, I have been very short-tempered with Seeta mayya", please note that the user is again being very short-tempered as and has used abusive and foul language here and here in replying to my edit. He should've kept his cool and not used words like "bullshit","Go do it somewhere else", "your level of shit talk", "I will throw you out of Wikipedia" etc.,
 * I do not know the history but may be AnkitBhatt must have had sleepless nights with what had happened between him and Seeta mayya or Seeta mayya might still be a scary nightmare for him, but there was actually no reason for him this time atleast to lose his temper and raise his blood pressure levels. Such kind of person are mere patients of Hypertension
 * I would like to state that it is in fact AnkitBhatt who has violated several Wiki policies of BITE, NPA, Civility, Etiquette & NLT and has threatened me to the core with just my single edit.
 * Last, if convinced by my defensive claims, I request Wiki admin community to take fair action to prevent AnkitBhatt harassing new editors in future. -- HereToSaveWiki (talk) 10:05, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


 * AnkitBhatt, the correct forum for your concern is WP:SPI. User:HereToSaveWiki, I commend you on your knowledge of policy - unusual to see in newly registered contributors. - Sitush (talk) 10:12, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks Sitush. But I'll be honest here. Though I newly created an account for myself today, I am not a new editor to Wiki. I've been editing Wiki since long but have always used the shared IP of my organization. Recently, a notice was put on the shared IP talk page stating that many users in my organization have been doing the same and will have to discontinue the practice to prevent vandalism. We are strictly encouraged to create an account for ourselves before editing further on Wiki. Hence the account was created today and the rest is what I just said above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HereToSaveWiki (talk • contribs) 10:28, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

We'll see. And yes, if you are NOT seeta mayya then you can completely ignore whatever I said; the said user was an enormous pain and left a ton of unpleasant memories. However, you are not going to address me in the way you did just now. Is that clearly understood? ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 10:31, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Regardless of any sock puppetry this notice is nonsensical. An editor cannot be summoned to ANI as if it was a panel of judges and issued instructions about the speed of their response.  Cool it. -- Snowded  TALK  10:41, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I disagree with you, Snowded. It is not "nonsensical" to run an WP:SPI, if there are SPI concerns. Let it run, and see what the outcome is.
 * I disagree with you, Ankit. Using terms like "officially summoned", "expected to appear in front of the examining administrators", and "any attempt at resistance and your situation will be viewed with disdain" may possibly appear to be construed as not advancing the Wikipedia project.
 * --Shirt58 (talk) 11:48, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I think Snowded meant that the notice was nonsensical, something which most of us seem to agree on.  Lynch 7  12:10, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I think Snowded meant that the notice was nonsensical, something which most of us seem to agree on.  Lynch 7  12:10, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Uncivil and Harassing behaviour
I would like the administrator community to have a look at this notice sent by user AnkitBhatt. The user has showed indications of uncivil and harassing behavior by falsely accusing me of being a sockpuppet of account Seeta mayya. He has used abusive and foul language here and here in replying to my edit. He should've kept his cool and not used words like "bullshit","Go do it somewhere else", "your level of shit talk", "I will throw you out of Wikipedia" etc., AnkitBhatt has in fact violated several Wiki policies of BITE, NPA, Civility, Etiquette & NLT and has threatened me to the core with just my single edit. I request Wiki admin community to take fair action to prevent AnkitBhatt harassing the editors in future. -- HereToSaveWiki (talk) 11:32, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, they have already been appropriately warned. ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 12:38, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This is an ongoing issue; Anhitbhatt ragequit Wikipedia in December and left a notice saying that he intended to attack his opponents if he ever came back ("if, in any case, I ever do think of returning, then I warn these two editors to stay away from me. I will be totally no-holds-barred, and believe me, you have not seen anything yet."). Temper has been an issue with this editor for months, and I'm disappointed to see that his wikibreak hasn't mellowed him. I would suggest an interaction ban between Ankitbhatt and his two main opponents, who he names as and, said ban to extend to any accounts he believes to be socks of these accounts, as above. Ankitbhatt cannot hold his temper in regards to these editors, who may or may not be needling him, so it falls to us to force them to leave each other alone. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:50, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * What concerns me is this tendency to form deep-seated grudges to the point of incivility. Even if it's only against one or two users, it's still conduct unbecoming of an administrator.--WaltCip (talk) 16:11, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Ankitbhatt is not an administrator, just an editor. But it's also behaviour unbecoming of a Wikipedia editor, imho. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:15, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Is this worth worrying about
This popped up on my watchlist. The editor it is directed at has not edited here since September last year and going through the IPs contributions nothing stands out that could have triggered it here. It appears to be bullshit, but in accordance with Threats of violence I thought I would report it here. I sent an email to emergency@wikimedia.org just in case, but got an out of office reply. AIR corn (talk) 23:10, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * has replied and is looking into it. AIR corn (talk) 23:18, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Hey, is there any way that the Foundation could suppress out-of-office replies to emails sent to emergency@wikimedia.org? I sent a message a few weeks ago to emergency and got an out-of-office reply too, and had I not known that the address was monitored by a large number of editors I would have been concerned. A new editor might think that nobody was watching the inbox.
 * If there's a better place to post this, let me know. --NellieBly (talk) 03:01, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Good grief. Reminds me of this old one, a call center answerer: "Suicide Prevention Center... thank you for holding... Hello? Hello?" ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:21, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I work in an ER for a rural area, which means there's one psych center we contact for all our psychiatric patients... and they have one phone line. Getting a busy signal on their Crisis Line always struck me as a bad thing. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 20:57, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll find out. Easier said than done, but I'll ask. :)  Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 21:38, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Awesome. If you need to give a look at the headers of the e-mail I received, just drop me an e-mail. --NellieBly (talk) 22:31, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Possible legal threat
Does this constitute a legal threat? I'm thinking specifically of the last sentence: "'I will wait for the outcome of for this week's board meeting of Wikipedia in San Francisco and if the outcome is not satisfactory, I feel it my duty to contact both http://www.irs.gov and http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/ about the matter.'" I'm not sure if this comes under the legal threats banner or not, so I'd like wiser minds (or failing that, admins) to take a look. Yunshui 雲&zwj;水 11:10, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree that this is a legal threat. Stifle (talk) 11:17, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Writing an angry letter to a government agency is not legal action. Neither is writing to a newspaper, WR, a blog or Facebook. A legal threat is anything which states (or implies) an action will be commenced in a court of law. Manning (talk) 11:24, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree, but this person is acting in a disruptive fashion nonetheless. She can write letters to anybody she wants, but her demands that a certain thing be done on Wikipedia or else she'll do so are an obvious attempt to undermine the consensus building process Wikipedia is based upon. So, even though this is not a legal threat, the rationale NLT relies upon WP:NLT  certainly applies. A block is, therefore, warranted.  Salvio  Let's talk about it! 11:30, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


 * There is nothing resembling a legal threat here, so a block under WP:NLT simply cannot be justified. However a block for disruptive conduct is a different matter, and I would support that. (My earlier statement was not meant to imply the user was behaving acceptably, merely that there was no legal threat at play.) Manning (talk) 11:42, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know if common editors can write at this noticeboard, but I want to made you aware that I reverted Salvio giuliano deletion of Natbrown post at the Village pump. Since this person is a very sporadic editor, and that she has a legitimate concern, I think treating her as disruptive is WP:BITE. She should be educated, not punished. That's my two cents. Diego (talk) 12:06, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


 * It very clearly resembles a legal threat by effectively saying "if Wikipedia does not agree to remove those images (that don't belong to Wikipedia in the first place, may I add) then I will attempt to have their charitable status removed". Clearly a chilling attempt to persuade Wikipedia to bend to their desired end state. ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 12:42, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Bear in mind that this comment (not a legal threat, though clearly meant to be chilling, as Bwilkins noted) was originally posted at Jimbo's talk page and no action was taken, so acting now after a repost at the Village Pump seems unfair. Asking the editor to tone it down and pointing out that blocks could occur if further posts attempt to intimidate would be reasonable, however. EdChem (talk) 12:48, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree, that's what I was talking about with 'educate' and 'don't bite'. Diego (talk) 12:56, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I hadn't realised it was also pasted at Jimbo's talk; I encountered it first at the Village Pump and went from there. For the record, this thread was not a demand for a block, rather a request for clarification over whether or not WP:NLT applies here. It seems, per the comments above, that it does not. Yunshui 雲&zwj;水 12:58, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Another satisfied customer. Our third this year. :) Manning (talk) 13:20, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Unhappily, he is being encouraged to follow through on his threats by other editors. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 22:01, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

User:MarcusMaximus0
Resolved&#58; Editor blocked and an SPI has been opened, Darkness Shines (talk) 18:46, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Would someone please explain to this sockpuppet that edit warring in uncited contentious material on a BLP is against the rules. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:49, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think labeling users who disagree with you sockpuppet will help. I've filed a report at WP:BLPN so that the content can be checked. I don't think this is BLP vio.. infact you are editwarring with this user here on the pretext. The content is properly sourced with complete information. Deadlinks do not mean that sources are not cited... see WP:SOURCEACCESS. I've explained this to you on the talk page in much detail. Also please note that there is a sockpuppet report filed about the user being reported... so using multiple noticeboards about the same report raises a redflag in my view. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 17:54, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Really? So saying this In an interview with a Russian daily Israel's Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman rendered Pakistan as "Evil empire" is all fine and dandy when it cannot be verified? And I told you on the article talk page that I looked for other sources. And posting here was the only option as the sock kept reverting it in. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:01, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * And just in case you decide to not believe me Not a single hit on GNews. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:04, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

(editconflict) The sentence cited by DS about Lieberman definitely needs a working reference or two. The behavior by MarcusMaximus who just yesterday registered his account going straight into edit warring on contested issues is indeed suspicious as a sock IP with the same behavior was just blocked for a week for using multiple IP accounts. JCAla (talk) 18:11, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

User talk:142.35.234.217
The most recent edit to this page (by the blocked user) claims to reveal an IP address used by another user. Could someone address this? Calabe1992 19:20, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No need, he's wrong on both counts. I've revoked talk-page access though. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  19:24, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That'll do, then. Calabe1992 19:30, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

New user blocked people?
OLoveofYash is going around putting block templates on user accounts Is this allowed? Darkness Shines (talk) 19:50, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks like a VOA to me. Calabe1992 19:51, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * What is a VOA? Darkness Shines (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:56, 31 January 2012 (UTC).
 * A vandalism-only account.  Eagles   24/7  (C)  19:57, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I've blocked indefinitely as a VOA, and Reaper Eternal blocked  (the account OLoveofYash attempted to "block") indefinitely as a VOA.  Eagles   24/7   (C)  19:57, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Just a thought, there's no chance at all that these are User:Crouch, Swale socks? I remember his socks farting around with each other in similar ways. Calabe1992 20:04, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It doesn't look that way -different geographic areas. TN <b style="color:midnightblue; font-size:larger;">X</b> Man  20:42, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That was fast; thanks for checking. Calabe1992 22:12, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Dattorro
This relates a long-standing legal-threaty sort of situation last year relating to User:Dattorro. I get this information second hand from another party. Troubled waters have been calmed in the very tense initial case although there is a new concern that the page <<Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Dattorro>> is somehow visible to the Google search engine. The "spam and abuse" line is portrayed by the subject as defamatory. I have no opinion as to the merit of this claim, but the solution is very simple: hiding the page from Google. Would an administrator please take some sort of action that would make this page invisible to Google? Thank you. Carrite (talk) 20:19, 30 January 2012 (UTC) Last edit:Carrite (talk) 20:25, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Here's the full URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Dattorro Carrite (talk) 20:23, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * (Non admin comment) There are many hundreds of similar categories. Can robots.txt exclude them? -- John of Reading (talk) 22:08, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, the "spam and abuse" shouldn't be in there anyway - it should just have the sockpuppet category template. So I've modified it accordingly. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:37, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I've similarly switched away from the arguably defamatory words "spam and abuse" to the technically accurate "suspected sockpuppets" on a number of other pages and Mr. Dattorro has been notified that an effort has been made to address his concerns through my intermediary. I'm not seeing any WP hits for about 7 pages of a google search of his name. I think this thread can be marked as "resolved" now. Thanks for your help. Carrite (talk) 17:06, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Is it possible to delete an edit summary without removing the edit?
There's a bit of a kindergarten situation at Talk:Homeopathy and a user has made a PA in his edit summary and comment diff. I already removed it from the comment but obviously cannot change his edit summary. It's not an "awful" PA, and if this was on a user talk page I would tend to let them work this out on their own, but the homeopathy talk is very busy and (for once!) even looking like we're working on improving the article, so this kind of diversion needs to be stopped as soon as possible (and with as little drama as possible). --Six words (talk) 12:10, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * An admin can through WP:REVDEL. I personally don't touch these things though.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:12, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * In this case, I don't think the personal attack rises to the level where the edit summary should be removed. If you're worried about the personal attack being visible on a highly viewed page, I would respectfully suggest that calling attention to it on a more highly viewed page such as this is last thing you should do.  You've given a warning to Sleuth21, and that's probably enough for now.  -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:27, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't make light of the decision to ask this, but if you think leaving it at that is the best strategy I'm okay with that.--Six words (talk) 12:32, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Very childish, but does not meet the requirements of WP:REVDEL ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 12:32, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I've given the editor a formal warning regarding the discretionary sanctions from Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy. I hope they are not needed. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:01, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Androzaniamy
Androzaniamy has shown time and time again that she is not competent enough to edit Wikipedia. Despite many warnings for creating articles without reliable sources that do not pass WP:GNG, she has persisted by feigning ignorance, being defensive of her actions, outright lying, and arguing with policy. I understand that she is still a relatively new user, but refusing to listen to others is disruptive.

Troublesome diffs to support my claims:


 * January 9:, , ; January 13: , '; January 14: '; January 15: , (followed by ); January 17: , ; January 21: , , User talk:Eagles247/Archive 30, ; January 23: User talk:Wikipelli,  (followed by this discussion); January 24: , , User_talk:Calabe1992; January 27: ; January 28: User_talk:Wikipelli, User_talk:Eagles247; January 29: , User_talk:Eagles247, , , , ; January 30: , ; January 31: , , ,

 Eagles   24/7  (C)  19:24, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


 * To clarify: the mentions of "swearing" in some of those links appear to refer to the long-established (Sept 2007) redirect WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS which seems to be too strong language for this editor. Pam  D  23:34, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I would concur that the considered user is at this point taking up more of other editors time than her(?) contributions justify, and presents maturity questions. However, in mild defense, it should be noted that the complaining user has allowed her to get under his(?) skin and has overreacted in at least some instances, insisting that material fails WP:GNG when that is at the very least not obvious (as witnessed by his attempt to redirect Hacker the Dog to CBBC; a usable article has now grown in that spot.) I think that suggests that the GNG-sense of the concerned user is more a bit beyond the edge, rather than utterly off the island. After the amount of effort that's been put in on her, however, I've lost hope that she is likely to become much more useful. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:34, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * (Androzaniamy is a "she" per . I am a he.) Hacker the Dog does not pass WP:GNG IMO, and I refrained from taking it to AfD for the time being, but I do not feel this is relevant to this discussion. Here are links to the articles I've nominated that this user created: Articles for deletion/Hacker Time, Articles for deletion/Isaac Ssebandeke, Articles for deletion/Gregory Foreman, Articles for deletion/The Well (TV series), and Articles for deletion/Stacked (TV film). Three deleted, and two possible deletions on the way.  Eagles   24/7  (C)  20:46, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It looks like what you mean by "possible deletion" is merely that you've nominated it for deletion. Let us note that one of the two not-yet-deleted articles seems on its way to being kept, and that one of the three deleted articles was not deleted because the topic failed GNG but for quite the opposite - the topic was sufficiently notable that it already had an article which has survived more than two years under a different name. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:40, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

80.192.x.x insults
I don't know if the person is real or not, but two IPs from the above range added some rather disgusting remarks about someone at Brothel, which I reverted. A similar edit was made at Cream pie, which was caught by the bot. Not sure on other articles. Calabe1992 22:41, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * All edits from these two IP's have been reverted (by others), and IP's blocked (by me). I didn't bother revdel'ing them, but if someone thinks that's important to do, the IP's in question are User talk:80.192.146.1 and User talk:80.192.210.65. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:58, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I revdell'd #1 as a possible BLP - the other doesn't seem to have the same issue. Skier Dude  ( talk ) 23:19, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

IP editor stalking
And reverting another editor for no reason that I can see Darkness Shines (talk)
 * And he appears to have added an e-mail address to this BLP Darkness Shines (talk) 01:41, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Blocked and reverted. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:44, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Mistress Selina Kyle's unblock request
User:Mistress Selina Kyle was indefinitely blocked about 5.5 years ago. She is now requesting to be unblocked. (See her talk page.) It's been over 24 hours since her original unblock request, so I figured I would post here in order to get a community consensus. Though I was active in 2006, I wasn't involved in the conflicts that got MSK banned. Personally, I'm inclined to unblock her and move on. Comments? --Fang Aili talk 18:13, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Could she be temporarily unblocked to participate in this discussion? Kiefer .Wolfowitz 19:56, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Special:Contributions/Mss._Selina_Kyle – What's the community's opinion concerning the performance of Selina's most recent account? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 20:04, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Some uncited additions with a little opinion thrown in - I saw they added an external as a cite but it was a blogger site. Trolling aspects.  You  really  can  20:23, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I think the only small concern here might be that Selina's been away for awhile and in the meantime Wikipedia's changed, some for better (blog sites no longer acceptable as RS, perhaps a bit less bullying of the kind that was involved in her original block {guess I was too optimistic ) (though IMNSHO mostly for worse). Anyway, it might take her a little bit to get re-acculturated, it's sort of like leaving a country then coming back thirty years (in Wikipedia time) later. Other than that just unblock already. Volunteer Marek 20:30, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Aw - I was gonna make you adopting mentor.   You  really  can  20:57, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure, why the hell not. Volunteer Marek 21:06, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that some of her contributions such as are up to current standards. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 22:30, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * - note - List of banned users - user is currently community banned -    You  really  can  21:13, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note - that page, unless I'm missing something, has it wrong (who writes that stuff anyway? - looks like a total grudge/pov/grave-dancing magnet. Just list'em, don't comment or editorialize). Selina was unilaterally blocked by a single admin (with a false edit summary smacking of a personal attack). She was then unblocked by another administrator, apparently, as far as I can make out with Jimbo's approval. Then the first administrator re-blocked Selina. Then there was a community discussion which conflated Selina's block with that of another user . At roughly this point it looks like Selina just threw her hands up in the air and gave up on Wikipedia and didn't challenge the block. There's most certainly no consensus in that discussion for retaining the block, much less for it to be described as "community ban". I don't know, this is from the old days where things were done differently but from the perspective of today's standards the whole thing looks sketchy as hell.
 * Anyway, I've seen people who've done much much much worse, get unblocked after much much much shorter period of time. There's also WP:STANDARDOFFER which is applicable. Volunteer Marek 21:44, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I just received an email through Wikipedia's email system where Mistress Selina Kyle asked me to ask an admin to look at this discussion. I'm sure plenty of admins have already looked at it.  Since Mistress Selina Kyle is the creator of a Web site that attacks other admins and editors, including myself and several contributors that I've worked with, I have to say hell no, to be blunt about it.  MSK screwed up in the past, so why should she be let off the hook now?  I screwed up in the past as well, and Wikipedia Review raked me over the coals for it, as evidenced by the fact that I lost adminship a few years ago.  Blatant policy violations, blatant breaches of privacy, and other disruptive activity related to Wikipedia should not be forgiven -- not now, not ever.  As they say in criminal justice circles, "Once a criminal, always a criminal."  --Elkman (Elkspeak) 22:43, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I think she sent the email (I got one too - AFTER I had already posted here) simply because she has no other way of bringing admin's attention to this matter. The fact that she sent it to people like you very clearly shows this wasn't canvassing. As to WR, you're just making shit up. Oh yeah and your comment that in "criminal justice circles" (whatever these are) they actually say """Once a criminal, always a criminal."" (seriously?) is a pretty good indication of why you're not an admin anymore. Volunteer Marek 23:36, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Not to mention the unintentional irony in putting "I screwed up in the past" with "Once a criminal, always a criminal." and "MSK screwed up in the past, so why should she be let off the hook now?" in the same damn post. Forgiveness for me but not for thee? Quintessence of AN/I it would seem. Volunteer Marek 23:55, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Logic doesn't appear to be a subject in which Elkman has much background. Malleus Fatuorum 00:09, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I know damn fucking well I'll never be forgiven for any of my Wikipedia screwups -- or any of my off-Wikipedia screwups. There's no logic error in what I posted.  To me, a mistake is the same thing as a screwup, and a screwup is the same thing as a crime.  If I'm unforgivable, then MSK is unforgivable.  And she should have kept her opinions to herself.  --Elkman (Elkspeak) 03:01, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * So because you feel you've been hard done by, you want to see others suffer as well. Rightyo. I'm sure the closing admin will give your opinions exactly the weight they deserve. Reyk  <sub style="color:blue;">YO!  03:08, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I wasn't "hard done by". I screwed up and I deserved what I got out of that whole mess.  But since MSK is asking for an unblock, and since she runs a site that brings my screwups to light, celebrates my screwups, and revels in my screwups, then I have to strongly object to her unblocking.  --Elkman (Elkspeak) 03:26, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I likewise received an email notification regarding this. My personal opinions of Wikipedia Review are just that, personal opinions. Canvassing is obviously a bad thing, so that does need to be taken into account. In general, a sign of maturity is taking responsibility for ones own actions, even if one was not completely at fault. Mistress Selina Kyle's shifting of blame to others does not indicate they have matured, nor that they understand their actions were wrong on any level. If I was an administrator, I'd be minded to decline the unblock request at this point in time (see comments below). Steven   Zhang  Join the DR army! 22:56, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Canvassing may or may not be a bad thing but the fact that she sent it to people like Elkman above is pretty much prima facie evidence that the notification was sent to neutral (and even vehemently bitterly opposed) parties. So no, it's not canvassing. Volunteer Marek 23:36, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If it was a neutrally worded email I would somewhat agree. As you can appreciate, I can't say what the email said exactly, but to provide the gist, the email detailed a request to examine their talk page and see links which detail why they felt their ban was unfair, and provided a link to this thread to comment on "if I support" (the unban). To me, this doesn't seem to be a neutrally worded request at all. Steven   Zhang  Join the DR army! 23:45, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmm, it must've been a different email than the one I got since mine just more or less said "can you please look at this thread" and that's it. But even what you describe does not sound all that bad - just a typical case of a user who is currently blocked trying to bring attention to their unblock request. Volunteer Marek 23:57, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Eh, I'm not overly bothered either way. Blocks are cheap, and it has been over five years. Though I have concerns about maturity, I also note that if unblocked, they would likely be under the microscope for some time. I wouldn't object to an unblock, after all if they cause issues again they would likely be re-blocked. Steven   Zhang  Join the DR army! 00:17, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Of relevance: Sockpuppet investigations/Mistress Selina Kyle. I have to agree with Steven's comments above. Prioryman (talk) 22:59, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed, that is of relevance. She was more transparent about her previous accounts than some administrators are. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 16:42, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I saw this, and decided to see into the contribs, but when I got an email, then I am Strongly opposing this. It's a violation of WP:CANVASS of what the user said (Not going to state the text of the email)  The SPI is stronginging my oppose.   Ebe 123  → report on my contribs. 23:22, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Again you seem to have no idea or comprehension of what is and what is not canvassing. If you got the same email as I did then it was very much within the parameters of what is considered acceptable. It was neutrally worded and sent to all sorts of folks. The only problem that I'm seeing with it now is that she sent it to too many people (per "mass notification" part). But again, this is just probably due to loss of cultural perspective after being away from Wikipedia for five years. Nothing serious. Volunteer Marek 23:36, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * By what contorted logic could a request for participation be sent to too many people? Too few maybe, but too many? How does that work? Malleus Fatuorum 00:00, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * To answer the rhetorical question: by Wikipedia logic. To answer the deeper question: WP:CANVASS was initially a spin off WP:SPAM which was intended to prohibit solicitation of opinions from people who didn't want to be bothered (spammed) - that's your "too many" right there. Then some schmuck lost some dispute, blamed others, and out of sour grapes split off a portion of WP:SPAM into a "I was rightz but I wuz defeated cuz they cheated" page. Then some other schmuck cleaned up the atrocious grammar and obvious hyperbole as an innocent favor, and that's how it got turned into WP:CANVASS as we know it, which still retains the "don't bother too many people in your notifications" aspect from its original WP:SPAM ancestor. Of course as a result it evolved into this self-contradictory schizophrenic double think newspeak, but that's how Wikipedia works. Volunteer Marek 00:51, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the history lesson. I've always found the canvassing policy to be completely absurd, particularly as it's applied to RFAs, which apparently must be run under a veil of secrecy. Malleus Fatuorum 01:04, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * - note - User:Volunteer Marek has after the link been posted here and the unblock only he supported has gone to the list of banned users and twice removed the details of the editing and the name of the sockpuppet from the ban record of User:Mistress Selina Kyle.   You  really  can  23:54, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note I sure as hell did, since as it as it currently exist that page is essentially an attack page against people who have no means of responding (though I'm sure the vast majority of them deserve it). I also made what I think is a very reasonable proposal on the talk page. Volunteer Marek 00:01, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * This just seems to be a grudge match started by those who take exception to the existence of WR. I can assure you that it's no more complimentary about me than it is to any of you broken-hearted administrators, but it's a healthy channel for things that cannot be said here that need to be said nevertheless. Just do the unblock and let's move on. Malleus Fatuorum 23:56, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * She wrote me (in neutral language) and asked me to look in here, nothing more.
 * I have had no previous contact with her. I have been extremely critical of WR's initial publication of the stolen confidential ArbCom emails, so that her asking me cannot be viewed as canvassing.
 * (Further, I disclosed that she had contacted me on her talk page.) Kiefer .Wolfowitz 00:05, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The very first email leaked on WR was a discussion between me and a sitting arbitrator, but I bear no grudges; light needs to be shone in dark places. Malleus Fatuorum 00:14, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I got an email as well, and I'm another editor who has been rather critical of Wikipedia Review. Though I don't know whether she has been emailing admins she thinks are uninvolved or ones like me with a strong dislike of Wikipedia Review. In any event, we need to remember that our policy is that Blocks are lifted if they are not (or no longer) necessary to prevent such damage or disruption. I've asked a few questions on her talkpage, and I'd suggest that if anyone else has concerns they ask her for assurances. Five and a half years is a very long time, more than long enough for us to give her a second chance.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  00:09, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * She wrote me as well. It was fairly neutral. I am generally opposed to email canvassing (I didn't even know banned / blocked users could use the email feature), so count me as an oppose. Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:12, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Let's get the elephant in the room on the table (excuse the mixed metaphors). I haven't come across MSK before but apparently she is heavily involved in the administration of Wikipedia Review. A lot of people have good reason to dislike WR for the way its members have attacked Wikipedia and Wikipedians. To what extent should this be taken into consideration in deciding this unblock request? Prioryman (talk) 00:12, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, let's get that elephant going. The answer is not at all. A lot of people have good reason to dislike people like you for the way you attack Wikipedia Review members (who include admins, ArbCom members, WMF employees and prominent media personalities) and Wikipedia Review. The only difference here I can think of is that on Wikipedia Review about 70% of the criticism is pertinent (and Wikipedia's better for it) and 30%'s either bullshit. With you one of these categories is 99.9% (that's me WP:AGFing you right there). This mentality which you somehow came to personalize lately that anyone who dares to say something critical about Wikipedia must be banned, beaten and kicked, is about the worst thing you can do to the Wikipedia itself. Any healthy environment takes criticism in stride. It doesn't try to squash it. Volunteer Marek 00:42, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * None at all, unless your intention is to organise Wikipedia along the same lines as the Mafia. Malleus Fatuorum 00:19, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I would go so far as to say that one could draw an analogy here with the behaviour of WMF staffers such as User:Kaldari; to what extent should we consider their pronouncements to be representative of the WMF's position? Malleus Fatuorum 00:23, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * From that username? Not at all.  It's his personal username.  WMF pronouncements are clearly made by clearly designated usernames, in almost every case, and are disclosed as official position, somehow.  Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 21:30, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


 * This would argue for the salience of my "principle" in the "Civility Enforcement" case, that Wikipedia and its administrator corps cannot tolerate criticism and therefore must remove critics, unfortunately. In the real world, every school board and every city government hearing knows that somebody is going to stand up in the "public comment" section and rip the administration---usually from a combination of personality quirk and public diligence; in the real world, politicians respect that such critics have an important role to play, in keeping public servants honest and responsive. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 00:31, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Unblock. It's been years. We're not talking about giving her adminship or the checkuser tools here, just the ability to edit. If she starts breaking stuff we can always reblock. 28bytes (talk) 00:30, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Quite. Doesn't seem too difficult to understand unless you're carrying a massive chip on your shoulder about how unkind WR has been to you. Malleus Fatuorum 00:42, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

'''Yeah, ok! People. Please listen. When this person left Wikipedia (April/May 2006), the WP:CANVASS policy did not even exist''' (it was created in October 2006). So if you left Wikipedia in April of 2006, have left it alone until recently and are just coming back in January of 2012 then you are probably not aware of the fact that something like that exist. So you do what people did back in the day, which is email people to get some attention going. Now, please keep in mind that it very much looks like Selina emailed a whole bunch of people more or less at random (or because they were around these parts) - including people which are opposing the request now.

If anything this is (unintentional) evidence for the fact that this user, who was banned in freaking 2006, did NOT sockpuppet or try to circumvent their ban in the meantime, or otherwise they would have been savvy enough to guess that this could backfire. It's like the opposite of how sock puppets get caught - there you people who are way too familiar with Wikipedia's policies and rules. Here's it's the opposite - the unfamiliarity shows that they actually didn't try to game the rules but stuck to their ban. And that's five freakin' years, it was sketchy enough when it happened, it's time for it to be removed. The unfamiliarity can be dealt with mentorship and anyway, it has generally been the case that WP:STANDARDOFFER applies (it has been used by far far far far less deserving accounts).

Now chill and don't be so ban happy. Volunteer Marek 00:35, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Support - I will disclose that I am a WR member, though not in terribly good standing as I tend to tell them what I think of them along the same lines of how I tell people here. I even had no idea that Selina was the nominal WR head until a few weeks ago during the domain registration/expiration kerfuffle.  So we have someone requesting a return from the Wiki/WR's dark days when the latter was viewed as the proverbial "wretched hive of scum and villainy".  We've given far more rope to far worse people over the years, so I see little reason to oppose this other than personal enmity, i.e. Elkman above.  Selina was last blocked by SlimVirgin, who had a short WR stint herself.  Current users include the infamously banned, the rightfully banned (, , Wikipedians in quite good standing .  It is one big happpy dysfunctional melting pot...kinda like the Wikipedia itself.  I think it is time for old grudges to be loosened.  Just a bit. Tarc (talk) 00:37, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I used to be on WR. I left after my well-being was publicly and validly (as in, not idle or minor) threatened there by two people and no one was punished for it. (Disclaimer: I also left there six years ago. So I have no indication if they've changed for the better. I have to assume not, and I have no interest in finding out.) I wanted to believe it was a place where Wikipedia could be criticized, but, at least when I was there, it was merely a forum for the criminally insane and those who defended them because they too were kicked off Wikipedia. A common enemy, as it were. --Golbez (talk) 03:40, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, I lol'ed at the juxtaposition of "I think it is time for old grudges to be loosened" and the "rightfully banned" in front of Mbz1. 28bytes (talk) 00:40, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 28, the difference is that Selina is making IMO reasonable explanations of why she wishes to return and is not haranguing those who may have imposed blocks 5 years ago. Mbz1 holds up her so-called "voluntary block" like a martyr for a cause, and STILL, to this very minute continues to harass an admin that once blocked her. Tarc (talk) 01:13, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose - I was one of the (many, many) admins who blocked her. Seriously, look at her block log. She's guilty of just abot every misbehavior there is, including using sockpuppets to evade bans. I personally blocked her for vandalism, and again for posting personal information about another user and harassing Netscott. She was a troublemaker of the first order, and contributed almost nothing of value to offset her stupendously bad behavior. Keep her blocked indefinitely. Raul654 (talk) 00:40, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * And how long ago was that? I think there's a clear honesty in asking to come back as the same account, rather than just setting up a new one, as so many others do. Why penalise that honesty? Malleus Fatuorum 00:50, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The problem with block logs, one of them at least, is that people just tend to go by the length and the comments made by the blocking administrators, and there's no link to whatever caused offence to the offended administrator. Are we just expected to take the word of our betters even when they're clearly bearing grudges and see an opportunity to get their own back? Malleus Fatuorum 00:59, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * So let me get this straight -- you're arguing that her gigantic block log is not the result of her stupendously bad behavior (for which many diffs could be provided, I'm sure), but a conspiracy on the part of the 28(!) admins who blocked her? (Yes, I counted) Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Show me yours. Raul654 (talk) 23:08, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Attempting to come back from an Community Indef by Socking is not appropriate. I'll me more open to considering once a WP:STANDARDOFFER has been executed and they come back on the master account or register with ArbCom with an alternate name. Hasteur (talk) 00:53, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh for fuck's sake. She didn't sock. Her old account was "Miss Selina Kyle", back in 2006. When she decided to come back 5 years later she made an account called "Mss. Selina Kyle". Some genius figured out that "Miss Selina Kyle" had a very similar name to "Mss. Selina Kyle" and made a SPI report and acted as if they discovered Diamonds In Sri Lanka. As soon as it was brought up she said "yes of course it's the same person". That's not socking that's a user forgetting what their account name was five freaking years ago. It is simply amazing how little common sense is being displayed in this discussion. Volunteer Marek 01:03, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Want to drop the asumption of bad faith and casual swearing? They were kicked out a while back. They socked and were found out. It lists in the master's log the sorted story. Based on this being the 2nd SOCK she was caught using I have low good faith on her behalf. It's called a community discussion for a reason Marek.  Please ceace badgering every single "negative".Hasteur (talk) 01:25, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Want to stop playing the passive-aggressive card? I am honestly at a loss as how to explain this in simpler terms: she had an account called "Miss Selina Kyle". When she decided to return five years later she made an account called "Mss. Selina Kyle" and explicitly stated it was the same person. And then she was... "found out". Geeeeeee, who was the brilliant mind who put 2 and 2 together? That's just not socking unless you're one of those people who are incapable of comprehending that taking things TOO LITERALLY does not make you right, but rather simply foolish. It's a little like arguing that since, strictly speaking, the people who say that the earth is round are wrong, then it must be flat! Either that or it was a bad-faithed SPI from the get go. Either way, not very good.
 * And we are the community, and so we are discussing, no? Volunteer Marek 02:43, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Marek, please strike your comments to this entire thread. It has been nothing but a off topic repeating of the same arguments listed repeatedly and badgering-ly to people who oppose the point.  1. She was blocked in the past for various disruption.  2. During that block she socked.  3. At that point she was informed very clearly about what the socking rules were and how to go about regaining privileges. 4. Just before this thread was launched she created yet another account and started editing when she was Indef Banned and by one administrator "community banned".  Having now received a personal email from the account in question attempting to encourage me to change my viewpoint on the exact same grounds I'm still disinclined to accept the reasoning. The admission of the account link was disclosed after a SPI was filed.  I'd have more good faith if the link was disclosed as the first action of the account or if this request to start editing again had come from the original account, however I am having to judge this appeal somewhat by those advocating for it. Hasteur (talk) 13:15, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Why is it "not appropriate"? Would it be better just to do it by setting up a new account? Malleus Fatuorum 00:59, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * She needs to successfully complete the standard offer. Not wait the 6 months (or more) and then register a similar name and sheepishly acknowledge that it is a new sock. Standard offer does give her the ability to create a entirely new persona and register it with BASC. As above with Marek, seeing the initial account's long block log including a previous socking leaves me with little good faith on her behalf. I am in no way considering activities external to the community. Hasteur (talk) 01:32, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I was the "genius" who figured out the pretty much obvious similiarity in the account names after comment on Jimbo's page on something unrelated. At first I didn't really want to say that much on this but I really do think that some people are giving her a hard time, Users like Lir who made about 20 sockpuppets in three years were given unblock's for a little bit but Mistress Selina Kyle herself, who has only sockpuppeted one time since 2006 is still banned today. Yes people make mistakes and we can't deny she did by talking to and associating with Blu Aardvark but that is all in the past and she has redeemed herself over that by banning him on the Wikipedia Review. --Thebirdlover (talk) 01:34, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * yeah, ok I can understand that - though I still think filing that SPI was a mistake. Not because it was wrong per se, but simply because there's a lot of stupid people on Wikipedia and just the fact that someone has an SPI attached to their name - no matter how "technical" or "pure formality' it was - will enable that stupidity. Just next time, when considering some action, please try to take account of the likely response/feedback loop from the people who are too lazy too click on relevant diffs, nevermind actually bother to think about a situation a little. Volunteer Marek 02:49, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Support. Sure, why not? It's been over five years. People can change in that time, and unblocked accounts generally come under a lot of scrutiny so there's not a lot of chance of disruption. I am utterly unconvinced by arguments that returning under a virtually identical username is socking and this "once a criminal always a criminal" business is pathetic crap. Reyk <sub style="color:blue;">YO!  01:35, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Switched to Oppose  5.5 years is a long time. If the intent is to cause trouble, returning to the same account would seem a poor strategy. The account will be under heavy scrutiny ad if re-offending occurs, the account will be re-indef'd in short order. If the strategy is to get banned again so as to claim some form of "wiki-martyrdom", then um, well, whatever. Manning (talk) 00:56, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose - evidence of recent socking erased any good faith I may have had. Manning (talk) 00:45, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Good grief. 5.5 years blocked, maybe 5 years without "socking", and despite whatever the list says, no actual community ban? I'm unblocking, which seems both the reasonable thing to do as well as a very "safe" thing to do considering the fairly god number of people who will almost certainly be following her contribs. For the record: she did not contact me about this, but I did ask her about it when seeing this topic pop up on my watchlist... frankly I thought it was a joke, but apparently it isn't. -- SB_Johnny &#124; talk 02:23, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * ...or maybe not, because she's apparently globally locked. -- SB_Johnny &#124; talk 02:29, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That was lucky for you. Your edit history of almost nothing since late 2010 and only having used your buttons on two days since late 2010, then you turn up here going to while consensus is being formed in a discussion and when there is looking like no consensus to unblock you attempted to unblock - the next report thread would have been requesting your dysopping.   You  really  can  09:13, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Has somebody found that "community ban decision" yet? In 2006 it was probably done on a secret list somewhere, but perhaps somebody will find it. ;-) -- SB_Johnny &#124; talk 11:08, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I think we have to do with several pages worth of block logs until Cabal clerks manage to find the official ban ruling from archives... :) jni (talk) 11:24, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I suppose searching for it on WR might find the leaked versions, but I'm not really interested enough to sift through the sillies. The point was that there doesn't seem to really be a ban in place, so she probably shouldn't be listed as banned, and this discussion should be reframed as whether to ban, rather than whether to unban. YMMV, of course. -- SB_Johnny &#124; talk 15:57, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * SB_Johnny is far too busy adding remarks on WR to contribute to WP. Mathsci (talk) 09:20, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * We all help in our own ways... :-). -- SB_Johnny &#124; talk 11:08, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sure WR will now review us negatively for failing to produce sufficient paperwork for banning obvious sockpuppeteer/vandal over five years ago. jni (talk) 11:24, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, some will, others will compare this particular block with other blocks involving people on the other side of the wikipolitical fence, and still others will wonder why the heck she wants to be unbanned. The issue for me is that this has become just one more round of people demanding blocks band and checkuser tests as if they're calling for airstrikes or artillery. I suppose it's better than the much-more-commonplace exploding cigars and ricin-tipped umbrellas, but not by much. This cabal vs. cabal stuff isn't what I thought WP was about lo those many years ago when I signed up. (And if you're really wondering why I spend very little time here anymore, perhaps I've just provided an indication.)-- SB_Johnny  &#124; talk 15:57, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm um, not sure how this happened, but I am apparently not banned after all... i am... trés confused, after all the writing - I think I need a cup of tea and go to bed. Sorry for wasting anyone's time o_o --Mistress Selina Kyle 02:44, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, your block log says you're indef'd but your post here is evidence that you aren't. There's a glitch somewhere. Nobody Ent 02:52, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, some weird glitch, see WP:AN. Sorry, Mistress Selina Kyle, but I have renewed the block pending the outcome of this discussion, because you are still not allowed to edit until the community decides otherwise. No comment on the merits of the unblock request. CharlieEchoTango  ( contact ) 03:32, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Support per WereSpielChequers, Reyk and others. (I also had a mail.) -- J N  466  03:34, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That said, there's only a handful of people I would want 100% permabanned from Wikipedia without any possibility of reform, and Miss Selena Kyle isn't one of them. I have no problem with supporting an unblock. --Golbez (talk) 03:42, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Support It's easy enough to create a new identity - if an editor wishes to return in apparent sincerity, complete with visible baggage, in full view of everybody after five years, why not let them prove themselves? The standard offer's always an alternative.  Acroterion   (talk)   04:04, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 'Comment - Have you people not been reading the threads up above in which it is suggested that I be banned? Have you not heard that Wikipedia Review is where all of the "deeply homophobic discussion" takes place, to quote Prioryman (from whom I await a retraction and an apology)? And yet you want to un-ban Selina? Something isn't adding up here... Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:13, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Support unblock. If Selina deliberately causes disruption the block button is real close by. If she steps on a landmine from all the changes since 20-ought-six then she should be warned. I'm a member here and at WR, for the record. &rarr;  Stani Stani  04:27, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Raul654...no evidence demonstrates this editor has any intention of helping us create a neutral encyclopedia...highly circumspect commentary at Wikiepdia Review indicates nothing but malice for this website and its contributors.--MONGO 04:48, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. This is just childish vindictiveness. Malleus Fatuorum 04:53, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose - and I will note she's sent me the same email, which I'm deleting. I do not appreciate someone I don't know sending me emails demanding I do something, especially if they're asking me to get admins to side with me, given my logs. Note that I've no idea who this person is, and I want no part of the potential politics involved. I'm opposing because I don't know who she is and I don't appreciate unsolicited emails. — Jeremy  v^_^v  Bori! 04:56, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Support unblock. Blocks shouldn't be perpetuated where there's the slightest suspicion that there might be vindictive/vengeful/punitive reasons behind them. Writegeist (talk) 05:07, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Support unblock with WP:STANDARDOFFER in mind. 5 years is long enough. Second chance and all of that. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 06:16, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Support unblock. While I have mixed feelings about WR, I don't think they are germane to this discussion. I think we should err on the side of gaining a potentially valuable contributor to the project. As was said above, if this person acts up it's pretty easy to re-block them. Mark Arsten (talk) 06:17, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. No, no, no, no, and no. Also, no. I've been here long enough to remember the shitstorm she caused back then, User:Volunteer Marek's attempt at whitewashing notwithstanding, and I can't imagine a single thing she could contribute of value to Wikipedia. --Calton | Talk 07:25, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose What Calton said. Y u no be Russavia ლ(ಠ益ಠლ) 07:29, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Unblock, with a caveat I received an email from her regarding this, and I don't recall any connection to her. I'm curious to know just how she decided on who to canvas, given the fact that my username is in the 'Z' category. I didn't mind getting it, though. Aside from that worry, looking at her (sock's) edit history gives me the impression that she's either a sly mastermind, or utterly clueless. It all looks suspicious, but I will go with the latter. 5+ years is a heck of a long time on the internet. My concern is the culture shock; if she is unblocked, the first thing she should be looking at is a fresh newbie welcome message, with the works. - Zero1328 Talk? 07:48, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I also think the potential for culture shock is a reasonable concern, as mentioned above. She would need a mentor or at least someone to bring her up to date. Example: WP:CANVASS didn't even exist when she left Wikipedia. Volunteer Marek 07:53, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose. If I understand correctly, this user is chiefly responsible for Wikipedia Review. That brings with it at least two important issues. First, as the head administrator of that site, she is responsible for its contents. Other editors who participate there can say, "Sure, there's harassment and outings on WR, but they aren't my responsibility". This user cannot say that. She could delete any and all of it and ban the guilty parties. Instead, she maintains that material. Having the ability to fix and failing to do so makes her entirely responsible for the contents of WR. Second, it seems that many of the "support" !votes in this thread have come from people who are active on WR. There are long-standing problems with that site being used for canvassing Wikipedia discussions. A few editors here have been forthcoming in their affiliation with WR, but a number of others are failing to make disclosures. That raises concerns over whether this thread is being skewed by a faction. Wikipedia is a community based on trust and good faith. There's too much about this request which appears to involve bad faith activities to support it. I can't see how unbanning this user would improve Wikipedia.   Will Beback    talk    07:56, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Regarding assertions that "five years is enough time to be blocked": time has nothing to do with it. Ten years is too short a time to block someone who will hurt the project and ten minutes is too long to block someone who will help it. The six-month "standard offer" is intended as a way for blocked editors to go to sister projects and show they can be productive and follow community norms. It isn't a sabbatical which automatically resets all blocks after the passage of time. If the user is ready to participate in a constructive way in this community project she can show it by her deeds.   Will Beback    talk    12:29, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Well gee Will, as an administrator of this site - does that mean that you are responsible for these terrible things? Just wondering. Wikipedia is a community based on trust and good faith  Hello? — Ched :  ?  12:20, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I am one of over 900 adminstrators on Wikipedia and I have no more authority to set the rules than any other of the millions of editors here. It is an entirely different situation at WR. MSK sets the rules and can enforce them without being overruled, so far as I am aware. If I owned the Wikipedia domain name then maybe you'd be partly right.    Will Beback    talk    12:29, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Trying to understand this. So are you suggesting that what someone does off wikipedia should be considered in their suitability to edit  here?  — Ched :  ?  12:55, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes. Or, if you need a longer answer: yes, particularly if their actions directly affect or intended to affect Wikipedia. This is not even slightly difficult a concept: is there some obvious aspect which is unclear to you? --Calton | Talk 14:33, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Well said. Raul654 (talk) 23:01, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Support very reluctantly. I have very mixed feelings about this. MSK is clearly a leading figure in WR, a website that has a disproportionately destructive effect on Wikipedia ("a wretched hive of scum and villainy" indeed). Will Beback makes some important points above, which I agree with, about MSK's responsibility for maintaining this cesspit. MSK was community banned after receiving numerous blocks for block evasion, trolling, outing other Wikipedians, vandalism, personal attacks, incivility and violating 3RR. That said, the events in question happened many years ago and people do have the potential to change in that span of time. I'm very far from convinced that MSK subscribes to the goals of the project and their leading role in WR is worrying, but I'm aware that MSK will be very closely watched if unblocked. So I'm supporting an unblock on the understanding that MSK will effectively be on probation, with a low threshold for future blocks if they step out of line. Prioryman (talk) 08:04, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Support unblock - Time has been served. Wikipedia needs to rid itself of the Guantanamo mentality of indeffing perceived enemies of the state without trial... The Bad Site is required reading, even if it shares many of the exact same deficiencies as the site it criticizes (the cloak of anonymity, lack of free speech, school yard politics, bully behavior, administrative heavy-handedness, intolerance of dissent, etc. etc. etc.) Carrite (talk) 08:12, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose User is already being argumentative on her talk page. After being told that requesting an immediate second unblock request while an AN/I discussion is ongoing is poor form, the user proceeded to argue that it was within the rules, as opposed to taking the advice - coming back from a community ban demands a certain amount of humility.  I also see a lot of finger pointing and a distinct lack of accepting responsibility.  I'm also admittedly suspicious of this user's motives due to their role at WR, which, while not explicitly anti-WP, is inhabited by users with such a sentiment.   N <sup style="color:red;">o f o rmation  <sup style="color:black;">Talk  09:30, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose We simply don't need more troublesome editors to babysit who have never contributed anything at all towards building an encyclopedia (either here or in the Bad Site). jni (talk) 10:26, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I support an unblock: she was blocked close to six years ago...long before I was even an editor here: because of that incredibly long amount of time since the block, I see no harm in giving Mistress Selina Kyle a second chance. If she is disruptive (which I doubt considering the time passed), she will get reblocked; it she edits productively, we will benefit from her work. Acalamari 10:47, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose per jni and others above. Several above say if she causes disruption she can easily be blocked again, but I doubt it would be so easy in practice. Tom Harrison Talk 12:08, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose: while 5 years is a lot, her previous block wasn't caused by immaturity. I see a lot of negative personal traits behind it and I'm not convinced that they can be mitigated just as time passes. Furthermore, don't forget: she socked right before making her current unblock request! While I can understand creating a sock for requesting an unblock and nothing else (though email should really be used instead if the blockee can't edit their talk page) - she went far beyond this, knowingly violating her ban. How can we trust her not to violate our policies if unblocked if she managed to demonstrate that her disregard to them remains the same as it was 5 years ago?! Max Semenik (talk) 12:15, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Switched from oppose to strong oppose, after corresponding with her privately I'm absolutely confident that she's an unrepentant troll. Max Semenik (talk) 14:12, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you provide more details (per wiki or email, insofar not confidential?) --Kim Bruning (talk) 09:56, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Support unblock. So, Selina wants to start editing en.wp.org again, hey? What are Selina's motivations for asking for this? Lets assume the you know what. Her return will be very closely watched. If she's here to make positive contributions to the project, her return will be very closely watched, and zapped if it goes awry. If she's here not to make positive contributions to the project, her return will be very closely watched and zapped even sooner.--Shirt58 (talk) 12:55, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Support after weighing all the arguments above it comes down to: Has Wikipedia changed substantially in the past six years, and have some of the "problem areas" for this editor been substantially changed, in some cases adopting the editor's positions? Facing the fact that some of the blocks would not take place under current policies and guidelines, I am forced to iterate that "draconian solutions do not work" and that the ban should be lifted.  Collect (talk) 13:27, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose unblock: First, and most strongly, per Max Semenik's comments about her recent socking and use of the sock account for any purpose other than appealing her block. Second, and much more weakly, I also received an email from her. Since I've never dealt with her or any of her issues and since she obviously sent those emails out en masse from what has been said above, that contact was plain old garden-variety spam as far as I'm concerned, all considerations of CANVASS aside. —  TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 14:47, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Tentative support. Disclosure: I haven't been canvassed to comment here, but I have been editing long enough that I remember MSK from 2006. I distinctly remember her as a user who caused a fair amount of drama and wasn't great at working with others, and her indef block was arguably justified at the time. Having said that, it's been over five years now, and I'm willing to accept she might have changed and now be able to edit within our rules in a constructive manner. (The fact that she came back honestly identifying herself, rather than socking under a different name to avoid detection, is a positive I think.) It should be made clear, however, that she will be 'on probation' as it were, and if she fails to behave appropriately admins should not be hesitant to restore the indef block. Robofish (talk) 15:31, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose - low the standard of recent sockpuppet edits and the very disruptive history.   You  really  can  15:46, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose I have to go with the same rational used in other opposition: the combative nature on the user's talk page, socking while banned, and the LONG history of a blocks and overall poor judgement in the past. I know it['s been a number of years, but I think this will be more trouble that ir is worth if the user is unblocked. Wildthing61476 (talk) 15:56, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose User is under a full siteban. Since there's apparently no consensus to unban/unblock here, then her next step is an email to Arbcom. I do not support an unban due to recent socking. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 16:24, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Can someone find and point us to the ban discussion? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 17:33, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * There may not have been one. There was once language in the banning policy for "de facto" bans. This was removed at some point by some very intelligent people until a couple months ago when certain editors insisted that ban discussions were a "waste of time" and people should just slap the banned tag on blocked accounts. The language has subsequently been rewritten several times and resulted in gigantic threads at the BAN talk page where nobody can agree on exactly what a "De Facto" ban is, how to implement it and what language should be used to describe it. In other words, instead of a couple ban discussions per month at AN/I, we have many KB of argument at another page and a policy in perpetual limbo. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 19:20, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Question. So, seriously, what is she interested in editing? Because we have enough editors posturing in heated disputes like this. We'd hope she intends to return to something more constructive than that. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 17:25, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I can't really speak for her, and she can't speak for herself either, but I'm guessing stuff like this or related to this. Volunteer Marek  18:46, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Support unblock at this point. If she hasn't socked for 5 years, but merely returned under a very-identifiable username, there's no reason not to consider the standard offer fulfilled. If there are problems, they can be handled the way they always are.-- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:45, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Six years is enough time. She was blocked mainly because of her involvement with certain banned users who herself later banned from Wikipedia Review. My main concern though is MSK actions seems like she is so out of touch with the community by using practically 2006 tactics that many editors used back then but it's clearly unacceptable now, such as the emails. She was also kinda inactive from Wikipedia Review as well. I think with the right mentoring, and the reading of some guidelines she can become a productive editor. In worst case, just reban her and that's it. I highly doubt that the community will be "outraged" if she goes back to her previous behavior that got her blocked in the first place. And note I was there when the discussion to unblock her and another (now banned) editor took place, and I was one of the editors who discussed her ban soon after when her behavior was unchanged. I also put the final ban on the editor she was most involved with (Blu Aardvark) not long afterwords. Secret account 19:43, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak support. I'm not terribly confident that this is a good move, but I'm willing to WP:AGF that something has changed for the better in 5-6 years. Give that the current concerns are about trolling, I think that in case she is unblocked Ms. Kyle should try to focus on content including learning how to contribute according to current Wikipedia standards (e.g. how to format citations), and should try hard to avoid the kind of rhetoric-filled discussions that led to her indef block. Perhaps assigning a mentor to her would not be a bad idea either. Alas my wiki time is limited, so I can't volunteer for that job. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 20:16, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose (struck, see below) for now, subject to change (see later in this comment). 5 years is a long time and everyone that can demonstrate remorse and reform deserves another chance, however the argumentativeness and 'the rules say I can' lawyering on the user's talk page don't inspire much faith that the user is either remorseful of their own actions, or has committed to conducting themselves better as an editor. It should go without saying that when you want to be unblocked, you don't come in guns-blazing, making implications about maturity and shifting blame onto others. Selina would need to back down from the defiant attitude, address her own contributions to her ban without trying to dilute it with 'but everyone else was bad too' comments, and commit to investing time in familiarising herself with the way Wikipedia is now, in order to change my vote. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 22:43, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak Support based on usertalk discussion with Selina. She seems (at surface level, at least) to be interested in leaving the past behind and the banhammer is set at hair-trigger if she screws up. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 07:18, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

"Hey could you please take a look at my talk page where I included all the details and links to why I think my ban was unfair and maybe comment on WP:ANI if you support ? I can't talk there as I am banned thank you for any help - I am also the owner of Wikipedia Review which is the main reason I was banned as it allows free speech on Wikipedia issues and is sometimes controversial and they held me responsible for not more heavily censoring it, if you look at my talk page it's all on there thank you for any help"
 * Comment I've recieved an e-mail from this user, it goes as follows:
 * So here I am. Don't know enough to lean either way, but this is an FYI. <span style="font-family:Verdana,Arial,Helvetica;"><b style="color:#333333;">Res</b> Mar 00:57, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose Current sockpuppetry . Nobody Ent 01:01, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh for fuck sake, coming back under an almost identical user name with no attempt to evade detection is not socking. Reyk  <sub style="color:blue;">YO!  01:05, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * "to circumvent a block, ban, or sanction" Nobody Ent 10:56, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * support per Tech Symbiosis Nobody Ent 02:15, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak support. Don't let me down. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 02:19, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I've been around long enough to witness this user's shenanigans, and their recent behavior is not giving me a lot of confidence that they can be trusted. MSK is either (a) a troll, or (b) simply lacks the willingness and/or ability to work with others and follow our policies. szyslak  ( t ) 02:41, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Changed to weak support per TechnoSymbiosis and his discussion with MSK on her talk page. While I don't think she was showing the most pleasant interaction style I've seen on WP, I do see (hopefully) genuine willingness to give this the old college try. However, as others have mentioned, if she hasn't changed and repeats the behavior that got her banned in the first place, she should be immediately rebanned. szyslak  ( t ) 18:43, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose Scanning the user's talk page shows a style that is too combative to give confidence that an unblock would assist the community. Humility is not a requirement of an unblock, but we have enough of the opposite. Johnuniq (talk) 03:13, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. The original block reason seems to be unclear and occurred in the days when administrators acted with less transparency than they do now.  Also, it has been 5 1/2 years. Cla68 (talk) 04:34, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose for three reasons: The large block log, particularly on the her behaviour; the shouty responses on her own talk page (although there was only some of it, the all caps and the bold text that I've seen are unnecessary) and the fact that she still hasn't stated which articles in particular she wants to edit. Minima  ©  ( talk ) 06:29, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Support What harm can she do in the time it takes someone to reach for the block button?--Wehwalt (talk) 16:04, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Support It has been over 5 years. Let her in and assume that she learned something --Guerillero &#124; My Talk  17:23, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I would like to see at least 3 months of harmonious editing either at Commons or another WM project. I don't think it's too much to ask that the user actually demonstrate that they are serious.  If the user does this, then I'm happy to change to support and I imagine many others will as well.   N <sup style="color:red;">o f o rmation  <sup style="color:black;">Talk  01:13, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support unblocking – Although some might have a distaste for a "revolving door" justice system, we shouldn't enact an "no exit [from prison]" justice system. It has been over five years. Some have pointed out that Selina is a part of the Wikipedia review. Although Selina plays an essential role as the WR's sysop and its main owner, Selina hasn't been recently involved in the WR until this month. See Talk:Wikipedia_Review and this WR thread. Due to Selina's inactivity, the users assumed the worse. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 01:20, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * we shouldn't enact an "no exit [from prison]" justice system - to rebut one unsupported assertion with another one, yes, we should. If someone causes enough trouble to earn himself an indef - which is not a particularly easy thing to do - that's damn good evidence that he should not be allowed to edit, ever. Raul654 (talk) 01:27, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm a little surprised to hear you say that, Raul. Indef is short for 'indefinite', not 'infinite'. Most indef blocks I've seen come with clearly stated criteria the subject can meet to be unblocked. I think 'go away and never ever come back' much rarer than you imply. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 03:42, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support per Wehwalt, AGF, and an expectation of paying domain registrations on time. Alarbus (talk) 03:11, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose I can't think of a single reason for someone with that block log to be unblocked, especially after returning through socking.&mdash;Kww(talk) 03:20, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose, as the socking incident is unacceptable. GoodDay (talk) 03:25, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose per the long log; SV usually got things right...Modernist (talk) 03:56, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Random break for convenience

 * Support. Going for 5½ years with no socking, then returning with a seeming attempt at good faith editing and a request for unblock, is enough for me to say that we can give this editor a second chance.  I don't see edits here that would be considered disruptive if they came from a user in good standing.  Nyttend (talk) 04:03, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

User:101.109.87.219
may need a block. A look at their contributions will explain why. So far multiple articles affected. Voceditenore (talk) 14:20, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Blocked, and edits oversighted. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:25, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Does anybody know how to contact the WMF (the oversighter may have already done so, but I want to make certain)? Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:30, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Emailed emergency communications[at]wikimedia.org. Probably not the best contact point, but it's the only one I can think of. EDIT: Received an out-of-office message, so forwarded to communications. :/ Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:46, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The emergency@ email gets distributed to several people, and I believe at the moment one of them has the OOO message in place. This unfortunately creates the impression that emergency@ is unmanned, which I don't think is the case. (Disclaimer - what the hell would I know?) Manning (talk) 03:59, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Block request
Can someone please block User:Russavia for their insulting personal attacks here? I can bear being accused of being a homophobe (in fact I was expecting it), but actually being called a homophobe is too much. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:24, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing the accusation of being a homophobe, only that your actions may be intepreted as such. That isn't an attack on you. Furthermore, it is not best form to ask for your opponent to be blocked when you are currently in a dispute against them. &mdash;Dark 06:14, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * My only "dispute" with Russavia is that they continue to make flagrant personal attacks. They are not simply saying that my actions could be interpreted as homophobia, they are saying (as in the edit summary for that diff) that it is homophobia. What do you think they mean by "calling a spade a spade"? Can someone please block? Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 11:54, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The comments and edit-summary refer to the behaviour, not to the person. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:14, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Would WP:WQA not be the better place for this? Either way, you really shouldn't be asking for a block - ask for help/assistance to solve the problem instead. GiantSnowman 12:34, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * We have a user who just called another user a homophobe, using an edit summary of "this is why what you are doing is homophobic". If you can't see that that is seriously running afoul of WP:NPA, then you have no business commenting in AN/I discussions, honestly. Tarc (talk) 13:46, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Uh, suggesting WQA would surely show that I do feel it was inappropriate? Especially as I have been accused of something similar myself (which I ignored, rather than bring it to ANI). GiantSnowman 14:01, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * DC should be very careful of invoking a WP:BOOMERANG effect here given that, according to Russavia, DC was responsible for posting another editor's home address and phone number to an off-wiki forum in the middle of a deeply homophobic discussion. If that's the case, and I have no reason to doubt Russavia, it's a vile act of harassment from DC. I have no idea why this individual has not previously been banned. He certainly isn't contributing anything of value to the project and he needs to be held accountable for the way that he uses off-wiki forums to attack other editors. Prioryman (talk) 19:35, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That's a pretty serious charge, and something we don't accept just because someone claims it. Any off-wiki harassment claims need to be backed up with evidence. Otherwise, those claims are sanctionable themselves. --  At am a  頭 00:09, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Prioryman, I'm going to quote what you just said, to give you a chance to look over what Russavia said and consider whether you were paraphrasing accurately or (inadvertently) introducing brand new allegations of your own: "DC was responsible for posting another editor's home address and phone number to an off-wiki forum in the middle of a deeply homophobic discussion". Here's a diff of Russavia's statement. Bear in mind that Russavia claims to have a webcitation archive of the Wikipedia Review discussion in question. Perhaps you would like to consult that as well. Perhaps you would like to strike your inflammatory comments? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:21, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Did you link to the wrong comments? I presume or  is what Prioryman is referring to. Nil Einne (talk) 04:53, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * To be absolutely clear, I'm referring to this statement by Russavia:
 * Editors should know that DC posted Fae's home address and phone number on WR, on a thread which was discussing Fae in a manner which can only be construed by any reasonable person as harrassment, so their claim here that they are only interested in Fae's Wikipedia activities is absolute and clear BS. (Whilst the posts in question by DC on WR have conveniently been deleted, this does not mean that a webcitation copy wasn't conversely conveniently made before these posts were deleted by WR, so if DC is going to deny ever having done this, they might want to think very carefully before responding to this).
 * I've asked Russavia for more details and I hope he will provide me (in confidence, since it's not fit for posting here) the webcitation link verifying his statement. If it's not the case then obviously I'll apologise to DC, but if it is true then it needs to be dealt with - and really the only remedy here would be for DC to be banned, as such conduct would be completely unacceptable. The fact that DC has a history of harassing other editors off-wiki makes me inclined to believe Russavia. As for the harassment campaign being conducted against Fae, you only have to look at the top of Fae's user page. It's worth pointing out that DC started the thread on WR that has led to the harassment campaign, so he is not only deeply involved in this unsavoury business, he is its instigator. That in itself is worth considering, quite apart from the outing claims. Prioryman (talk) 08:59, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Prioryman has done a fine job of perpetuating the narrative that I am "harassing" editors, which he does here by claiming it as "fact" that I have "a history" of this (and making me not only a participant but the "instigator" of off-wiki "harassment"). They closely mirror the comments made by Fæ himself in response to his failed request for admin rights on Commons. If this were to be the case, it is surprising that Fæ has not, as I have repeatedly asked, filed any kind of dispute resolution in order that the matter may be addressed. Prioryman has a vested interest in having me sidelined in some way, because I expressed similar concerns regarding their previous account, which is under numerous ArbCom sanctions that do not seem to have been transferred to their current account. I have expressed concern about violations of those sanctions to ArbCom but have failed to get any satisfactory response so far. I await their apology, but request that they strike their comments while they await the archive that they have not yet consulted. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:26, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

(posted from my talk page) Hi Prioryman, I think it only needs to be asked of DC, the simple question requiring a simple yes or no answer; "Did you or did you not post information, including Fae's home address and phone number to WR, the posting of which then lead to further harrassment of Fae". Let me remind you all, DC has already admitted they did so, and wanted me to post off-WMF links to said information. They were told by another editor that this would be inappropriate, and I agree. But please, ask DC whether they did indeed post such information to WR.

Note to DC -- you may claim that you are not a homophobe, and frankly, it is irrelevant if you are. You have clearly participated on WR in discussions on Fae which are often homophobic in nature, and in the above instance referenced above you clearly gave ammunition for some unknown participant/reader of that WR to engage in harassment on Fae. If you are not a homophobe, fine, but your willingness to associate with people who clearly are, and who are engaging in harassment, and your eagerness to divulge information on the harassee so that they can be further harassed (not 20-25 minutes after saying onwiki to the harassee that you are sorry they are being harassed), surely brings into doubt whether you are such inclined, or whether you are simply sympathetic to their cause. Either way, your conduct offwiki in contributing to harassment of Fae is crystal clear, and makes you as culpable as a person who does it onwiki. And for this you need to be held accountable. Y u no be Russavia ლ(ಠ益ಠლ) 22:24, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * At least you are now open to the possibility that I might not be a homophobe, only someone who associates with homophobes - things are improving. Except that I don't think that contributors to Wikipedia Review are at all motivated by homophobia, despite the occasional insensitive comment. If Wikipedia Review were as you describe it, I would not be a participant there. I doubt that the current Wikipedia admins who contribute there appreciate being tarred with that brush either. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:23, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Prioryman, you stated above that Russavia was going to provide "the webcitation link verifying his statement" and "If it's not the case then obviously I'll apologise to DC". I assume that you have seen the archive of the WR discussion by now. Then you know that your statements were false. You said "DC was responsible for posting another editor's home address and phone number to an off-wiki forum in the middle of a deeply homophobic discussion". As you have seen, the "deeply homophobic discussion" is quite simply a fantasy. It does not exist even in Russavia's statement and you have created it here to perpetuate the "homophobia" defence of Fæ. Worse, you have deliberately conflated it with a number of unrelated things -- "banned user", campaign to get WMUK's charity status revoked, "blackmail threat" -- which are unrelated to me or my actions in an effort to have me banned. This is transparently self-serving to anyone who knows the full story of your history and our interactions, but you can fool some of the people some of the time. The only true part of your statement is that I posted publicly available WHOIS information without redacting the address and phone number that it contained. I should not have done that. That was an oversight on my part and I fully agreed with the redaction made by a WR mod. That WR thread was moved at my request to a non-public forum not to hide my actions, but for reasons related to Fæ's privacy. I would like you to strike your inflammatory statements now. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:04, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Delicious Carbuncle harassment and outing: block or ban proposal
The facts, as far as I've been able to establish them, are as follows. Given the privacy issues I've avoided posting a few key links in the section below, but I do have them.

A banned user has been mounting a campaign on Wikipedia Review to get Wikimedia UK's charitable status revoked. In conjunction with that campaign, certain WR users have been focusing on WMUK's officers, including Fæ, who is a Director of WMUK. Delicious Carbuncle has been systematically using WR to harass Fæ, starting no fewer than six threads about him since November 2011. This kind of thing is typical for DC, who has targeted other editors in a similar fashion on other occasions. I have previously presented evidence to Arbcom about his activities (which is presumably why he is trying to dredge up off-topic issues to distract attention - another standard DC tactic).

On 26 December 2011, Fæ put himself forward for admin status on Wikimedia Commons. After Delicious Carbuncle started a WR thread about the RFA, it was heavily disrupted by sockpuppet accounts and users banned from en.wiki.

On 30 December, someone sent Fæ a blackmail threat. He was forced to withdraw his RFA. [Added - there is no evidence that the threat came from DC.]

On the same day at about 19:09, DC posted Fæ's phone number and home address on a new thread on WR at the URL http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=35978. Fæ publicly noted this shortly afterwards. DC's thread was deleted shortly by WR's administrator shortly after DC posted it. At the time of posting, DC was fully aware of the threat against Fæ, as he had posted about it on Commons only 20 minutes previously. 

DC is still continuing his campaign with an RFC on en.wiki directed against Fæ, with an accompanying thread on WR to rally the troops. Since DC started his campaign, Fæ's user talk page has seen repeated postings of personal attacks and homophobic slurs directed against him (see log and comment here for an example). This is a direct and predictable result of DC's campaign on WR.

Fæ has never published his home phone number or address in any context to do with Wikipedia or WMUK and it is not listed in the public telephone directory. DC has admitted that he obtained it from an online database. However, the information in question is not part of a current publicly accessible record, so he would have needed to use technical means to get around the privacy protection. protected by a privacy redaction, so DC had to obtain it from an historical copy of the record in question.

This is about as serious a breach of privacy as it's possible to get, short of physically stalking an editor. DC knew that Fæ had been threatened. Within minutes of publicly acknowledging that fact he obtained Fæ's private telephone number and home address and posted them to a forum where individuals make a habit of trying to "out" and harass Wikipedians. Given that the campaign against Fæ is being run via WR, there is good reason to believe that Fæ's harasser is a WR reader. The information that DC provided could have enabled the harasser to carry out his blackmail threat.

Posting another Wikipedian's personally identifying information without their permission is a serious breach of privacy at the best of times. When it's combined with the prior knowledge that the Wikipedian in question has been threatened on that same day, it has to be seen as not just reckless but actively malicious. Combine that with the ongoing campaign against Fæ and the word "vindictive" comes to mind.

This conduct is quite simply inexcusable. DC's action amounted to sticking up a sign on WR saying to Fæ's harasser, "here's where he lives, come and get him". Russavia is correct: DC needs to be held accountable for it. In my view, the only remedy that will fit the premeditated, malicious and egregious nature of DC's conduct is an indefinite block or community ban and I thus propose it. Prioryman (talk) 23:19, 28 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not breaking my Wiki-absence to defend DC, who I think often does foolish and questionable things, in he service of whatever cause he has, but let me give a couple of facts from the Wikipedia Review thread. On WR, DC published an e-mail he'd received from "Ash" in March 2010. That email contained an personal email domain. DC also published the (publicly available) Whois? information for that e-mail domain, in order to show that it belonged to Ashley Van Haeften (who has publicly identified as Fae). Note, I make no comment on whether it was appropriate to publish the information. Unfortunately, the Whois? information not only contained the name, but also the address and phone number of the owner of the domain name. This information was redacted a little over an hour later by a WR mod (note they are not always as irresponsible as people here would wish to believe). Some pathetic "homophobic" remarks followed, made by two unrelated morons, and then a further post by DC stating (2 hours after his original) that he'd asked the mods to delete or hide the whole thread, because (he stated) he realised he should have redacted the information, even although it was in the public domain, and he'd never intended to make AVH a target of real life harassment. Now, let's be clear. I'm not condoning anything here. I'm just not clear what privacy was breached (it WAS all in the public domain, except perhaps for the domain name whiich DC had got from an email Ash had sent him - I've checked the Whois? myself, but I'm not posting any links here), and even what was posted seems to have been negligently done rather than maliciously. Now, has DC been "harassing"? I've not looked at the rest of the evidence here, so I'm not going to comment on that.--Scott Mac 00:17, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The fact that DC published a private email on a forum which is notorious for its harassment of WR editors, is grounds enough to question his motives. Did he have permission to post this email? No he didn't. That he then felt that he had to use that email, and information contained in it, to post information to WR, where it is known that Fae has been harassed via, that included a home phone number and home adress, is even more troublesome. Even DC acknowledges that he screwed up. However, this then led to actual harassment on Fae. DC is therefore ultimately responsible, for posting private correspondence without permission, and posting other private information without good reason. He should have foreseen what would have resulted, given that he was aware and acknowledged only 20 minutes previously, that Fae was being harassed, and also being threatened/blackmailed. Whilst he posted information on sites not controlled by WMF, he should have known that on-WMF project harassment was likely to occur, and it did. Therefore, I support an indefinite block or community ban as proposed. Y u no be Russavia ლ(ಠ益ಠლ) 00:45, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * A disingenuous remark to say the least. DC did NOT publish a private email. He mentioned a domain name that was in the email. He then published the publicly available info contained in the WHOIS database for that domain. Fae/Ash has frequently complained of harassment yet has never provided proof of those episodes. Likewise, as Russavia mentioned above, Fae withdrew his RFA as a result of a "blackmail threat", though no proof of that threat was ever given. Coincidentally his withdrawal came at a time when what started out as a WP:SNOW in his favour turned into a snow in favour of rejection. On another point, it would perhaps be in DC's favour if the webcitation link was published here so all and sundry can see how "deeply homophobic" that thread was. Oh, I almost forgot. During Fae's abortive RFA Russavia appeared to be a vociferous flag bearer on Fae's behalf. It's not surprising that he's doing the same now, and using, well let's just say hyperbolic means to do so. -27.100.16.185 (talk) 15:55, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Hello unknown editor. Of course, I place more credence in comments that come from actual logged-in editors, just to be sure you're not a banned miscreant. But I will comment on the comment that I was a flag bearer for Fae at his RfA on Commons. If one checks the RfA itself, I actually opposed Fae's RfA. I informed Fae why I opposed, and it had nothing to do with WR muckraking of issues. On a side note, his RfA on Commons was one of the most disgusting displays I have seen. Additionally, in my capacity as an admin on Commons, I also undid an indefinite block on an editor, by shortening it to two weeks for what I deemed to be harassment of Fae. I have stated numerous times that I will not stand for editorial harassment, and my actions relating to Fae on Commons have been driven by other's harassment, yet I have managed to stay neutral over the entire period. Even now, I am neutral, I have nothing against Delicious Carbuncle, but their harassment of Fae makes it impossible to simply stand by and ignore. DC's starting this RfA, came exactly after this on Commons, and after I posted this recommendation to the Community. DC has ignored the entire lot. He is using any WMF project he can to engage in harassment, and has no problem in cross-wikiiing this behaviour. It is impossible to separate his harassment of Fae on Commons from his harassment of Fae on enwp, because he has himself ignored "leaving things in Vegas" and is intent on causing as much disruption and grief for Fae as possible. And he is stooping to some pretty low tactics to ensure he is successful. We need to have ZERO tolerance for harassment, and this is why I am "supporting" Fae in this instance. Nothing more, nothing less. Have a nice day. Y u no be Russavia ლ(ಠ益ಠლ) 16:40, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Appalling, appalling, appalling. I also Support the community ban proposal for blackmail, breach of confidence, and incitement to real-life harassment. Wikipolitics aside, willfully and directly endangering somebody's personal security is inexcusable. Shrigley (talk) 01:51, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * But, wikipolitics aside, there's no evidence of any of that. Sure, there was a posting of private communicator in a public (off-wiki) place - that behaviour may be sanctionable, and perhaps there's been what some may view as harassment. However, there's no evidence (or even credible allegation) of blackmail or incitement to real-life harassment. Had there been, it would be a police matter. Probably best to check he facts before making what may well be slanderous allegations about another person. Again, I'm not defending what has been done here but, really, lets not make stuff up.--Scott Mac 02:35, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you might be mixing things up a bit. The threat, as I understand it, was not against Fæ himself but against Fæ's partner; along the lines of "if you persist with this RFA I'll contact your partner and do such-and-such". In order to make good on the threat, the harasser would have needed to know Fæ's home address. That's what makes this incident so serious; DC, fully knowing that Fæ had been threatened, posted the very information the harasser needed to carry out his threat. DC did not make the threat, but through his actions he facilitated the person who did. It is hard to believe he was completely unaware of the potential consequences of posting the contact information of someone whom he knew had been threatened by a third party. Prioryman (talk) 03:02, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not mixing anything up. Off Wiki, DC publicly posted information that Fae/Ash had sent privately to him. At the point of posting, he failed to redact information that contained an address (but THAT information that WAS publicly available). He asked for the information to be removed within a couple of hours, but he ought to have taken far more care, given the claim that Fae was subject to off-wiki threats. Now, whether that's sanction-able or not needs discussion - I express no opinion. But, there's seems to be an attempt (without any evidence) to suggest DC has been complicit in blackmail, real life threats, and off-wiki harassment. Now, if there is actually evidence of any of that, I suggest someone contacts law enforcement - and, if there's not, then discuss what's actually here.--Scott Mac 03:27, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone's suggesting that DC has been complicit in blackmail. But he certainly has, through his actions, provided potential assistance to someone making real-life threats. He is also directly responsible for creating an environment in which Fæ has been subjected to weeks of homophobic harassment, through continual agitation on WR. Are you familiar with the practice of chumming - throwing blood and meat into the water to attract sharks? That's how DC uses WR - he chums it to stir up the users against a Wikipedian whom he dislikes. He's doing it now to Fæ and he's done it before to others. I note that the threads that he has started against Fæ are filled with homophobic comments from others, and I also note that he doesn't seem to have made any attempt to rein in their excesses. Prioryman (talk) 03:40, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If I'm getting lost, it is because the charges keep changing here. I'm not sure how one is supposed to "rein in the excesses" of immature posters in a form. I suppose by asking for the thread to be killed or hidden? But he did just that. If there's a serious pattern of him having doing this, then that might need looked at. Has there been an RFC on this? That would be the starting point. That someone's actions might potentially allow a someone to do something is true of many things, but without intention all you have there is aggravated carelessness. Anyways, there needs to be a proper investigation and a right of reply, not an ANI lynch mob.--Scott Mac 03:58, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I have no problem supporting a community ban against DC. Editors like this are detrimental to the project and are easily replaced. Rklawton (talk) 03:16, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose - this is 90% bullshit plus 10% a sort-of-true hook to hang the bullshit on. The hysterical hyperbole, not to mention the slander and outright attacks - not backed by ANYTHING - would normally earn some people, like Prioryman and Shrigley (more for his insults at the RfC/U), a well deserved indef ban themselves. Prioryman's (who's here basically because he has an axe to grind) statement is textbook sleazy innuendo unsupported by any evidence (though I guess he claims that "he has it"). Volunteer Marek 03:52, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh and Prioryman, since " [Added - there is no evidence that the threat came from DC.]" why don't you do the right thing and then strike the whole damn sentence rather than leaving it there to create this "guilt by association". Seriously, this is some low tactics. Volunteer Marek 03:52, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * What's untrue? Did Fæ receive a threat? He says he did . Did DC post Fæ's home address and phone number to WR? Nobody is disputing this and it was documented at the time . Did DC know that Fæ was being harassed at the time? He acknowledged it on Commons shortly before posting Fæ's personal information . Has DC been the author of multiple WR threads about Fæ over the last two months? Yes he has (I'm purposefully not linking them). Has that attention resulted in Fæ being harassed on Wikipedia with repeated homophobic attacks? Yes it has. The facts are clear and damning. Prioryman (talk) 04:02, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, since you admit yourself that there is no evidence linking DC to the threat, then remove your fucking slander. The fact that DC and Fae have/had disagreements is not news, nor is it irrelevant to the bullshit you're insinuating.
 * And just to point out a specific point where you're lying your ass off and hoping nobody bothers to check you ask a question: Has that attention resulted in Fæ being harassed on Wikipedia with repeated homophobic attacks? and then you answer it yourself "Yes it has" - and then you link to ... Fae's userpage as if that proved anything. You have not shown a shred of evidence that whatever harassment Fae may have been subject to had ANYTHING to do with DC. I'm sure some idiots below will get snookered in by this low tactic. But it is still a low tactic. Volunteer Marek 04:42, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose. Firstly, no non-public information was posted. Secondly, Prioryman is not the best person to propose something like this, as his own clean start was beset by much the same problems as Fæ's, and DC asked arbcom some searching questions about it last July. I believe arbcom would acknowledge that neither clean start was handled brilliantly – neither by the editors concerned nor the committee itself – and that these kinds of "clean starts", initiated when an editor has disappeared (or while he is in the process of disappearing!) under a cloud, should not become a model to follow for Wikipedia. -- J N  466  03:55, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you saying it is acceptable to post personal information on an editor, solely because the information is available from an obscure WHOIS query? I would like to note that the query was only made possible due to an email, which has the presumption of confidentiality. &mdash;Dark 04:12, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify this point, the information that DC posted is not available just by searching for Fæ's name or accounts. It could only be obtained by using the contents of a private email to identify an obscure domain name and using that to obtain past records of the registry concerned. It should be noted that the registry's current records do not publicise Fæ's contact details. DC deliberately circumvented the registry's privacy protections to get that information. Prioryman (talk) 04:23, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. You can find the same information in one minute right now just by Googling Fæ's name, which he has disclosed as a director of Wikimedia UK. And the registry's current records still show all the personal details. Now I would not need to have said that if you had not made this false assertion. How about you delete yours and mine along with it? -- J  N  466  04:51, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * And when you google the name (somebody's real name, not a username), you get slander, character assassination, and sexual images as top results, from WR and associates' sites (such as Kohs's column). Really disgusting how a website which supposedly champions BLP so readily ruins the lives and reputations of living people. Shrigley (talk) 05:03, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Support ban. Every person who uses WP and WR to carry out harassment should be banned, bar none. Binksternet (talk) 03:58, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * So the facts appear to be that DC used information from an email - personal correspondence not publicly available - to find information on a domain owned by Fae - publicly available but not publicly linked to Fae - and then published both the link between Fae and that previously-non-linked site and the personally-identifying contents of that link (not limited to his name, which was somewhat known, but including his home address and phone number) on a site where he knew Fae was being victimised. If this was absent-minded negligence, I find it no less dangerous than if it was active malice - in either case, DC's behavior is a threat to other editors, either because he lacks a safe level of discretion or because he intends harm. Given that, I would support a community ban of Delicious Carbuncle until such time as his judgment does not pose a threat to the safety of other editors. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 04:03, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose - All the evidence we need for "Fae == Ash" is found here and here. Exposing a fraudulent "clean start" should be rewarded with a barnstar, not a block. Tarc (talk) 04:31, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Tarc, this has nothing to do with who Fæ is. It's about DC's actions in posting Fæ's private contact information as admirably summarised by Fluffernutter above. Please address your comments to that issue. Prioryman (talk) 04:34, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I will address whatever I see fit, and you can keep your comments to yourself. You don't like DC,so you and your buddies drum up some half-truths and innuendo to remove an perceived wiki-opponent form the playing field.  That's what's going on here, its what goes on here day in and day out, only the name change. Tarc (talk) 04:43, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The e-mail proved that the two users were the same, which is exactly what Fæ refused to acknowledge, against CLEANSTART: "But if the old account came to community attention, or the topic is the subject of edit-wars and contentious editing, and especially if your old account was involved or your new account will be, then it may be seen as evading scrutiny not to disclose the old account." If Fæ had conceded right away that he had been editing as Ash previously, this thing would long since have been water under the bridge. -- J N  466  04:53, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Tarc et al, this has NOTHING to do with removing any sort of "opponent", it has to do with DC posting private correspondence and private information obtained by way of that correspondence on a non-wiki site for purposes which are actually irrelevant, but the posting of which led to on-wiki harassment of Fae. DC's actions in relation on enwp are indicative of the bad attitude that DC (and others amongst you) have in relation to thinking that harassment of editors on wiki is OK. The community is here to tell you, that it is NOT ok to harass editors. This request will, hopefully, demonstrate the consequences of this. Y u no be Russavia ლ(ಠ益ಠლ) 05:10, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * As with "the truth is the best defense when charged with libel" so is "you can't out someone who does not hide his personal information". There is no harassment; Fae/Ash has been a bad and disruptive presence in this project, and it is not disruptive to point that out.  As noted above, all you're doing is ganging up to try to get rid of someone you don't like, and throwing around allegations of homophobia to make it all sound scarier than it actually is.  You don't get to play the victim card when you actually aren't a victim of much of anything, end of story. Tarc (talk) 05:18, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * For the record, I'm completely uninvolved with any issues concerning Fae's editing, either here or on Commons. This isn't about trying to "get rid" of DC, it's about accountability for his gross misconduct. If anything, what you've said makes things even worse for DC; so according to you he put Fæ's physical safety at risk to advance an obscure "inside the beltway" bit of wikipolitics. That's a catastrophically warped judgement on DC's part. We don't need someone with that level of recklessness involved with the project. Prioryman (talk) 11:39, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with fluffernutter's assessment of this issue - the publishing of personal information is unacceptable whether it was malicious or not. However, given the conduct of DC with regards to Fae, both here, on Commons and offwiki, the allegations of harrassment may not be far off the mark. DC, at the time of his WR post, seems aware that Fae has been threatened, yet decided to post the WHOIS information anyway which poses a potential safety risk. Therefore I must support a community ban on DC. At the very least, I believe DC must cease interactions with Fae. &mdash;Dark 04:52, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Um, what? WHOIS information is public.... --Enric Naval (talk) 12:48, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that the information in this case was not public and could only be accessed from a cached WHOIS query, as the live entry was redacted. But public or not, it's never acceptable to post someone's personal information without their consent and especially not when you know full well that they're being threatened. That's the central issue here. Prioryman (talk) 12:54, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Your understanding is wrong. The live entry was only redacted after DC's post. -- J N  466  15:05, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * In any case, I do not believe Fae meant for the information to be made public on a forum such as WR, especially not in light of the threats made against him. DC showed an inexcusable lapse of judgement in posting the information, and seems to be too personally invested in issues concerning Fae. I do question his motive; he clearly did not act with any good intent when posting the info to WR. &mdash;Dark 11:29, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose ban or block. The "outing" information was simply volunteered by the "outed" person on the WMF sites on numerous occasions. This retaliatory proposal coming from another editor whose ArbCom-cloaked "clear start" turned out rather unclean is just the icing on the cake. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 12:27, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That is incorrect - Fae has never published his home address or telephone number in conjunction with the WMF sites. Prioryman (talk) 12:39, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Clarification request: Scott Mac says "DC also published the (publicly available) Whois? information for that e-mail domain, in order to show that it belonged to Ashley Van Haeften." In what context was it necessary to show that the domain belonged to AVH? Was it meant to somehow prove the genuineness of the email?


 * JN466 says "the registry's current records still show all the personal details." I just did a Whois search and the personal details are hidden by the customer number of a Contact Privacy Inc. client. This is the first time I've looked up Whois info. Perhaps I'm doing it wrong. Are you sure phone and address details for that domain name are public? Ah. Prioryman's just explained DC would have searched a cache. That's not public.


 * Prioryman, the phone and address details are presently hidden when I look up Whois for Fae's domain. Were they hidden when DC posted them at WR? Or did the hiding of the details occur after DC's posting to WR?


 * I'm still waiting for a clarification of DC's pretext for posting the Whois details at WR. (I understand the phone and address details were an oversight, but why was it necessary to prove the domain belonged to Fae? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:03, 29 January 2012 (UTC) Updated 17:38, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I wasn't aware of this situation until well after it had happened - I've not had any involvement in issues regarding Fae - but my understanding is that they were hidden at the time, but were available via an old cached copy of the registration record. Prioryman (talk) 18:12, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I've received an email asserting the phone number and address weren't hidden from Whois inquirers at the time DC posted the Whois details on WR.


 * I'm still waiting for a clarification of DC's rationale for posting the Whois data. Was it necessary to prove Ash = Ashley/Fae? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:34, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I think it should be unarguable that it is never appropriate to post another individual's personal information without permission, especially if it puts them at risk, whatever the rationale or "justification". It seems to me that DC was trying to gather as many lines of evidence as possible but lacked the judgement or common sense to see (or was just indifferent about) the inappropriateness of posting personal information, which he had reason to know would put his target in danger, would be a violation of privacy, and would be strictly prohibited by Wikipedia's harassment policy. Prioryman (talk) 08:25, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The more I read about this, the less concerned I am about DC's behaviour. He seems to have been trying to establish the connection between Ash and Fae, due to worries about a dirty clean start. This does, indeed, seem to be a dirty clean start and needs to be addressed by the community. DC shouldn't have copied the whole Whois report to WR as evidence but, apparently, at the time, the Whois data was open. Be more careful in future, DC.
 * Oppose. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 09:19, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Ambivalent
 * DC is only responsible for their own actions. If people are harassing Fae that is a matter for the law enforcement of his domicile.
 * It's always been my understanding Wikipedia dispute resolution/sanctions are limited in scope to on Wikipedia behavior. Am I mistaken?
 * Revealing phone number/address was an asshole move. But given the information Fae has made available it shouldn't be difficult to find.
 * Per Whois, those of us who a.) register our domains in our own names, and b.) respond to Wikipedia emails really should anticipate their information getting out. Nobody Ent 13:17, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Sanctions are applicable to off-wiki behaviour in the specific case of privacy violations and harassment. From WP:OUTING: "As is the case with on-wiki harassment, off-wiki harassment can be grounds for blocking, and in extreme cases, banning. Off-wiki privacy violations shall be dealt with particularly severely." Editors have been blocked before for doing what DC has done, and in less extreme circumstances. As for phone number/address, as explained above Fae's Whois details are hidden behind a Contact Privacy Inc. entry; DC had to circumvent this to get the information. But saying in effect "it's easy to do" is not an excuse. It would be easy for me to pick up my steak knife and stab someone in the street, but nobody would say that I should escape the consequences merely because it was easy to do. Prioryman (talk) 13:24, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Your analogy is absurd, please stick to the realm of believable if you're going to continue this crusade, will you? As for Fae, perhaps he should have had a gander at WP:How to not get outed on Wikipedia.  What this always comes around to, again, is Fae did not adhere to either the spirit or the letter of WP:CLEANSTART, and IMO picking at the strings that held his facade together is not really actionable.  If there are people making threats or whatnot against Fae because his publicly and easily findable identity was discussed off-wiki, then that should be dealt with.  But I do not believe that DC was one of those. Tarc (talk) 13:37, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose Not only for the reason that draconian solutions do not work, but also because "deleting" an editor does not put the inconvenient facts which have come out regarding a possible weird misuse of "clean start" back into any bottle at all. And this particular action seems quite as egregious as the original "offense" indeed. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:40, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose (Note: I am not an admin) in concurrence with nearly every other statement made in opposition. This seems to be devolving more towards "Fae is genderqueer, therefore any opposition to him or his actions is homophobic" (I've seen no evidence of it regarding the user being discussed) some poorly-thought out actions by DC (the public-domain Whois? lookup) used as a platform to stand a tower of BS on. St John Chrysostom view / my bias 14:12, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * What an astonishing conversation. For clarity. User:Ash, at a time when he was under scrutiny for his editing practices, starts claiming real life harassment and threats to his "family" as a consequence of his sexuality and involvement with wikipedia. He abandons the account for his "security." He immediately returns with a new account, and soon discloses his name, an odd decision for someone who felt they were under threat (that is, he formally and publicly attached his name to his editing here after he first complained he was at some kind of risk). His choice to publicly disclose his name has nothing to do with DC (or anyone else). That decision has made a variety of information about where he lives and so on publicly available to anyone who cares to look online. Following these disclosures and the resurrection of concerns about his editing here he, again, claims real life "threats." As in the first instance, there is no evidence for this (and the choice to make his full name unambiguously known was a strange one for someone actually afraid of some sort of retaliation). There is now a drumbeat to ban his chief scrutineer for... making his identity known and perhaps the disclosure of his address (which is, as i said, available to any competent internet user)? Just... fascinating.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:52, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm not acquainted with either of the parties involved and have no particular axe to grind in this, but it doesn't seem particularly odd to me. Somebody can be motivated by the desire to protect themselves, and simultaneously by the desire to interact openly with others. Reconciling those priorities is tricky and the balance can shift from day to day. The fact that somebody has two conflicting priorities complicates things, but it's hardly unusual or dishonest. Or as Whitman put it: "Do I contradict myself? Very well, then I contradict myself. I am large, I contain multitudes." --GenericBob (talk) 21:02, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Fluffernutter couldn't have said it better. Support community ban, even just posting the WHOIS details is in egregious violation of WP:OUTING. ~ Crazytales  (talk)  15:04, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Strongest support About time we did away with these enemies of the wiki. This man is absolutely against everything we stand for.  31.52.2.164 (talk) 15:15, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * strong meh. On one hand it's sort of a "get the messenger" attitude for something done off-wiki, and on the other hand, the community had it's chance to decline the whole Fae RfA thing knowing full well there were some questions in regards to previous ... ummm ... items.  The whole thing sort of smacks of hunting for ghosts in the closet to me, and looking for someone to hang a "guilty" sign on. — Ched :  ?  16:50, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The first "on one hand" doesn't stand up, I'm afraid, since it's long-standing policy that off-wiki privacy violations are sanctionable; per WP:OUTING, "As is the case with on-wiki harassment, off-wiki harassment can be grounds for blocking, and in extreme cases, banning. Off-wiki privacy violations shall be dealt with particularly severely." Whatever Fae is claimed to have done, that's pure wikipolitics - it has no effect on anything outside Wikipedia and negligible effect within. On the other hand, DC exposed Fae to real-world physical threats by posting his personal information. He has no business whatsoever being "the messenger" for the personal information of an individual who he knew was being subjected to real-world harassment. That's not about wikipolitics - it's common decency and common sense not to engage in that sort of conduct. Wikipedia's harassment policy is explicit about this issue. There is no dispute about what DC did or what the policy says. Prioryman (talk) 18:12, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I support the proposal to ban, I'd prefer an RfC to that question. Perhaps straight to ArbCom is even better. I wish to also ask who controlled dispatching the bot to canvass a rather large contingent of editors who did not know they would be drawn as a party to an outing at least one wishes he had not been requested to see. I came in to the RfC with serious reservations at the overt outing that was in progress. I'm rather sick of such glaring affronts that challenge unambiguously clear policy for sport while fracturing the community for allowing it to proceed as consensus. Is it possible that we could reach a consensus that outing is not a problem. Of course not, so discussion is rather moot. My76Strat (talk) 18:25, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Scott, Marek and Tarc. I'm not saying that DC's behavior was appropriate or not sanctionable (no opinion on that matter as for now), but I solidly reject the notion that an indef community ban or block is warranted. Swarm  X 18:31, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll concede that point Swarm. A ban would be over the top and I'll clarify that my larger frustration is that a block wasn't already in place. I could accept an indef block providing a strong acknowledgement and renunciation was requisite to an unblock. Recently I have seen our policy flouted as if impotent. Even currently. My76Strat (talk) 18:39, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose this proposal: I think indef might be too much. If someone was to make a counter-proposal that was a matter of weeks or months, I'd support that  Purpleback  pack  89  ≈≈≈≈  21:06, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Looking at the RfC and at the WR threads and at DC's conduct at and around both, it rapidly becomes clear that what is going on is nothing more than a campaign of harassment against Fae, dressed up as a reheated dispute about sourcing that has been dead for almost two years. Posting another editor's personal information, and repeatedly attempting to subject them to ridicule (or joining in with others ridiculing him)—regardless of motive (on which I will not speculate)—is not conduct that is conducive to building and maintaining an encyclopaedia. Until DC starts showing an interest in this encyclopaedia and drops this unhealthy obsession with one of its editors, I wholeheartedly endorse a block or community ban. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  21:46, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * Fae's position as the trustee and director of a charity mean that he is a person with a public role and is subject to scrutiny in relation to conduct linked to that role.
 * Given this charity promotes Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects, then his conduct on WP and Commons is part of what can be appropriately scrutinised.
 * WR is one of the natural places for that scrutiny to take place.
 * Fae's avoidance of the RFC/U on the Ash account via the not very clean start less than a year before he took up his role with WMUK falls within the scope of appropriate public scrutiny.
 * His refusal to admit that he is Ash sabotaged attempts at appropriate scrutiny.
 * DC only posted the evidence on WR that Fae is Ash because of that sabotage of the public scrutiny.
 * Appropriate public scrutiny off-Wikipedia is not appropriate evidence for a claim of harassment in relation to Wikipedia.
 * The degree of support for various statements critical of Fae in the CFC/U shows that there is prima facie evidence for consensus that Fae's actions on Wikipedia need scrutiny.
 * Given the consensus for scrutiny of Fae's history, then a claim that the creation of the RFC/U constitutes on-Wikipedia harassment is not substantiated.
 * And, BTW, I originally did not support Bali Ultimate and DC's actions against the Fae ID. This can be see in my first post on Bali's talk page regarding Fae and my subsequent participation in the AN/I thread where the two accounts were linked where I was non-committal. My subsequent belief that Fae is not an appropriate person to remain a trustee director of WMUK or to be an admin on any Wikimedia project is because of a combination of the public scrutiny on WR and my own investigation of his actions including both his contributions to WP and what I regard as misleading evidence that Fae gave to a Joint Committee of the UK parliament when representing WMUK.--Peter cohen (talk) 22:33, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Peter, you and others who defend DC's actions are trying to justify them on the basis of pure wikipolitics. Let's be absolutely clear about this. Posting a person's name, home address and phone number without consent is not acceptable under any circumstances. It is especially not acceptable if the person in question is facing real-world threats, which DC knew full well. Seriously, it's bordering on depravity to argue that petty politics on Wikipedia justifies putting someone at risk of real-world physical harassment and harm. That flies in the face of common decency and it is strictly prohibited by our existing policy on harassment. Prioryman (talk) 22:46, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Prioryman, can you please cut the rampant hypocrisy here (you and others who defend DC's actions are trying to justify them on the basis of pure wikipolitics) - your whole proposal here and your and some of the others' conduct in this whole thread is a textbook example of abusing "wikipolitics" to achieve an outcome - to get someone you have an axe to grind/grudge against indef banned - which simply cannot be justified on legitimate grounds. You've been wikilawyering aspects of this across multiple pages, making innuendoes and insinuations which don't add up to crap. Volunteer Marek 02:27, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * (ec) Peter, that comment is misguided. The "scrutiny" on WR is nothing but harassment, and isn't even dressed up as legitimate. It sickens me that people who claim to care about writing an encyclopaedia would bully and ridicule a man who has done nothing to them, and seemingly for nothing more than sadistic entertainment. As to your claim that WR is the appropriate place for any sort of scrutiny, how exactly is a website populated largely by users who have been banned as a result of their conduct an appropriate place to scrutinise the website from which those users have been banned? Finally, and most importantly, what Fae does when he is not editing Wikipedia (including volunteer work for a charity, even a Wikipedia-related one) is none of Wikipedia's business. Your opinions on his suitability to be a charity trustee re not appropriate in this forum, and should be raised with Fae, the WMUK board, or the Charity Commission. Now, if you want to hold an RfC based on Fae's recent actions on Wikipedia, please do, and know that I will do everything I can to facilitate constructive discussion in such a forum, but leave his non-Wikipedia (hat includes sister projects and chapter work) actions out of it. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  22:52, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * So, if you believe, that it is illegitimate to cite Fae's off-Wikipedia Wikipedia-related behaviour but have, in this same sub-topic, cited DC's off-WikipediaWikipedia-related behaviour. How many angels are on that pinhead?--Peter cohen (talk) 12:27, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * As to your claim that WR is the appropriate place for any sort of scrutiny, how exactly is a website populated largely by users who have been banned as a result of their conduct an appropriate place to scrutinise the website from which those users have been banned? - cut it out, that's just false. It's populated by all sort of people, from current admins, to ArbCom members to past and present WMF representatives. The only difference is that there you can speak without having to worry about everysingle of your words being scrutinized by bad faithed insano-s and professional battleground warriors, like Prioryman, looking for an excuse to get your ass banned. Well, actually that doesn't appear to be true either. Volunteer Marek 02:27, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Ban Prioryman, Russavia, and Shrigley for false accusations of homophobia and harrassment. Their claims of "harrassment" are insults to all editors who have been truly harrassed.  During the Cirt RfC, Jayen466 had to endure similar accusations, and Prioryman, unfortunately, was also involved in that situation.  Editors here need to understand that these kind of tactics are wrong, unnacceptable, and they should be held accountable for trying to use them to win a debate. Cla68 (talk) 22:47, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it's been a long standing principle underlying WP:NPA that any accusations of racism, homophobia and similar odious aspects (and they are very odious - which is exactly why they need to be taken very seriously) HAVE TO be backed up by serious evidence and diffs or else the person making them gets blocked. Back in the day when Sandstein was active on WP:AE this implicit policy actually brought some sanity to the proceedings. Anyone making bullshit accusations of that nature found themselves promptly sanctioned. Same rule should be followed here, especially since the personal attacks around this topic have been so obnoxiously egregious. Volunteer Marek 02:27, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If you want to ban me, please start a discussion, and I suggest a community ban discussion. Please note that I am familiar with the harassment that editors on WR have engaged in; being on Commons I was witness to the disgusting display at Fae's RfA there, and used my discretion as an admin to block one editor who I deemed to have been harassing Fae. As to evidence, I will not be supplying this to the peanut gallery, for reasons of privacy, respect, and policy (both here and on Commons. Y u no be Russavia ლ(ಠ益ಠლ) 07:34, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment Looks like there's a strong consensus to block...someone. The only question is, who? More seriously, if WR wants to promote scrutiny and accountability, fine, but those things should apply to WR itself. 169.231.52.186 (talk) 02:52, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong Support – This sort of harassment is something, I hope, that Wikipedia will not tolerate. I've seen absolutely nothing above which justifies what was done, and the precedent in policy for this community ban is clear. It doesn't matter that F&aelig; chose at one point to allow his registrar to publish the address and telephone number it required of him to register a domain (it especially doesn't matter since you have to buy a proxy service in order to avoid doing so). F&aelig; did not choose to publish that address and telephone number on Wikipedia or on Wikipedia Review. For someone else to do so is inexcusable especially considering F&aelig;'s stated he's been subject to off-line harassment. That doesn't automatically make Delicious Carbuncle an accomplice of that harassment, but it makes his judgment excrable. Please note that I take no notice here of accusations regarding his motivation or regarding F&aelig;'s (failed) attempt at a clean start; they are wholly irrelevant. &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">madman 02:58, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Please describe how you feel that your Bot was misused to inadvertently increase visibility of this contravening debacle and will you implement any changes to afford that future notifications by your Bot imply you have done a cursory review to ensure no misappropriation? My76Strat (talk) 03:49, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I would not say my bot was misused. I saw a routine request for message delivery at Bot requests/Archive 45, checked the referenced talk page (your "cursory review" exactly) at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/F&aelig;, it appeared that consensus had been reached, and I executed the request in a semi-automated fashion. This sort of message delivery is done all the time, though typically it's done using AWB; I took it as an opportunity to test a new framework I was writing. I will say that I meant for the configuration to use my account and not my bot account, but as the edits were flagged neither as bot edits nor minor edits, it did not seem like a big deal after the fact. And I was not aware of this AN/I thread if it existed at the time, nor was I aware of this incident (I haven't reviewed the RfC, but it doesn't seem relevant, regarding BLPs and improper citing, if I remember correctly). I hope that answers your questions. &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">madman 04:17, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes it does, and thank you very much for appending your thoughtful reply. Best regards - My76Strat (talk) 04:23, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Some 19 people have thus far endorsed the view that the RFC that DC started is part of a scheme of harassment (Requests_for_comment/Fæ) -- only 1 person has endorsed the view of DC at the RFC. That is saying something, and this needs to be taken into account. Y u no be Russavia ლ(ಠ益ಠლ) 07:38, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Madmen, My76Strat please note that over 35 people have so far endorsed the view that Ash quit under a cloud during (rather than, as he claimed "after") an RfC that was in progress, that at the time there were serious allegations regarding BLP sourcing issues (and BLP is something that Wikipedia takes very seriously - at least I hope so) in regard to his edits, and that if Ash and Fae are the same person then it was a big mistake on the part of the ArbCom to let him stand for RfA, and finally, that had he been straight up about his past, his RfA wouldn't have passed. This is the gist of DC's complaint and it seems that the vast majority at the RfC sees merit in it and supports it. And if it has merit it simply cannot be dismissed as "harassment", which here is being incorrectly used as "somebody I don't like pointed out that someone I like acted badly and broke the rules! How dare they!?!". Volunteer Marek 07:47, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * As I stated, that is wholly irrelevant in my opinion. Re-read my statement to see why. &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">madman 17:04, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Support per Fluffernutter. Absolutely nothing justifies posting an editor's home phone and address publicly. This is absolutely beyond the pale. T. Canens (talk) 19:25, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * So what happened to "blocks are not punitive"? DC admitted above (at 15:04, 29 January 2012) that posting the entire WHOIS record was a judgment error on his behalf, even in the presumably legitimate context of trying to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the link between two Wikipedia accounts who engaged in similarly disputed behavior. Furthermore, DC's error was quickly rectified. Is there a reason to believe he would repeat that kind of action? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 21:03, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * We have never had a rule that says bans are not punitive. T. Canens (talk) 21:18, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Bear in mind this isn't just an isolated incident; it's part of an ongoing and sustained campaign of harassment, that is itself part of a repeated and lengthy pattern of harassment of multiple editors. There's no reason to believe that he will desist from this behaviour, as it seems to be at the centre of what he does on/with Wikipedia. Banning DC is necessary for the protection of other editors, and it will send a signal that people who engage in such behaviour can't expect to remain members of this community. Prioryman (talk) 21:21, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid it's just your word against his that can be discussed on-wiki. Should you have "secret" evidence that is not allowed to be discussed on-wiki, please send it to ArbCom. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 21:53, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * There's a limit to what can be shared publicly, given the privacy concerns, as I'm sure you'll understand - but ArbCom are already aware of this and previous incidents. My purpose in bringing this here has been to give the community the opportunity to deal with it first. Given that it's a crystal clear example of an egregious, premeditated privacy violation, for which there's clear precedent for banning, it shouldn't be hard for us to agree on the solution. Prioryman (talk) 22:05, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Given that this is little different from the RfA itself, which was along the lines of "trust ArbCom, it has all the evidence and know best", I see little point in the community being asked to rubber stamp another decision made behind closed doors. ArbCom should just ban DC and get this over with. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 22:53, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment There is a sense in which what DC has been up to here is simply doing some "due diligence" on the community's behalf regarding a somewhat powerful representative of the community (since he speaks to parliamentary committees and all). Due diligence is never much prettier than sausage making, but you wouldn't want to buy a house without checking the crawlspaces for asbestos or raccoon poo. DC's approach certainly seems to have a aggressive element to it, but since Fae (& co.) do seem to be rather disposed towards hiding anything that remotely qualifies a dirty laundry, a non-aggressive approach probably would never work. While the good folks in the "hasten the day" party at WR might give me some grief for saying so, I do think it's probably better for WP in the long run if this sort of thing is done "in house", and if you're going to do it in house, you need people like DC who (for whatever reason) seem predisposed to do so. That's particularly true in this case because it's fairly well known that there will be an exposé in the (very much mainstream) press about Fae fairly soon. -- SB_Johnny &#124; talk 22:07, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Support per Fluffernutter. If Delicious Carbuncle had followed up their mistake in posting Fae's home phone number on Wikipedia Review by quietly dropping the case then I'd have been inclined to accept it as yet another reason why Wikipedia Review is to be avoided. But running an RFC on a gay editor whilst simultaneously campaigning against them on a site that allows Homophobia, and doing so after you've posted their phone number seems to me in breach of our policies on Outing and Canvassing.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  22:16, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Peter cohen. Well said, Peter. As an observation, in this discussion editors are using the word "homophobia" to draw fire away from Fae and back at Delicious Carbuncle. Homophobia is not the motivation behind Fae's user RFC.  Them From  Space  04:13, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm seeing a lot of attempts here to distract attention away from the main issue here. Forget about the RFC. There are three key facts here, none of which are under dispute: the privacy violation happened, it was not accidental and it was done in the full knowledge that Fae was under off-wiki threat at the time. Wikipedia's harassment policy does not recognise any justifications for privacy violations. For those tempted to excuse what DC has done, ask yourself this: if you were being harassed by someone off-wiki, would you be happy if someone posted your name, home address and phone number to a forum whose participants have a history of harassing people? Prioryman (talk) 05:50, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose: DC was acting in response to Fae covering up his previous account at Ash. The Ash account having come under scrutiny for bad conduct. DC should be reprimanded for his methods, but ban/block is a drastic overreaction. – Lionel (talk) 06:23, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose ban on balance, block is superfluous now. This is a tough one, especially given Fluffermutter's persuasive rationale. That the two accounts are linked seems proven beyond reasonable doubt using strictly on-wiki and chapter links, by information that an editor chose to voluntarily disclose in public fora. That the editor left under a cloud (open RFC/U) is apparent, and RTV covers those eventualities. Now it seems that a vanished editor has returned and obtained adminship, and has now returned to the problematic areas which formed the original cloud - thus, the vanishment is now moot, and the premise for granting adminship is legitimately called into question. I also accept that at the time of disclosure, personally identifying information was available from a simple WHOIS report. That is all public information, but there are two possibly aggravatig factors left. The first is the tenor of the site where the data was made available and the tendency of that site to enable homophobia - and whether DC intended to promote a hostile attitude based on homphobia, as opposed to just disliking an editor. I think that WR is vastly improved from a few years ago, but I'm still not a fan and like any forum, no individual contributor there is representative of all the others. I've seen no indication that DC has pursued this case as part of a general homophobic attitude. Much more important is the issue of disclosure of private information, namely the domain name used in an email address, which led to publicly available personal information. If this address was obtained through deceptive means, that is a huge problem. If it was obtained through use of the MediaWiki Special:EmailUser interface, well, I believe all the disclaimers are in place. I would personally hold in strict confidence the content of any email I personally receive through the interface, but I do accept that anytime I send an email, those contents are beyond my control. If anything, we should change the interface for entering your email address to ask you "are you that fucking stupid?" when people decide to use an identifying email address. For me, this is not much different than registering with one's real name. I frown on thia, and can't readily envision a situation where I would publicly disclose informationm I received privately myself - but it was information entered on a website which does clearly state that your email address will be revealed, wasn't it? Franamax (talk) 07:01, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Regarding visibility of the email address, I just did a Google search for Ashley Van Haeften and the email address appeared in the snippet view of the 7th result. So, that's fairly public. I guess Whois was a more reliable source than that genealogy site for connecting the domain name with Ashley. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:40, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid you've missed a key point that I emphasised in my original post. At the time that he posted Fae's home address and phone number, DC was fully aware, and had acknowledged only 20 minutes earlier, that Fae was being threatened off-wiki. DC's posting delivered Fae's physical location up to the harasser. That's what makes this incident so egregious - the absolute disregard DC showed for Fae's physical safety. This was not just an intrusion - he put someone in physical danger for the sake of some petty wikipolitics. Could you address that issue, please? Prioryman (talk) 08:08, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * What's the saying about "never ascribe to malice what can be explained by stupidity"? I agree it was a serious error. However I can understand the thought process that if the information is available with a single click anyway, it makes no difference ro reproduce it (which betrays a flawed understanding of how web crawling and archiving works). Myself, I would contact the other person privately and ask if they were sure they wanted that information public, but I don't have a WR account either. Franamax (talk) 21:03, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * How can it be an "error" if he had to go out and search for this information in the first place? It wasn't disclosed to him. I'm frankly irritated by the way some people seem to be describing this as an "error" or "mistake". It was nothing of the sort. It was a premeditated act. He went out looking for this information, found it and posted it. That was entirely intentional. He's described it as an "oversight" but that's merely a justification for an unjustifiable act. Prioryman (talk) 21:11, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Support: even if the intentions are good, even if the information is available off-wiki, these are no excuses for outing; the policy is pretty explicit on this. There is no recourse for someone who chooses to publish such information, especially if they are cognizant of the fact it may facilitate homophobic/transphobic harassment. Sceptre (talk) 12:01, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * However the "outing" (i.e. revealing the real name) was done by the person themself, on the website of an offical WMF chapter, so to say the information is off-wiki is not necessarily true. It's a grey area at best. That's distinct from revealing the address information, which I address just above. Franamax (talk) 21:07, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose of ban/block. There is no direct evidence of harrassment, as confused with trying to show that a person is socking as 2 different WP usernames (Ash/Fae) and perhaps lying that those usernames are not the same person. I did not see enough evidence of harrassment for "homophobic" whatever, and the link to a comment of "You're gonna burn in this world and the next" (on his talk-page: oldid=473666355) does not mean "homophobic" because fires of Hell could be for extreme cases of lying or "bearing false witness". More evidence would be needed to prove malicious intent. -Wikid77 (talk) 16:32, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Delicious Carbuncle proposal two
It seems like there's not a consensus for the indeff block, though there is consensus that DC has engaged in wrong-doing. Therefore, I'll counterpropose a one-month block and an interaction ban with Fae and other related editors  Purpleback pack  89  ≈≈≈≈  22:58, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Question: You are proposing a one-month block for Prioryman, right?  I would support that, because to try to divert attention from the Fae RfC by using an ad hominem attack against DC is beneath contempt and should not be tolerated.  Remember, the same thing was attempted against Jayen466 during the Cirt RfC. Cla68 (talk) 23:07, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * As you know perfectly well, I'm not involved in any capacity in the RfC. Jayen466 participated in one of DC's campaigns of harassment and it's regrettable that the Arbcom didn't deal with DC at the time; I felt then that unless he was reined in he would continue and escalate, as has in fact happened. The problem is that DC is a serial harasser; he mounts lengthy campaigns against other editors, rabble-rousing on WR for months on end. This privacy violation is just the latest of a series of problems with this editor. His main contribution to Wikipedia is a steady stream of poison and bile against other editors, turning people against each other and wearing down his targets. For him, everything is a WP:BATTLEGROUND. We do not need someone like this in the community, which is why I proposed a ban. A one month block is nothing more than a wrist-slap for an egregious and wilful privacy violation from an individual who has a history of destructive and reckless behaviour. Wikipedia's harassment policy is explicit that violations of this sort will be dealt with "particularly severely" (WP:OUTING). If this is not dealt with permanently there'll be more AN/I threads in six months or a year's time about yet another victim of his campaigns. Prioryman (talk) 23:16, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * (ec)I'm focusing on DC at the moment...but since Prioryman can't get along with DC, he should be included with "other related editors" and interaction-banned with DC. And Prioryman, the reason I suggested a one-month block is that there doesn't seem to be consensus for something stronger  Purpleback  pack  89  ≈≈≈≈  23:18, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't have any dealings with DC. However, he has involved himself unilaterally in my affairs on a number of occasions, so I would welcome an interaction ban with him, as I certainly don't have any wish to have him anywhere near me. I appreciate where you're coming from - my concern is that a weak sanction would be little more use than no sanction at all. It would have to be far longer than a mere four weeks to have any significant effect. A year, perhaps. Prioryman (talk) 23:22, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Prioryman, do you know what a logical fallacy is? Also, have you ever attempted to use the "clean start" process yourself? Cla68 (talk) 23:50, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Support one month block for Prioryman. The personal attacks and battleground behavior alone justify it, if not more. I do think that an interaction ban between Fae and DC is within the realm of "reasonable" so if someone proposes that separately I might support (I would actually like to hear from Fae himself on such a proposal). Volunteer Marek 02:32, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Support one-month block and interaction ban on DCarbuncle vis a vis Fae pending RfC St John Chrysostom view / my bias 21:23, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Misleading statements and suppression of evidence

 * , in rebuttal of Prioryman's statement above, earlier posted (and edit warred over):


 * Total rubbish. All the information is available without any nefarious access to caches etc. Simple google ... and the first entry on the first page is ... All done without knowing the domain name in advance, or using any information that isn't public and well-known. -27.100.16.185 (talk) 11:50 am, Today (UTC−5)

As the search term that was in the first (...) wasn't terribly obvious, I can understand redacting the information. However, to characterize the edit as vandalism or harassment is disingenuous at best. Totally removing evidence relative to the discussion of a possible ban of an editor, and not being precisely honest about the content of the redaction, is irresponsible. It also turns the discussion into a kangaroo court yet another WIki-22: if an editor states DC didn't reveal information that wasn't readily available, the statement is dismissed as not verifiable; if an editor demonstrates that it is readily available, it's revdel'd and the editor is blocked. Nobody Ent 19:45, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Interaction ban proposal
As someone who has seen good work from DC and Fae in the past, this seems like a ridiculous circus. I did some reading on the back history last night, and it is clear that this conflict has gone on for a very long time, and while it came out of two editors both trying to to the right thing, rapidly became one seeking sanctions against the other, and the resulting arguments being interpreted as personal attacks on both sides, and so on and so forht in the usual pattern. Therefore I propose:

Delicious Carbuncle and Fae indefinitely prohibited from interacting.

I feel this would be a considerable benefit to the project. Rich Farmbrough, 17:45, 30 January 2012 (UTC). 17:45, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Support - Speaking from personal experience, I can tell you that interaction bans do work - provided they are fully embraced and honored. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:46, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Hopefully this won't be necessary after the conclusion of the RfC/U, and instituting the interaction ban before is detrimental to normal WP:DR processes. I for one would like to see first what ArbCom decides in a similar case where a Wikipedia editor has decided to investigate the identity of another. In the honored ArbCom tradition, Arbitration/Requests/Case/TimidGuy ban appeal/Proposed decision keeps getting postponed. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 22:02, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * In the TimidGuy case, which involves me, there was no investigation and no outing information was posted publicly.   Will Beback    talk    22:37, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I stand corrected. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 22:59, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * That's a good point (about the DR process) but I can't see these editors kissing and making up. ArbCom is not supposed to set precedent, although it seems nobody uses them for anything else much. Rich Farmbrough, 22:16, 30 January 2012 (UTC).


 * Given that they sometimes pass principles which are not obviously found anywhere in Wikipedia policies, this is certainly one of their powers in practice. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 22:20, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I do not like the very concept of the wikipedia "interaction ban", and will always oppose these things when the call comes. Tarc (talk) 22:40, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose - this is just the end of the proposal line - indef - no support - three months then - no support - a week then - no support - what about an interaction ban then.. I support interaction bans only if the users clearly need to be kept apart, which doesn't seem the case here, or if one of the users or both are requesting it themselves as a last resort, which also doesn't seem the case here. -    You  really  can  22:44, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose until the RFC is over. This feels like "silence the critic" more than "lets protect the project and its editors" --Guerillero &#124; My Talk  05:40, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Support: High time, too  Purpleback pack  89  ≈≈≈≈  05:50, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Conditionally support interaction ban as proposed, pending outcome of RfC. St John Chrysostom view / my bias 21:26, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Personal information about User:Fæ
Could people please refrain from publishing methods or results of their exploratory searches to find personal information about me? If you try hard enough you can find my Mother's home address, her email, her phone number and her photograph. Proving you or others are smart enough to find details about my personal life is not the point being made here, the question is how such information is used. Extended internet searching and minor detective work can find a wealth of personal and professional information about me, as demonstrated by an old copy of my CV being used for public ridicule in yet another Wikipedia Review discussion that Delicious carbuncle has created about me. This does not make it right to deliberately re-publish these details immediately after seeing a threat against me in a forum that you know that the person making the threat (based on timing and choice of name) must be following. Even worse is to then republish the full details of the threats as part of the same ridicule.

You all know that me and my husband are being harassed with homophobic attacks, evidence from our own Wikimedia projects of this happening has been put forward of this by others. In my opinion anyone using ANI to provide an effective cook book of "how to intimidate User:Fæ" is crossing the line.

Please be aware of the fact that repeated Google searches, and then viewing the related websites, increase the ranking of this personal information, so statements about what appears where on the first page of a Google search become a self-fulfilling prophesy.

Thank you. --Fæ (talk) 12:05, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Request to un-archive

 * Request to un-archive The summary misrepresents my request for avoiding the creation of an effective cook book of intimidation. There is no need to repeat the content of threats or repeat outing information on ANI in order to have such a discussion. Fæ (talk) 12:59, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Any misrepresentation was unintentional; I have changed my summary to a direct quote. Nobody Ent 13:04, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. --Fæ (talk) 13:08, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Request to un-archive The discussion can be held without requiring repeated evidence of how "easy" the personal information is to get hold of. This was never the issue as precisely made clear in my request above "Personal information about User:Fæ". To close down community discussion based on that same request is excessive. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 13:08, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - Fæ, I have urged you to follow dispute resolution processes if you feel that I am harassing you, a narrative you started as User:Ash. Although it is specifically prohibited in WP:NPA, you appear to have no qualms about making unsubstantiated allegations. Please file an RFC/U so that I may defend myself. It is clear that many in the community would support you, even if there is no appetite for a ban at the moment. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:15, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I do not believe I have made any unsubstantiated allegations against you since my clean start 21 months ago. In particular I have never claimed you are homophobic. Please provide a few diffs if I am mistaken. Anyone who reviews my contributions can confirm that I have actually taken care to avoid interaction with you. Being forced to reply here is a rare exception. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 14:47, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You must have a very selective memory then, Fæ. Have you forgotten this:"How strange to see Delicious carbuncle and Bali ultimate turn up so promptly here and turning this thread to be all about me and about Commons; particularly considering both these accounts have a history of blocks on Commons for harassing me there"? You made that comment here on ANI last week in a discussion started by Baseball Bugs because of comments that you made about someone with whom you had a dispute on Commons. Speaking of Commons, do you recall this thread that you started on the administrator's board to attack me there? Or the comments you made in your failed Commons RfA? Your inability to represent the situation accurately continues unabated, it seems. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:13, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I was referring to Wikipedia. You were blocked on Commons for your harassment there, so that hardly seems to be "unsubstantiated", I think most readers would consider receiving a block for intimidation and harassment being "substantiated". Thanks Fæ (talk) 15:19, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, you do appear to want to compartmentalize your actions while making every effort to conflate my actions wherever they may occur. I was not blocked on Commons for "intimidation and harassment", I was blocked for connecting your prior account -- User:Ash -- with your current account during a discussion about unwarranted revdeletions made to contributions by User:Bali ultimate. I was unblocked very quickly by the blocking admin. As has already been pointed out by others, you self-identified on Commons using both your old and new accounts, so the entire episode is puzzling, to say the least. When I say "unsubstantiated allegations", it is precisely the type of misleading and demonstrably false statement you have just made. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:31, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Given the way commons is run, getting blocked there is almost a badge of honor. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:33, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, then I misunderstood the reason for your block on Commons. As a personal request, could you please explain what you would find an acceptable outcome here to cease creating any more threads about me off-wiki where people are posting my professional details and that of my civil parter while making allegations that appear to be of adultery, paedophilia, fraud and repeating the details of threats against me made elsewhere? I am sure you have no deliberate intention of harassing me, but these seem to be the facts of what is happening based on my reading of the material. My question is genuine as I am frightened and could do with your help to make this end. --Fæ (talk) 15:57, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The reason I was blocked is that I raised issues that they didn't want to address. As for you and DC, you need to leave each other alone. At present I'm not very impressed by either of you. He should probably be suspended for outing. Also, you need to resign your adminships, but that's another story. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:03, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * My question was for Delicious carbuncle, sorry if the indenting was confusing. --Fæ (talk) 16:06, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Understood. And my (revised) comment above still stands. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:08, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Baseball Bugs, please do not do your usual ANI routine here, in recognition of the seriousness of the matters being discussed. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:27, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Posting one's own personal information on the internet is foolish. Posting someone else's is evil. And admins who hide their past to gain adminship shouldn't be admins. Any further questions? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:31, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Two questions, actually. First question - is re-posting someone's information that has already foolishly been posted on the internet by that person foolish, evil, or something else? Second question - do you have any self-control whatsoever? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:48, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is evil. The good thing would be to gently caution someone against posting their personal info. Spreading it around is evil. And, yes, I have a great deal of self-control. How's about you? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:51, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Fæ, I hope you will understand why, after countless accusations of harassment from both Ash and your current account, I doubt the sincerity of your statement "I am sure you have no deliberate intention of harassing me". If you or your partner are being harassed in real life in any way, I suggest you contact the police with the details. If it needs to be said, I do not condone this. As far as Wikipedia Review goes, I do not speak for them in any way, shape, or form and have no control over what happens there, any more than I have over what happens here. If you find specific threads or posts to be threatening, I suggest you contact one of the WR moderators, who have the power to delete threads or remove them from public view. I do not believe that there are any serious allegations of adultery, fraud, or paedophilia to be found there. I would ask you to post links to the specific charges, but I know you will not. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:23, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Reply on the RFC/U talk page. --Fæ (talk) 16:43, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Fae interaction DC and, as documented Requests_for_comment/Fæ, Fae did not make a clean start. Nobody Ent 15:37, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I also object in the strongest possible terms to this closure. The closer has completely misrepresented the case against DC. Where DC got the information from is a side issue. The central issue is that he posted Fae's personal information to advance a political dispute, putting Fae's physical safety at risk. That is blatant, egregious harassment for which there is no possible justification. Plenty of editors have understood this and have said so here. How is it possible for anyone to ignore the fact that this sort of thing is completely prohibited? The community should be allowed to have its say. Prioryman (talk) 15:55, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Any misrepresentation was unintentional; I have again changed my summary to a direct quote. Nobody Ent 16:07, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Having considered this further, I've unarchived the discussion. You are not an administrator and your closure has no force as an administrative action. As a participant in the discussion, who has expressed a point of view in the discussion, it is inappropriate for you or any other involved party to close the discussion. I've restored the status quo ante to allow the discussion to continue until such time as an uninvolved party decides to resolve it one way or another. Your closure was made on the basis of two fundamentally wrong claims. First, it is not a "claim" that DC posted Fae's home name and phone number - it is undisputed fact, admitted by DC. Second, you said that "any reasonable defense against such a claim involves demonstrations of relative ease of finding said information off-wiki". Harassment allows for no justification whatsoever for such acts: "Posting such information about another editor is an unjustifiable and uninvited invasion of privacy." Nor does it allow a defence of "the information was out there anyway": "The fact that a person either has posted personal information or edits under their own name, making them easily identifiable through online searches, is not an excuse for "opposition research"." Those qualifiers are there for a reason - posting personal information is not allowed, period. If a serious privacy invasion has happened then, by policy, no justification or defence is possible (that is what "unjustifiable" means) - the only thing to discuss is what sanction should be brought. In short, you have completely misstated long-standing policy as the basis of your non-administrative decision, and it therefore has no force nor basis in policy. Prioryman (talk) 20:17, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I think the archival was premature; not all the proposals had been thoroughly considered  Purpleback pack  89  ≈≈≈≈  16:51, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Just as an FYI, per WP:CBAN, community ban discussions should be closed by an "uninvolved administrator". Nobody Ent shouldn't have closed it no matter what the outcome of the discussion might have been. --  At am a  頭 22:22, 31 January 2012 (UTC)