Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive382

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Reverts and page protection at bot approval page 2 User:Pixelface: Disruptive & Pointy 2.1 Probation - time for this, to stop the troublemakers? 2.2 In other news... 3 Probable abuse by Jersyko (talk · contribs) 4 WP:OWN -- User:Ultramarine continuing to edit war despite the repeated protests of muiltiple editors on multiple pages. 4.1 Personal Attacks on the State Terrorism Discussion Page 4.2 Sockpuppetry by Stone put to sky 5 Goth and Throbb99 again 6 Reporting Niranjandeshmukh. 7 Irredentism 7.1 Dacy69 8 User:BruceGrubb 9 Asia (band) 10 Off by one error on this page 11 Vandalism to Sonic The Hedgehog related articles. 12 OverlordQBot keeps reverting sandbox 13 User:SirLogic 14 IP Blanking their talk page 15 Anti-Americanism 16 IP vandal blanking posts by TenOfAllTrades 17 Community ban for indef blocked editor who is now resorting to off-wiki harassment 18 Spaming third party sites on policy or guideline pages 19 User:Igorberger (Personal Attacks) 20 Possible topic ban 21 IP addresses continually re-add blog link 22 Long-term vandalism with suspected sockpuppetry (3rd posting) 23 Dynamic IP vandal 24 User:RichardDawkins 25 User:Patkirkwoood 26 Complex case: Israel lobby in the United States 26.1 Regarding checkuser 27 Image:AnonymousDemotivator.jpg 28 User: 86.151.43.75/86.153.140.88 29 Stalk 30 Please review indef on SnoBladerCAN 31 Persistent problem not being dealt with after many, many weeks of edit-warring. Somebody Help!! 32 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emerald Coast Beer Company 33 Karimchik (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) 34 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prussian Blue (duo) 35 Incivility, trolling by User:Ireneshusband 36 User:Igorberger 36.1 break 1 36.2 break 2 36.3 break 3 36.4 Break 4 36.5 Break 5 36.6 Result 36.7 The actual result

[edit] Reverts and page protection at bot approval page

Ok, I'm closing this... What about spending this time writing some fair use rationales? -- lucasbfr ^talk 21:38, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Reflexively: articles? I heard of them. El_C 00:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• I agree with the closure of this thread (Hammersoft was dragging it off-topic), but for the record would like to point out new evidence that has emerged that I think is relevant to this - namely that there was off-wiki discussion to force this bot request through as quickly as possible: "I had conducted a lot of private discussion to line things up [...] In an attempt to actually improve the encyclopedia Prior discussion with all involved parties, from me, BAG, and the Bcrat were conducted. Bot clones are normally processed fairly quickly. this was forced through to avoid trolls." - Betacommand [1]. I still support the bot, but I still object to this blatant abuse of process and use of off-wiki discussion in an attempt to avoid on-wiki discussion. If, in light of this, anyone wishes to reopen this thread, or start a new one, please feel free to do so. I have also used this diff at the Betacommand request for arbitration. Carcharoth (talk) 09:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Pixelface: Disruptive & Pointy

Pixelface (talk · contribs) has been making a raft of disruptive and pointy edits. Apparently unhappy with the ongoing debate about fictional topics, he has decided to make a passive-agressive demonstration of this unhappiness by slapping a merge tag on every single one of the articles we have on Symphonies by Joseph Haydn. He then informed three "involved" editors of what he had done and peevishly suggested I might be canvassing when I put up notices at the relevant projects (Classical music and Composers). Needless to say, the merge proposal has been unanimously rejected. But I would ask an admin to consider a block against User:Pixelface for this point-laden disruption. And I would also ask that he be encouraged to rollback the 60 or so merge tags he has needlessly slathered across the articles in question. Finally, I would ask whether this kind of behaviour violates the spirit of the recent arbcom ruling. Eusebeus (talk) 15:17, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

How about you let the merge discussion take a few days? --Pixelface (talk) 15:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

And I actually notified 6 of the editors who have edited those articles of the merge discussion[5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] --Pixelface (talk) 15:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• I can't say I'm especially surprised, given the vehemence of Pixelface's opposition to removal of spoiler warnings, and I would entirely agree that this is an egregious violation of WP:POINT. I'd suggest that Pixelface has a nice cup of tea and a sit down. Guy (Help!) 15:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

It is content dispute. There is nothing to flag in administrator's noticeboard. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:51, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• • First, no, there is something to flag for WP:AN to take a look at, and I have to agree with Guy, Pixelface, please throttle back a bit, it's obvious to all that you have been frustrated with the way the episodes and characters discussions have been going over the last few months, and this is a clear-cut violation of WP:POINT. SirFozzie (talk) 15:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Yep, WP:POINT is a good reason to come to ANI. Pixelface can stop wasting other editors' time. I'd suggest it would be better to end this non-debate now and "rollback the 60 or so merge tags he has needlessly slathered across the articles in question". --Folantin (talk) 15:56, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to discuss the merge on the talk page. If the articles are merged they can't be {{prod}}ed into oblivion. --Pixelface (talk) 15:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Well now, a POINT on top of the POINT, Pixelface, I'll say it again, you need to calm down here. SirFozzie (talk) 16:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I've wasted a good 10 minutes of my life rolling back Pixelface's edits. This is the problem with pointy actions - someone else always winds up clearing up the shit. He does that again and a block is completely in order. Moreschi (talk) 16:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Why did you roll them back? --Pixelface (talk) 16:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Because consensus believes they're disruptive, bad-faith efforts to make a WP:POINT? SirFozzie (talk) 16:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

In fact, because they were disruptive, bad-faith efforts to make a point. Do not revert me: you will be blocked. Moreschi (talk) 16:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I didn't propose to merge those articles out of bad faith. Do you think the articles Symphony No. 57 (Haydn), Symphony No. 66 (Haydn), Symphony No. 67 (Haydn), Symphony No. 68 (Haydn), Symphony No. 71 (Haydn), Symphony No. 72 (Haydn), Symphony No. 75 (Haydn), Symphony No. 77 (Haydn), Symphony No. 78 (Haydn), Symphony No. 79 (Haydn), and Symphony No. 81 (Haydn) comply with WP:N? --Pixelface (talk) 16:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I do. People have written in reliable sources about Haydn's symphonies, as individual symphonies as well as a collective. No, they are not analagous to character articles that get deleted or episode articles that get redirected. Moreschi (talk) 16:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Citation needed. Catchpole (talk) 16:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The articles don't show that. A merge discussion is a valid course of action. --Pixelface (talk) 16:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I have already pointed on Pixelface's talk page and elsewhere the sources for Haydn symphonies and why they were likely to be considered notable. Moreover, Pixelface selected Haydn symphonies because, in perusing my contribution record, he noticed that I had authorship of several of these articles. If I had instead been working on Mozart Piano Sonatas, they would no doubt have been the target of Pixel's merge suggestion. This IS a bad faith nomination and as pointy as they come. How is a block not in order, particularly after having wasted people's time in this childish display and subsequent churlish reaction? Also, I think this is a violation of the arbcom ruling, insofar as it seeks to inflame through a disruptive and point-ridden counter-demonstration. Eusebeus (talk) 16:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[ecx2] Pixelface, when you are in a hole, it's best to stop digging. The music of Haydn is a subject of musical scholarship and has been for a long time, with musicologists debating similarities and contrasts between individual works and between Haydn's individual works and those of Beethoven and others. There are whole books on the subject of the classical symphony which include lengthy treatments of each. But that is beside the point: what you did was quite clearly a violation in spirit and intent of the temporary injunction in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2. The correct response when called on it is not defiance. Guy (Help!) 16:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Would the similarities and contrasts be more clear to the reader in one article or spread out over 104 articles? --Pixelface (talk) 16:56, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Separately, for the most part, as each has its own distinct influences. And do remember that we don't have articles on all of them. If we restricted ourselves in every case to subjects which have substantial coverage in reliable independent sources then we'd lose probably none of the Haydn symphonies and almost all episodes of the majority of TV series. Guy (Help!) 17:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

"we'd lose probably none of the Haydn symphonies and almost all episodes of the majority of TV series."

The ultimate aim, I think, of this crowd. And next comes the works of short fiction by Poe and Twain that don't assert notability on their own, and then the species that don't speak for themselves, and then the Biblical and religious figures... Lawrence § t/e 17:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

{{fact}}. As far as I can tell it's about removing content written form personal observation of primary sources rather than being drawn form reliable independent secondary sources. I find it hard to believe that we will ever actually need an article on each episode of Powerpuff Girls, since each episode has no independent cultural significance. Guy (Help!) 17:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

<out> And thinking about it, Pixel's statement, The articles don't show that. A merge discussion is a valid course of action. is the very defintition of pointiness. But at the same time, he's exactly right -- they DON'T show that they are notable, especially in light of the fact that the /very same arguments/ are constantly being used on many articles, but a lot of people dismiss them for the fact they are fiction. I said it before, I like having articles on Haydn symhponies and I'm sure plenty of RSs can be found...but just because I know that, doesn't mean that others do. The exact same logic can be applied in reverse. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 17:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I must confess to puzzlement at what exactly Pixel was arguing for and how he thought WP:Music justified the merger. Also what he was arguing for seemed to me to shift quite rapidly with no suggestion of his withdrawing his proposal until he had rethought things fully. My reaction was to WP:AGF, but I do fing WP:POINT helps explain a lot, especially his demand to keep things open when so many editors have piled in against.--Peter cohen (talk) 17:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:MUSIC does not mention symphonies, but it does mention songs. I asked about symphonies on WT:MUSIC and the reply I got was notability is not inherited. Many of the articles still fail WP:N — so a merge discussion is perfectly acceptable. I assume so many editors expressed their opposition because I notified several editors who had worked on the articles. And someone else notified a WikiProject (which is often considered canvassing). If WikiProject Notability had been contacted, I predict the merge discussion would have been much different. The merge discussion is open to all editors, not just members of WikiProjects. --Pixelface (talk) 18:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

What you got was the opinion of one editor - something different from the guideline itself. All the 104 numbered symphonies have been recorded by Antal Dorati - the notable former chief conductor/music director of several notable orchestras who was rewarded a knighthood -and by Adam Fischer the notable winner of a major classical music award. So they would meet the WP:MUSIC song heading under that criterion. In any case the whole guideline shows Systemic bias in talking about songs and albums in assuming a world that post-dates the invention of the LP. It is therefore inappropriate to not only the Western classical tradition but the classical traditions of the resst of the world and other musical genres invented before selling discs of plastic was the primary aim of thousands of musicians until people remove the bias.--Peter cohen (talk) 20:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Probation - time for this, to stop the troublemakers?

These constant disruptions in relation to these fiction articles are getting just absurd now. How about we put a general probation on all these users barring them from doing these things? If they're here for wikipedia and not their own aims they'll find other things to contribute with and to. It's a big encyclopedia. There has to be some way to leash these disruptive actions. All these various warriors on all these various and frankly stupid little agendas are wasting our collective time. It's time we just starting putting our collective feet down much, much faster on this crap. The AC is too slow and unwieldy an avenue to deal with this in an agile enough manner for the community Lawrence § t/e 16:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

You see, this is the problem. Everyone's attacking TTN for his wholesale merges, but when it comes to this where it actually is undeniably disruption, people pussyfoot around. If Pixelface disrupts Wikipedia one more time this month, he should be banned - too much drama (this is, I think, the third time in two weeks where he's been on AN) Will ^(talk) 16:49, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Definitely, if we go in that direction going forward, at least Pixelface, who seems to have a long history with this kind of thing, (the Spoiler wars, the episode/characters battles that led to TWO ArbCom cases, and now this..) needs to be under any such terms. SirFozzie (talk) 16:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I didn't edit war over spoiler warnings and I wasn't an involved party in the first episodes and characters case. I discussed both of those things. Is that the "long history" you're referring to? --Pixelface (talk) 17:07, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm advocating a hard probation for Pixelface, and for the community to tell EVERYONE that does these widescale things with aggressive force to "STFU", as some may say. We dick around for too long and far too tolerantly of this sort of thing--that goes for all the aggressive parties in the spoiler wars, the merge wars, whatever wars. We don't need small groups running around telling us they know what is best for us--they can do that, but if they don't get traction, and then force the issue, we should bluntly tell them to stop disrupting. Do we need these stupid pointless discussions every 72-96 hours for the same usual suspects again and again and again? TTN, Pixelface, homeopathy, Betacommand, all of them--it's time to just put the foot down. Lawrence § t/e 16:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Um, the times I've appeared at ANI, I asked about the mass removal of templates that was discussed off Wikipedia on the mailing list. Then I was brought here by Corvus cornix who falsely said I was reverting all of TTN's edits. Then Nandesuka brought me here after I removed a prod tag from an article while I was tired. And now I'm here because I made a merge proposal for articles that didn't assert their notability. To see my name mentioned along with TTN and Betacommand is ridiculous. --Pixelface (talk) 17:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Hear hear, Lawrence. Will ^(talk) 17:04, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I'm very wrong, but it sounds like your saying that fiction article editors don't belong here because they happen to have that as their interest. That's elitism in its purest form, and is just as bad as what Pixel is doing. And it's not like all of us who enjoy fiction stuff ONLY care about that. I'm listening to Bloch's Suite Hébraïque right now (there's something that could use an article, it's got a decent number of recordings as far as viola and orchestra pieces go, along with the Jewish influence), but yet on Sunday after I watched it, I went right to Play it Again, Brian to check out what people had to say about a couple things. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 16:51, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think anyone has suggested anything remotely like that. Eusebeus (talk) 16:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

general probation on all these users is a very broad term that can be interpreted as all fiction editors. That's how it appeared when I first read it. May not be how it was intended.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd start with everyone that was in the RFAR. We can take more firm measures than the AC if we want to. We don't need their OK to supercede their previous decisions or alter it's aims. Lawrence § t/e 17:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

That's absolutely NOT what I said. I'm specifically saying that these same groups of people that keep showing up here, in pointless and fruitless discusions, again and again, for trying to force THEIR limited views on others of what Wikipedia should be, should be locked down to protect us. If they can't get their way, crap like we're seeing here is either the equivalent of childish and immature pouting--do we need that? Or, worse, if they continue negative behaviors that they've been chided for by the community and can't seem to stop, they can be made to stop. We have far too much patience for things like this. It's time that stopped. Lawrence § t/e 17:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The problem is when the editors within a walled garden refuse to engage with editors outside of that walled garden, and refuse to accept anything other than 100% compliance with their POV. The fiction editors in particular seem to have entirely forgotten that Wikipedia is supposed to be a tertiary source and that notability is not inherited; most of the articles on episodes and characters are laden down with unfree images, comprised almost entirely of personal observations from the primary sources, lack any reliable independent sources at all, and rely for their supposed significance on the fact that the parent series has an article. It's been a source of conflict for a long time, but we've solved similar problems before with Pokémon and by helping to transwiki excessively detailed fancruft to more appropriate places. Guy (Help!) 17:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

You solved the Pokémon problem? Better tell Bulbasaur.Kww (talk) 20:43, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

And that's the RIGHT way to fix things like this--collaboration, agreement. If one side doesn't like the way things are heading, get support to change policy outright. Forcing your way down others' throats as everyone seems to be trying with the fiction stuff is the wrong way, as it was the wrong way with the spoiler templates. Breeds ill will if not outright anger, and empowers other fools to think they can get their way by being loudest. We need to cut all that off by the balls. Lawrence § t/e 17:04, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• It is good for editors to work in multiple subject areas and to try multiple perspectives because this encourages consensus-building. In other words, walking in someone else's shoes. I, for example, am usually an inclusionist but lately have been trying the opposite position and tomorrow I plan to take the article Dude to AFD for being no more than an extended dictionary definition. In the case in question, Pixelface's motives are naturally suspect but we ought to AGF and look first at the merits of the proposal. It does not seem obvious to me that lots of stubby articles on Hadyn symphonies are the best way of treating that topic and there is merit in challenging the current treatment. I've noticed that some topics such as mathematics and astronomy get a free pass because of their academic respectability. One unfortunate result is that their articles are consequently of poor quality and often have fewer sources than a pop culture topic which has had to survive repeated challenges. To raise quality in all subject areas, it seems useful to spread the love. :) Colonel Warden (talk) 11:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] In other news...

Whose hand is inside this particular sock? Pops Culture (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Guy (Help!) 17:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know. Could be someone near Dartmouth though. --Pixelface (talk) 17:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

There is something very odd going on with Pops Culture, but it's not Pixelface, if that's what you were thinking. Thatcher 18:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

No I wasn't (I didn't think Pixelface would be that daft). Guy (Help!) 18:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Anyone else amused that Pixelface is Pointy? Relata refero (talk) 23:04, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

heh. Clever, RR. Horologium (talk) 23:07, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Probable abuse by Jersyko (talk · contribs)

See also: user's talk page and unblock discussion

Jersyko is absolutely bloodthirsty - which I couldn't figure out why until I located two edits (wording disputes, aka content disputes) which Jersyko had previously been involved in with the user. diff1 diff2.

Additionally, this is a user I'd tried to adopt and work with, but aside from a couple users, all they're getting for feedback is continual beatings and abuse. It's not helpful and "the beatings will continue until morale improves" is no way to teach someone to be a good editor, especially when they're already being hit by people who have POV and WP:OWN issues themselves. M1rth (talk) 18:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Having looked at this user's edits, I believe ForeverFreeSpeech (talk · contribs) was very likely a sockpuppet of CltFn (talk · contribs), who was banned following this discussion (in which I participated) here on WP AN/I. I see that ForeverFreeSpeech appeared almost exactly a month after CltFn was banned. The area of editing, the aggressive POV and the use of language are all strikingly similar. Has anyone done a checkuser to verify this? -- ChrisO (talk) 19:38, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Hadn't made that connection, but this DOES match ctlfn rather well... Perhaps a CU is in order here... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

It was already done recently here and declined as fishing. Wildthing61476 (talk) 19:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. Not sure that M1rth is a sock puppet - the area of editing doesn't seem to have much in common with CltFn - but a sock check might have been useful with regard to ForeverFreeSpeech. However, I see that FFS has been indefinitely blocked so a CU would be rather pointless at this stage. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm "bloodthirsty"?!?!?? · jersyko talk 21:21, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure you are. I found evidence, too - see the picture. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

LOL! Must admit the accusation gave me a laugh. Orderinchaos 08:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I really must protest what has been done: ChrisO tried to blank the page to hide the talk, and then JzG locked it and redirected it. This is not in keeping with openness. In fact, this is directly opposed and seems to be directly in opposition to the user's right to file an appeal. M1rth (talk) 22:07, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• He can email ArbCom if he wants, and I don't mind if the talk page is unprotected as long as the silliness there stops, but the identification of this as an abusive account and probably a sockpuppet of another abuser looks to me to be pretty solid. Guy (Help!) 22:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I am confused as to what you mean by "silliness." I am the one who identified the definite abuse by Jersyko, and I presented that in good faith in support of a user who was given a completely unreasonable block length (please note that I do support a limited-time block of 72 hours or so). I highly doubt that the user will know how to get in touch with arbcom as a noob. It seems like you are deliberately trying to put roadblocks into a user filing appeals, which makes no sense to me. I strongly suggest that the page be unprotected and returned to its former status, especially as Jayron32 stated on IRC that he felt the user was free to file a second unblock request showing that he would actually edit within policy. I have stated why I feel the issue is being unjustly conducted, and I stand by my analysis despite the entirely unreasonable and incivil behavior by people like ChrisO, who posts a derisive picture above rather than discuss the issue evenly and openly. M1rth (talk) 22:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

If FFS was a sock/reincarnation of CltFn, which I see as highly likely, s/he has no right of appeal whatsoever - CltFn was banned. That means all editing privileges were revoked permanently. Indefinitely blocked users may be rehabilitated eventually (that's why we don't call them "permanently blocked users") but banned users are out for good. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

That's because using terms like "bloodthirsty" is rather derisive as well, wouldn't you think? This person, coming off a block continually throws around edit summaries like (rvt per it's there in the article dumbass), or I doubt Abbasshole was speaking hebrew) and other brilliant summaries like.. (undo hizbullshit) and (undo hamasshole). Plain and simple, I see no problem with the action taken and explicitly endorse this indefblock SirFozzie (talk) 22:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

There isn't any proof of the CltFn accusation, and it looks more to me like it's being now being used as an excuse to justify bad behavior. In addition, all but one of the things SirFozzie cites were BEFORE the previous 24-hour block... making me wonder how much research SF actually did into the matter. Meanwhile, Jersyko appears to have a number of (content, non-vandalism reversion) edits at Barack Obama political position page and talk page. There is enough of an appearance of conflict of interest here to give me pause, as well as consistent maltreatment of a user rather than trying to teach them how to properly edit even while they're regularly being attacked and accused of "vandalism" in what clearly aren't vandalism, but content dispute, cases.

After reviewing the edits, it looks to me like a typical WP:BITE pattern. New user comes along, crosses existing POV users with WP:OWN] problems; POV users try to get reaction from new user to protect "their" article; POV users then seek ban claiming "hey it's a sockpuppet." I'll note the rather poisonous Israel/Palestine POV editor Eleland was the first to trot out this "CltFn" nonsense.

If anything, the edits from the user today show an improvement from before. Instead of continuing to improve the editor, though, you're all willing to WP:BITE quite freely? Wikipedia should be ashamed.

I also see why the user feels threatened. I now feel threatened for even bringing this up, with SirFozzie's message on my talk page.M1rth (talk) 22:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Definition of the word irony: Claiming that other users are not assuming good faith of a sockpuppet of a banned user, then claims he's being threatened by being warned that running to multiple admins in an attempt to forum shop his way into getting what he wants violates rules on WP:CANVASsing. SirFozzie (talk) 22:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, if two editors independently identify FFS as a sockpuppet of the same banned user, that's got to tell you something. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• And in my view this [11] qualifies for a timeout for M1rth. There really is no call to go calling Alison a liar and accusing admins of hiding evidence. I am blocking for 24h. Guy (Help!) 22:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• (ec) Oookay, just a few points here. M1rth wasn't calling me a liar there, that was Foz he was referring to. I'd not commented on the substantive issue at that point. Regarding FFS and CltFn: checkuser shows that as being Unlikely here, though checkuser cannot prove innocence. Likewise, that M1rth is unlikely to be related to either of them, based on location. IMO, FFS was being quite abusive of late, from the edits I briefly checked over, and IMO, definitely deserved a block, though indef might be a bit much - Alison ^❤ 23:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

He's posted an unblock request now. Any uninvolved admins care to review it? -- ChrisO (talk) 23:21, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm involved, so I won't. However, it's obvious that the guy is angry and frustrated here by what he sees as an injustice and "admin cover-up". I disagree with his position, but how and ever. Unfortunately, blocking him won't really defuse the situation and will only re-inforce what he's already feeling here. I'm not averse to unblocking, on condition that he tone it down on the wild accusations. Over to someone else ... - Alison ^❤ 23:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

He can be unblocked as soon as he calms down. If that means a night's sleep first, then so be it. He's picked the wrong fight and I told him so. Guy (Help!) 23:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I see AGK has unblocked him. Kudos to AGK; I thought he handled it rather well . -- ChrisO (talk) 00:16, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Aye, talked him down from the Reichstag very well. Guy (Help!) 00:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

As per my discussion with User:AGK I am no longer a part of this investigation. M1rth (talk) 00:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WP:OWN -- User:Ultramarine continuing to edit war despite the repeated protests of muiltiple editors on multiple pages.

Please see the discussion and edit history of these two pages:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sandinista_National_Liberation_Front&action=history

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sandinista_National_Liberation_Front

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:State_terrorism_and_the_United_States#Page_Break.2C_Pt_III

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=State_terrorism_and_the_United_States&action=history

On the Sandinista page, Ultramarine is insisting upon the inclusion of content that is clearly outdated and superceded by more recent, thorough, neutral, and accurate material. Some of the material he wishes to draw from include a poorly sourced self-published article from a self-published journal from a non-accredited school (since then, the journal has undergone major changes in staff and the school has become accredited, but at the time the article was published all of the above was true. Others include thirty year old articles from Time magazine which are directly contradicted by later articles from human rights groups and academic sources. The content in question has been re-worked several times to present an appropriately neutral point of view, but each time he has rejected the changes and seeks to revert the material. This has been going on, now, for over seven months, with Ultramarine as the only long-term editor on the page who has defended the edits. During that time, all other long-term editors on the page -- some six or seven people -- have rejected his arguments with carefully reasoned appeals to wikipedia policy and guidelines; even so, he insists upon reverting the changes and including his content.

On the State Terrorism and U.S. page, the title has been changed with the explicit aim of giving him a broader space to include material. Unfortunately, as one can see with only a quick glance at the discussion page, Ultramarine has presented virtually no new material and is instead continuing to insist upon highly questionable deletions, the introduction of obviously irrelevant material whose sole intended aim is to use obviously skewed, unencyclopedic (and often ungrammatical) language to cast aspersions upon the material already posted to the page, and to demand the removal of vast numbers of sources based upon specious appeals to WP:SYN and WP:OR.

Only a quick glance at the latter will reveal that, for the last two weeks, the page has been engaged in an Ultramarine-against-all debate where the same few points have been rejected with the every conceivable appeal to wikipedia guidelines and policy. It has gotten to the point where a few editors (myself included) have openly stated that they question whether Ultramarine is maintaining good faith in his activity. The simple truth is that no editor acting in good faith for the betterment of the article could have so many people make so many of the same arguments for so long without concluding that they themselves may indeed be transgressing policy and guidelines.

I would like to emphasize two things: in both cases, the editors in question have, perforce, gone to great lengths to reason and negotiate with Ultramarine. These entreaties have all been rejected in favor of an edit war; similarly, in the State Terrorism... article, the title was changed specifically to address the objections he is raising (inclusion of more material arguing in support of U.S. Gov't, etc).

The editors on this page are truly stymied: on the State Terrorism page it is now impossible for anyone to move forward with the development of the page solely because of Ultramarine's disruptive activity. On the Sandinista page, editors there are forced to daily police the page for Ultramarine's reverts.

All of this seems an unfortunate development for the articles in question. Both could stand some improvement, but the editorial energies are now all being wasted on circular arguments that are repeated, ad infinitum, regardless of their validity or relevance, and used to support threats to delete masses of material that would violate even the least controversial of Wikipedia norms. Stone put to sky (talk) 05:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

This wouldn't have anything to do with User:Ultramarine filing a checkuser on you, would it? - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 05:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

No, actually. I would rather suggest that the reverse is true: User:Ultramarine filed a checkuser on me because it is clear that his arguments aren't succeeding. Stone put to sky (talk) 05:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I will just point out that Stone put to sky was recently blocked for 3RR violations, using multiple sockpuppets, personal attacks against me, and violating WP:Username by making attack accounts on my name.[12] He was warned again for personal attacks against me just two days ago.[13]Ultramarine (talk) 05:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

As a note here, Stone put to sky repeatedly displays civility issues and WP:OWN issues when people disagree with him (as can be seen from both the above and from the talk page of State terrorism and the US). Ultramarine is trying to do some long-overdue cleanup and getting significant flak for it from people who are determined that certain pages maintain a certain POV. Jtrainor (talk) 06:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I find it disappointing that editors here seem more intent on airing Stone's faults instead of addressing the issue itself. --clpo13_(talk) 06:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Except that in multiple people's opinions, the problem is Stone. If there are ownership problems, this needs to be taken to dispute resolution and not to the administrators noticeboard. Shell ^babelfish 06:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

When Stone has created multiple usernames meant to attack Ultramarine, it's pretty difficult to take this complaint seriously. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 06:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

But that doesn't necessarily mean there isn't a problem. A person can be a sockpuppeteer and still report a legitimate issue. That's all I'm saying. --clpo13_(talk) 06:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I understand. I just don't feel bad for Stone if people just brush this complaint off. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 06:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. There already is a case on Stone's behaviour; it would be better if this section was used to take a look at Ultra's. For my part, as one of the "multiple editors" in question, I'm stuck in the middle, having problems with both sides, and I'm not sure this is the right place for any it, but since it has been brought up, I'd welcome an outsider's input. — the Sidhekin (talk) 06:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

After skimming the contributions and the talk pages, I don't think that there's been much disruptive behavior. I think dispute resolution is the way to go. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 07:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

It will take some investment of energy into the content of the discussions to reveal the real disruptive nature of Ultramarine's participation on the article page. Much of it revolves around really artificially creating disputes that go around in endless arguments, arresting progress. I think it falls under tendentatious editing or POINT violations. Let me give you a reoccuring example: Ultramarine argues that abortion is State Terrorism and should be in the article. He cites a religious source of a someones personal opinion from some religious right website that says abortion is "terrorism against the unborn" to make his case.[14] He says if Chomsky can call the foreign policy actions of the United States against Nicaragua "international terrorism" then he can include the abortion material, and failure to so is a double standard:[15] Of course the abortion issue is not related in any way to the concept of State Terrorism, the abortion material does not talk about or ever mention State Terrorism. Yet, Ultramarine pretends not to understand this, and we go around in endless circles repeating why this is not allowed, and how its completely different than how we use the Chomsky source on State terrorism. I don't know if anything can be done but this kind of behavior is disruptive to meaningful progress on the article, and I have to believe that Ultramarine is smart enough to know really believe the line of reasoning he frequently employs. The other thing that he repeating does is make claims about what the sources say or don't say that are simply false. Then I go and read the source and find out that out, and he moves on, repeating the pattern. There are many examples of this, if anyone is interested. Again, could this pattern be a reason to assume bad faith editing?Giovanni33 (talk) 16:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

False presentation. I am just demonstrating the misuse of sources in this article. Most of the sources do not mention terrorism or state terrorism at all. The article is just a dumping ground for all kinds of criticisms against the US (or allied governments with sources often not even mentioning the US at all). Just pointing out that according to their own standard, someone could, for example add, this view[16] by a high Catholic Church official in charge of Catholic doctrine that abortion is terrorism and then start adding sources criticizing abortion but not mentioning terrorism or state terrorism. Or someone could add that militia groups argue that for example the Waco Siege is terrorism by the US government [17] and then start adding sources criticizing policy against militia groups but not mentioning terrorism or state terrorism. That is the method used in most of this article.Ultramarine (talk) 17:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually your presentation/claims are false here. As I and other editors showed, all of the claims are supported by sources which do mention State Terrorism, and accuse the US govt. of supporting State Terrorism. Some of the sources use alternate wordings such as international terror a terror campaign, etc.--but all are anchored in multiple reliable sources based on the claim of State Terrorism. Clearly this is about State Terrorism, whereas your Abortion argument is not. But you and all sensible people know the difference, and that is my point: you keep arguing around and around, ignoring consensus, and this is in fact disrupting wikipedia in order to make a point. Also, do you deny that several times you make claims that the source does not mention state terror, and that this claim has been proven false? Yet you keep claiming it? I recall one editor commenting that your control F key must be broken.Giovanni33 (talk) 19:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Simply false. Here is one of your sources quoted in the article. The Amnesty report[18] does not mention the US at all, only the Philippine government, so it cannot be accusing the US of anything. The word "terrorism" is not in the report anywhere.Ultramarine (talk) 19:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the US is mentioned ten times in this report, and while the word "terrorism" does not occur, the words "terrorist" and "terror" occur six, sorry, eight times all told. — the Sidhekin (talk) 19:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Does not mention the US at all? Like I said, your Control F key must be broken, and you must not be reading the source before making up the claim. Also, I will point out that the claim tying this action to one of being State Terrorism, using that exact term, is anchored in other sources, as it is with all the contents of this article. Thus your claims of SYN/OR have always been proven false, whereas your intention to add abortion as state terrorism, is in fact SYN and OR, as with other attempts to add information that you think belongs but is in fact not supported by the sources. Anyway, this is not the place to argue these points. I bring it up because you are disruptive, and it seems to be motivated by your desire to make a point. This is because you continue non-stop, seemingly in bad faith, while ignoring consensus on the issues.Giovanni33 (talk) 20:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Hm. I searched on "terrorism" and "United States". "terrorist" is another term of course. "US" does give some hits. Not anything accusing the US of terrorism. The quote actually used in the article only accused the Philippine government, not the US.Ultramarine (talk) 20:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

You are better off reading the article than looking for just specific key words, but even then you get it wrong most of the time. You make blanket claims, and unless someone fact checks for you, they assume you are telling the truth. Unfortunately, repeatedly you are not. This is just one small case in point. Also, the US is implicated, and other sources make the claim directly, that its State Terrorism that the US is implicated in by supporting the Phillipines counter insurgency efforts against its civillian population. This is just two excerpts from this AI paper on the point, which is used to provide background information on the conflict:

• "Major Points in the tit for tat struggle against the US-directed war of terror, Ang Bayan, 29 July 2006. The CPP also continued to call for a resumption of peace negotiations and implemention of the CARHRIHL and other agreements."
• "US-led global "war on terror", within which the Philippines is seen an important US regional ally, influenced the government’s anti-insurgency approach. In January 2002 a new five-year anti-insurgency plan, Operation Bantay-Laya (Freedom Watch) took effect. In August 2002 President Arroyo issued a "Nine Point Guideline on the CPP" which emphasised the "terrorist" acts of the CPP-NPA and welcomed the US terrorist listing. Following an August 2002 order for a redeployment of the AFP against the NPA, the government appeared increasingly to place military counter-insurgency operations over the peace process. This approach became explicit during and after the 2006 State of Emergency. In June 2006 President Arroyo and other officials called for "all-out war" to crush the CPP-NPA within two years."Giovanni33 (talk) 20:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Those are not the material quoted in the article which only mention the Philippine government. These new quotes do not accuse the US government of possible crimes done by some by persons employed by the Philippine government.Ultramarine (talk) 21:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

You are changing your argument, Ultramarine. Before you suggested it be deleted because it "doesn't even mention the United States." Now that we have shown that to be false, you are changing your argument to "I don't like the way it's used in the article because the portion used in the article is only dealing with the Philippine Government." Which, besides being untrue (as has just been clearly demonstrated, above), neglects the simple fact that these points dealt with in the AI report are fundamental, cited portions of the articles which make the claim of U.S.-sponsored State Terrorism. As we have pointed out on the article -- repeatedly, and by this time i would estimate that tens of thousands of words have already been typed solely in refutation of this objection of yours -- the AI report is included to show that the factual points openly claimed (but not sourced) in the articles which accuse the U.S. of complicity/sponsorship/participation in the Philippines' State Terror have been validated by neutral, reliable, third-party sources. The editors have not "introduced" any sort of artificial synthesis, here. The only thing that has been done is to show that the factual claims made by the commentators who accuse the U.S. of state terror are, indeed, widely acknowledged to be true and uncontroversial.

Now, as i have already stated: all of this has been pointed out to you, repeatedly, many many times. In fact, you have been using this particular objection to argue for the deletion of material for at least one full year (and you know i have already shown the diffs on the discussion page). So what this means is that for a full year and maybe as many as two, editors on this page have been patiently rejecting these objections of yours without so much as a peep here on AN/I. We have given rejoinder after rejoinder to your insistent objections. We have shown in every conceivable way -- multiple examples from other Wikipedia pages, analogy to scientific articles, appeals to logical principle, phrase-by-phrase analysis and breakdown of the quoted guidelines and policies, symbolic, logical re-iteration of the arguments, examples culled from the page itself -- but instead of simply acknowledging that your objections have no meaningful foundation you have simply, in each case, abandoned the argument and shifted its logic into a circular, repetitive loop.

It seems clear, therefore, that the principles and policies themselves have no effect upon your reasoning. You clearly have made an a priori decision to get the material deleted and are simply using whatever means you can to guarantee that you get your way. And then, when you don't, you provoke an edit war.

I have no idea what precise guidelines and policies this sort of behavior falls under, but it seems clear that it is antithetical to building a properly neutral, effective encyclopedia. Stone put to sky (talk) 10:18, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I cannot say whether Ultramarine is editing in good faith or not, but the fact other editors don't like him isn't material in my view. The "long-term editors" as Sky mentions are pretty much a group with a narrow set of political views and editorial objectives. They want/wanted the page to be a certain way and about a certain focus, that the US was "a very naughty country that supported state terrorism", or the like. Some room was allowed for dissenting views towards that but more as a token gesture than a real objective to make the page balanced.

I don't think this group welcomes new editors with conflicting views, whatever they may say or even believe themselves, and instinctively band together to drive off any new arrivals. I had similar treatment, though not as bad because I didn't edit the page myself only expressed views on the Talk page. I have also seen/read about others driven away/leave because they were tired of trying to deal with people who they saw as being stubborn and inflexible. So of course the "established editors" would be united against Ultramarine because they push others way time and time again. If it was a group of people with conflicting ideas and agenda, maybe the point would be valid, but that is not what the situation is here.

As for bias, I raised queries about questionable sources in the past such as the propaganda Cuban publication "Gramna", yet such sources were routintely defended. Yet sources like Heritage produce complaints if they are suggested, despite the fact that organisation is more objective and neutral than Gramna and similar publications. It seems like the older editors apply two sets of rules, namely that almost anything can be used if it is critical of the US/pro an anti-US group, but only very reputable sources can be used for the opposite and they can veto any addition. If there is an issue of "OWN" it is from the long-term editors and not Ultramarine. John Smith's (talk) 14:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I dispute this completely. First, John Smith is only a very recent entry onto the page: he has no idea what has gone before, these last three years.

Second, a glance at the diffs from those many months gone by (which it appears John Smith hasn't bothered with) will find that i have argued -- passionately, at the expense of my influence with supposedly "sympathetic" editors -- that the page should be renamed expressly to accommodate the opposing views. In fact, at this very moment i am involved in what i, at least, consider a constructive discussion about how to introduce the opinions of the "other side" (according to this "john smith" and "jtrainor") and allow them the proper space for development.

Up until now, the page has been plagued by limitations which were set in stone and enforced by Ultramarine. This limitation has always been that all sources must use some direct derivative of the phrase "state terrorism by the U.S." Obviously, this was undertaken in an effort to reduce the content to "POV" status and then get it deleted (witness: seven AfDs). By changing the title i have pushed for a change to the page that will allow both sides proper space for development.

John Smith and jtrainor badly misrepresent my own perspective and efforts. Frankly, i expected as much. Regardless, i think it is undeniable that it is i -- over and above virtually every editor -- who has protested most prevalently for the current name and pushed most constantly for the current debate on a more NPOV structure. With that in mind, i think it's rather undeniable that i am not interested in "skewing" the content, but rather in opening it up to both sides in order to allow a more proper, NPOV development.

Insofar as most of the other editors there have gone along with my suggestions -- for the first time in a few years, i might add -- i would suggest that this attempt to cast our efforts in a questionable light is, itself, quite questionable. Stone put to sky (talk) 18:49, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The last three years is not relevant to whether or not the "established editors" as you describe them generally conform to particular POV/attitude in regards to the subject of the article.

Your comment that John Smith and jtrainor badly misrepresent my own perspective and efforts. Frankly, i expected as much is not in good-faith and doesn't help your case. I was making a general point about the way the long-term editors have interacted, rather than a specific criticism of you. You are more flexible than the others, but that doesn't mean the group does not as a whole discourage people with conflicting views to stay. Indeed I did not mention you, I mentioned the people you described - which would reasonably not include you, unless you are prone to talking about yourself.

I think you are still far too stressed and unable to deal with honest criticism/criticism not directed towards yourself, for some reason taking everything personally - an example of your taking things personally is your comment that the reason you were blocked was that someone in the administration was abusing their authority. Don't quarrel with people who aren't out to get you, which would be most of us. John Smith's (talk) 23:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Personal Attacks on the State Terrorism Discussion Page

Shortly after filing my AN/I request for a review of Ultramarine's behavior, he began an attempt to discredit my appeals by casting aspersions upon my person.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:State_terrorism_and_the_United_States#Notification_for_Ultramarine

There can be no clearer example of a "personal attack" than this.

I would respectfully remind the administrators here that i protested the block mentioned to the fullest possible extent and continue to deny the description of those events. Regardless, none of this has any bearing upon the validity of my current requests for action. Stone put to sky (talk) 06:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

That's not a personal attack. All he said was, "Yes. I have also noted that it is you who have been blocked for edit warring, personal attacks, sockpuppets, and attack accounts. Not I.". Nothing attacking in there at all. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 06:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you making a mountain out of a molehill? Please have some tea. Igor Berger (talk) 06:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. This was not a response to the complaint. It was a clear attempt to cast aspersions upon the legitimacy of the complaint with an ad hominem argument. There is no more egregious type of ad hominem than this sort. Stone put to sky (talk) 06:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

If you don't like comments like that, then don't make attack accounts. It's that easy. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 06:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• Looking at that revision history, I suggest it would be a good idea if both sides stepped away from the article for a while. Black Kite 07:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

That seems like a clear double-standard. Ultramarine began editing this article about two weeks ago -- maybe a little before -- after a rest from it of some many months. Oddly enough, the very day before was when i had returned to the Sandinista article on the FSLN and deleted some material that many editors had questioned over the course of some seven months. The deletion was undertaken per "reliable sources" and "maintain a Neutral point of view". The material was replaced with a section that maintains a far more neutral point of view relative to the issue while including the most substantially recognized points of the original post; what was rejected were extremist claims that virtually no current, reliable sources accept as valid. The sources that had been used to shore up these claims were either very old or highly suspect, and in each case these wildly extreme claims were supported by a single, questionable source.

Now what we had on the Sandinista page was a situation where a single editor had forced the inclusion of several highly suspect sources making wildly extremist claims that were not backed up by reliable documentation. This situation had continued for some months with at least seven or eight long-time editors protesting at the situation and this one editor basically saying that if anyone tried to remove it he would provoke an edit-war. Then i come in, remove the material, and voila! The next day Ultramarine pops in to the State Terrorism article and begins provoking an edit war.

On both pages the core group of editors have been extremely patient with Ultramarine, responding to his challenges with measured, reasoned discourse and sensible appeals to Wikipedia policy and guidelines. Wen he's not there we can all get along and start to make meaningful, NPOV headway upon them and bolster up the articles into a proper NPOV, encyclopedic treatment. Yet the moment Ultramarine shows up edit wars begin, editing ceases, and suddenly all talk on the discussion page begins going in circles.

Now, your suggestion is apparently that "both sides" need to take a break. What i'm asking is this: what do you exactly mean by "both sides"? From what i can tell, on both pages we basically have a core group of editors who engage in consensual development of the pages towards a neutral, encyclopedic end-point. Then we have Ultramarine -- a person who insists on patently absurd and unrealistic interpretations of policy and guidelines, who strives to include extremist, unreliable sources clearly aimed at promoting a singular, politically-skewed point of view, and who provokes an edit war any time he doesn't get his way. Then, when community attention is brought to bear on the case, people who are otherwise rarely present (if ever) --- people like Jtrainor and IceColdBeer -- begin to pop up on the page and "show their support" by reverting changes that Ultramarine has introduced (changes that are often ungrammatical, irrelevant to the topic, original research, or even all three).

So what "sides" do you see at work here? Do you mean me and Ultramarine? Because most of my arguments and protests in this case are largely supported by most of the other editors on this page. So in that light, do you mean Ultramarine and everyone else? Because then it seems like you're supporting a particularly disruptive editor over and against the larger editing community. Do you mean Ultramarine, Jtrainor, et al and everyone else? Because you are essentially arguing, then, that the page be allowed to languish in an editorial vacuum, opened up to the whimsy of whatever ill-informed and (likely) ill-intentioned editor might wish to do. So what, exactly, do you mean by "both sides"? Stone put to sky (talk) 10:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Most of the other editors on that article are on your side of the content dispute. That doesn't make them right. Jtrainor (talk) 14:40, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

That's a very interesting perspective you've got there. Are you saying that the unified opinion of multiple experienced editors should simply be disregarded in favor of a lone, circular, unexamined argument? Stone put to sky (talk) 18:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

No, we don't play these games here. What you're doing is called 'begging the question'. The fact of the matter is, you, and those editors, violently react to anyone who tries to clean up State terrorism and the US, or, as it was under it's old title, Allegations of state terrorism by the US. Jtrainor (talk) 21:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sockpuppetry by Stone put to sky

Please see [19]. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 04:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Goth and Throbb99 again

See this thread for previous on this. This was suspected to be a clueless user who would just barrel along, causing multiple problems with their editing style, and giving no sign of being willing to communicate over any of the problems. After it was figured out that the user had never communicated on any talk page even once, I blocked them indefinitely in an attempt to get them to start communicating. (They were welcome to be unblocked as soon as they started to communicate.)

The result has been different. The user now appears to be jumping from sock to sock, continuing their edit style and still showing no sign of communication. User:The Reptoid Cryptozoologist and User:Reptoid333 so far that I have been able to spot.

Edits like this, however, show that this is far from a totally clueless user. They seem fairly adept at template code. Not something a clueless newcomer would generally be adept at.

So I'm starting to wonder just who/what I am dealing with here. Clueless user? Determined vandal? Sock(s)/role accounts of some other user? No idea. But my AGF is starting to run thin here. And then there is the question of how to handle the user in general. They simply will not communicate with anyone, and now blocking them just brings out new socks. I'm reluctant to protect out his regular articles, but short of that, I'm not sure what else to do. - TexasAndroid (talk) 14:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Vandalising Disney TV program articles? That rings a bell, somewhere... I suggest popping over to WP:SSP to see if any current cases are familiar. If nothing, you could always make a request yourself. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

LHvU, you're thinking of [20] zees guy, I think.Gladys J Cortez 23:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. It seems unlikely, though, on the face of it, as being the same individual as in the past it has been via ip's only. Oh, well, if TexasAndroid needs to waste a weekend... LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reporting Niranjandeshmukh.

• Block User:Niranjandeshmukh gppande «talk» 17:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

This user has been using abusive language on my talk page. Read this. The issue started when above user had today put back Major localities section back on Nagpur page. I reverted the edit & informed the user that such an information is non encyclopedic. I got harsh reply back from him and he put back the content second time. I reverted edit second time & directed the user to WP:WQT. In response I got a terribly abusive reply. I request admins to take some action here. gppande «talk» 17:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I have warned the user to remain civil and refrain from personal attacks. Further such comments from this user could well result in a block, but - in the absence of previous warnings - no block is in order as yet. Further, I note that the user later indicated his intent to quit editing, which would also obviate the need for a block. I would add, too, that your interactions with this user could have been a little more civil, though I concur that the talk page comments you note were unreasonable. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 18:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

This[21] was an inappropriate and provocational edit summary of yours in the first place, and merits a warning as well. Given that Nir. alter actually reverted himself and indicated that he quits[22], restoring his inappropriate comment[23] and bringing it here, is like chasing another car after an exchange of insults between drivers.--Tikiwont (talk) 09:05, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your support and understanding. In my first message to the user, I just wanted to show him that doing changes to article is invited but not by making article poor. He had put back information of the major localities of Nagpur without any prior notice or discussion on talk page. Since no city page article (of FA category) has such information, addition of such information makes it poor. I also directed him to visit talk page. But he again did a revert of my changes - i.e. second addition within a span of less than 2 hours without any discussion. This time I left a stern warning on his talk page not to do such changes. It looked like naughty boy is trying to do things which he is told not to do. But I was totally shocked to see his abusive response. This made me to report him. Later on I left a report on this page and visited my page back I found the message removed by him totally and said his quiting. Since I had reported him and he was just trying to clean up his terrible note trying to leave no evidence I restored it. I never want to chase anyone and believe me - I am stern believer of forgiveness. I will be surely removing this ugly conversation from my talk page as I do not want my talk page to be rated A. gppande «talk» 13:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok then, let's tick this off. He has been warned in case he returns, and you have some feedback to ponder and also realized that for better or worse all 'evidence' is kept here in diffs and edit summaries, the latter being sometimes the only thing that remains behind. --Tikiwont (talk) 19:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Irredentism

I would like to draw attention to page Irredentism. user:VartanM who under parole was removing sourced information without justification [24]. I produced three well-known reliable sources, one from the expert in the field of Irredentism. Now, anon user stepped forward to remove this information [25]. --Dacy69 (talk) 18:07, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

It's likely that the two users are the same, or meatpuppets, however, he/she/they are willing to discuss the changes on the talk page. However, the sources shouldn't have been removed with a quick POV comment in the edit summary. I'll drop the user a note. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 20:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The suggestion is awfully ridiculous. I haven't achieved my revert limit and my prior revert on that article was more than justified. I don't know who those Ips are, probably a strawpuppet for all I know, but I have presented more then enough reasons for my revert. And this without needing anyone to do that in my place. Dacy previously referred to one single source and now he has found his way by quoting. The claim that Armenia has annexed 15% of Azerbaijan is simply wrong. The claim is not supported by the UN, by the CIA, US department of States, by no one actually. Everyone can find one single source and present it as if it was established. Now he is quoting it, but this is clearly undue weight. NK declared it's independence and is not advocating annexation to any other states. By the definition of the word NK can not go there. One website, one paper and a work which is the only thing you can find to support the claim does't justify adding this when the definition of the word itself would require total exclusion. If it is annexed by Armenia, why those territories aren't even included by Armenia as being part of itself? VartanM (talk) 17:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Unless Vartan's really, really stupid, which he isn't, that IP isn't him. Anyway, without commenting too much on the material in question, I've cleaned up the grammar and spelling and made it just a little less POV. Citing your sources is wonderful, Dacy, but please remember that NPOV and our verifiability policy are complementary and not separate. Moreschi (talk) 21:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dacy69

Dacy's conduct is also a lot to be desired. He is on revert parole, one revert per week. He was blocked 5 times under the remedies, which extend the possibility of his block to as much as a year. And see what he does. After his last block and his unsuccessful attempt to be unblocked, he come back more than a month later for the sole purpose of reverting that article. He is reverted, he returned a week later (for the same purpose), two days later he reverts. Then again a little more than a week later he returns again for the same thing. His presence on Wikipedia for the last two months is to reappear after his week restrictions have expired to revert. Isn't it basically to game the system? VartanM (talk) 17:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:BruceGrubb

Can someone else have a look at the contribs of BruceGrubb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) please. Since his arrival I have found him to be disputatious, aggressive, opinionated, and inclined to apply WP:TRUTH over WP:V. He does not always log in (see 216.234.222.130 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and Jesus myth hypothesis (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) for example), but he very often gets reverted, and is engaged in fierce arguments on the talk page of just about every page he edits, as far as I can tell. Certainly he got off to a very inauspicious star at Christianity (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) where he argued long and hard that Christianity can be polytheistic based on some pretty tenuous WP:OR. People can live and learn on WP, that's fine, but I don't see much evidence he's learning. Guy (Help!) 12:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

His last few edits to Jesus myth hypothesis have been based on a severely flawed notion of original research--he claims that one of the secondary sources cited in the article is violating the OR policy! [26] [27] The substance and tone of his contributions to the talk page is, to put it mildly, annoying. If BruceGrubb is here just to get into arguments, and isn't interested in understanding the basics of the content policies, he might be better off finding somewhere else to expend his energy. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Asia (band)

• An acrimonious dispute in Talk:Asia (band) has spilled into my talk page with a 10-kilobyte message at User talk:Anthony Appleyard#Is there any justice left? Is this a fashi? by two anonymous users User:4.238.124.25 and User:4.238.124.40 who seem to claim to be "Asia Fan Club Pres". (This message arrived as one very long paragraph; I had to split into paragraphs for clarity.) Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:51, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Other than tl;dr and removing the message from your own talkpage, what action are you looking for here Anthony? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:02, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• I thought that I better keep the other admins up to date as to what is happening. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 17:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Prior drama

• User_talk:70.188.184.84
• Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Mondrago
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive362
• Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Mondrago
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive366
• Talk:Asia (band)
  • Talk:Asia (band)#External links dispute
  • Talk:Asia (band)#Semi-protection removed
  • Talk:Asia (band)#Arbitrary break
  • Talk:Asia_(band)#Fan_club_link_blacklisting
  • Talk:Asia_(band)#Accounts.2FIPsocks_used_by_Mondrago
• MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/February_2008#More_asiafanclub_spam
• MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/February_2008#asiafanclub.com
• User talk:Nakon#Spam blacklist
• Wikipedia:WikiProject_Spam/LinkReports/asiafanclub.com (incomplete)
• More asiafanclub spam
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive362#Linkspammer issuing legal threats on talk page
• User_talk:A._B.#Talk:Asia_.28band.29.
• User_talk:Hu12/Archive6#Asia__spam_being_re-added_again

I've had to range block this person twice[28][29] for disruption. "Asia Fan Club President" (under multiple IP's) has actively disrupted wikipedia for well over a month now. There has been extreme disruption caused by this situation. Multiple spam attacks, edit warring, sneaky attempts to subvert wikipedia policy, creating False consensus through use of mutiple IP's, attempting to circumvent blacklisting by creating asiafanclub.4t.com and worst of all the legal threats made by "Asia Fan Club President". This is a clear case where wikipedia is being terrorized in an attempt to advance a site owners agenda. I've applied another range block [30]. --Hu12 (talk) 17:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, that answers my question. Support Hu12's dissection of the underlying and long standing problem. Support Hu12's block. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I trust Hu12's judgment in sorting out this issue. Disclosure: I am old enough to have been a fan of Asia (band). Bearian (talk) 19:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• • He put another message on my talk page, this time from IPA User:32.138.216.54. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:40, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Two more rangeblocks[31][32] applied. "Asia Fan Club President" Refuses to 'get the point'. This realy is getting old.--Hu12 (talk) 23:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The Asia fan club president seems to have delusions that he is Confucius, if one reads the talk page. Orderinchaos 02:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Off by one error on this page

Some edit links and the related content are out of sync by one section on this page. Somewhere there's probably an unterminated tag of some kind. --John Nagle (talk) 18:21, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Somebody just fixed it. Thanks. --John Nagle (talk) 18:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

That can also be a cache problem. I usually just refresh and it goes away. --Haemo (talk) 22:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism to Sonic The Hedgehog related articles.

These ISPNs have contributed a lot of vandalism to acticles related to Sonic the Hedgehog: 90.202.89.197, 90.202.89.144, 90.202.89.78, 90.202.89.128, 90.202.89.6, as well as others in the 90.202.89.??? range. Is there anything that can be done about ISPN 90.202.89.???? Thank you for any help in this matter (more details on this matter is at WikiProject Sega)!  Doktor  Wilhelm  18:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Add to the list: 90.202.89.1, 90.202.89.9, 90.202.89.16, 90.202.89.23, 90.202.89.24, 90.202.89.27, 90.202.89.36, 90.202.89.47 . Only checked until .50, but the vandalism are recent and very similar and I did not found any constructive edit between .1 and .50. They are relate to Sonic the Hedgehog, SEGA, actors pages and List of Pokémon. I think we can have a temporary range block here. Carlosguitar ^{(ready and willing)} 01:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

They have done it again, this time it's as 90.209.160.198 (talk · contribs) Vandlism (the Rocky kind) to the Chao page [33] and vandalism to Sonic the Hedgehog (character)‎ [34] [35] & Johnny Yong Bosch‎ [36], about fake voice acting!  Doktor  Wilhelm  21:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] OverlordQBot keeps reverting sandbox

I edited the sandbox twice, and every single time after I refreshed my edit was gone. Both times it was OverlordQBot in the history.

Here is an example diff.

FLaRN(talk) 23:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• I think perhaps you shouldn't have edited the header comment. Try editing below it instead. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 23:51, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, per User:OverlordQBot#Bot Request, the bot always reverts edits made to the header. —Travis^talk 00:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:SirLogic

SirLogic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) has created many new stubs for Christian software in the past 2 days. This may be a spammer. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 01:10, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• They mostly seem to be made by different companies. I'd WP:AGF here and leave him a message asking him what his intent is. JuJube (talk) 03:15, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] IP Blanking their talk page

Shorty ago a difference of opinion occurred about the content of User talk:209.43.19.188 the IP wanted to blank the page and a respected vandal fighter User:Momusufan believed that blanking your user talk page was a right only available to registered users. A series of edits of occurred with blanking and vandalism warnings flying on both user talk pages. The result was the the IP was blocked. I beleive both of these editors were acting in a manor that believed was correct and as each thought the other a vandal so WP:RRR would not apply. I have had some discussion with involved editors/adimins on this subject tonight begining on my talk page User talk:Jeepday#User:209.43.19.188 and through the next 2 sections.

The end result being two opions that are copied from my talk page to Below. I am requesting wider input on this topic. An editor has been blocked for violation of policy that is not written anyplace. Jeepday (talk) 03:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The whole thing is that user talk pages are meant to communicate with a person. With an IP address, the person removing the comments may not be the person to whom they were intended. Since there is no guarantee that the person removing the comments is the same person for whom they were left, it is common sense that such practice should be restricted. If you are looking for a specific policy stating so you are not going to find one. However, edits made to IP talk pages, like everything else at Wikipedia, is adjudged on a case-by-case basis. If an IP user blanks or otherwise modifies their own talk page in a disruptive manner, they may be blocked for disruption for doing so. If they continue to be disruptive, the talk page may be protected. Removing info in one case may be allowed, and in another case may be seen as disruptive, based on the specifics of each case. The user in this case was clearly being disruptive, and was dealt with appropriately. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok ,we disagree. I will make a post at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents and see if a consensus exists that I am not aware of. If the editor was the same person then they are allowed to remove their own warnings, per Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines if they are not the same person then the warnings do not apply to them as the new "owner" of the IP an they can remove them per Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines Jeepday (talk) 02:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Editors are allowed to maintain their user talk pages. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 03:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• As far as I know, the prevailing consensus is that registered users can blank warnings, but IP editors can not. In this case the IP was not only blanking their warnings, but also the IP information box at the top, which I would definitely consider disallowed. That particular IP infobox was manually added by a user rather than a bot, however, and seems a little more detailed than it needs to be. VegaDark (talk) 03:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict x 3) Based on the above, this IP user is asking to be blocked. He/she removed warnings from his/her page after three vandalism warnings in a short amount of time. Jonneroo (talk) 03:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC) Corrected typo in link. Jonneroo (talk) 03:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

But hasn't edited in two hours, by which time the IP could have been assigned to another user. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 03:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Jonneroo is speaking of a different IP then this one, but the point is is there policy that prohibits and IP from blanking their talk page? 03:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeepday (talk • contribs)

Before all this happened, it all started here with a personal attack on someones userpage. even before that, according to his contributions, he vandalised articles and was warned. Momusufan (talk) 03:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

No, I think started here. I think its User:Youruorumomma after s/he was blocked when you reported him/her and got blocked for the message they left. Antonio Lopez ^(talk) 04:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-Americanism

This article is not yet at an official "incident" stage, but it's headed that direction, and also raises some interesting questions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Americanism There is a small, potential edit-war starting over the warning tags on the page. I put a bunch of warning tags on the page, and someone keeps deleting half of them. His reasons for deleting them are variously that he doesn't agree with them, and (just recently) that they are redundant. What I find interesting about this is his idea that warning tags should undergo the same editing/consensus process as article content. It seems to me one of the purposes of warnings is to express a minority view. For example, several (but not a majority) of editors wanted the article deleted. So I put up a warning that says "An editor has expressed concern that this article is unencyclopedic and should be deleted." He keeps deleting the warning, on the grounds that people voted not to delete the article. It seems to me warning tags don't belong to the same consensus process as article content: the warning doesn't say "This article is unencyclopedic" it says that concern has been expressed. Am I supposed to work toward consensus on whether I (and others) actually have that concern? The Talk needs some clarification, before an edit war breaks out. Bsharvy (talk) 22:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

You are always expected to work towards consensus. Adding tags does not usually require consensus, but they should not stay on against consensus, and they require reasonable explanation on talk. The tag about deletion should go after a failed AfD. No, tags are not there to express minority views. Relevant minority views should be integrated into the article. Fringe views deserve no representation at all. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Not quite true that fringe views deserve no representation at all. A few fringe views are notable enough to be discussed, although that is rather unusual. Natalie (talk) 01:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but in that case do not report the fringe views ("The Earth is flat"), but on the fringe views ("George Bush believes the Earth is flat"). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

A second editor has just deleted all the warning tags. I am not sure what to do. The standard mantra on Wikipedia is "There is no excuse for edit warring." but in my experience this is generally unaccompanied by any helpful alternative. The alternatives that do exist often are ignored, e.g RfC (when I request, nobody answers....). But even that doesn't really apply to warning tags. Warning tags are not encyclopedia content. The other editors working on the article seem to think that the placement of warning tags should follow the same procedure as editing content: if there is no consensus that the article has weasel words (for example), then the warning for weasel words should be deleted.... Bsharvy (talk) 04:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Are there any other "Anti-[substitute nation or ethnic group here]" articles, or is this the only one? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

There are plenty of others. See Category:Anti-national sentiment - 52 Pickup (deal) 12:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I see. And all of it looks like a POV mine field. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

It's an absolute POV minefield. Even this description, from Category:Anti-national sentiment is not so good: "This category contains articles about criticism of or unfavorable sentiment directed at a particular nationality" According to some usages, it also includes criticism of policy, not just "nationality." So anti-war protests are anti-Americanism. In theory, then, being pro-life is anti-American (hostility to American policy), but try writing that and people will scream. To some, the term denotes prejudice (like anti-semitism) to others it doesn't. There is no way to put all these different ideas in one article, which is why there are so many appropriate warnings regarding POV, neutrality, unencyclopedic content, etc. But, now, they being immediately deleted.... Anyway, I am going to restore them. Somebody will probably accuse me of edit-warring.... Bsharvy (talk) 12:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

"POV minefield"? Is this a joke? Whether you want to admit it, there is definite feelings of hostility towards America around the world. Seriously... do a quick search. Here's a Gallup poll that shows three-out-of-five Lebanese have negative feelings towards the United States. Search "anti American" in the NY Times or Washington Post sites and you'll find hundreds of articles. It's definitely worth inclusion. The purpose of the article is to help understand where these ideas may come from. And it should be written in a manner that takes all sides into account, and it certainly doesn't benefit from Bsharvy's heavy-handedness. Njfuller (talk) 18:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

So, are there any pro-American citations in the article. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Find some pro-America sources that discuss anti-Americansim and include it. Look, I'm an American who recognizes that anti-Americanism exists in the world. There are many Americans who no doubt would like to learn more about anti-Americanism. Where does it come from? It it perceptual or genuine? Does it involve conflicting ideologies? Does it have a basis in reality? Is it part of foreign propaganda? Who knows. The point I was trying to make is that anti-Americanism is notable and that people may come to Wikipedia to learn more about it. Censorship doesn't solve the problem. Deletion of the page or cluttering it with unsightly warning templates, which Bsharvy has been doing, doesn't solve the problem. And it isn't constructive. There's a way to do it that doesn't make it POV -- it just involves being mature about it. Njfuller (talk) 03:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed with this advice, for what it's worth. Anti-Americanism is alive and well in many parts of the world, even mine (Australia) and Canada where it can be unexpectedly hostile. The whole phenomenon has been subjected to numerous academic studies so some of the questions Njfuller raises above can be answered with reliable sources that have been peer-reviewed. I think creating a dog's breakfast of tags creates more problems than it solves. Orderinchaos 06:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Now, all the warning templates are being blanked on a regular basis. No editor is allowed to express the opinion that the article is unbalanced or contains OR, etc. The fact that the article is not a work of consensus is being hidden. There really need to be some guidelines about how warning templates are supposed to work. At the moment, this is just an edit war. Bsharvy (talk) 10:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Templates aren't generally intended as a propetual expression of differing opinion. If the article doesn't represent consensus, edit the article. You should at least be able to add the occasional sentence that "Some People Don't Believe This." At least after you clean up the weasel words to describe who Some People are. Loren.wilton (talk) 07:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Can somebody PLEASE do something about this???? A group of editors in this article has decided that they are not going to allow the use of any templates. They delete ALL templates no matter what is tried. The number of warning templates has been reduced, the redundnats ones removed, and all these editors do is BLANK all the templates no matter what. Nobody has said ANYTHING about a propetual expression of a different opinion. Its just a question of whether the templates are allowed to be used AT ALL. Rachel63 (talk) 12:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Rubbish! The editors putting tags on the article, when asked to be specific about the problems they are reporting with the tags refuse to do so. They spend so much time arguing for their inclusion but bugger all time deciding on what the actual problems are. The tags shown are particularly non-specific, generic and subjective so further explanation is necessary as to what they are there for. For example there's a tag accusing of original research, yet none of the taggers will say what they thinks is original research and why they think it's original research. So in my books under those circumstances the tag goes. Getting this point through to these editors is like nailing a jelly (jello for you yanks)to a wall! --WebHamster 13:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

There is endless discussion on that talk page about issues with the article. However, I am inclined to agree that the posters of those tags need to first write a section on the talk page that specifically refers to the issues raised, and then post the tags. I have often run across such tags with no followup comments, and my usual practice is to delete them, because they constitute groundless pot-shots. In this case, that may not apply. But the complainants need to first write the specific complaint, then post its tag. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

All of the issues in the tags have been discussed ad nauseum. I've probably written 1,000 words on why the article is unencyclopedic. It was just nominated for deletion, and several editors expressed their concerns about its validity as a topic. Even those who didn't vote to delete specified problems. The idea that the "unencyclopedic" tag hasn't been addressed is pure garbage. I've written several paragraphs on why the article lacks neutrality. As another editor said, the only objective statement you can make about this topic is a dictionary definition, and even that is inadequate since it logically includes things like pro-life activism, yet people don't usually call that anti-American. The suggestion that no reasons have been given for the concerns is dishonest obstruction. The only response we get from WebHamster and his cronies to these points is to announce that "we just don't like it" followed by deletion of warning tags to express the concerns we've described over and over and over again. Bsharvy (talk) 15:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

You're right. But if you have a section in the talk page that specifically answers his complaint, then you've got him. He would then have to invent another reason for deleting it, and help further the case for eventually blocking him due to disruption. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

There are four sections on the page that deal with the problems I've mentioned:

• 21 This Article Is Really Bad ....discusses reasons it is unencyclopedic
• 22 Copied from AfD ....discusses reasons it is unencyclopedic again
• 23 The First Step to Improvement ....I set out a basic task to make the article encyclopedic and neutral

Also, in...

• 4 Intro reverts ...I go into more detail about neutrality problems with the lead.

The only response is to assert I haven't "expanded" enough and to announce "I just don't like it." Note, these are just my objections. Other editors have voiced concerns as well.

--Bsharvy (talk) 23:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. The article was nominated for deletion. There is a whole page explaining why some people think it isn't encyclopeadic. Saying there isn't even a section just isn't right. Deleting templates because nobody has said why they want the templates isn't fair either. People have said what they think is wrong many times. There is a whole page about it, not just a section: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Anti-Americanism Rachel63 (talk) 08:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• Can someone take a look at the edits of User:Servant Saber it looks like he is trying to OWN the article and deleting all chritisizm that is targeting America. The article title is Anti-Americanism so it expresses conserns and believes of the political consept that is Anti-Americanism. Anti-Americanism article history Igor Berger (talk) 09:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
• I have invited the user to come to ANI and comment on his edits User_talk:Servant_Saber#Anti-Americanism Igor Berger (talk) 09:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I have removed sections that primarily violate WP:OR as unreferenced and the WP:MOS for being quotefarms. I also removed parts which implied that opposition to U.S. policies, politics, wars etc constitute anti-Americanism. I saw a shitty article and am trying to improve it, there's no sinister motives at all. --SABER^EXCALIBUR! 09:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The editor claims he knows what he is doing but I do not see his name on the article's talk page even once. I feel he is working his POV without fisrt getting a consesus from other editors who are envolved in editing the article. He claims WP:BOLD but I think BOLD does not imply WP:OWN Igor Berger (talk) 10:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, because edits like [37] are POV pushing ... --SABER^EXCALIBUR! 10:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I did not know being pro-life is Anti-American! Is that something new? Keep on hacking it to bring home NPOV..:) Igor Berger (talk) 10:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Bsharvy has just commented on the Talk page: "Some problems are systemic and can't be fixed by simple editing". As editing is the way articles are improved on the wikipedia this must mean he wants the tags to remain on the article forever - as his POV message to all users of the wikipedia and as his way of discrediting it since his attempt to delete it was outvoted. He also makes vague statements that he has discussed the issues elsewhere but doesn't go into any details. The point is to discuss the issues on the Talk page now, not vaguely genuflect to some indeterminate 'elsewhere' to which other editors have no input. Contra Saber's POV the article is very good and well referenced. It is one of the best articles on the wikipedia IMHO. And for the record the absurd edit [38] to which Saber objected IS something new. It was a contribution from Bsharvy and was almost immediately reverted. A startling demonstration of his grasp of the issues here. Colin4C (talk) 17:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree, being that Bsharvy put the warning tags on the article by his own admission, after the article went through an AfD and was a keep, he should just step on a side and let other editors improve the article, and not just keep protesting about the article's encyclopedic value. That has been determined by AfD already! Can the article be improved? Yes! But edit waring about the warning tags detract from improvement of the article. I have no objection to the tags, the editors involved with the article can continue editing it even with the tags. But Bsharvy needs to stop protesting the article! Igor Berger (talk) 11:56, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

"The tag about deletion should go after a failed AfD." --Stephan Schulz —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rachel63 (talk • contribs) 11:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Who the hell is Stepan Schulz and from what grounds does he derive his authority? Is he some great leader and master of men? Does he even exist? Colin4C (talk) 12:11, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] IP vandal blanking posts by TenOfAllTrades

79.76.216.197 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log)

This IP has been selectively blanking posts by TenOfAllTrades. I've rolled back and replaced Ten's posts. Looks like someone holds a grudge, so reporting here instead of AIV. Durova^Charge! 00:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The IP belongs to Tiscali UK; it's pretty obviously TreeSmiler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) / Light current (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log). See also Wikipedia:Abuse reports/Tiscali DSL, Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Light current, Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Light current, Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Light current.

If a Checkuser wants to have a quick look for new accounts being created in Tiscali's IP ranges, I suspect that you'll find he's been busy creating a new sleeper sock drawer, too. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, gotcha. I haven't been following Light current recently. Regards, Durova^Charge! 05:09, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Confirmed; zapped a few more. Thatcher 14:07, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Why isn't TreeSmiler listed as a sock of Light current? TS isn't listed under under Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Light current or Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Light current, yet from what I remember of discussions on the help desk a few weeks ago, TS was acknowledged to be the same person, and the discussion here seems to confirm my recollection. We have linked "rehabilitated" users with their original accounts when the new accounts have become abusive (User:New England and User:Sasha Callahan); why has that not been done here? Horologium (talk) 15:44, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

TreeSmiler isn't listed because certain admins decided not to, and they also discouraged on-wiki discussion of this. DuncanHill (talk) 15:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh look, 79.76.139.111 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log) just blanked this section... —αlεx•mullεr 13:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

TrouserPleasure (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) - same behaviour. Seraphim♥ ^Whipp 13:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Bagged 'em both ... Blueboy96 13:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

79.76.165.204 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log) now blocked. Acroterion _(talk) 13:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I've extended this guy's block to indef. Feel free to review it--but after this spree today, c'est assez. Blueboy96 13:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Works for me. He appears incapable of working productively for extended periods of time, always slipping back to the same sort of infantile trolling and vandalism. We had hoped that he could reform with the TreeSmiler account, but 'twas not to be. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Community ban for indef blocked editor who is now resorting to off-wiki harassment

I'm seeking a community ban on the indef-blocked Orrelon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log).

Back in September, he was blocked by SchuminWeb for deleting an article of his over a non-notable subject. Since then, he has returned with several IP addresses (and another user account) to try to "work things out man-to-man", demand apologies, and harass him.

Now, he has gone to off-wiki harassment. SchuminWeb and I are members of the same discussion forum. Last night, he created an account there, and posted a harassing message on the forum, and I quote:

I have been treated really badly by Ben Schumin over on Wikipedia. I made an article long ago, but he deleted it without talking to me about it, and then when I asked him about it after he just threw wikipolicies at me left right and center. He didn't speak to me like a man, perhaps a reason why he doesn't and never will have a girlfriend (or boyfriend, I don't care what he's into) This all happened in September. Ever since I have kindly asked him to respond but he continues ignoring me, blocking me. Well Schumin, you've got me now. I've been abused my whole life, shouted at, worse even. All I wanted is a little respect. Well I'll not be bother you anymore. I'll not be bothering anyone any more.

Because of that, I'm now worried about how far this guy will go to harass SchuminWeb. I think it's time to officially ban him once and for all. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 14:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• I would support a community ban based on the on-wiki harassment alone. This guy's behavior is totally unacceptable for any civilized online community. And before Orrelon accuses me of racism--I'm a black man myself. Blueboy96 14:44, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• • Agreed. Note that his original account seems to be Johnjoecavanagh (talk · contribs) (indef blocked but not tagged as being the same user as Orrelon). See also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive289#Johnjoecavanagh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) trolling a petition link. Hut 8.5 15:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• • Support ban of Orrelon and Johnjoecavanagh, note Johnjoecavanagh is the master puppetteer and should be tagged as such, any others as puppets. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I retagged all of Orrelon's IP's as socks of Johnjoecavanagh, I also retagged the sock accounts as being his. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 15:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I also reblocked Johnjoecavanagh with email disabled. Can't be too cautious in something like this. Blueboy96 18:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Endorse all proposed bans. We don't need this shit around here... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Support the ban. Bearian (talk) 19:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Support all proposed bans. -MBK₀₀₄ 19:51, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support ban per above. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 19:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support also (assuming my vote counts for anything; I am not an admin). However, I would like to state that I am rather concerned about the subject's mental state; his message sounds like a suicide note. Jonneroo (talk) 20:03, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course your opinion counts ... and now having a second look at it, I have to agree. Another Brian G. Crawford (talk · contribs), I suspect. Blueboy96 20:21, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Everyone check out this diff. Interesting, and I hope it is true (the tone of the message sounds legit). BTW, the new sock has been blocked. Jonneroo (talk) 02:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support - per Rlevse. Rudget. 13:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Spaming third party sites on policy or guideline pages

Is spaming third party sites (other non wikimedia run wikis) on policy or guideline pages acceptable? That is exactly what is going on at Wikipedia:Notability (fiction)#Relocating non-notable fictional material. I and several other people seemingly have tried removing it but people were quick to revert it back. Per WP:SPAM I request admin involvement. -- Cat ^chi? 23:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

In the context of the guideline, I see it no different as saying "search Google News for news stories". Will ^(talk) 23:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

We have removed explicitly calling out Wikia because people do complain about the possible conflict of interest with that site; though as Spectre states, one example next to a non-Wikia example is far from endorsing the site for relocating material. --MASEM 23:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

You can say "search the web" rather than "search google". Also the practice mentioned in the section in question does not have consensus behind it or at least I see no evidence of it. -- Cat ^chi? 23:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Introduction of the process in Nov 2003, leading to the term "Transwiki". --MASEM 23:21, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Wiktionary is not a third party site. It is a wikimedia operated site. I am not talking about the concept of "transwiki", I am talking about the concept of dumping articles you dislike to other third party wikis. In other words the basis of the section in question. -- Cat ^chi? 23:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Because that's not a policy or guideline at all. Transwiki is there to take content from articles that are going to be deleted to an offsite wiki. If the issue is that people are AfD'ing articles that they "dislike", that's a completely different issue altogether and one you need to address to those doing that. --MASEM 23:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

And this justifies advertising 3rd party sites how? -- Cat ^chi? 18:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Igorberger (Personal Attacks)

Could I have an uninvolved administrator please act on the personal attacks that Igorberger is making unfounded and attack allegations of me being a meat-puppet to which he was warned by another editor but instead of ceasing, apologising or retracting he placed another obscure attack against that editor. Igor is currently on a community topic ban detailed below in another thread to which I had some involvement but that does not mean that he can be quite so insulting to editors who are trying to have him change his behaviour.--VS ^talk 23:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I just blocked him for 24 hours an uncivil comment he made on my talk page (adding) that was directed at a third party, after he was warned by another administrator not to continue making such remarks. Jehochman ^Talk 23:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC) (Jehochman ^Talk 04:05, 9 March 2008 (UTC))

• [EC] Oh that was quick - I went to inform Igor of this ANI thread and I see that Jehochman has already blocked him. Thank you.--VS ^talk 23:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Jehochman--you really should have gotten someone else to do that. You're rather involved in the issue. 23:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rlevse (talk • contribs) 23:46, 8 March 2008

And I just declined his unblock request. However, he seems to be confused about why and for how long he was blocked. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 00:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Will speak up for Jehochman - whilst "involved" he has actually been supportive of Igor long after others have come away unable to further support. It would have taken some courage to block Igor on this occasion and I do not see a conflict of interest.--VS ^talk 00:15, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• I also support the block. It was 24-hours for personal attacks (of which I've now become a target). Jehochman doesn't have a COI in that regard. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 00:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• My god, that was quite some abuse. I've just read the relevant section of J's talk page :| Support block. Orderinchaos 02:31, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse block. - Philippe | Talk 02:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying it wasn't justified, I'm saying admins should never take admin actions against those with whom they are involved. That's common sense. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you're confused. I am not involved with Igor at all. Could you please explain and provide diffs because I am not seeing it. Sorry for being dense. Igor comes to my talk page occasionally and I chat with him. That's not "involvement", that's being friendly. Per common sense, simply engaging in conversation does not preclude using sysop tools. Jehochman ^Talk 03:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I think he means that you shouldn't block a user for an attack if the attack was against you. You were engaged in an argument with the user and then decided that he was attacking you. That would be a conflict of interest -- you probably should've requested that an uninvolved admin decide on a possible block. Although I too am not necessarily against the block itself. Equazcion •✗/C • 04:04, 9 Mar 2008 (UTC)

You're absolutely right, in general, but in this case, the attacks weren't leveled at me. They were directed at third parties.[39] The attacks occurred right under my nose on my own talk page, so I could hardly pretend to ignore them, especially after Igorberger has been specifically warned by another administrator not to continue making attacks.[40] Igor was not arguing with me at all. No, we've always been on friendly terms. Jehochman ^Talk 04:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

My mistake. I still think you were a little close to the situation to decide on blocks, but maybe that's just me. Equazcion •✗/C • 04:23, 9 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Based on the above, though, I think the consensus here would have been to block in this situation anyway, regardless of who did it - it's now been endorsed by uninvolved admins. Orderinchaos 08:18, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Possible topic ban

I was wondering if it'd be possible for User:Yosemitesam25 to be banned from editing all Hawaiian related articles. If one takes a peek at his talk page you'll see why; multiple 3RR warnings, accusations of COI and [a lack of] NPOV. This user was brought to my attention because I blocked him for breaking 3RR on the Overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom article (Which has now been semi-protected). Agreement with topic ban? Disagreement? Thoughts? Scarian^{Call me Pat} 03:05, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I just went through a similar process with User:DemolitionMan and his POV edits to Indian Rebellion of 1857. I started with an RfC where I specified his disruptive behavior and got community input before bringing it here. Although a topic ban was suggested, I ended up opting for a WP:1RR editing restriction with a review in two months. I'm not saying a topic ban isn't appropriate, but first I'd like to see more effort at reforming this user before taking that particular action. At the very least, it would be nice to see some diffs that demonstrate the objectionable behavior. Ronnotel (talk) 03:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure thing, [41] scroll down a little whilst keeping an eye on the user and edit summaries. [42] - Another example of edit warring. [43] - As you can see his edits across the board are being challenged with COI and NPOV. Also, if you want to read a long-ish conversation that suggests there is a clear consensus that this users' edits are troublesome: [44]. Hope this helps! Scarian^{Call me Pat} 03:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, he certainly seems to bring a POV to the issue. However, I only see one 24-hour block for WP:3RR and my very brief glance at his editing record didn't turn up any evidence of outright disruption beyond the edit warring. I think a topic ban might be an appropriate step at some point but IMHO I'd try like to see if the block works first. Of course, if there is more disruptiveness I haven't caught yet then my answer might change. In particular, if the alleged sock puppetry or COI issues have any merit, or if there are any WP:CIVIL issues. Ronnotel (talk) 03:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I support Ronnotels suggestion of a 1RR limit on the subject. I note that the editor is using the article - and other - talkpages, and appears to be able to appropriately discuss the matters notwithstanding the NPOV issues. It is a reasonable first step, and if it doesn't work out... LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Okie dokie then. I've offered the 1RR solution to Yosemitesam25 on a voluntary basis. Let's see if it works. Thanks guys. Scarian^{Call me Pat} 12:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] IP addresses continually re-add blog link

I'm not really sure if this is the right place for this.

The following IP addresses:

• Special:Contributions/217.162.3.141
• Special:Contributions/66.49.214.184
• Special:Contributions/58.145.192.164
• Special:Contributions/124.217.246.233
• Special:Contributions/66.199.237.22

have continually added a link to http://2d-barcode.co.uk/ to Barcode, QR Code, Data Matrix and ShotCode. Except for 66.49.214.184's edit to Endoscopy (also a spam link), adding this link has been all of these users' edits. The first of these edits happened on the 5th of February this year, with the most recent today. All of these users have been warned at least once, with 66.49.214.184 having received a final warning (uw-spam4).

--Evan ¤ Seeds 07:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I have added these urls to the spam blacklist. Thanks. In the future, you can request additions to the blacklist at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist. Evil saltine (talk) 08:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I forgot to mention Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam, you can report spammers there. Evil saltine (talk) 08:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Long-term vandalism with suspected sockpuppetry (3rd posting)

I have filed a sockpuppet case at WP:SSP about this user already but nothing has been done and i don't know if this is the place to post about this but everyone i have contacted has been of no help whatsoever.

Editor652 (talk • contribs • count) has been using numerous I.Ps to vandalize the same pages with the same info. Its tricky because i can't report him to ANI because i have to give him sufficient warnings before i can't report him and he vandalizes these pages with about a day in between each edit. If you see the history pages at the pages he frequently vandalizes (as seen on the sockpuppet case i filed) you will see the entire pages are mainly reverts i have made and i am getting quite tired of having to do so. The user is using the I.Ps for vandalism-only. What can possibly be done?-- LaNicoya  •Talk•  08:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Someone - probably Rlevse, eventually will get round to your sock report. I know, I've had to wait a bit myself. User:TreasuryTag/Sig2 09:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dynamic IP vandal

Can someone block the range of the banned dynamic IP vandal from Michael Tsarion please? The IP address starts with 99.141.xxx.xx. The site is semi-protected so s/he's now vandalising editors' talkpage User:Longhair‎, User talk:Jmlk17‎ etc, I requested this at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism and was told to post the request here. Many thanks, --Nuttycoconut (talk) 09:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry, looks like s/he's stopped and the editors have chosen to semi-protect their sites. Thanks anyway. --Nuttycoconut (talk) 09:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

For future reference,please try and give as small a range as possible. In this case, it seems to me that 99.141.208.0-99.141.223.255 would have been enough - and that's a logical range (99.141.208.0/20). עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:RichardDawkins

A single-purpose account has accused Dawkins, one of the world's leading public intellectuals, of sockpuppetry, and has filed SSP and CU reports against him. There is essentially no evidence the accounts are related, and no claim of disruption made, anyway. I've nominated both Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/RichardDawkins and Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/RichardDawkins for speedy deletion. This is probably malicious trolling and is likely to cause Wikipedia great embarrassment. In any case, the requests are wholly unfounded. <eleland/talkedits> 09:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/RichardDawkins was deleted over BLP concerns, together with the fact that the data is too old for any checkuser to help. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:11, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I had speedily closed and archived a few days ago Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Richard Dawkins, essentially the same request. If you don't deem that sufficient, you may want to consider tagging / deleting it as well. And rather look into the connection betweens the two SPAs. --Tikiwont (talk) 10:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Deleted. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Note this account's only other edits were to file an SSP case against another established editor (not transcluded). Again the alleged sock hasn't edited in a long time and no diffs are cited. Hut 8.5 10:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Tagged for speedy ... I'd have deleted it myself, but wanted to have a second opinion. Blueboy96 13:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm filing a checkuser on this guy myself ... seems awfully suspicious that someone who just created an account yesterday would be familiar with WP:RFCU and WP:SSP. Blueboy96 12:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and it goes without saying this guy is indefblocked for disruption. Blueboy96 12:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Patkirkwoood

I'm sorry, but I have no idea what to do. This user is consistently adding unfree images of the actress Beatrice Arthur. There is a perfectly acceptable free image, and this user is now on a third unfree image since the beginning of this month. Has ignored messages on talk page, and edit summaries show a lack of understanding of WP's fair use policies. Unfree image number two was deleted today, and a few hours later unfree image number three is uploaded. I've also had disputes with this user over edits and comments at Mickey Rooney and Talk:Mickey Rooney so this editor is not likely to respond to me. He was blocked for 48 hours, and this had no effect as he continued making the same edits as an anon. (User:90.198.115.130 and User:90.194.141.241 appear to be the same editor as they edit the same set of articles and almost nothing else (Mickey Rooney, Beatrice Arthur and Jane Boulton) Rossrs (talk) 11:05, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked for 24 hours and warned the user about the images and personal attacks. Scarian^{Call me Pat} 13:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Complex case: Israel lobby in the United States

Frivolous, unactionable complaint.
The following is an archived debate. Please do not modify it.
In agreement with apparent consensus in the dicussion in the talk page, I began to expand it to include more critical viewpoints, specifically that of James Petrasdiff. This has resulted in User:GHcool (who may be falling in ownership of the article) in reverting it without discussion twice diff1, diff2. I tried to discuss with him/her in both the discussion page and his own user page and, seeing he was not forthcoming, I had to make him notice about the 3 revert rule (among other policies). He finally replied in the discussion page but, simultaneously a newly created account (User:Little Stupid, Special:Contributions/Little_Stupid) has been used to revert the expansion of the section again in what could look like sockpuppetry or maybe meatpuppetry (to make things more complex, Little Stupid's user page redirects to another user page: User:Bishapod). I cannot succumb to that kind of abusive practices myself, but it cannot be accepted that sock/meatpuppetry is used to create/aggravate conflict, to overcome the 3RR nor to ignore consensus in favor of the minority and against NPOV. What can be done in cases like this? I think that the intended abuse is clear and that an admin should take a look at this issue in some way. --Sugaar (talk) 18:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC) I'd suggest submitting a request for checkuser, since it does look (from what you describe) like someone is trying to play games with socks here. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC) It's not GHcool. Thatcher 21:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC) Little Stupid (talk · contribs) has two edits in article space, and they're both reverts. Edit comments indicate an experienced user: "(Rv axe-grinding, see WP:Undue weight.)" and "(Reverting back from loosely-phrased promotion to concise encyclopedic description for the general reader. Please see WP:NPOV.)". The latter is in Faith healing, which seems to be having some kind of edit war at the moment, apparently revolving round Christian Science and the "New Thought Movement". --John Nagle (talk) 18:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC) I call on all admins to do something about this alarming disruption. An experienced user has reverted axe-grinding? No less than twice? Very, very suspicious. As Sugaar says, "the intended abuse is clear". --Little Stupid (talk) 22:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC). (unindent) I don't know if Little Stupid is GHcool or some other person but the facts are that his edits started that precise day, that his user-page redirects to another user page: Bishapod (talk · contribs) - never before seen that. that this other user-page reads "Bishapod can be revived when the world is in need of a fishapod" that in that second user page there is a section titled Puppet master master, authored by Yomangan (talk · contribs) ... looks all very strange. I'll see that checkuser. But I still feel that GHcool (talk · contribs) is in an attitude of WP:OWN, trying to decide on his own what fits in the article and what does not. Or basically trying to reduce the criticism section to nothing. --Sugaar (talk) 05:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC) [edit] Regarding checkuser The WP:RCU page reads: Unacceptable requests: Situation: Disruptive "throwaway" account used only for a few edits. Solution: Block. No checkuser is necessary. I think that's clearly the case with Little Stupid (talk · contribs). So I ask the administrators in charge, act appropiately. Thanks. --Sugaar (talk) 05:15, 9 March 2008 (UTC) Blocked. Haven't acted on Bishapod, which hasn't edited at all since January, or GHCool as this account may well have sprung into action without his knowledge. Orderinchaos 07:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC) Thanks. I admit I can't prove that GHcool is involved. But guess that if the issue arises again checkuser could be necessary. Not sure what our policies say for these cases. --Sugaar (talk) 09:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC) You may find this diff really interesting. I fished it in Bishapod's contributions: it seems nonsense but he signs as [[User:Bishapod|Little Stupid]] and mentions Yomangani (talk · contribs) who is apparently a distinct user from Yomangan (talk · contribs) (the one writing happily about puppet masters, see above) but both names sound too similar to be just a coincidence. I don't know what are you admins going to do (or what you actually can do) with all this but I suspect it's a mine of sockpuppets that should be investigated. --Sugaar (talk) 09:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC) Note: Yomangan admits having been Yomangani in his user page (but Yomangan user still exists, so he has at least two accounts, even if one might be iddle). Still I don't know if he is Bishapod/Little Stupid. But fishing into his edits, I found a former user Bishzilla (talk · contribs) that was an acknolwedged sockpuppet diff of Bishonen (talk · contribs) (who apparently left Wikipedia, but the account is still active) and writes in exactly the same style. It looks like a soap opera of sockpuppets. I am quite flippant but I think it's my duty to inform here in any case. --Sugaar (talk) 09:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC) Note that an alternative account is not a sockpuppet - it is quite well known that Bishzilla is Bishonen, she's extremely open about it and always has been. I think this whole chase has gotten more than a little silly. Orderinchaos 10:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC) No, you seem very far from sure of what our policies say, Sugaar. (How about WP:NPOV, to pick one at random? Or WP:CIV?) Let me tell you what they say in such a case as this: Little Stupid is a good-hand secondary account which breaks no rules. Consequently it has been unblocked. A few other points while I'm about it: The Little Stupid account started editing on February 14. But you repeatedly claim it started on the exact same day as it edited "Israel Lobby"--March 7. A fair flavor of your facts, Sugaar. And your failure to inform GHcool of your accusations on ANI are a fine sample of your conduct--you don't even apologize when CheckUser Thatcher tells you the account isn't GHcool's, do you? No, why should you? The ungracious remark "I admit I can't prove that GHcool is involved" is good enough, isn't it? As for your magisterial "I'll see that checkuser"... will you, now? LOL. Better tell Thatcher that. Please refrain from disrupting ANI with your poor behavior and non-existent facts. --Little Stupid (talk) 10:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC). Weren't you blocked? That I can't prove doesn't mean I don't have many reasons to suspect. If I have to apologize to someone, it would be to administrators for wasting their time. Guess that if Little Stupid is a "legit account" then we can go to checkuser and see what rings there. Right? And... there are only very specific cases when an alternative account is accepted (see: WP:SOCK). Good hand/bad hand accounts are expressly forbidden, as well. If Little Stupid, whoever he/she is, would have the slightest good faith, he/she would have gone to the talk page and not acted like a sockpuppet/meatpuppet (and here in AN/I as a provoker and not as humble witness of his own innocence). (And much of the same can be said about GHCool, who edited in bad faith against the consensus in the discussion). En fin, I can't make the decissions but it's reasonably transparent who is doing what. Who speaks the facts and who hides behind multiple accounts. --Sugaar (talk) 15:18, 9 March 2008 (UTC) Am I running Bish's accounts as socks? My, I have been busy. I must be closer to the top of WP:WBFAN than I realised, not to mention the countless conversations I've engaged in with myself. Roll on more inappropriate use of checkuser though: to quote from the top of WP:CHECKUSER: "Checkuser is a last resort for difficult cases. Use other methods first.". There were plenty of other methods to use first, and if the idea of using checkuser straight out of the gate was to put the accusation to bed, the incompetent sleuthing that followed suggests that didn't work. Rather than inappropriately advising a request for checkuser or carrying one out, perhaps a little investigation of the accusations beforehand wouldn't have gone amiss. Sugaar, you were wrong, let it go. Yomanganitalk 16:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC) I find it rather unbecoming of Sugaar to not inform me of this AN/I since it directly involves me. I had to learn about it from Little Stupid. Since I am innocent of all charges, specifically the charges of violating WP:OWN, WP:AGF, and WP:Sockpuppets, I intend to cooperate fully with any investigation into these claims without fear. Thank you. --GHcool (talk) 16:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Case closed. east718 (talk) 21:49, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:AnonymousDemotivator.jpg

Image:AnonymousDemotivator.jpg was deleted today by xaosflux as "orphaned fair-use". The image was orphaned after the said editor removed it from the Anonymous (group) article, giving the reason "remove image, not a logo of this group, copyrighted image not being used under fair use". However, this image had an IfD discussion which was closed as keep (13/4/0) on 2008-03-01, and a deletion review which was closed as no consensus to overturn earlier today.

As I explained to xaosflux on his/her talk page, I had not participated in either debate, and would not have thought further about it if either of the two had been closed as delete. However, they were not, and I do not feel it is right that an editor single-handedly overturns this result. The editor has stated that he/she is going to be inactive; thus my reason for mentioning this issue here before hearing his/her response.

I am not requesting a discussion of the validity of xaosflux's rationale, nor another deletion review. I am only inquiring whether it is considered acceptable for a single editor to take such an action in the face of an opposing consensus. Ayla (talk) 17:45, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

In fact, I would say that we are obliged to deleted an orphan fair use image, regardless of any consensus otherwise. Foundation directives are driven by legal requirements, and trump all. — Coren ^(talk) 18:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

No, the "orphaned" argument is inapplicable. As explained above, the image was used in Anonymous (group) until merely seconds before it was deleted. Ayla (talk) 18:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The image wasn't orphaned until the deleting admin removed it from the article, one minute before deleting the image itself. I call that a textbook example of gaming the system. Even if a fairuse image is orphaned, it should only be deleted after five days. — Edokter • Talk • 18:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The reason you quote, "remove image, not a logo of this group, copyrighted image not being used under fair use", looks like a very good reason indeed from removing the image from the article. If, at the end of that, the image is left orphaned then it is deleted. A non free image is only allowed to exist at all on Wikipedia if it is used with a proper fair use rationale (and it is otherwise irreplaceable). If the only use of the image was not legally appropriate, then it wasn't being used according to WP:NFCC, and must be deleted. — Coren ^(talk) 18:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

It was deleted due to failing WP:NFCC#10a (which it always will fail, as it is impossible to find the copyright owner), not because it was orphaned. It was only kept due to a severe amount of wikilawyering past NFCC#1. Will ^(talk) 18:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The closing admin for the IfD discussion concluded: "This seems to be the de facto logo for Anonymous and is used in an article about the group, which is generally considered appropriate fair use." I do not agree that xaosflux was justified in overturning consensus using arguments which had already been addressed at the two discussions (IfD and review). And, again, the debate of whether the image does qualify as fair use should not be re-opened here. Ayla (talk) 18:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, he was. He independently looked at it, and found that it failed the NFCC. Files that fail the NFCC can be speedy deleted seven days after upload, and it had been on Wikipedia for nearly three weeks before it was deleted. NFCC deletions override deletion discussions. Will ^(talk) 18:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:NFCC#10a was elaborately discussed at the review. If any admin could have "independently looked at it" and acted upon his/her own individual conclusions, then there would have been no need for a deletion discussion or review in the first place. Ayla (talk) 19:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, a source was given, hence IG thought it was suitable to close because (s)he felt it passed 10a (when it doesn't, because the copyright holder as well as the source is needed under that clause) Will ^(talk) 19:18, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

That argument (of just the source being insufficient) should have been raised within the review itself, so that editors favouring the retention of the image would have been given the chance to counter it. Ayla (talk) 19:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

And I find it disturbing that a user with a severe COI on the issue is using terms such as "wikilawyering". Ayla (talk) 19:03, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Ayla, no matter what you may hope, such pointless sentences don't trump WP:NFCC#10a. ➨ REDVEЯS dreamt about you last night 21:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I can see where this is heading. Very well, have it your way. I am marking off the case as resolved. Ayla (talk) 23:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's nice to know that these things get "resolved" before I even have a chance to chime in, or am notified. Feh... IronGargoyle (talk) 01:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

This was not handled properly. I have restored the image per deletion review. If you want to take discussion of the use of this image further use the proper dispute resolution process. -Nv8200p talk 01:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

See my note on my talk page I will not be following up further on this. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

As the one who started this, I should apologize to IronGargoyle for not having notified him/her. Having been in agreement with his/her closure, I thought it would be fairer to get the review outcome enforced by an uninvolved admin, in the spirit of avoiding any form of canvassing. I marked the thread off as "resolved" after REDVEЯS's inappropriate and condescending comment – maybe I should have made it clearer that I was, in fact, "withdrawing" my case. Nonetheless, I thank Nv8200p for taking a level-headed stance and acting upon it (even after I had retired from the discussion). Ayla (talk) 10:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow, from wikilawyering to personal attacks in 24 hours. Well done. ➨ REDVEЯS dreamt about you last night 20:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I hardly think that was a personal attack. Unless of course you'd like to qualify your earlier comment that Ayla is referring to as one. IronGargoyle (talk) 21:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't think so. ➨ REDVEЯS dreamt about you last night 21:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Coffee, anyone? "[N]o matter what you may hope" was condescending, and "pointless sentences" was inappropriate. If you feel that I violated WP:NPA in confronting you, please go ahead and file a Wikiquette alert against me. Regards, Ayla (talk) 03:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

(Removing {{resolved}} tag.) The debate concerning the image's deletion is being continued at a new deletion review. Any editors wishing to contribute to the discussion are invited to do so there. Ayla (talk) 00:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User: 86.151.43.75/86.153.140.88

The first listed IP is the more recent account, and suspected to be a sockpuppet of the already blocked latter IP; has consistently and continually removed content from Simon Amstell without discussion on talk page and with seemingly only this goal in mind (only contribs seem to be to the page on question, and always removal of the subject's self-defining and well-documented orientation) [45] Help requested, thanks. Rachel Summers (talk) 16:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Best to take the issue to WP:AIV or WP:RFPP. As an aside, though, I'd say that unless their sexuality defines them, then "openly gay" lines (and similar) sit very awkwardly in opening sentences, and should really be in a separate section on 'Personal Life' or suchlike. Black Kite 16:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Had it in AIV, nothing happened, was told to take it here; originally had the "openly gay" line in the bio/Early Life section, was removed there as well (and there was opinion that that area wasn't the appropriate place for it either). *sigh* Oh well, thanks anyway. Rachel Summers (talk) 16:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I told Rachel to come here since this sock continues to vandalize the article but not within a timeframe that AIV will deal with. He/she comes back seeming every 24 hours/ 2 days and does his/her work. Posting a report to AIV gets met with "nothing within last 24 hours". I personally think set timeframes are ridiculous. What's the point in a "final warning" or "only warning" when nothing will be done as long as they wait 24 hours between each vandalism effort. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 20:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The major problem with ip's is how static they are. If you wish to include a report on the status of the ip it may help, but as noted the two addys are close and the likelihood is that another address will be activated once a previous one is blocked. Of course a second and perhaps third block of sock ip's may give an indication of the range that needs blocking, but that also is not something dealt with at AIV. It looks like you are at the right place (but not necessarily being advised by the right admin.) LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Stalk

[edit] Please review indef on SnoBladerCAN

I originally gave SnoBladerCAN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) a 72-hour block for repeated posting of images without fair-use rationales. In looking at the images he uploaded, however, they're most of them are merely copies of the same copyrighted image--the copyright info is clearly visible in the right-hand corner of each one. As a result, I ramped it up to indef. Please review this ... at the very least, this guy is in need of a long, long Wikivacation. Blueboy96 19:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Good call. This user isn't here to write an encylopedia. Apart from one very dodgy edit to an article his only contribution has been to upload the images (which he doesn't add to any of our articles) He's been doing it for days and ignored all the talk page comments. Therefore i simply deleted everything he added without waiting. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:10, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I support your block. He almost seems like some weird spambot. Evil saltine (talk) 20:10, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

It looks like he just wanted Wikipedia as a place to upload his images. [78] Evil saltine (talk) 20:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Persistent problem not being dealt with after many, many weeks of edit-warring. Somebody Help!!

This is an on-going and persistent problem for many weeks of edit warring by a stubborn user who is continually adding an original synthesis, first to History of Sumer and then, when that page got locked, he has now moved on to Aratta with the exact same original synthesis argument. I have complained everywhere I can think of, and everywhere I am either ignored or told to complain somewhere else. Meanwhile, articles pertaining to Sumer have been systematically dismantled, references have been chucked and replaced with blatant OR, and there seems to be no recourse whatsoever that I can pursue to stop this from happening, other than to revert the editor. On one occasion that editor broke 4RR, I reported him, and got blocked myself just for blowing the whistle. There has got to be something that can be done about this. The few people I have been able to get involved all seem to agree that this is blatant original synthesis, but the user refuses to listen, removes the tags, blanks references, and it never ends. This has been going on for so long with constant edit warring ever since that user showed up, that I am now fairly at my wits end, because I love the articles about Sumer, having contributed heavily to them over the years, and hate to see them being turned upside down in this fashion. I have never seen a user been able to get away with so much in my 3 years of editing, but it seems many people leave him alone without question, perhaps because of his username which suggests his love for Sumer. I submit that no matter what his username is, he should be held to the same standard as any other editor. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 21:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I've been following these discussions on and off for a few weeks now and it's becoming quite disruptive. History of Sumer has already been fully protected due to the edit warring, and I've requested a respite for Aratta now as well. I feel that a few admins really should take a closer look at the situation objectively. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 22:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be two editors with the same concern of an editors contributions, one of whom at least has attempted forms of dispute resolution. You could try for an WP:RfC in the matter on that basis. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Sumerophile (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log · rfcu) prior block of 12h. Gave 48h block for persistent edit warring over several articles. Previously given 3RR notice, and final warning notice. seicer | talk | contribs 22:27, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and fully protected Aratta for 1 week. —Travis^talk 22:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I am concerned the Sumerophile allegedly simply exports their POV to the next unprotected article on the list. My suggestion of an RfC would determine whether community sanction on the editor is the appropriate remedy for disruption. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Seicer has blocked Sumerophile for 48. I'd say this is a rough case for outsiders, involving niceties about obscure literary and archaeological references. Some fine scholars are not so fine disputants. I advocate patience. Pete St.John (talk) 22:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

That's pretty much exactly what's going on. This cropped up very soon after History of Sumer was fully protected - as Aratta was tangential to the edit warring on that page. I suggested WP:RFM or WP:3O, but it doesn't appear as though that has happened, unless I missed it. WP:RFC was attempted, but it was ineffective. However, if we're talking sanctions, I believe it should be decided here or at Arbcom. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)}

The user, in the past, has abused his Twinkle privileges and has engaged in edit warring, despite numerous warnings and notices. On 26 February 2008, he was given a 3RR warning and was blocked on 31 January 2008 for edit warring. He has clearly disregarded any prior notices and block, and has removed any prior messages. While I am patient (as Pete St. John noted on his talk page), persistent violators will be persistent violators no matter how many nice messages we apply. If he chooses to ignore them, and test everyone's patience -- to not only the blocking administrator, but to those who protect the pages he edit wars on, then he deserves longer blocks for each instance that this happens. It's not taking a position if he is right or not -- but if he continues down this path, then there will be future actions taken against this individual. seicer | talk | contribs 22:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

While I am not taking sides here either I just wanted to mention that, to my knowledge, no one bothered to warn the other user involved about WP:3RR, and I think that's what Sumerphile is bitter about. Regardless, this does not justify the consistent ignoring of warnings and persistent disruption of multiple articles, especially after an attempt at a third opinion, RfC, and page protection. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 22:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I also do not dispute your block, Seicer. I believe you made the right call, given the prior warning about abusing Twinkle. It was obvious the script was employed for ill-intentions. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 22:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I was still reviewing the other user's contribs when this message popped up. I do see a 3RR warning on 2 March 2008 for Til Eulenspiegel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). I am going to give a final notice, and if it occurs in, I would endorse a block. Never mind, I will post a 24 hour block for edit warring. He was given other notices of such instance on 1 February, and was previously blocked for such actions on 31 January. seicer | talk | contribs 22:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, yes thanks for the diffs. I suppose then that the problem resides with just one another's POV. When I attempted to mediate, he/she insinuated that I was taking sides, so I assumed that Sumerphile was dismayed about one-sided warnings. It was nearly impossible to deal with as they even argued on my talk page. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 00:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emerald Coast Beer Company

resolved until he's unblocked and starts up again. Thanks all! TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 03:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

No intervention needed at the moment but if someone can keep an eye on this AfD, it would be a good thing. It's starting to head a little out of control with this recent comment from the creator: the category is DEL and this is the same BS that went on last year and it was ok then. now the Birmingham News site is down so ECBC should come down hell NO and as I said this is about me doing more work if i didn't the ECBC would be up for years to come this is BS and you know it Participants have tried to guide the user, but I think it's getting a little zooey and an eye on it, for those who aren't headed to bed shortly might be a good thing. Thanks! TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 00:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

and he's threatened seemingly pointy noms: mybe i should mark them for DEL and they can make therer case. I feel badly since he's apparently very close to the topic and taking this personally, but I'm not sure how to reach him. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 01:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Let the AfD run its course, and then re-assess if there is need for admin actions. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

And blocked for 31h for pointy AfD nominations and for general nonsense at the AfD for the Emerald Coast Beer Company. seicer | talk | contribs 01:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Karimchik (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

When I first saw this person's edits I wasn't sure if their edits were positive or not. However, I did drop a note on their talk page asking them to explain their rationale. There has been no response but the person has continued to make the same kind of edits. I did go through their contribs and revert the changes as they seemed to be quite controversial i.e. changing chart performances of artist's singles/albums to be more favourable, [79] (from a December revision) to [80]. What do we think? Seraphim♥ ^Whipp 01:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I also found this ip with similar behaviour, [81], making the same changes as Karimchk. Seraphim♥ ^Whipp 01:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked the editor for 3 days for deliberately disrupting articles; the IP hasn't been active for a while, so I'll leave it for now. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 02:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank-you :). Seraphim♥ ^Whipp 02:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prussian Blue (duo)

WP:SPA has made a frivolous nom, is faking votes, vandalizing votes and engaging in personal attacks. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Resolved. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

User blocked for disruption. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Incivility, trolling by User:Ireneshusband

Ireneshusband (talk · contribs) has recently been active in discussing name and content changes in 9/11-related articles. Without a doubt, these changes are being pushed by him to advance a pro-9/11 conspiracy agenda. Those who oppose ththis user's attempts to add conspiracy POV language to articles have been met with incivility and trolling on both article talk pages and user talk pages.[82][83][84][85][86][87][88][89][90][91][92][93][94][95][96][97][98][99] Ireneshusband also started a MedCab case, which was full of assumptions of bad faith and incivility.[100]

After these two edits,[101][102] I gave Ireneshusband a warning for trolling.[103], which he described as a "ridiculous threat" and suggested that I brush up on Wikipedia policy.[104][105]

Shortly thereafter, Ireneshusband made this edit[106], which, to his credit, he refactored[107] (although he should not have made a comment that he needed to refactor). However, today there has been more incivility and trolling.[108][109][110] He has also posted to the talk page of a new user, encouraging him/her to not accept the "indignity" coming his/her way.[111]

I, and I believe many other users, am tired of dealing with this user's constant incivility. Perhaps an involuntary vacation is appropriate here. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 18:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I have to concur with Ice Cold Beer's assessment of the situation. I am particularly disturbed by the message placed on my talk page (which several other users received one as well) warning that I misunderstood Wikipedia policies; moreover, having been warned, should I continue my arguments, I would be guilty of willfully misrepresenting policies. Combined with this user's assumptions of bad faith as documented above, I see this as an attempt to chill discussion of the topic. Disagreement on policy is one thing, but accusing users who disagree with you of dishonesty is quite another. I don't mean to be overly dramatic, but isn't that the reason we take such a hard line on legal threats? // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 21:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I shall respond to these charges in more detail when I get time. Suffice it to say for the moment that a number of editors, IceColdBeer included have been indulging in disgraceful tactics to prevent proper discussion of issues and to intimidate editors who threaten to undermine their authority. One of these tactics has been to knowingly misrepresent wikipedia policies over and over again in order to make a lot of irrelevant noise and thus make any intelligent debate impossible. I have not said this until now, but this behaviour is as bad as lying. It is plainly done with the same intent as lying. Haemo, who is an admin no less and therefore must be very well-versed in wikipedia policy, has been one of the worst offenders, which is why I left such a strongly worded message about it on his user talk. When he then repeated the offense, I left another message. Even though my wording was very strong, I made a point of not actually making a threat. At the same time I left a more mildly worded message for IceColdBeer (which he promptly deleted) because he had just committed the same offense as Haemo and all those other editors. It was just after that that he decided to leave his threatening message. His threat was marked "final warning" even though I had not received any warning before. That in itself shows an aggressive attitude. That his complaint was ostensibly about my message to Haemo, making no mention of the message I had left him that he had immediately deleted, was sneaky. He was pretending to be a third party standing up for the ill-used Haemo when he was actually pursuing a personal vendetta.

Basically there has been a culture of bullying, lying and and malicious wikilawyering that has been going on at 9/11 conspiracy theories and related pages at least since I first tried to get involved in editing the page at the end of 2006. My first experience of this was so horrible that afterwards I spent nearly a year without even logging into wikipedia. My message to the new user that IceColdBeer has brought up in evidence against me was for the sole purpose of making sure that he does not get bullied out of wikipedia the way I was and probably a good few others have been. I told him that he would not get the gentle introduction to editing that users get in other areas of wikipedia because that is a plain fact. I told him to get himself well versed in wikipedia policy because that is what I have had to do to survive the shamelessly devious wikilawyering of the group of editors I have been talking about. I did not advise him to be obnoxious. I simply advised him not to be naive. I certainly did not name names. However now that this complaint has been brought against me, it is time to name a lot of names. I am utterly sick of the way things are, as are many other editors, not to mention those who knows how many who have left wikipedia, disillusioned, and have never come back. Put simply, editors who endlessly cry WP:THIS and WP:THAT, often fraudulently and often in unison, but who absolutely refuse even to consider the significance of or the spirit behind policies and guidelines such as Wikipedia:Common sense or Wikipedia:Ignore all rules, cannot be up to any good. Something must be done about such conduct. Such editors should certainly not be allowed to continue goading other editors whom they consider to be threats to their authority so that they can gather enough dirt to file a patently malicious complaint like the one that IceColdBeer has just filed against me. ireneshusband (talk) 21:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I stand by my statement that I originally made when these accusations against my character, and my editorial judgment were first leveled:

Again, you misunderstand my argument and instead focus your ill-conceived venom upon for the impertinence of disagreement. Your belief is based in the fact that you don't understand my argument, and have instead taken to a vain attempt to brow-beat me, and other editors who disagree with you, into submission. In short, until you cease this incivil and misplaced attempt to claim some kind of highground to which you are not entitled, and instead try to understand what the people who disagree with you are really saying — instead of what you want to believe they are saying — I have nothing more to say to you. --Haemo (talk) 07:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Suffice to say that I disagree with the accusations made against me, and against all other editors who have disagreed with ireneshusband on this issue. In my opinion, ireneshusband has spent nearly all of his time here pushing conspiracy theorist POV on a number of related articles. Repeated appeals to "commonsense" and "ignoring all rules" should set off the POV alerts in experienced editor's head as indicative of trying get around policies because they do not suit them. This is all well and good — Wikipedia puts up with POV editors on many subjects, and I don't expect the tolerance of this to stop.

What is not well and good are the continual personal attacks and incivility he has leveled against editors for disagreeing with him — charges of "bullying", "cabalism", "Wikilaywering", "lying", and "malicious" behavior are evident even on this very page. I have told him before, as have other editors, that it is not acceptable and not appropriate — these have fallen on deaf ears. Or, perhaps, ears that know the Truth™ and do not need to listen to others. I did not want to bring this here, because I am tired of this drama — but, as they say alea iacta est. Since I have been mentioned by name, I thought should at the very least offer my opinion and defend my name against accusations I hold to be totally invalid. I leave the actual actions to uninvolved admins. --Haemo (talk) 23:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

How is this complaint malicious? Ice Cold Beer (talk) 05:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

But what if editors are banding together and charges of "bullying", "cabalism", "Wikilaywering", "lying", and "malicious" behavior are accurate? My feeling is that those charges are accurate, and when someone comes forward with the courage to point it out despite the policy of assuming good faith, they are breaking laws and rules for a very good reason. The arguments presented by IrenesHusband have been very good, and indeed have made me think twice about whether the mainstream account is complete, or even accurate. Dscotese (talk) 15:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Can you point to any instances of bullying, cabalism, wikilawyering, lying, or malicious behavior by anyone other than Ireneshusband? Ice Cold Beer (talk) 04:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, is it malicious to refer to a person as a "conspiracy theorist" rather than by name? This is done by several editors in this discussion. It is almost as if there is intent to discredit a person for seeing flaws in the mainstream account of the events of 9/11. If you want malicious, then just look at the edits of one editor who uses the term often (pick any one you want). If you want cabalism then look at them as a group. If you want wikilawyering then examine their application of policy references. I can't provide examples of Lying because I recognize the elusiveness of truth. Do you? Dscotese (talk) 05:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I read a number of the above listed "uncivil" arguments. Seems there's incivility on many fronts. That seems to be a tactic used to obscure facts. I appreciated IrenesHusband's message. I got one. There was nothing uncivil in it. Basically it said familiarize yourself with the policy, don't let me or Ice Cold Beer or anybody else familiarize you with what the policy means. Seems to me that's what Wikipedia policy is all about. In most of those snippets pointed out above, other than the bickering, I saw a lot of IrenesHusband trying to back up his points with references, trying to get them seen for people, not a person to judge. I think if anything, almost everyone mentioned was uncivil including the person who leveled the claim. Best thing would be for everyone involved to agree to be civil when it comes to discussing and editing this obviously touchy and heated topic. Seems to me if IrenesHusband were to be banned based on these claims, several others in these threads should be banned for the very same reason. I don't think anyone should though, I think the focus should be the article and not the people editing it. (Deminizer (talk) 17:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC))

This dispute, actually, has remained fairly civil on both sides, with the only exception being Ireneshusband. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 04:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I think Ireneshusband has stepped over the line multiple times. But he's not alone as some of the above comments demonstrate. RxS (talk) 05:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• Accusing some good-faith editor of trolling is in itsself very incivil. I feel Ireneshusband should do wiser than to accuse any author of bad faith except when reporting an incident. But he is certainly not trolling, he is trying to uphold policy in my opinion. If you cannot win the debates with arguments, please do not confuse matters with complaining about something else. ICB, you have room for improvement in respect of civilty yourself, in my opinion.  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 19:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• If you're characterising Ireneshusband as a good-faith editor, then I think you might be pushing the definition a bit. That account appears to me to be a crusader for WP:TRUTH (ironically enough, given that the conspiracy theorists are usually referred to as Truthers). Guy (Help!) 20:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

1. Incivil, perhaps; trolling: no. Trolling refers to deliberate and intentional attempts to disrupt the usability of Wikipedia for its editors, administrators, developers, and other people who work to create content for and help run Wikipedia.. Ireneshusband seems to be involved in fierce arguments about the correct interpretation of wikipedia.
   I am not much interested in judging other people's level of incivilty, I am busy enough with myself. But if I must, I would say that editors on both sides could be more civil, and relax a bit.
   Trolling means: intentional disruption. A flame is indeed disruptive, but flames usually originate out of good faith.
   I would like it very much when all editors who have made accusations of trolling either revoke that, or show why they think this editor is deliberately trying to disrupt wikipedia instead of trying to defend our policy, according to his own insights. Hope this helps?  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 21:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
2. ICB wrote: "Without a doubt, these changes are being pushed by him to advance a pro-9/11 conspiracy agenda."
   You seem very sure about the motives of your "opponent"? In my opinion, Ireneshusband is probably trying to make sure wikipedia is NEUTRAL, no more, representing significant minority viewpoints fairly and proportionately as we agreed via policy. That is not synonymous to "advancing an agenda". I hope we will direct our energy towards finding consensus on the correct application of the guidelines, and assume good faith on all sides.  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 21:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

While ireneshusband does show impatience at times I don't think he crosses the line or ever goes far enough to warrant reporting here. In fact his behaviour is understandable considering he constantly asks questions and in reply gets nothing but interpretations of Wikipedia policies in place of genuine answers which annoys me as well. Wayne (talk) 05:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• I don't believe that I.H. is trolling; he is a crusader for WP:TRUTH who at least attempts to stay within WP policy, although his constant accusations of bad faith and cabalism are tiresome. Actions such as filing mediation requests indicate he is at least trying to resolve disputes, although the content of the mediation request is a good indicator of the problems here:

The opposers have, as always, completely ignored key aspects of the proposers' case. Instead they have grossly misrepresented wikipedia policy, as well as the evidence provided by the proposers, again and again and again, no matter how many times this is pointed out to them. [...] This debate has never been decided by reason, logic or even a passably fair reading of wikipedia guidelines and policies. It has always been decided by the noise of irrelevant and/or misleading comments, in some cases accompanied by veiled threats. In other words it has been decided force and by force of numbers. [...] I also want it to be made clear that making a lot of noise without honestly engaging with one's opponents' arguments and in brazen disregard for obvious factual information is obstructive behaviour and contrary to the policies and spirit of Wikipedia.

• Overall, I see I.H. as a problem user, but not a target for administrator action. <eleland/talkedits> 14:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
• I will label no one as problem user or troll. Instead I would like to bring up a quote, which might inspire people to change themselves instead of others:

  Remember Hanlon's Razor. Behavior that appears malicious to experienced Wikipedians is more likely due to ignorance of our expectations and rules. Even if you're 100% sure that someone is a worthless, no-good, internet troll, vandal, or worse, conduct yourself as if he or she is not. By being calm, interested, and respectful, your dignity is augmented, and you further our project. — I think that this can be the only way out of this.  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 02:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• I would find your assertions easier to accept if it weren't for the fact that you appear to share the same fringe POV. Guy (Help!) 16:27, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• I can well imagine that. But I've been in a similar, but opposite position. I've once thought that wikipedia must be crawling with paid disinfo agents. Nowadays I want to always assume good faith, and I sincerely believe that the most stubborn, irrational POV editing done by editors which oppose my personal views, are most likeely genuine, and good faith in stead of trolling, sabotage or censoring. Even if their actions amount to censoring in my book, I realize that is not the intention.  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 14:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

If I understand well there is an user (ICB) that is accusing another user of:

• editing to advance a pro-9/11 conspiracy agenda ("without a doubt")
• incivilty
• trolling
• assuming bad faith

and why this accusations? Because he (ireneshusband) allegedly did exacly the same kind of accusation to other users before and (like is ICB doing here with him) assumed bad faith on other users. Am I right? Are we discussing about who has the right to assume bad faith and who has not?--Pokipsy76 (talk) 14:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

You are right, Pokipsky! I hope the above discussion has cleared the air a bit, and all are a little wiser than before. I have no idea what action an admin could reasonably take on this. Let's hope this report wasn't just a useless energy-drain!  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 15:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Igorberger

I'm too lazy to go looking through diffs but this user has been all over the place enough that I think there are probably more than a few users who'll know what I'm talking about.

Igor has become a nuisance at all manner of discussions, but namely those related to policy. It seems unintentional, which is why I waited quite a while before complaining, but now I feel I have to say something. He participates in discussions and offers advice to others, usually by spouting incoherent mixtures of passages he picks up from policies and from what other users say, when he really doesn't know very much about any of it. He ends up baiting the users (usually the ones who don't know him yet) into frustrating arguments. It might be an unintentional disruption, but it's become just unbearable, so that I've come to predict that any argument he participates in will take double as long, be twice as heated, and go completely off-topic.

It seems almost as if participating in policy and other controversial discussions is this user's way of forcing himself to learn English -- and that's not a joke or a put-down -- he really seems to not know much English, and wants to learn it by participating here. On a side note, it seems to be working, too; slowly, but still faster than any language class could accomplish. Still I don't think Wikipedia should be used this way, if it inhibits important discussions. I'm honestly not sure what to do about this. Perhaps someone should kindly suggest that he participate in the Wikipedia of his native language, and/or to participate in some other English online forum. Equazcion •✗/C • 05:43, 8 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Can you point to a policy he's violated? What admin action is necessary here? - Philippe | Talk 05:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know that he's violated any particular policy. This is more like my cry for help. It would be much simpler if he had made a blatant violation, but since he hasn't (that I know of), I don't know what to do. If constant disruption is a violation of policy, even when unintentional, then that would be the violation. Equazcion •✗/C • 05:55, 8 Mar 2008 (UTC)

This is from a while ago, back during the rollback poll, but it's a good example of what I'm talking about and the one that sticks out most in my memory. I had proposed to make changes to the non-admin rollback proposal, to which Igor responded:

"Modifying the proposal to take account of the requested recommendations will bring the consensus closer to fruition. You will need the approval of the bureaucrats. Once ready file it as a request for a Bot account. If you do not have the consensus, the bureaucrats will not grant you the account, because it will undermine their authority which is granted to them by the WP:stewards. Please make sure it is done correctly, and if you need any further assistance give me a hallo. Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 18:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)".

Mind you, my suggestion only required editing the proposal page. This is the kind of speaking-without-knowing the user constantly engages in, only unlike other such people, he hasn't let up at all, and does this constantly during important discussions and when advising new users. Equazcion •✗/C • 06:11, 8 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Here's one from my talk page yesterday. I'm not really sure where he was going with that, as I felt his comments were a bit off-the-wall, but in the end, it all turned into some sort of .. well, joke or something! I wasn't sure what to make of it but I'm sure he meant well - Alison ^❤ 06:18, 8 March 2008 (UTC) (I just left a note on his talk page to indicate the discussion here)

This one really confuses the heck out of me:

We having a discussion not enforcing a discussion. Whatever the outcome that is the outcome determined by consensus. Not by your POV or my POV. Others can contribute and have contributed to this discussion. Igor Berger (talk) 05:07, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea what this even means - sure, the sentences make sense, and I know what all the words mean, but it seems like a collections of things that are vacuously or tautologically true. From ongoing discussion at WT:UP. --Cheeser1 (talk) 06:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The above example does read a bit like, because this shape conforms to the ideas which reflect he concept of pi, it is round, and thus, it is a circle, which reflects the ideas of pi, and is round, but only if it is round by being a circle. that said, I think IB wants to help and is trying to stay well inside Civil, though it means yoning down comments till they're just vapid. ThuranX (talk) 07:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd say that's pretty much dead-on. Equazcion •✗/C • 07:48, 8 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Did I miss a response to the question of what admin action is being asked for? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 07:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Nothing yet. This discussion is to hopefully produce a suggested action. Equazcion •✗/C • 07:48, 8 Mar 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I am adding this comment in support of this thread by Equazcion at the risk of once again being lambasted by Igor (sorry but as an editor recently wrote on my talk page in relation to my many many attempts and the attempts of many other editors in working with Igor, here Assuming good faith can only go so far). Quite simply it is difficult to continue to write kindly about this editor - and whilst I will try my hardest - we are somewhat 'snookered' because there is no direct policy against writing incoherent statements. That said, checking through Igorberger's extensive history for this type of thing editors will at first come to the conclusion that the problem may be somewhat first language orientated, but then quickly change their mind when perfect English is used. (Igor states on his home page that he went to New York State University) However whatever the source of the problem, the fact IMHO is that Igor constantly breaches the disrupt guideline and most specifically in relation to that guideline where tendentious editing is defined. Igor has been directly spoken to about this on many occasions but most specifically as detailed extensively here but he simply refuses to adjust his methods and he continues again and again to disrupt the flow of wikipedia - especially in AfD's ANI's and similar points of community discussion.

To my mind then Igor is at the closing end of how to deal with disruptive editors because he refuses to listen to the community consensus and he should either:

1. Be given a final warning and then short block as detailed here at point 5 and if that does not work;
2. He should be community site or topic banned as detailed here at point 6.--VS ^talk 08:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, there is no such thing as "New York State University". There is the State University of New York system (SUNY), with many colleges and university centers throughout the state, but no one who went there would make the mistake of calling it anything but "SUNY", and then always with the specific name of the place: "SUNY Binghamton" or "SUNY Purchase". There is also the "University of the State of New York", but that is the state agency which licenses higher education institutions in the state, and is not in any shape or form a "university" where people go to college. There is "New York University", a private institution in New York City, universally known as "NYU" - again, no one who went there would mistakenly call it "New York State University". Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 08:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec³) This seems to be VS' slip-up in passing it on, not Igorberger's: His user page claims New York University. (And always did, unless someone changed the user box.) — the Sidhekin (talk) 08:45, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• I am sorry my userbox says NYU. {{User NYU}} Igor Berger (talk) 08:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

  Would you like to see a copy of my NYU diploma? I can scan it an upload it to my server! Unfortunetly you must be an alumni to search the NUY online database. Igor Berger (talk) 08:48, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Igor dropped me a note on my talk page to the same effect - that he went to NYU, which is indeed what his user page says, and has apparently said since February 26. Everything I wrote above is factually correct, but I'm sorry I didn't take the time to check his user page, as it's clearly a non-issue. My regrets. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 08:51, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow! That's a pretty categorical statement, and considering the size of NYU, the number of students who attend from many foreign countries, and the many schools it houses, all of which have somewhat different criteria for admission, I'll wager that it's a fairly indefensible statement as well. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 09:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

With respect, Igor, I think you may be misinterpreting what the issue is here. It's more about your editing than your academic credentials. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 08:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• User:Equazcion you are assuming bad faith and that is unbecoming of a Wikipedia editor! I offered to prove my attendance to NYU. I have a spelling problem that if I do not spell check I make mistakes, but I am not a LIAR as you accuse me to be! Igor Berger (talk) Igor Berger (talk) 08:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• • No the point is you started this personal attack on me because you could not get your way in Wikipedia_talk:User_page#Nude_images discussion. I might be a good editor or bad editor but you have no right to attack an editor, because you do not agree with their editing style or POV. Igor Berger (talk) 09:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• This has nothing to do with your POV, and little to do with the nude images discussion. I removed all my comments regarding NYU. I hope we can get back to the actual point of this discussion now. Equazcion •✗/C • 09:12, 8 Mar 2008 (UTC)

• To clarify - yes my mistake with regards the actual name of the university (it came from my memory of his talk page) - it was added to reflect a respect for the fact that if Igor went to a university that he should be able to understand that the community consensus is asking him not to add incoherent and unhelpful nonsense generally around Wikipedia. But this is not about what University Igor went to - it is about the continued disruption that he is engaging in by adding incoherent & unhelpful nonsense to discussion pages and talk pages. Attacking Equazcion is not an appropriate way to solve this issue - you stopping with this type of editing is - hence my suggested solution that you are at the very least warned not to add material of this nature again. Such an action is open to the Wikipedia community and if that does not cause you to stop then the community can and should block you from editing. How are you able to answer that request from the community Igor?--VS ^talk 09:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I am sorry Steve but you should get a consensus of the community first, especially of uninvolved admins. Igor Berger (talk) 09:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• Here we go again Igor. This process is about getting consensus. Other users above are saying the same thing as me. The links I point to above (as a result of previous consensus) do give us the ability to act in the following ways, and to increase our response if you continue to edit in a way that many other editors have now complained to you about. To repeat those ways (if others agree) are:

1. You are given a final warning and then if necessary a short block as detailed here at point 5 and if that does not work;
2. You are community site or topic banned as detailed here at point 6.

Towards this outcome - given that you will again twist and turn to escape the views of so many of your wikipedia colleagues - I am interested in whether the community supports or opposes this solution. For my mind to make it abundantly clear I Support you initially being warned as to not offering disruptive, incoherent, off-point edits.--VS ^talk 09:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I've observed Igor for a while and whilst I don't think he intends to be a trouble maker or willfully disruptive character, his off point and just flat out incoherent edits are often disruptive. I endorse the position expressed by VirtualSteve. Xdenizen (talk) 09:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] break 1

• Comment VirtualSteve you accusing me of disruptions due to my edit style but you have not brought any diffs to prove your case. This is the second time you are accusing me. The first ANI was about COI, and now it is disruption. Are you canvasing for consensus? I feel you been on top of me since the first day we met, no other admin has had a complaint about me. Why is it just you who have been following and objecting to my edits? Igor Berger (talk) 09:40, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
• Please Igor - I have given you a direct link above as a great example of others who have concerns about your problematic editing - it is on your talk page (archives) and you commented to that editor (not me) with the words "Thank you for evaluating me". Read it please - and then read the comments above from other editors who are agreeing the comments of Equazcion (again not me). Why will you simply not stop with the editing about things that you seem to know nothing about and when you do edit no-one can understand what you are saying? Why do you not honestly address this issue of concern which others are pointing out to you?--VS ^talk 09:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
• VirtualSteve why are you always threatening me with blocks? Blocks are preventive not punative and not to be used as cohersion tool? When you have had a complaint about my editing what did you do? Did you cunsult with other admins about me? Two other admins told you to walk away from me? But you kept following me and watching every edit I did. Igor Berger (talk) 10:02, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you Igor - again you do not address the real issue with your off-point comments - I am not threatening you with a block - if that was the case I would have come to your talk page with a warning (which I will do in the future if I am not involved and it becomes necessary) but instead I am adding to a discussion on your editing style. You will note that I did not start, second or even third comment on that discussion thread. However, as I expected you did not (nor will you) answer the actual point you are being asked to comment on. Others will see that for the fact it is.--VS ^talk 10:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Steve, a few months ago you accused me of gamming the system! How am I gamming the system? What are my motivation of gamming the system? I may not great editor, but I spend a lot of my time reverting vandalism and Spam, I mediate on articles to help other editors reach NPOV. Yes I place myself in situations that may not look like a good edit because some users attack me. Especially anons and socks. But you instead offering me support and understanding, you saying Igor behave! I am disappointed in you Steve. Igor Berger (talk) 10:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• Approaching Igor with an ultimatum, in which you attempt to get him to agree to discontinue his disruptive edits, is of no use, because he disagrees or doesn't realize that his edits are disruptive. We're not dealing with a vandal that we can final-warn and say "don't do this again or else". That's what makes this such a difficult situation, and that's why I proposed to simply impose a topic ban and even suggest to Igor to stick with the Wikipedia language version that corresponds with his native language. He simply doesn't understand what's going on and will continue to insist that we're hindering him from his efforts to achieve "NPOV" or whatnot. If I thought talking to him would help I would've done that, rather than taking this to ANI -- and I have tried doing that before. It just doesn't work, not with this editor. We either need to decide to do something without his consent or decide not to do anything and allow him to continue as he has been. Those are the choices as I see them. Equazcion •✗/C • 10:34, 8 Mar 2008 (UTC)
  • Equazcion, you are showing prejudece to foreign editors, by saying if they do not agree with you they should go edit encyclopedia in their own language. I am communication with you in English but you do not seem to even want to understand what I am trying to say! Who is acting out of bad faith here?Igor Berger (talk) 10:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• ...as if to drive the point home... Equazcion •✗/C • 10:42, 8 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Igor's spelling and usage of English are no worse, and in many cases better, than those of many, many editors. Some of the comments said by others to be incoherent appear to me to make sense. Kicking someone because they don't write the particular variety of English that you want them too is pretty low in my opinion, but also pretty unsurprising in the current climate on Wikipedia. You have problems with the substance of his edits? Fine, address those:- but you don't like his style of English? Don't be so bloody petty. DuncanHill (talk) 11:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

We're addressing those. The grammar thing was just a momentary lurch, and we're past it, I think. The disruptiveness is the issue we're addressing. Equazcion •✗/C • 11:17, 8 Mar 2008 (UTC)

• I would like to point to derogative and bad faith comment that Equazcion made about me. His comments are nothing less than calling me a LIAR about my attendence of NUY. here. I asked him to strike out the comments here but he chosed to remove them changing the flow of the conversation, and by esense refactoring the ANI thread to suite his version. Igor Berger (talk) 11:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• All true, except for the refactoring bit. I guess this cements my status as a rouge. Equazcion •✗/C • 11:15, 8 Mar 2008 (UTC)
  • No, it cements your biase towards me! You nominated my essay for deletion after I came to you as a fellow editor for advice. Why are you so resentful of me in the first place? Could it be because I objected to your rollback tool that you proposed to the community? I objected the tool in the state you presnted it, because you wanted to give it to any editor without an admin supervision and uproval. I objected to that because, unchecked in the state how you propossed it, it was open to missuse and even abuse, by how you say, rouge editor like you? So since then you have been vendictive with me, picking fights whenever the oppurtunity strikes hot! Igor Berger (talk) 11:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• [EC]Topic ban was my second suggestion - I am happy to support your suggestion Equazcion that it be imposed on Igorberger without his consent - and I take your point that it is of no use trying to discuss these things with him (I am a sucker for continuing AGF even when all others around me suggest it is a waste of time). I certainly will support it if it will stop Igorberger from turning the main concerning point of this thread around, from it being a concern over his edits to his attempting to become the victim.--VS ^talk 11:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• PS Your essay was deleted at MfD by consensus of the community not by Equazcion.--VS ^talk 11:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  • The essay was deleted, eventhough it had 5 keep for userify Why was it deleted? Was it because of its contrevercy and the sencetive topic of social engineering on Wikipedia? Please read this news article bbc report of CIA social engineering of Wikipedia. We have an inherit problem on Wikipedia, but no one wants to admit it or talk about it! Igor Berger (talk) 11:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• (ec) My rollback tool? I didn't propose rollback, I just participated in the discussion, and was actually against it in the end -- so no, I wouldn't resent you for being against it. Yes, I nominated your essay for deletion, but not because I had anything against you. I still don't have anything against you. To VS as well: As I've stated here more than once, I don't believe Igor intends any malice. This isn't a question of good faith -- I never stopped assuming Igor's good faith, but rather excessively stated the opposite. I just don't think he will ever understand that his edits are disruptive, no matter how much anyone tells him so. Regarding the essay: There were only 2 userfy !votes, vs 7 deletes. Your essay was deleted because that was the consensus. In fact, you were given the option to have it userfied on condition, which you rejected, and that was noted in the closing -- the admin said he was close to userfying but decided not to because you wouldn't agree to a condition. But I digress, this isn't DRV. Equazcion •✗/C • 11:53, 8 Mar 2008 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Social_engineering_Internet Sorry I count 4! Igor Berger (talk) 11:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• You still had the option to userfy if you'd just agreed to a condition. The essay was deleted because you wouldn't agree. And even without that? I don't know where you see 4 userfy votes, but even so, that would still be 4 userfy vs. 7 delete. Equazcion •✗/C • 12:05, 8 Mar 2008 (UTC)

[edit] break 2

VirtualSteve, I do not see any consensus here, but I see your encuregment of Equazcion here. Please alow other editors and uninvolved admins to comment on this issue and not try to enforse your sysop resposibilities unaletorally! Igor Berger (talk) 11:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

VS is allowed to encourage me. Anyone is allowed to encourage anyone. It has nothing to do with being an admin. Equazcion •✗/C • 12:00, 8 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Yes anyone is alowed to encourage anyone, but he is involved admin, and showld not show COI, by promoting his POV. Igor Berger (talk) 12:03, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

An involved admin is allowed to encourage an involved editor to continue a discussion, regardless of POVs. There is no conflict of interest there. Equazcion •✗/C • 12:05, 8 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Encourage is one thing, but you response, "I haven't given up -- just took a break to play a new game :)" here Do you think this matter is funny and it is a game, that you make jokes to your friend VirtualSteve? Igor Berger (talk) 12:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't think this is a game. I took a break from this discussion to play a game. I didn't make any joke with him, and he is not my friend. This has been my only contact with him aside from the MfD for your essay. Equazcion •✗/C • 12:13, 8 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Was it because of its contrevercy and the sencetive topic of social engineering on Wikipedia? Excusee me? I'm beginning to suspect this may be a game for Igor, an act to waste our time. I'm all for assuming good faith, but there is a rational limit. El_C 11:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry I thought admins must close the discussion of MfD, are you an admin, because you closed the discussion and deleted the essay! Igor Berger (talk) 12:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, he is an admin. Equazcion •✗/C • 12:06, 8 Mar 2008 (UTC)

If he is admin, why he does not tell it on his user page? I see nothing showing that he is an admin. Igor Berger (talk) 12:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

How could I delete it, in the first place, without being an admin? (think about it logically: are you able to delete anything?) El_C 12:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm inclined to enforce a topic ban right now. I think we're well passed that point, seeing him argue that conspiracy theory nonsense after he, himself, agreed with me that no one but him understood that deleted essay. And it's not just the essay, but it being symptomatic of his general disposition, especially on the noticeboards. Especially, as mentioned in my closing statement, confusing newcomers. Too much. El_C 12:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

El_C, I am not argueing, but asking a question. Igor Berger (talk) 12:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Also I am just interested what topic am I being disruptive with? Igor Berger (talk) 12:15, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

What controversy? Nobody could understand it? El_C 12:16, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Well I am sorry if I have written in a style that other people have a hard time undertanding. That does not make me disruptive does it? Igor Berger (talk) 12:18, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes it does. Your increasingly cryptic comments and unerring ability to derail any topic on AN and ANI are getting on the nerves of many of us. ➨ REDVEЯS dreamt about you last night 12:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Redvers, thank you for pointing out what is the problem. So what do you suggest, because this is the first time I was told this. Igor Berger (talk) 12:21, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

First off, stop being disruptive. Jehochman ^Talk 12:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

<-Stay away from AN and ANI unless you have something really really important to add that relates directly to the point under discussion and is completely on-topic and cogent and in some way concerns you. Also, enable a spellchecker (there's little we can do about your surreal word ordering, but an improvement in your spelling might help). Thanks! ➨ REDVEЯS dreamt about you last night 12:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I was just going to say this, "Should I obstain from commenting on AN, ANI on other people cases, would this help?" Igor Berger (talk) 12:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec²)He doesn't know what he's doing that's disruptive, so I doubt that'll help. I'd be for a topic ban from editing Wikipedia: and Wikipedia talk: namsespaces, including ANI, with the exception of situations that directly involve him. Equazcion •✗/C • 12:27, 8 Mar 2008 (UTC)

There is no reason to impose bans. If I say, I will not comment on ANI and AN unless it is relevent to me, you should assume good faith please. Because, this is the first time I was told about this. Igor Berger (talk) 12:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC) I am sorry to ban me from all WP: related articles is not fair! If this is what you want to do you should take the case to ArbCom. Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 12:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] break 3

[ECx3]Please a site ban on ANI/AN etc - he has been told many times that his edits are disruptive and he has always continued to flout that truth as if ignorant of the fact.--VS ^talk 12:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• Again untrue Igor - there are links above provided by me - which you have commented on which detail your disruptive edits. EI_C has hit the nail on the head - you appear to be gaming the system and enjoying the time wasting.--VS ^talk 12:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I think WP: namespace is also important. He's all over policy discussions. Equazcion •✗/C • 12:34, 8 Mar 2008 (UTC)

• Agreed.--VS ^talk 12:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I am sorry to ban me from all WP: related articles is not fair! If this is what you want to do you should take the case to ArbCom. Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 12:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Igorberger, I suggest you accept a topic ban. You can still edit any article you like, and interact with other users on the talk pages. This remedy is quite generous given the substantial weight of evidence that suggests you have been disrupting Wikipedia, albeit unintentionally, perhaps. Jehochman ^Talk 12:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• (ec) I think it's appropriate, because it forces you to edit articles instead of trying to influence policy, as seems to be your main goal. Wikipedia is about articles, not policies. It wouldn't be permanent anyway. ArbCom isn't necessary for topic bans, although once it's imposed you could take your argument there if you feel strongly enough against it. Equazcion •✗/C • 12:43, 8 Mar 2008 (UTC)

• Perhaps you should peruse your own contribs list before making accusations of spending more time trying to affect policy than editing articles. --WebHamster 18:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• Jehochman, I respect yolur opinion, as I have always had, but I need to think about it a bit. I do enjoy participating in AfD and MfD because it is part of editng Wikipedia as a whole. Should not regular editors contribute to the evolvement of Wikipedia? Igor Berger (talk) 12:45, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
• We should review the situation after 30 days. If there have been no further problems, we can try lifting the ban. Igorberger, I suggest you agree to this rapidly, and then focus on non-contentious article writing. Jehochman ^Talk 12:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow, I didn't know we topic ban friendly editors for their flawed English skills. Igor is a nice guy. WP:AGF etc. Go write articles yourselves if you don't want to see him here. --SABER^EXCALIBUR! 12:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not to do with English skills per se, as the discussion above should show. It's to do with the user in question derailing discussions and making nonsensical contributions to threads. That would be what we call disruption. ➨ REDVEЯS dreamt about you last night 12:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• Jehochman, if I agree to this, I should not even revert vandalizm on WP: article pages? Igor Berger (talk) 12:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• There's plenty of vandalism in article space. You won't get to the bottom of it. Jehochman ^Talk 12:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I am involved in the 'evolution' of wikipedia (and am a regular here at AN and AN/I) but that is mixed in with primary activty - that of editing. Looking at your contribution history, you don't seem to do much editing at all - odd edits here and there. Accept the ban, show some willingness to get involved with the actual activity of the project (editing) and let's go from there. I should not even revert vandalism on WP: article pages? stay away from them entirely - you posing that question strikes me as the opening part of a bit of wikilawyering. --Fredrick day (talk) 12:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• [EC]Igor - that's correct you should stay off the pages. Jehochman - I can accept your solution providing Igor makes his decision to accept very quickly. I want to continue good faith that he can edit articles and discuss with users on their talk pages and certainly such a decision can either be imposed through the normal processes or better yet (because we will have a better opinion of Igor) he accepts it publicly. That said, I have seen him twist things towards a strange outcome before - including the time on your talk page here where he suggested that my attempting to set him on the straighter path included my writing this story. Put simply - us waiting whilst we give some inordinate amount of time to Igor to decide if what we are saying is correct and fair is not a valid ploy for us to accept now.--VS ^talk 12:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
• VirtualSteve, What does User:John Gohde and the Website that attacks him, has to do with me? http://naturalhealthperspective.net Igor Berger (talk) 13:07, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• That Igor was my very question to you when you posted the link to Jehochman's page after you were blocked for 31 hours for disruptive editing. The edits show how you will twist and turn your way out of sensible requests. Good night. Oh and I add the link details (as I give above) is one that relates to you directly.--VS ^talk 13:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  • VirtualSteve can I help it if someone wants to write a blog post about me? Igor Berger (talk) 13:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the gist of this complaint. Igor has been disruptive and, um, not particularly honest in the debate regarding anti-Americanism. That debate incidentally is also on this board: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Anti-Americanism Some sort of admin action on that article would be helpful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bsharvy (talk • contribs) 13:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I forgot about that. This particular article should probably also be included in a topic ban. Equazcion •✗/C • 13:15, 8 Mar 2008 (UTC)

• Agreed.--VS ^talk 13:16, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

That brings the tally to Wikipedia: and Wikipedia talk: namespaces, including ANI (with possible exceptions when the user is directly involved in a situation), and the article Anti-Americanism, including its talk page, for a period of at least 30 days, at which point the ban will be re-evaluated. So what say you, Igor? Equazcion •✗/C • 13:21, 8 Mar 2008 (UTC)

You got to be kidding User:Bsharvy is reverting everyone's edits, and I came other to the article to help mediate the problem, nothing more. I have no POV on anti-Americanism and it has no relevency or preference to me. Igor Berger (talk) 13:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

No one said you had a POV, at least not in this discussion. That article has simply been another place where people have perceived you to be a cause for disruption, so it would need to be part of your topic ban. Equazcion •✗/C • 13:31, 8 Mar 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Break 4

User:Bsharvy is the disruption of that article. Look at the article history. He is edit warring with all the editors who are involved with the article. Igor Berger (talk) 13:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Looking through the article history and talk page, it does indeed seem Igor hasn't been all that involved, although he contributed substantially to the talk page and only made a single edit to the article itself. I see this is another example of the problem, Igor, in that your focus seems to be very far from article editing. But, due to the lack of much involvement there altogether, I'd agree to leave this out of the topic ban. Equazcion •✗/C • 13:49, 8 Mar 2008 (UTC)

That said, we're all waiting for your response. Equazcion •✗/C • 13:53, 8 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I just tried to moderate the discussion. Bsharvey is intent on deleting the article because he objects to the term anti-Americanism And he will not let other editors to do any edits to the article. Even if I wanted to edit the article, do you think I want to engage in edit warring with him? I just reverted one of his edits because I saw a consesus on the talk page for a removal of POV warning tag. Honestly I am not even interested in the topic. I rather edit hummus and falafel at least it is close to home..:) Igor Berger (talk) 13:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

To be fair to all concerned, I don't think Igor is the disruptive element, or even a particularly involved party, in the Anti-Americanism article/talk page debate. Orderinchaos 02:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• So what is the proposal? a 30 day ban on WP: articles unless I am involved dirrectly with the discussion? Igor Berger (talk) 13:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• You would be banned from editing any page in the Wikipedia: or Wikipedia talk: namespaces. The only exception would be ANI discussions regarding situations in which you are directly involved. This would be for at least 30 days. After 30 days have passed, the situation would be re-evaluated. Equazcion •✗/C • 13:59, 8 Mar 2008 (UTC)
• Waiting, again. Equazcion •✗/C • 14:08, 8 Mar 2008 (UTC)
• Stop waitting, went to buy cigarets..:) You need to explain to me a bit more what I can edit and what I cannot! Can I nominate an article for deletion? Can I comment on deletion process if an article I have edit has been nominated for deletion? Same with respect to RfC. I do not want to violate a topic ban! Igor Berger (talk) 14:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• You can't nominate articles for deletion or comment on existing deletion discussions, as those would require editing in the Wikipedia: namespace. You can comment at RfCs that exist in the article Talk: namespace, but not at Wikipedia:RfC. It's really very simple: No editing in the Wikipedia: or Wikipedia talk: namespaces. PS I've already got plenty of cigarettes. Equazcion •✗/C • 14:20, 8 Mar 2008 (UTC)
  • What happens if an article I have written is nominated for deletion? Can I comment on that? Igor Berger (talk) 14:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• We'll deal with that situation should it arise. You can ask at an admin's talk page in that event. Equazcion •✗/C • 14:25, 8 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Okay, do we have any ideas in the event that Igor does not accept this as rapidly as was requested of him? It seems whenever an actual answer is requested he suddenly gets sluggish. Equazcion •✗/C • 14:18, 8 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Well, I have one more consern, because I patrol for Spam and vandalism, I have many WP: pages on my watch list. I do not want to put myself in jepordy, if inedvertintly I revert a Spammer or a vandal. How can I remove myself from the watch list of all the WP: articles? Igor Berger (talk) 14:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I think BOTH of you need to take a break, based on the history of this page. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 14:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec) That's easy. On your watchlist, in small text at the top, there is a link "edit raw watchlist". Click that and you will be able to edit your entire watchlist. It is presented in alphabetic order, so all the Wikipedia entries will show up one after another. Jehochman ^Talk 14:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I think we can consider the topic ban in-effect now, that's quite enough delaying. Equazcion •✗/C • 14:41, 8 Mar 2008 (UTC)

I have not agreed with the decission yet, and being that you are pushing me, I have less inclination to agree. I prefer I am blocked from editing Wikipedia as a whole for a month, not tie my hands so I cannot deal with a problem that recuires me access to WP: Igor Berger (talk) 14:45, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I think everyone would agree to that as well. Whichever you prefer. But no more delays; block or topic-ban, which is it? Equazcion •✗/C • 14:46, 8 Mar 2008 (UTC)

• Jehochman, really just block me for a month. I need a wikibreak because I am tired of this wikidrama, and I have a life outside Wikipedia that I have been neglecting, Igor Berger (talk) 14:48, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• Use the wikibreak enforcer instead. We don't block users by their own request. It would be better to spend a month quietly editing articles. Jehochman ^Talk 15:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• In that case the topic ban would still stand. Equazcion •✗/C • 15:05, 8 Mar 2008 (UTC)

• Sorry but the 30 day ban may be extended indeffinetly if requested. No? I do not agree to the ban. You wish to ban me from WP: please do. But I cannot promiss that I will not violate the ban, inadvertantly. Please bring this to ArbCom. It is not fare to exlude a user from WP: discussion, while allowing to edit main space! Igor Berger (talk) 15:07, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• Honestly Jehochman, I don't see the problem with blocking Igor instead. If he didn't agree to the topic ban, that's probably what we would've done anyway. He's not agreeing, so what now? Why not just block him? Equazcion •✗/C • 15:09, 8 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Bloody hell. This thread is appalling to read and try to post to with all the edit conflicts. I've had enough of this ongoing Igor issue and am quite prepared to endorse both a block and a topic ban based on the editing behaviour not the language skills. Igor, people have been topic banned from WP-space before. Sarah 15:16, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Sarah, if you would like to please topic ban me from WP: but I am going to file an appeal at ArbCom. Will they listen to my request I do not know, but I feel there is a problem here. Igor Berger (talk) 15:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Someone just block him so we can end this, 30 days as he requested. We offered an alternative but he rejected it, there's nothing left to argue about. Equazcion •✗/C • 15:24, 8 Mar 2008 (UTC)

• Is it April 1st already? We appear to extend almost limitless patience to trolls, POV-pushers, disruptive nationalists and crackpot theorists, yet a couple of editrs can show up at ANI and try to hound a user out of a namespace on the shoddiest of evidence? If Igorberger wants to enforce his own Wikibreak, fine, but blocking here is frankly ridiculous at the moment. Black Kite 15:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Surreal. Limitless patience, indeed. Black Kite distortion of the situation resembles theater of the absurd. Topic ban is now in effect. It will be enforced via blocking. Feel free to launch an arbitration case instead if you disagree, Igor/Black Kite. Or I'll do it in the case of unblocks. Thx. El_C 16:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• Is this how we do topic bans now then? Excellent. I'm off to ban half a dozen far more disruptive editors from WP-space then. I'll point them your way if they complain. Black Kite 16:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• With your questionable level of limitless patience, I doubt you could find a single one. El_C 16:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• You only have to scan this page's recent archives for numerous examples. In comparison, this user's disruptiveness is trivial in the scheme of things. Black Kite 16:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• Being vague does not advance your argument at this time, I challenge. El_C 16:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• Oh, I don't know. I would advance that losing, for example, the Betacommand trollers and the various sides on the State Terrorism by the USA article would improve ANI no end, for example. Still, whatever. Black Kite 16:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• Ah, perhaps I see what this is about. You attacking critics of BC, yet again. El_C 16:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• Since it seems that people have far more carte blanche here to attack BC than other editors, then it would appear to be necessary. I'm done here, now that it appears precedent has been set. Black Kite 16:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• This seemingly reflexive advocacy is alarming. El_C 16:51, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• Then again, I'm the one who proposed bringing Archtransist to arbitration after as soon as he blocked Jehochman, so I guess my standards were not up to scribe; but the community, minus Blackite, does appear to be catching on. El_C 16:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• I don't see how taking dubious administrative actions to ArbCom (an action I would've agreed with incidentally) bears any real comparison to this. Black Kite 16:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• I find it peculiar how you manage to argue for & against limitless patience in the same breath. El_C 16:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• I think you know exactly what I mean, actually. Black Kite 16:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• I don't know what you're talking about. El_C 16:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

(ECx4)I think one of the biggest problems, and Black Kite might not be getting this, is that Igor writes in a way designed to absolutely not offend anyone else, even when he wants to make it clear that he has a disagreement with their ideas, not them as a person. Unfortunately, disagreement and discussion of conflicting ideas is pretty much the gasoline for the entire Wikipedia engine; if it's not talked out, there can be no consensus built. Igor comes in, makes one of these overly delicate comments, and leaves both sides confused, and in tense situations, this often escalates the tensions, making both sides more irritable, because both are left wondering if they just got insulted or supported. I've seen him do this before, and I myself have sat back from the screen and had a WTF? moment. Because he's so dedicated to not ruffling ANY feathers, even when it's acceptable here, like critiquing a concept, it becomes the disruption we're talking about. Follow that up with his broad knowledge of the text, if not meaning, of policy, and suddenly you have a regular disruptor, though one who really does seem to operate in good faith. It is because he seems inherently incapable of understanding HOW his style of commentary can be disruptive, and doesn't seem to want to change it to a more direct manner of 'speaking' on wikipedia, that the fact is that a wikipedia: space topic ban may be needed. Frankly, Igor spending a month reading and not talking might be enough for him to see how strong, plainspoken give and take works better, or it might just frustrate him into speaking plainly when he gets back. Either way, after a month we might find out if he can say what he means, and maybe even mean what he says. ThuranX (talk) 16:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Break 5

Not sure where this discussion is headed, but disruptive editing can shut down work on any page, and policy and guideline talk pages are especially important to keep running. Sometimes we have to deal with a prolific argumentative poster who is inept and misguided but otherwise in good faith. Fortunately, most either flame out quickly or fade away. For those few who do not, I would suggest asking to hold daily contributions to a reasonable limit. If the person refuses, or makes a promise and breaks it, then we have a blockable behavior violation: deliberate refusal to conform one's edits to Wikipedia's standards. There are guidelines and essays on how to participate in policy discussions. I can understand a newbie missing the point, but after a while, if a person has been asked, warned, etc., and still disrupts, you have to do something. Wikidemo (talk) 16:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

This. Is. Madness. Do I find Igor's comments to be a little off the wall (and frankly, maddening) sometimes? Sure. But do I see ANY reason to TOPIC BAN him? No. Folks, if we have to work this hard to find a policy the guy has violated, we're stepping way out of the grounds of reasonable discussion. If we've got a policy he violated, fine, warn him and follow our standard procedures up to and including a block. But if it's because some people don't like his editing style, then I think this is really out of line. Unfortunately, it appears that I'm in the minority on this, so I'll shut up, but I think this is a significant miscarriage of policy. - Philippe | Talk 17:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Philippe. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 19:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Just because you seem to follow the method Everyking was notorious for, commenting without being familiar with the evidence, doesn't mean that everything needs to be simple. Yesterday, Igor agrees with me that no one, not a single person, could understand his deleted essay. Then, today, he claims its deletion is a conspiracy. Wikipedia is not therapy, sorry. There's a limit, for those of us who do the work. El_C 17:07, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I just want to say that opinions on this put forth by Black Kite and other similar stances are completely understandable from where I'm standing (sitting). This isn't a cut-and-dry case and it's certainly not what anyone is used to resorting to any kind of ban for. It's a pretty darn unique situation, and one that, unless you've had extensive experience in encountering the user, is hard to understand our proposed response to. So let's not fly off the handle when people come here seeing a nice guy and our attempt to block him and find that hard to swallow. 'Cause it is, and it should be. PS, Wikidemo's assessment is among the best I've seen so far, and Thuranx brought up some very good points as well. The bottom line is, this is a problem, and it not being intentional doesn't make it any less of a problem. It's also a difficult problem to understand if you haven't experienced it, so try to look through the many links we've been posting, and try to understand where we're coming from. Most of the people commenting here are experienced and reasonable people, and wouldn't jump to this kind of resolution if the situation didn't warrant it. Equazcion •✗/C • 17:07, 8 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Equazcion, this is not that unique. People jumping to the defense of disruptive editors of varying degrees of subtlety without looking closely at the evidence, arguably, is among the most pressing issues facing the noticeboards, for as long as I can remember. El_C 17:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I was referring to this user's particular brand of disruption as the unique situation, not the way people are commenting on it. The nature of the disruption is what's unique here, and understandably difficult to understand. Equazcion •✗/C • 17:14, 8 Mar 2008 (UTC)

(undent) But are we sure it is purposeful disruption? Or is it maybe just a user who lacks good communication/English skills? While I have been frustrated by many of his comments before and feel that they sometimes border on a WP:POINT violation (but even that is iffy sometimes) I do not think he has violated any policies and as such should not be blocked/reprimanded/yelled at ect . . . I am just now sure where this is all going here. Tiptoety ^talk 17:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

No it's (probably) not purposeful at all, as has been said repeatedly... That's what makes this so difficult. Ya' may want to read through the rest of what's been covered above, painful as it might be. Equazcion •✗/C • 17:42, 8 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Hehe, probably would have helped to read all the sections above. I strongly support a topic ban, I have rarely ever seen him make any helpful comments here or at AN, nor any comments that helped move the discussion along, instead all they do is cause more conflicts (as seen in this AN/I discussion. Tiptoety ^talk 17:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - it should be noted that Igor has gone to Jehochman here to ask for a 30 day ban (which quite correctly was refused) and that Cardamon has offered him exact and very helpful assistance as to how to set up a personal self-enforcement ban here but at this stage Igor has not acted on the advice, but rather has begun adding his opposing and inaccurate views in other areas. So on the one hand we have Igor both above and personally asking for a ban of 30 days (but he knows that can't happen) whilst on the other hand when he is provided with a direct set of instructions by Cardamon as to how to self-enforce he does not take the action (This for all those editors that have not dealt with Igor before is typical behaviour when parts of the community have previously reached this stage with him - if you don't understand that go through all of his edits and you will soon realise that he has been gaming the system - and is doing so now). As Sarah has said above people have been topic banned from WP-space before. Given the views above IMO that should now be enforced, with any breach dealt with by a block (as he has self-pointed out on his talk page) so as to reduce the likelihood of future problems.--VS ^talk 22:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• He's also slinging quite a few personal attacks and accusations against User:VirtualSteve at User_talk:Jehochman#Request_for_a_30_day_block_from_editng_Wikipedia. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 23:03, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Result

At least one administrator has objected to the proposed sanctions. Therefore, sanctions are not in effect at this time. If problems continue, any uninvolved administrator can apply blocks to prevent disruption or other editing abuses. If the situation does not improve, any editor may commence a request for comment on user conduct, the next logical step in dispute resolution. Jehochman ^Talk 04:31, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

When did any action require 100% admin acceptance? There's a lot of call for him to be sanctioned, so why not? And, in the interest of transparency, which admin? If it's you, you have a big COI declaring the thread dead based on your opinion. ThuranX (talk) 15:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I presume he's either referring to me or Phillippe. I agree with you, though - if all sanctions have to have 100% admin agreement, I must've missed a meeting. We have "an editor is indefinitely blocked if no admin is willing to unblock" but that can't hold true prior to any action, otherwise there'd be mayhem. Black Kite 16:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay! That's great. I like it. Can we record this in policy somewhere? There isn't any documentation of how non-ban community sanctions work. Jehochman ^Talk 20:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Although I disagree with the proposed sanctions, I'll be clear that I will not move against them. If the majority of those here feel the sanctions appropriate, I will accept them and enforce them. - Philippe | Talk 16:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The actual result

As mentioned above, "topic ban is now in effect." I'm not sure what Jehochman is talking about, but, as the admin who closed the AfD (with a closing statement that made an appeal directly to the user), I feel that I am more than suitable to arrive at and enforce these 30-day restrictions. Objection by one or two individuals are not antithetical to consensus with respect to topic ban. Significantly, I still, increasingly, feel like we're being gamed. It's unlikely that an individual, in their 40s, with multiple companies, who traveled around the world, who speaks seven languages, gravitates toward this, highly entangled, mode of communication. A 30-day break from the Wikipedia space sounds about right. Feel free to start an RfC; or appeal through RfAr (the user has unrestricted access to make such an appeal at the RfAr page, of course). El_C 19:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• I think the above is a very well put synopsis of the underlying concerns I also have regarding this editor - and indeed (in relation to the point below) he almost always attempts to play admins against each other when he is confronted by action against his behaviour. I support this topic ban wholeheartedly (and also the logic against their being a consensus of all administrators for such a decision). The topic ban will at the very least provide an immediate method for us to reign in any future edits by this editor if he again tests the limited resources of the wikipedia community.--VS ^talk 20:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

So, I remove a section from Igor's userpage, with the edit summary reading: " is it really necessary to employ such inflammatory language? ("Wikipedia totalitarian regime!," etc.) We're just asking for coherent, informed, & un-entangled communication." I get reverted via an automated script by User:ZimZalaBim who writes: "Reverted good faith edits by El C; It is preferred that you not edit another user's page. bring it up on his talk page if you want him to remove it. (TW))." At first glanc, it looks like an admin undermining another admin. El_C 20:27, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

No, at first glance it is a user asking another user to act civilly. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 20:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

No, he does not get to insinuate that all of us above are "totalitarian," and you do not get to restore that without discussion. El_C 20:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I protected Igor's userpage until we get assurances from him with respect to further soapboxing and attacks against those of us handling this. As I said on ZZB's talk page (no response to this seeming hit-and-run revert yet): it's not reasonable for a fellow admin to restore the insinuation that those of us dealing with Igor are part of "Wikipedia Totalitarian Regime." El_C 20:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Please, "hit-and-run revert"? Sorry I had to go piss. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 20:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure, whatever. Please do not undermine other admins without discussion again. El_C 20:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately. ➨ REDVEЯS dreamt about you last night 20:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• As I say above Igor will always try and play the softly softly approach with one admin in an effort to have an admin versus admin action situation occur (check his history - I have been the subject of multiple of these). El_C's protection on Igor's page and awaiting assurance from Igor is a good way to go at this stage. I suggest we assume good faith on behalf of fellow admins and then this troublesome situation will conclude relatively quickly.--VS ^talk 20:49, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

ZZB's also writes: To be honest, demands that one "stick around" and "do not undermine" sounds awfully like the regime Igor is complaining about. Relax, this ain't life/death. How did this person become an admin again? El_C 20:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see why you're being so hostile towards me. I was admined in June 2006 under a different user name. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 20:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Whatever. El_C 20:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Which username? ➨ REDVEЯS dreamt about you last night 20:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Look FFS - all that is happening now is that you are falling victim to the game that this editor always tries to set up. Leave off and respect each other.--VS ^talk 20:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• I think it's exposing something rather important: an admin that feels it's fine for Igor to insinuate those of us above are "totalitarian," and when challenged about this, responds with: "if the hat fits." I'm glad we know that about ZZB, at least. El_C 21:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

And such admins are never the 'open to recall' admins, of course. Pity. ThuranX (talk) 02:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)