Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Purge the cache to refresh this page

Shortcuts:
WP:AN/I
WP:ANI
WP:AIN

Welcome to the incident noticeboard. This page is for reporting and discussing incidents on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators. Any user of Wikipedia may post here.

Please keep your comments civil and please include diffs to help us find the problem you are reporting. As a courtesy, you should inform other users if they are mentioned in a posting (you may use the {{ANI-notice}} template to do so). Please make your comments concise. Administrators are less likely to pay attention to long diatribes. Please use neutral section titles that identify the user(s) or article(s) involved, as appropriate.

Before posting a grievance about a user here, it is advised that you take it up with them on their user talk page.
Are you in the right place? Using this page
  • Please add new incident reports to the bottom of this page.
  • Sign your post with "~~~~", which translates into a signature and a time stamp automatically.
  • When moving long threads to a subpage, add a link to the subpage and sign without a timestamp: "~~~"; this prevents premature archiving. Move to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/{{Name of ANI Topic}}. Also consider adding/updating a status tag (e.g. {{unresolved}}).
  • Lengthy posts may be placed within a toggling collapse box. Use {{subst:Collapse top}} at the top and {{subst:Collapse bottom}} at the bottom.
  • Threads will be archived automatically after a period of inactivity. If you see a thread that should not be archived yet, please add a comment requesting more discussion.
What these pages are not

This page is not part of our dispute resolution process. If you want to discuss the possible misuse of administrative powers, you can do so here. However this is not the Wikipedia complaints department. If your problem concerns a content issue and does not need the attention of administrators, please follow the steps in dispute resolution.
Click here to start a new discussion thread

Noticeboard archives

v • d • e
Administrators' archives Search
141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150
151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160
Incidents archives Search
421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430
431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440
3RR archives Search
61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70
71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80
Arbitration enforcement archives
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Community sanction archives Search
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14
Other links
Talk | Checkuser | Backlog

Contents



[edit] User:SlimVirgin removing image problem tags

Unresolved.
Long thread over 50k moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/User:SlimVirgin.' D.M.N. (talk)

[edit] Tendentious editing by User:Andyvphil

Unresolved.
Long thread over 50k moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/User:Andyvphil.' D.M.N. (talk)

[edit] Various irregularities in AfD for Allegations of Israeli Apartheid

Resolved.
I think I'll write a poem about this.
Roses are red
Violets are blue
This discussion is over
Even though this doesn't rhyme - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
How about Let's do something new! for the last line? It rhymes and God knows, it's needed... -- ChrisO (talk) 01:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Maybe you should try
Writing some haikus instead
They don't have to rhyme - shoy 18:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Blocks by CSCWEM

I am concerned by the lengths of some blocks that CSCWEM has issued recently. He does not seem to be editing regularly, but has returned to issue some very long blocks against IP addresses with histories that do not seem to warrant them. I have raised this here, but have not received a response. I am tempted to reverse some of these blocks but also suggest that this is something which may need to be addressed if it continues. I understand from AuburnPilot that this has been raised to CSCWEM frequently, but that the blocks continue without any clear justification. Any input would be appreciated. Cheers TigerShark (talk) 20:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

For reference: Can't sleep, clown will eat me (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights) Toddst1 (talk) 20:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I definitely think that 3, 6, 12 month blocks should be reserved for those persistent IP vandals that have already received the customary 24h, week-or-two and 1 month blocks. xenocidic (talk) 21:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I left a comment about these blocks on CSCWEM's talk page, but of course received no response; this isn't the first time I've had to ask him to respect the blocking policy. The most troubling of blocks are the ones that occurred without warnings, hours after an editor stopped editing, or those where CSCWEM changed another admin's block without discussion. Hodge04 (talk · contribs) was blocked on 7 May 2008 for one month, in what was already an excessive block, and CSCWEM unblocked and reblocked the account indefinitely without contacting the other admin (and no further abuse from the editor).[2] It needs to be made clear to CSCWEM that his actions are inappropriate, and the lengths of his blocks are excessive. - auburnpilot talk 21:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Without input from CSCWEM I can only make comments, with the application of liberal AGF. An indef block of a one post vandal, after the expiry of the initial month block, indicates a history that is not apparent from the talkpage to me. The block summary is not exactly comprehensive either, but as noted CSCWEM was executing a great many blocks in a short period. I note in the one example that there was no request for unblock/howl of indignation, sometimes (but not always, of course) and indication of a bad faith account being abandoned upon discovery.
However, I should prefer a response from CSCWEM and would enquire if anyone has mailed them to make them aware of this discussion/these concerns. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
In all fairness, do we really expect an editor who replaces an entire body of text with "YOU SUCK" to really constructive in the future? Granted that this is the sole edit of the account, but I have yet to run into a good-faith account who started off the bat with vandalism. On the flip side, it would be nice to see CSCWEM reply here. seicer | talk | contribs 02:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
And if that were the only questionable block, nobody would be complaining, but this is a recurring problem. For example, the last time I had to point out CSCWEM's inappropriate blocks, I made a list of ~250 registered accounts seen here and here (note all have email disabled as default). That was several months ago, and he's still making bad blocks - auburnpilot talk 02:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • As a note, CSCWEM doesn't answer his talkpage. The only reason it isn't 100 screens long is because I set up the archivebot awhile back, maybe even the archives themselves I don't remember. AvruchT * ER 22:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
An admin making questionable blocks who doesn't answer his talkpage, not exactly ideal is it? Maybe it's time they gave up the mop, as it seems it's all too much trouble for them. RMHED (talk) 23:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
"Users are responsible for the editorial and administrative actions they undertake, and must be willing and prepared to discuss the reasons for their actions in a timely manner".[3] Daniel (talk) 01:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
All I can say is that I have asked CSCWEM a few times to cease and desist his questionable blocks, and like others had received no response. I'm all for the community forcing an answer out of him. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 01:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Is he editing from an alternate account or something? He just has an incredible number of logged actions for someone with zero edits. But I guess it really doesn't matter - if he's issuing blocks and not stopping to talk about it, that's a big problem. I support a block until such time as he is willing to discuss his actions. --B (talk) 02:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
In all fairness, I am with the several other editors who have asked politely and have been rebuffed (I believe I may have had the same experience at ANI over the issue). AGF does not mean willful ignorance in the face of repeated actions that show otherwise. I strongly suggest an RFC, regardless of a block; I will sign it myself if someone opens it. The Evil Spartan (talk) 02:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Sounds like a number of users are concerned, here; an RfC sounds appropriate. – Luna Santin (talk) 02:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
(ec) He has not edited a single page since 11 April. I have not checked deleted contribs, but expect them to be similar. He has, however, continued to perform blocks up until 28 May. This is problematic from a procedural basis, simply because he is blocking users withotu actially templating them to let them know when, why, and for how long they are blocked. Some of the blocks are problematic, as noted above - for example, do we block IPs for two years? Most of the edits look like tests and vandalism, so block away, whatever, and I am familiar with escalating blocks... but two years? UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 02:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I have randomly clicked on some of his blocks. A lot of them are just factually incorrect (ie, saying "repeated vandalism to various articles" when the IP only had one edit). This block of a US Department of Justice IP is slightly troubling and even though that isn't on the list of sensitive IP addresses, it's still a darned good idea to put some diligence into it. He has not blocked anyone since May 28, although there are frequently holes in his logs, so that may not mean that he has stopped for good. I think an RFC is appropriate, but regardless of that, I think that he needs to understand (and I will leave this message on his talk page) that if he makes another questionable block, he will be blocked as a preventative measure unless/until he is willing to discuss his actions. --B (talk) 02:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
This address falls within the 149.101.0.0/16 - United States Department of Justice block as noted on the sensitive IP addresses, and also on the IP talk page. Kevin (talk) 03:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Oops ... I missed that one. --B (talk) 03:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
This reminds me that i had occassion to contact CSCWEM in April with regard to a spam block he made without any warning on a user who had made three edits. Sure, the guy was adding links to his own website but he was never warned at all and also had the email disabled. He said he sent CSCWEM 4-5 emails directly over a six month period but all were ignored and eventually he sent a fax to the Foundation. I raised it was CSWEM on his talk page (User_talk:Can't_sleep,_clown_will_eat_me/Archive_2#DoctorGs) but, like everyone else, was ignored. I don't think people should be using admin tools at all if they are not prepared to respond to messages from users and fellow administrators and I am concerned that he seemed to be routinely disabling people's email for no apparent reason (I haven't checked to see if he still does that so it might not be an issue anymore). Sarah 03:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Given the lack of a response and interest by CSWEM, and the concerns raised, I think that the next step is to file an RFC? Has anyone tried IRC to see if he is still on? seicer | talk | contribs 03:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Apparently, the last time CSCWEM actually replied on his talk page was over 5 months ago. Needless to say, this is concerning if he is still using the tools while ignoring users asking him questions. I hope he will reply somewhere to clear this up. VegaDark (talk) 07:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I love CSCWEM who did a great job back in the days, but I must admit that I am concerned by the blocks he placed on 28 May. He can't really be using his admin tools and be unwilling to communicate. -- lucasbfr talk 07:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Let me ask a silly question here - has any checkuser reading this looked to make sure this isn't a compromised account? CSCWEM was one of our best anti-vandal admins. --B (talk) 11:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
The whole "Repeated vandalism to various articles" phrase is one that he's been using for years. I have to say that none of this is new. CSCWEM has been blocking single-edit IPs for "Repeated vandalism" for as long as I can remember - and I've been around a while. Why is this only a problem now? It seemed like his actions were quietly accepted back then so what happened? —Wknight94 (talk) 11:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
He communicated before. If he was misusing block summaries, that was always a problem. Was it ever brought to ANI bringing wide community attention to it? --B (talk) 11:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
(ec) I highly doubt that. This seems like an admin who has burned out and lost some of his better judgement because of it. That happens. More importantly, I don't see how an RfC would help. CSCWEM should be blocked indefinitely to be forced into talking, as admins especially are required to do. An RfC would just take time and lead to no clear conclusion while the problem persists... It reminds me of a commercial I saw long ago where a group of bystanders form a committee to solve the problem of a man sinking into quicksand right next to them. Some problems need a quick (and obvious) solution. (I won't block him, because I have to go to bed and don't have the time to deal with the fallout right now.) Grandmasterka 11:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Let me ask a stupid question, then. CSCWEM does not edit talk pages, or any other kind of page for that matter - that's part of the problem. Would a block have any effect at all? I mean, technically, would a block prevent him from blocking other users and continuing just as he has been? UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 12:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
The heavy-handed blocks of accounts I have zero problem with. There is no reason to preserve an account with only vandal edits, and if the user wants to become productive they can create a new account (not the same situation for an account with some productive edits and some vandal edits, in which case they may wish to legitimately preserve their contrib history after apologizing for and ceasing the aberrant behavior).
The heavy-handed blocks of IPs are not as cool, especially with the misleading block summaries. If he knew for sure they were static IPs and said as much in the summary, that wouldn't be so disturbing. But, as others pointed out, this behavior has been tolerated in the past, and could be tolerable now.
The failure to communicate, on the other hand, is absolutely unacceptable for an admin. "Ignore the man behind the curtain" is not my understanding of how adminship functions here on Wikipedia. Admins have a responsibility to do more than just play around in their little corner and ignore everything else. I mean, could you imagine if there was an RfA today and the candidate said, "I want the mop so I can block people, but I don't intend to help out anywhere else, do any sort of conflict resolution, and I can't really be bothered to answer messages on my Talk page."? Would there be a single support !vote?!
I remember several months ago seeing CSCWEM's edits all the time when I was doing vandal patrol, and I very much respected his quick response time, tirelessness, and willingness to get tough on vandal-only accounts. He was a great help to the project. But if he has altogether ceased communication with other admins, we can't have that, regardless of his other contributions. Sadly, I think I see a bit of rouge on this clown.  ;( --Jaysweet (talk) 12:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Again, I don't see much difference between now and the last couple years except he doesn't respond at all any more. But he rarely responded back then in my experience. And someone would bring him up here and a few people would hollar but none of their records were spotless either and CSCWEM generally helps far more than hinders in his vandal-fighting efforts and the whole thing would disappear. I guess this is just a new guard now, eh? —Wknight94 (talk) 13:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
But that's the whole point, isn't it? He doesn't respond at all to, well, anything. And that's simply not acceptable, just as it wasn't acceptable a couple of years ago. So in that regard, nothing has changed. Additionally, I don't think there's any point in blocking him, as admins can continue to use their tools while being blocked. At least it was like that a year ago or so, so maybe that's changed by now. --Conti|✉ 13:44, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Maybe. But I see a big difference between "slow responses" and "no responses".
Also, maybe there is a reason why the "new guard" values dialog so much more highly than the old guard. The fact is, Wikipedia is accumulating a very negative public image because of the legions of people who show up, violate some policy, get reverted/warned/blocked, and it is never adequately explained to them what they did wrong. I have a close friend, for instance, who is going for a Master's degree in political science, and I know she has vast knowledge of The Federalist Papers, for which many of the articles on Wikipedia are very short (and sometimes misleading) stubs. But I am having trouble enticing her to contribute, because of an earlier experience on Wikipedia where she got reverted multiple times and it was never adequately explained to her what the problem was. (In fairness, she was doing a hatchet job on an acquaintance in another article in WP:COATRACK fashion, but she made the common new editor mistake of thinking that because it was "true", it was okay to add)
Let's say CSCWEM blocks a vandal, and the vandal doesn't understand what they did wrong, so they ask. If nobody explains it, they'll tell all their friends, "Yeah, I tried to edit Wikipedia but some guy called "ScaryClown" or something banned me from the site after like two minutes! Those guys are jerks and won't let me in their club!"
I was stunned the other day when I complained to my wife (who has a handful of edits here, and is a frequent contributor to our city's Wiki) that some people view Wikipedia as a "cabal of nerds who won't let you in their club unless you memorize a bunch of arcane acronyms" and she said, "Oh yeah, it's totally like that." And this is someone who is PRO-Wikipedia!
We have no shortage of vandal fighters. What we need in admins these days are liaisons to the public, ambassadors for Wikipedia who can articulately explain what we are all about and help people to understand how this place works.
As valuable as CSCWEM's vandal-fighting work is, there are at least a dozen or two dozen people clamoring to take his place whom I am sure could do just as good a job. If we are really in a shortage of vandal-fighters with mops, then start allowing RfAs for people with weak mainspace contribs. Seriously, how many RfAs have you seen get turned down because "We are sure you would use the mop responsibly, and your vandal patrolling work is good, but you just haven't done enough work building an encyclopedia. Come back when you have a few thousand more edits and have created a few articles."? If losing CSCWEM's vandal-fighting prowess is really a priority, that shouldn't be reason to decline an RfA, should it?
I think those declined RfAs communicate the message loud and clear: Wikipedia has enough cops. What we need now are ambassadors and mediators. --Jaysweet (talk) 13:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Of course I can counter your argument by saying that today's Wikipedia has a whole new culture of subtle POV/fringe/agenda pushers and that more policing is necessary rather than less. But then you could counter with stories of overly-paranoid admins who blocked legitimate editors who left forever because of it, etc., etc. If someone can point out especially egregious blocks or diffs (preferably in an RFC or RFAR or the like), please do. Otherwise, I view CSCWEM as one extreme end of a spectrum which also has an extreme opposite end somewhere (probably partaking in this discussion). —Wknight94 (talk) 14:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
That's an entirely different type of policing, though. If CSCWEM is working to combat the subtle pov-warriors, then I retract everything I just said! Anyway, Ncmvocalist has a point (below), so I won't drop another couple kilobytes of essay here ;) --Jaysweet (talk) 14:16, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

There's no point discussing this here further - please take it to RFC or arbitration. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

This is an issue that the community is capable of handling. One of three things will happen - (1) he will return as an active user, respond to those who express concerns, and edit/use the admin tools normally; (2) he will never make a logged action again; or (3) he will continue this unusual pattern of blocking. In the first two cases, the problem is solved and there is nothing to be gained by arbitration. In the third case, there would be near unanimous consent for an indefinite block until such time as he agrees not to take those actions and if he violates that by unblocking himself (or, I've never tried it, but if you still have access to special:blockip while blocked and he uses it), there would be unanimous consent for an emergency desysop. Either way, I don't see anything to arbitrate - the problem will work itself out. --B (talk) 17:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
In re: Blocked admins blocking other users, admins can block and unblock themselves or others while blocked from editing, per my extensive research (i.e. I tried it.) So, unfortunately, a block in this circumstance would not be effective. Given that CSCWEM has ceased blocking/admin actioning, I would recommend we strongly urge him to discuss the blocks and concerns before acting again, and that we take a failure to do so as an indication that arbitration (the only procedural means by which a user may be desysopped) is warranted. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 17:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • It is with regret that I am starting to believe that perhaps opening an ArbCom to have CSCWEM desysopped pending a reasonable explanation of their actions may be the only way to resolve this. A RfC without the participation of the subject party is a hollow process, and is then only a step toward ArbCom; so that delay may as well be dispensed with.
I am extremely reluctant to take this step, since CSCWEM was the type of admin who inspired me in requesting the sysop bit and further help the encyclopedia, and I remember the helpful and invigorating presence he had when he was a frequent contributor to the noticeboards. However, I will make the RfAR myself if required, as I will attempt as far as possible to request the removal of the flag to be non-prejudiced in that CSCWEM may have admin rights returned by application to the Committee with a reasonable explanation and an undertaking to be more communicative in future. If there is a consensus for such a request I shall then do it tomorrow. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't think desysopping is in order, but maybe a temporary ban from blocking would be a good idea - until they can prove they can block appropriately...... Dendodge .. TalkHelp 20:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Or maybe desysopping UNTIL we get an explanation, to prevent further such blocks...... Dendodge .. TalkHelp 20:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I think you have to open an RfArb to do that, i.e. I don't think there is any process by which someone can be even "temporarily desysopped" without an RfArb.
I reluctantly endorse an RfArb, unless somebody has a better idea about how to get CSCWEM's attention. The aggressive blocking is probably tolerable, but the refusal to communicate at all is not. (In my humble non-admin opinion, that is :) )--Jaysweet (talk) 20:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • When an admin becomes this jaded it's a shame they don't have the self awareness to just ask to be desysopped for their own good and the good of the project. They could then take a nice long break without the temptation to log in and take admin actions that will likely prove controversial. RMHED (talk) 21:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I know we would have to open an ArbCom case, but I think one's in order (in fact, I endorse it more the more I think about it), I'll give it about an hour and, unless someone stops me, I'll open one...... Dendodge .. TalkHelp 21:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
There have been no blocks since May 28, and no contributions since April 1. What about we notify him of this thread (already happened, of course) and ask him not to do any more blocks until he is willing to discuss them? We don't need to desysop him for that, just ask politely. If he starts blocking again without any kind of discussion, then ArbCom might be the way to go, IMO. --Conti|✉ 21:16, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Sounds Ok to me, I'll just mention that on the user's talk page and then - we wait...... Dendodge .. TalkHelp 21:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I will have retired for the evening in an hours time, so I shall not be around to help as I would like. I intended to open a RfAR "tomorrow" (UK time) as it would allow any good arguments/suggestions to be made here in the meantime, as in this case it would be best if it was as uncontested a request as possible. However, if you wish to proceed I would only ask that you frame the request as an "unprejudiced desysop", pending clarification of the communities concerns. I feel the Committee and the community will better support the action if it is understood that CSCWEM may apply for re-instatement along with an reasonable explanation of both their actions and their lack of commucation. This would be my approach, anyhow. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
(reply to Dendodge) Communication is exactly the problem. It appears people have been waiting, and nothing happens. I agree (partly) with Ncmvocalist, it is time to act - but as considerately as possible. I am still intending to open a RfAR in 20+ hours if nobody has acted before, or has a better idea for resolving this. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Communication, communication, communication - but we don't know if he's even around now. He's done nothing in over a week. How about wait to see if he ever becomes active again, then prod him for an answer. He may be on vacation now! I don't know if Arbcom would even look at a case under these circumstances. There's really no particular hurry so wait until he returns - if he ever does - to file an Arbcom case. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. There's no urgency, since CSCWEM hasn't blocked anyone in about two weeks now. If the blocks and the non-communication resume, I'm all for an RfAR, tho. --Conti|✉ 21:41, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
If he's reading this I would urge CSCWEM to ask to be desysopped, no stigma should be attached to this, quite the opposite, such an action I'm sure would be applauded. Take a good few months off and when you're ready to resume communication with the community ask to be resysopped. RMHED (talk) 21:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Of course, ArbCom may totally agree with you and Wknight94 - but we won't know unless we ask. I would prefer to be turned down than to be reminded it is not good practice to lock the stable door afterwards... LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't think we should wait, but I was acting on (the) consensus (at the time). I'd be more than happy to have a RFAR ASAP...... Dendodge .. TalkHelp 21:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RFC

I do not know about a request for arbitration. It may be premature, may be not. However, I have started writing an RFC (would be userspace, but someone else created the page): Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Can't sleep, clown will eat me. I cannot possibly hope to complete it with diffs or analysis (I am not good at writing, and I forget stuff anyway). All others, please add and post in the meantime. I will sign on a later date; contact me in the rare possibility that no one else will sign it. The Evil Spartan (talk) 23:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

As of right now, he has no logged actions in the last two weeks. So there is no evidence that the dispute has failed to be resolved. If he issues another block, then it becomes a problem, but as of right now, this RFC is uncertifiable and I would strongly suggest waiting until there is evidence that this dispute has not been resolved at this point. --B (talk) 12:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Those who are urging restraint are right - no blocks issued since June 11, there's a note on his talk page, leave it st that unless something changes. Neıl 龱 13:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
I think the last block was late on 28 May, actually - so it's even less urgent. Agree with holding off a bit. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 13:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Coming to this entire discussion late, & entirely disinterested ("disinterested" as in I will not directly benefit from its outcome), I'm concurring with the opinion that CSCWEM grew disillusioned with Wikipedia, went thru a "ban them all & let God sort it out" phase, then left. I'd even go a little further & speculate that he possibly left because no one noticed his aberrant behavior until now. (That does seem to be an obvious form of Wikisuicide. And FWIW his user page does mention that he is on Wikibreak, although that announcement seems to have been originally written last November.) In short, he's very likely gone. Now if someone wants to place an indef bock on his account to force him to explain his actions if/when he returns, well I'm not going to revert that -- but I believe the effort would be pointless. The same with an RfC or opening a case with the ArbCom. However, CSCWEM has listed a number of ways to contact him on his user page -- has anyone reached out to him for his side of the story? -- llywrch (talk) 16:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I would agree with waiting to see if there are any further problematic actions from CSCWEM before proceeding with an RFC, but my understanding is that these problematic actions have been going on for a long time, that concerns have been raised many times, and CSCWEM has failed to respond or change his behaviour in response to these concerns. However, the only thing that we are all interested in is stopping the problematic behaviour, so if people consider that waiting to see if the problem occurs again will be useful, I would have no objection (especially if there is a strong belief that he may have quit Wikipedia or switched to a different account). Looking again at his blocks logs there do seem to be long gaps, including April 25th to May 28th, and then a very short period in which a large number of blocks are issued - so the current gap of a couple of weeks may not be a strong indication of him leaving/changing account. In the meantime, there is the issue of the blocks (and possibly other admin actions) that he has carried out, which may be continuing to have a damaging effect. I wonder if, in the light of a failure to respond, there is consensus to review and undo any problematic actions. TigerShark (talk) 23:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
What I forgot to mention in my paragraph above was a point which anticipated TigerShark's question. Common sense dictates that if an Admin leaves Wikipedia (or is thought to have left) has made a number of questionable blocks, then any other Admin is free to review those actions & either reduce the period or lift the block. We should be willing to do this even while assuming good faith in the actions of the vanished Admin -- after all that Admin may have acted without knowing the whole story, or simply made a mistake & confused two similar usernames. We are not reenacting the court-martial scene from Melville's short story "Billy Budd", where policy & procedure are more important than even human life. -- llywrch (talk) 06:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WP:RfAR/CSCWEM

I have opened a Request and invite all the above parties and other contributors to make statements or provide opinion to help the Committee to decide whether to accept. I would also ask anyone who is in contact with CSCWEM to request that they participate. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The CAMERA lobbying effort may be on again. Maybe.

This is more of a heads-up than a request for action. Today we have three anon editors engaged in somewhat aggressive editing on some highly-contentious Israel-related articles that had been quiet for a while.

This bears watching. CAMERA may be making another try. It could just be a coincidence, but the classic line "Once is an accident, twice is a coincidence, three times is enemy action" seems relevant. --John Nagle (talk) 04:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if this has anything to do with CAMERA in particular, but there has been a definite uptick in IPs and new / single-purpose account activity promoting a "pro-Israel" agenda on a relatively small subset of pages, esp. Muhammad al-Durrah, of late. Probably bears a little scrutiny. <eleland/talkedits> 07:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
The histrionics created by the raising of the complete non-issue of the CAMERA affair has given wikipedia's alleged anti-Israel bias plenty of media coverage, which of course is going to bring more editors in to edit the way they see fit. The parties focusing on the CAMERA incident were of course subsequently going to assume conspiracies if anyone ever subsequently came near these articles for ever more. This predictable end result of taking this road with CAMERA was pointed out time and again when the issue blew up, by several level headed and impartial people, but sadly ignored. Well, you reap what you sow to be honest. Wikipedia it seems really is a battleground now. MickMacNee (talk) 13:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
It's not that bad. Once an editor registers, there's someone to talk to and talk about, the editor starts to develop a reputation, good or bad, and the usual Wikipedia processes can deal with problems as they arise. Contentious editing from anons is a headache, but can be dealt with via semi-protection, since this particular problem is confined to a small number of well-known articles. Watching for unusual anon behavior in this area is appropriate right now; that's all. --John Nagle (talk) 16:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with some of the other articles in the dispute, but as I'm an uninvolved admin, I've decided to take on the supervision of the Muhammad al-Durrah article. Page protection has been lifted, and I have set Talk:Muhammad al-Durrah#Conditions for editing on the talkpage. I'm having to nudge a few folks (including some "involved editor" admins) to abide by the conditions, but so far the conditions seem to be working. --Elonka 13:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:The SRS

Various issues have been coming up revolving this user:

  • He claimed that his account was hacked, and that somebody else was getting on his account to make userspace edits, and that it was not him. After Alison preformed a checkuser it was found to be that he was lying, and was making all of those edits. He has been warned time after time to stop making userspace edits, and get into namespace, and he basically refused to.
  • He appears to be good friends with indefinitely blocked user User:SexySeaClownfish
  • He created this video on his YouTube account. The link to his account was found on his userpage.
  • He attacked myself, Alison, and even his adopter The Hybrid with a middle finger in ASCII form on his userpage, but I have since removed it.

He has recently apologized, but after all of this, I believe some sort of action needs to take place. -- iMatthew T.C. 10:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I have an opinion on the matter, but I'd rather not express it. I will submit to whatever decision is reached here without objection. Cheers, The Hybrid 11:01, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
The editor is 14 (and a half and a bit) years old and appears to act it. The contributions to the mainspace are generally in areas where there is a surplus of good editors (I presume, because WWF and its ilk mean little to me - and the little I know does not encourage me to learn more) and the rest is pretty much social networking and teenage moping. Perhaps this is an instance where the encyclopedia might take itself away from this person? LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I think he should have his editing powers taken away if he called all of us a-holes. Altenhofen (talk) 23:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm... we should at least delete his user page, that could calm his "MySpace" tendencies a bit. - Caribbean~H.Q. 23:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
He'll prolly go nutz if you do that. Best off trying to get him to rationalize it a bit first, as we did with User:Hornetman16, back in the day. Has anyone tried this yet? - Alison ❤ 23:16, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't know, to me going arround throwing tirades with sockpuppets of blocked users seems bad enough. - Caribbean~H.Q. 23:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Myself and Hybrid has tried rationalizing with him best we could, and he doesn't listen. It's best for his page to be deleted. -- iMatthew T.C. 23:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I told him to take a Wikibreak. I, personally, would like to see him given another chance. However, if his page is deleted he'll go nuts, as Alison said. He messaged Ryulong after Ryu deleted SexySeaClownfish's page, and SRS sees deletion of a page as something very serious, to say the least. If you're going to delete his page, it's best to block him as well to prevent him from "expressing his opinion" about it. However, while I would like him to receive a second chance, I also have to acknowledge that he doesn't deserve it. Off-wiki attacks with a sockpuppeteer, false claims of hacking, and almost no productive contributions. If he's blocked, I won't protest. The Hybrid 09:06, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Also see this. He's clearly in contact with another blocked sock. I suggest getting the mop out... D.M.N. (talk) 14:41, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
I think a 3 month block or page deletion would due, but be forwarned; he willed be P-O'd if you delete his page. I should know, look how I handled my page deletion (very poorly). But blocking, on the other hand might make him even more upset. Just a little heads up for you admin dudes. Altenhofen (talk) 22:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Question on SUL & blocked users

I read Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Moulton and was just curious--NOT Moulton specific, but a technical question. He's just the discussion example. So if someone is blocked on en.wikipedia, and that is their only account under that name, they can't use SUL on other WMF projects unless that project unblocks home? The "parent" project controls SUL access for the whole rest of it? If so, why would banned/unbanned status have any bearing on SUL? I'm confused. :) rootology (T) 13:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Your home wiki is the wiki on which you have the most edits. If your home wiki account is blocked (not banned - banned is not a technical term, rather a "legal" one, such as it is), then you cannot use SUL. I don't know if creating an account of the same name and with the same password on another Wiki and overtaking the edit count of the original account on en.Wikipedia would then change the home wiki and allow you to then use SUL (or is that WP:BEANS?). Neıl 龱 14:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
To be more clear, you can't unify your accounts using SUL if your home wiki account is blocked. You can still edit on other wikis using your unified account if your home account is blocked following unification. AvruchT * ER 14:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Not that we're encouraging anyone to try it out. ffm 16:10, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Why is this? --Random832 (contribs) 18:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR and removing AfD tags

Earlier today I tagged for AfD two articles, Chiacig_crime_family, and Alfredo Chiacig, both created by User Rico-rico1982 (talk · contribs). He and an IP 213.100.20.76 (talk · contribs) (which I suppose is him) has edit-warred me and some others removing the tags. I think the subject could be CSD, but as I wasn't sure I nominated it on AfD. I'm trying to keep the tag there, and Static Gull (talk · contribs) is doing the same. But I'm afraid I'm about to break 3RR myself. Could an admin help a bit here? Samuel Sol (talk) 17:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think WP:3RR is used in the re-adding of WP:AFD notices. Not for sure though. <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 17:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm not that sure either, but didn't want to risk. Anyway I'm getting tired of doing it. Samuel Sol (talk) 17:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
They will come under 3RR as soon as they are warned. You will not be blocked for reverting the removal of the tags, but they will be for removing them. -MBK004 17:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked Rico-rico1982 (talk · contribs) 72 hours for disruption. Monitoring the IP. I also salted Alfredo Chiacig against recreation, given the BLP issue, and will happily remove protection if sources are provided for a neutral version of the article. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 17:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I've deleted Chiacig_crime_family as a purely unsourced, negative biography of living persons. I invite a review of the deletion, as I both added a comment to the AfD and blocked the article's author. It is a BLP violation, though, up to and including accusing a living person of murder. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 18:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Indeed. 100% unsourced, negative material about living people. Clear WP:CSD#G10 material. GRBerry 13:25, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

See contributiions of Lisa-1982 (talk · contribs). I'm not familiar with the issues, but I remembered the name. More of the same? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:22, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Disruptive Editor following my contributions

Resolved. Johnb316 is not wikistalking and has not been disruptive

Hi, I have an editor (johnb316) who's following me around to what ever page I go to and is reverting, disputing, and arguing against whatever I say. I placed a request for help on the Editor Assistance page and he even followed me there. Is there anything that can be done about a Wiki Stalker???Romans9:11 (talk) 18:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

All I can find is a content dispute on [Prestonwood Baptist Church]] which continued when both editors made one post each to WP:EAR. I see no pattern of wikistalking. Can you provide diffs please? --Selket Talk 19:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I was about to say the same thing. -Jéské (v^_^v E pluribus unum) 19:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I hope this isn't considered "stalking" that i would defend myself here but this is completely bogus and is in response to an ongoing disagreement on a couple of related pages where several wiki editors happen to side with my edits/comments and it made this particular editor upset. I have nothing to hide here and the history will speak for itself along with correspondance with editors Jaysweet and Toddst1. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks.Johnb316 (talk) 19:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Note - I have changed the title of this section; stalking is a serious situation that involves threats of physical and psychological intimidation that has the potential to be actuated in real life (e.g. calls to employers or threats that include addresses). Following someone's contributions on Wikipedia does not fall into that category. Please don't use the term "stalking" when you mean someone is tracking your edits. I concur with Selket's and Jeske's read. Risker (talk) 19:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, "Wikistalking" is sort of an accepted term, for better or worse...
In any case, I have been in correspondence with both editors prior to the ANI being filed, and this report is meritless. Romans9:11 and Johnb316 happen to share an intense interest in the same megachurch and its pastor. There are theological disagreements regarding certain things the pastor has said, and the megachurch just recently got hit with a scandal when one of its ministers got arrested. Nobody is following anybody around, as both of them have made clear their interest in the relevant articles long before they came into conflict with each other.
Both editors should take care not to engage in edit-warring, of course. Beyond that, this is a content dispute, nothing more. --Jaysweet (talk) 19:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I'll just point out that a longtime contributor was recently blocked in part for suggesting that another editor was "stalking" his edits. Let's stop using this term. Risker (talk) 19:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Jaysweet, come on! Johnb316 followed me to sysop Toddst's talk page, then to the Editor Assistance page and then, good grief, I knew he would...followed me here! Romans9:11 (talk) 19:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Romans, the idea that Johnb316 "followed" you to the Administrators' noticeboard is frankly somewhat absurd. If you read the instructions at the top of this page for posting an incident report, you are supposed to notify the involved parties when you do so. You failed to do that, but Johnb316 noticed his name being mentioned anyway and decided to <gasp> defend himself. I see no problem with that whatsoever. He has every right to answer your allegations.
Similarly, on Toddst1's talk page, Johnb316 had a vested interest in that conversation as well, since it involved a content dispute over a page on which the two of you were recently edit warring.
Please do not make spurious ANI reports. --Jaysweet (talk) 19:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, I didn't know I was supposed to notify parties involved - my bad, and thanks for letting me know. But, either johnb316 is the luckiest man on earth and just happened to notice my comments in all 3 areas, or he's wikistalking me. I'll assume for the sake of peace at this point that he's the luckiest man on earth and hope he stops. Johnb316 if you continue to be really lucky, I'll come back here with evidence. Romans9:11 (talk) 21:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Surely Johnb316 looked at your contribution list, and noticed these reports, and that's why he is here. That is not Wikistalking -- particularly since you've been forum shopping your false allegations against him. If somebody were running around criticizing me, I'd check their contribution list too! In fact, just as a matter of course in understanding this dispute, I have looked at both you contribution list and Johnb316's several times today. That is not Wikistalking.
Romans, my patience with you is exhausted at this point. Please do not make any other spurious allegations against Johnb316, or you will be blocked without further notice, as per Toddst1's notice on your talk page. Thank you. --Jaysweet (talk) 21:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Jaysweet I must have offended you somehow, because, it appears that you are making personal allegations against me. I have in NO WAY been "forum shopping" and am insulted by your accusation of such. I've been trying to do the RIGHT thing and stop, what I see to be, a disruptive editor who's making it very difficult for me and others to make a contribution to Wiki. If you and Toddst don't see it that way, well o.k., perhaps I need to have better documentation next time I make a complaint. And, next time I guess I'll try and be the first one to make a complaint on the board - in my experience the first one to complain usually gets the benefit of the doubt. Again, I'm sorry if I've offended you and as I said in my last post here, I'll give Johnb316 the benefit of the doubt and not make any allegations against him without more evidence.Romans9:11 (talk) 12:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Jaysweet. Hopefully this conversation is over and we all can get back to more important things.Johnb316 (talk) 20:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I am marking this as resolved. There is nothing to see here. --Jaysweet (talk) 13:39, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:RestoreTheEmpireSociety - Swastika and Racist attacks

Resolved.

Userpage deleted,editor indefed by User:Ryulong.--Xp54321 (Hello!,Contribs) 02:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

RestoreTheEmpireSociety (talk · contribs)'s behaviors draw my attention after he left a highly inappropriate comment on User talk:Flying tiger."show japs the picture of togukawa ieyasu on my page" At that time, he or she was spreading similar insulting attacks to other editors, so I visited his page and saw very surprising and unique user page ever.


The first paragraph with a lot of Swastika says like "Heil, Imperial China! (卍卍卍卍萬歲 中華帝國) just like Nazi did to Adolf Hitler.

Besides, the user page has a section containing editors whom he/she thinks of not good, so gave a threat or improper personal/racist attacks to. Given that he registered his account 10 days ago, and he/she is highly likely a sock of some banned user, or any who may make edit warring with the Korean editors. I think the user page has to be removed and the user has to be blocked for his disruptive racist comments and assaults. --Caspian blue (talk) 00:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Notable examples

This is serious, and I don't see any good contributions from the user in question. --Caspian blue (talk) 01:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the user's edits, I came to the same conclusion. User page nuked out of the water, user blocked.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
The ironic thing is, before the Germans ruined it for everyone, the swastika was considered a 'good luck sign'. HalfShadow 03:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Makes sense, when you think about it. Anybody wearing one would need good luck to not get jumped.--Koji†Dude (C) 03:12, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
BTW, though I agree that the other content on the user page is at best inflamatory and at worst racist, you guys have misinterpreted his use of the swastika. From the Swastika page: These two symbols [卍 and 卐] are included, at least since the Liao Dynasty, as part of the Chinese language, the symbolic sign for the character 萬 or 万 (wàn in Chinese, man in Korean/Japanese, vạn in Vietnamese) meaning "all" or "eternality" (lit. myriad) and as 卐, which is seldom used. When he wrote "...卍卍萬歲 中華帝國", he's saying "long live the Chinese empire." Refer to the ten thousand years article also for more context. —Umofomia (talk) 09:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
As a note: Nazi swastikas turn rightward, while all of the ones used by this editor turn leftward. DurovaCharge! 16:12, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
May have been the only one to be had in the UTF-8 character set. This reversed version can still be seen in a non-political context in Japan, on maps, to mark Buddhist temples. Also, as I recall, the symbol was used by at least one tribe in the southwestern desert of pre-Columbian North America. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

In either case, I collapsed the copy of the user page. Symbol of hate or symbol of good luck, either way that little piece of mind terrorism was starting to wear on me a little bit. heh ;) --Jaysweet (talk) 16:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 8bitJake disrupting article, and in edit war with Tallicfan20

Look at this history. 8bitJake (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), who has had problems with edit warring and 3RR in the past, is now disrupting Democratic Leadership Council by engaging in an edit war with Tallicfan20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log).

Additionally, 8bitJake is on probation, per this ArbComm remedy. Per that, I'm proposing 8bitJake be banned from Democratic Leadership Council, for a lengthy edit war, along with any warnings and/or blocks both users receive for this.

For the record, I need to note that I was involved in a previous content dispute with 8bitJake, which was resolved with an RFC. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 06:31, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it seemed that we had resolved the issue before you started this discussion. We had ended the edit war, and it was fine. So I think that we should put it back to how it was before you started this discussion, with this version. however, you can see, I was trying to reasonably resolve this from the start with logical discourse. Tallicfan20 (talk) 06:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted to Nwwaew's version and protected. Work out the issue on the talk page. It takes two for a straight-up content edit war, which this appears to be. Request the involvement of other editors. At first glance, this doesn't appear to be tendentious, disruptive editing - it appears to be two people involved in a heated content dispute. FCYTravis (talk) 07:46, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Nwwaew has an axe to grind. I think he is unfairly biased against me and I don't feel comfortable with him dealing with me as an admin. --8bitJake (talk) 07:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Nwwaew is Wikistalking me. He was not asked to get involved in this article and I feel that he is incredible biased against my contributions. He just undid all the verifiable work that I put unto that article. If his harassment continues I might be tempted to leave Wikipedia or create a new account to get away from his harassment. --8bitJake (talk) 08:36, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
The reason I reverted is because you were in a very severe edit war with another person. Reversion is standard in those cases. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 14:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
well jake, at this version it seemed our little war calmed down. I say we take it back to this version at that part and leave it. Tallicfan20 (talk) 07:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
8bitJake, please WP:AGF. Anyone can edit any article, unless they are restricted by ArbComm or the community. And if I was an admin, I would have recused all use of the tools in anything involving you. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 14:40, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Your following me arround and Wikistalking me is harassment pure and simple. --8bitJake (talk) 17:10, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Stalking and Harassment from Nwwaew

Resolved. nonsense Toddst1 (talk) 00:18, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) is Wikistalking me and has following me arround editing articles that he was not previously invoved with and making allegations against me. This harassment pure and simple He was not asked to get involved in these article and I feel that he is incredible biased against my contributions. He just undid all the verifiable work that I put unto that article. If his harassment continues I might be tempted to leave Wikipedia or create a new account to get away from his harassment.

If you look at his contributions to Democratic Leadership Council he came there with the only reason to harass me. He should be blocked and banned from articles I work on. --8bitJake (talk) 17:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Please provide diffs. Toddst1 (talk) 17:26, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

This was right before he stalked me there [5] and removed all the work I did on the article. He had NEVER edited the article there before. He likes to think of himself as an admin.. despite him not being one. --8bitJake (talk) 17:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any disruption based on that one link. Is there more? Toddst1 (talk) 17:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Um, say what? I like to think of myself as an admin? What the hell? And how did I harass you on Democratic Leadership Council? The only actions I did on there were to revert to a pre-edit war condition (that you were involved in, I might note). And how do I have to be asked to be involved in an article to do something? If that was the situation, NOBODY could edit Wikipedia, PERIOD. We'd all be waiting for someone to ask us to edit an article. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 20:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

There is no lasting conflict between me and any other editors of that article. There was a disagreement between me and Tallicfan20 but we worked it out and reached a consensus. You just jumped in after stalking me and attempted to throw around authority that you never had. --8bitJake (talk) 20:35, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

But WHERE did I "throw around my non-existant authority"? You claim I'm doing this, but you won't show me where I am doing this!!!! Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 20:38, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

He followed me to the article based on my contributions list (he has taken to task to follow me around and butt in and make constant allegations and threats) and reverted my work and then demanded it be locked. That is a pretty big disruption. --8bitJake (talk) 20:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Diffs, please? I would like to see evidence of what I'm being accused of. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 20:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Before he followed me there [6]

After he reverted my contributions and demanded it be locked [7]

If you look at his contributions [8] or the edit history [9] of Democratic Leadership Council you will notice that he has NEVER edited the article before and only came there to harass me. He also nominated himself for adminship but it failed. So he has been running around assuming authority that he simply does not have. This needs to be addressed and he should be disciplined accordingly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 8bitJake (talk • contribs)

Okay, where did I demand the article be locked? I reverted the article, and requested you and the other party of the edit war step back, until this ANI discussion (the current one I started above) was done. And how does a failed self-nomination factor into this? Just because I failed two self-noms for adminship does not mean I have authority. The only authority I can even claim to have is the same any non-administrator editor on Wikipedia has. Namely, nothing that the community won't support- I can't just go around and ban anyone for any reason, no matter how good the reason is. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 20:33, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I don’t feel comfortable talking with this editor and instead of replying to him I am going to be reporting all future harassment from him directly here.--8bitJake (talk) 20:37, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Um... so if I ask you a question, for instance, you're going to report me for asking it, instead of replying? Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 20:40, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Even after I’ve made it crystal clear that I consider him to be harassing me he keeps leaving messages on my talk page. What’s next? Is he going to start to call my house? [10] This guy is creepy. --8bitJake (talk) 20:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

The heck? You know what... screw this. If you're going to persistantly bring up charges against me, and not back them up, then to hell with this. I'm not going to feed the trolls. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 20:53, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
I see nothing that would cause me to raise an eyebrow at any contributions that Nwwaew has made in the last day. You, however, 8bitJake, are not assuming good faith, and are once again verging on breaking WP:POINT. SchuminWeb (Talk) 21:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
And I have warned 8bitJake to this end with a Level 3 on AGF. SchuminWeb (Talk) 21:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion of proposal to broaden the topic ban for 8bitJake

Given that 8bitJake is already on probation, I propose that we broaden the topic ban to include the American political system. Toddst1 (talk) 22:11, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

At Talk:WTO Ministerial Conference of 1999 protest activity he deleted huge chunks of other people's comments (including mine) and has been peppering several sections with his whining about Nwwaew - same thing I believe you already reverted. Fletcher (talk) 23:06, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
That was a flawed decision from years ago since it included false accusations. --8bitJake (talk) 22:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Since the ANI started Nwwaew has continued to make disparaging insults directed at me [11]--8bitJake (talk) 23:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

‎8bitJake (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) blocked for 1 week for Disruptive editing: 3RR not AGF, persistent vilification of editors that have a disagreement, etc. Can we please discuss broadening the ban? I think this is important as the editor clearly isn't taking responsibilty for previous mistakes and decisions. The editor has now been blocked 6 times for very similar behaviour. Toddst1 (talk) 23:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

But will a topic ban help, since he's been blocked six times for the same type of misbehavior? At this point, I think we should be asking if we still want him here. If we do, then I think he should placed on 1RR, since he's been blocked several times for violating 3RR, and had other content disputes that he wasn't blocked for. Additionally, due to the situation that's happened, perhaps a ban on attacking editors, to be enforced by blocking would be appropriate? Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 01:09, 13 June 2008 (UTC) (Note: I am one of the subjects of this dispute, and may be biased here)

[edit] MartinPhi restricted

See: User talk:Vassyana#A user you have dealt with previously. Martinphi (talk · contribs) has shown himself unable to disengage from ScienceApologist (talk · contribs) of his own accord. For glaring example of the problem, see User_talk:Vassyana/Archive009#SA and User_talk:Vassyana/Archive009#Again. It's obvious, that intentionally or not, Martin treats reports about SA as his chance to get one up in "the war". As such, Martinphi is prohibited from injecting himself into reports and conversations about ScienceApologist unless it directly relates to actions taken towards or against him, or directly relates to articles in which they are both currently involved. To prohibit circumvention of this restriction, his is further prohibited from newly inserting himself into content and policy discussions where ScienceApologist is previously involved. If Martin has not participated in several weeks or some months in a topic, rejoining the discussion to counter SA will be considered "newly inserting himself". Enough is enough already. Vassyana (talk) 10:36, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

The restriction is logged on the ArbCom case page,[12] and Martinphi has been informed.[13] Vassyana (talk) 10:53, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Martinphi posted a response on my talk page,[14] to which I responded.[15] Vassyana (talk) 20:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


Vassyana has put me under a restriction which amounts to a near complete ban from paranormal articles, and which gives ScienceApologist a completely free hand to do with them as he likes. I am asking for your input, as this is otherwise the complete end of my editing on Wikipedia. Here is the link

For details on why it is actually a ban, see this section. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Martin, but I hardly think that you're objectively or accurately describing either the effect of this ban on you, or ScienceApologist's effect on the encyclopedia. Reports of Wikipedia's demise are greatly exaggerated. Also, I think someone who specifically admitted [16] that he was editing WP:CIVIL a while ago in order to add a list of "actionable" words that you took from ScienceApologist and other people you didn't like,(Foor full details, see: Wikipedia:RFAR#Request_to_amend_prior_case_Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration.2FMartinphi-ScienceApologist I think you're on damn shaky ground. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
My comments on Vassyana's talk page on why it is actually an effective topic ban:
  • [Reply to Martinphi] "Not currently involved". Your restriction doesn't come into play yet. The problematic scenario would be if you made no edits to the articles in your watchlist for several weeks or months, and then ScienceApologist makes edits you feel strongly against. Then you're not allowed to edit it, because you'd be "injecting" yourself. Or if you took a wikibreak for any considerable length of time. That's when it'd suck for you and you could consider yourself effectively topic-banned.
  • [Comment to Martinphi] Or rather, as worded, you can edit content without restriction, but you can't participate in discussing the content.
The restriction (as worded) is essentially a "gag" order telling Martinphi he's not allowed to talk anywhere ScienceApologist decides to talk, provided Martinphi hasn't talked there in awhile. In other words, if ScienceApologist simply waits a few weeks after Martinphi comments, Martinphi is no longer allowed to talk there until ScienceApologist decides not to talk for a period of time, after which Martinphi is allowed to talk about anything but what ScienceApologist was talking about. Considering this is supposed to apply to policy discussions as well, might as well ban Martinphi because that's what this restriction does for anyplace SA decides to make a remark.
  • [Proposed loophole close] Simple fix would be to change the restriction to discussions on noticeboards regarding ScienceApologist, but not directly involving you or a topic you are both editing. It's the restriction on discussing content that effectively topic-bans you.
--Nealparr (talk to me) 23:46, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I feel it might be helpful to clarify the possible reasons for the restrictions placed recently on MartinPhi and to clearly delineate past behavior from present behavior. Although, I can understand the level of frustration bred by this situation, at this point only clear delineation can provide solutions for right now, today.

  • My understanding was that this restriction came about as a result of this. [17]. Since Martin vehemently denies that this was directed at Science Apologist, and if Martin is anything he’s honest even to his own detriment, and since on reading the diff I also can see no reason to feel that this was directed at SA, consideration might be given to having neutral admins. look at the diff, and adding their comments/ judgments to those of Vassyana.
  • If the restriction is for ongoing disruption I would like to suggest that in my recent experience on the Remote Viewing article, for example, Martin has handled the situation over there with calm and civility. I have no desire to comment on any other editor on that article but it may worth looking at the exchange between editors. [18]. I am not sure that a restriction should be placed on an editor for past violations assuming there are any, and if that is the case, when there are no present violations.
  • If restrictions are to be placed on Martin for past behavior and violations I would suggest that such restriction be evenly meted out to SA. Removing Martin from discussions he and SA are jointly editing, or trying to edit, will adversely affect the balance of many of the articles, since these editors often represent the opposite ends of the neutral scale. This dance has been ongoing for a long time, and it most certainly takes two to Tango.
  • If restrictions are truly placed to prevent further confrontational situations, then both parties should be restricted; otherwise, another set of equally difficult problems will be created.
  • Its difficult to see how Martin at this point in time has come to be restricted, with utmost respect for Vassyana's decision, unless past and present have become tangled and mixed together with an added cupful of high levels of frustration all around from everyone involved. I believe it would be worthwhile and fair to the editor involved to clearly untangle and to further assess the situation.(olive (talk) 23:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC))
The admin is obviously uninformed about the situation. SA is a point-of-view editor dedicated to correcting any article that he, in his infinite wisdom, deems to be fringe or contrary to his views of what mainstream science accepts. That means that he will likely show up on any article that proposes new theories and certainly any paranormal article. I see that there is a steady flow of requests for his heavy hand in articles by other editors, so he is being used as a thug, as well. His edits are hardly ever content, but focus on tone or whatever is necessary to assure that the reader goes away understanding without a doubt that the subject is impossible and therefore cannot be.
Martian, on the other hand, attempts to provide content, but as I see it, he finds himself too often trying to mediate SA's radical edits. We are here now because he is one of the few who will stand up to SA. If there were as many of him as there are of those SA adherents, you would have a much more balanced Wikipedia. It is almost impossible for anyone interested in paranormal articles to avoid SA, and for a moderate editor to simply stop editing in those articles is to give control of POV to SA and his friends.
Is that what you intend?
If you want to separate the two, then I suggest that you give SA the fringe mainstream science articles and ban him from paranormal and human potential articles. In turn, ban Martin from the mainstream fringe articles and let him remain in the paranormal and human potential ones. Tom Butler (talk) 01:04, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
MartinPhi is under arbcom restrictions for POV-pushing:
“ 1) Martinphi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) is subject to an editing restriction for one year. Should they make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be disruptive, they may be banned from any affected page or set of pages. The ban will take effect once a notice has been posted on their talk page by the administrator and properly logged. Should they violate this ban, they may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below. ”
The arbcom also found that:
“ 2) Martinphi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) has engaged in a variety of disruptive behavior ([19]), including, but not limited to, using Wikipedia as a soapbox ([20], [21]), threatening disruption of the project ([22]), and making deliberately provocative edits ([23], [24]).

Passed 5 to 0, 18:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

 ”
ScienceApologist, meanwhile, is only under civility parole. Frankly, it's about time MartinPhi's arbcom sanctions were actually enforced. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:33, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
The problem with that rationale is that according to the ArbCom, Martinphi can be restricted from a page or set of pages where he's being disruptive. It's not fully established here that he was being disruptive at all. What's more, this new restriction restricts him from every policy page, content page, or discussion where ScienceApologist decides to post a comment first (whether Martinphi is being disruptive or not). ScienceApologist is a prolific editor and edits many policy pages. Martinphi would be essentially restricted from even talking about the core of Wikipedia. That's a little overboard, for such a flimsy case of "disruption". --Nealparr (talk to me) 02:33, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

What did I do what I did? I thought the first three full sentences of my first post to this section made that fairly clear, including linking to a fairly recent and more egregious example of Martinphi's tendencies. It may not be intentional, but it doesn't really matter. It's problematic and disruptive, only serving to reinforce the battleground environment of the topic area and continue to rub old wounds.

Enough of the invalid arguments already! Has SA been injecting himself in the same manner in matters about Martinphi? If so, provide some direct evidence. Has SA been recently continuing long-standing patterns of problem behavior? If so, provide some direct evidence.

Nealparr made a perfectly reasonable suggestion on my talk page.[25] MastCell also made a perfectly reasonable suggestion/observation.[26] MastCell also hit the head on the nail about why both sides can be mind-numbingly frustrating to deal with in this area.[27] Vassyana (talk) 04:52, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


So you're taking that suggestion, viz "Simple fix would be to change the restriction to discussions on noticeboards regarding ScienceApologist, but not directly involving you or a topic you are both editing." ?

And just a comment that Nealparr provided a diff showing SA poisoning the well against me just recently [28]. Why are you still asking for evidence? ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

MastCell is quite right [29], but I do not see what could be done about it, except one of us is banned or withdraws. If anyone will tell me how to act as a completely exemplary editor when SA is above all wiki rules (without withdrawing completely from my favorite topics), why, I'll do it. Vassyana has had a lot of criticism of me, but never addressed the basic question:

ScienceApologist is above Wikipedia rules. Martinphi is not above Wikipedia rules. Just as civil society breaks down when the police enforce the law for one part of the population but not another, so has this wiki broken down.

No one denies that this is the problem. The problem is not with either SA or myself. He is what he is, and I am what I am. If you were to deal with both of us in the same way per our actions, there would be no problem. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

To be very blunt Martin, melodrama is not going to help your case. The bold text above is exactly the kind of thing that drives people up the wall about this subject area (as MastCell observed). I imposed a restriction based on a long-standing pattern that I have witnessed. I'm quite willing to be fair, but I can only act upon what I know. I keep asking for evidence about ScienceApologist and it is not forthcoming. I'm sorry but a single diff does not establish a pattern (and regardless, the one provided is anything but convincing in and of itself). Show me a pattern (without digging back several months or more). It's not enough to simply say say it is so. Pretend I'm completely clueless about recent actions and that I've seen no diffs from SA for the past three months. Show me clear evidence of a problem. Vassyana (talk) 12:52, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Vassyana, you say, "I imposed a restriction based on a long-standing pattern that I have witnessed." You then ask for diffs and evidence from MartinPhi for what he is saying. Above, I see you have provided a variety of links to support your imposing of a restriction on MartinPhi. Do you think you could gather all your evidence on one page, with diffs, as a courtesy to MartinPhi, to provide the same standard of evidence that you are asking him to provide? It is difficult for others to judge this, looking in from the outside, when discussion is spread out and standards of evidence varies. The onus is on you as well as MartinPhi, to present the evidence in as conclusive a way as possible. You also ask MartinPhi to provide evidence "without digging back several months or more" - are you holding yourself to those same standards as well? Carcharoth (talk) 13:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
That's perfectly fair, though I believe the egregious example I provided in the initial post is a sterling example of the problem. To be honest, a similarly acute incident and just a couple of further actions showing a pattern would suffice for my demands for evidence. Regardless, I will take a little time to collect everything together, ta? Vassyana (talk) 13:34, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] From Vassyana's talk page

I really wish that Martinphi would stop doing things like this to ScienceApologist. One could easily read that diff (in context) as telling another user how better to nail ScienceApologist in the future. With effort, of course, one could convince oneself that this is simply friendly advice. But given the timing and location of that advice, it seems poorly advised. I'm not posting this on ArbCom Enforcement because I don't think this needs enforcement. I'm not posting it to Martinphi because he clearly knows what he's doing. I'm posting this here for you because I think you're neutral enough to tell me to stop whining. Thanks, Antelantalk 00:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Antelan- always following me around and saying I do things wrong. Trying to get me banned. Surely you know it was general advice, as no one can block SA. Getting him is not an option. Even if it were, Ludwig is a newish user, and he's been a help recently. I give him the advice on how to get things done which I had to learn myself. I feel quite right about helping to make impossible the see/hear/say no evil attitude of the admins who don't have cojones to do anything about anything even when it's within their domain- I mean, even when the issue is not one of content and they have a clear mandate. If that means spelling it out for them so they can't pretend blindness, that's what one has to do.
Please note that if I'd been trying to get SA, I'd have informed Ludwig about SA's ArbCom restriction, which he doesn't seem to know about.
Perhaps you put this here because you know Vassayana thinks I'm out to get SA. That of course is the wrong way of putting it because I just want SA to stop hassling me so I can get to more real editing. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
That's it. Martin, you are prohibited from injecting yourself into reports and conversations about ScienceApologist unless it directly relates to actions taken towards or against you, or directly relates to articles in which you are both currently involved. To prohibit circumvention of this restriction, you are further prohibited from newly inserting yourself into content discussions where ScienceApologist is previously involved. If you have not participated in several weeks or some months in a topic, rejoining the discussion to counter SA will be considered "newly inserting yourself".
Your snotty and demeaning message linked above is bad enough, but worse yet, in this instance ScienceApologist was trying very hard to be civil and politely discuss the issue and OrangeMarlin was not even remotely uncivil in the linked sections. Certainly, SA and OM have had issues with civility, but this opportunistic tar-slinging is intolerable, as it treats Wikipedia like a battlefield and worsens the situation more than any off-hand insults could. Vassyana (talk) 10:26, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm curious what was snotty, demeaning, or tar slinging about the diff in question [30]? Clearly Martinphi was talking to Ludwigs2, and telling him how to provide better diffs. That's the complete extent of the comment. Martinphi is restricted from disruptive editing. The linked comment was constructive advice, to a newer editor. The part about people having the attention span of fleas is general commentary on why diffs should contain the important stuff. It's not directed at anyone in particular and certainly isn't an attack on ScienceApologist. As for Martinphi butting in on a conversation unrelated to himself, all three (Ludwigs2, Martinphi, and ScienceApologist) edit remote viewing together, which was recently locked because ScienceApologist jumped in.
To the point (this is the reason I bothered commenting here at all), it is ScienceApologist we're talking about. The restriction imposed by Vassyana makes it seem like SA needs protection from Martinphi or something. People in glass houses don't need protection when they throw stones randomly, everywhere, even so much that they have to put a disclaimer at the very top of their talk page saying they intend to continue doing so and require one explain in personal detail why the stone thrown at them hurts before they'll take it seriously. If no complaint of incivility on SA's part is ever taken seriously, then seriously no perceived incivility against SA should ever be taken seriously. If one expects everyone else to have a thick skin, they in turn should be required to have one themselves.
Both ScienceApologist and Martinphi have no moral high-road to complain about each other, and admins would have to cherry pick diffs to impose sanctions against one and not the other. The above "attack against ScienceApologist" -- which is really constructive advice to a newish editor on how to deal with disputes more effectively -- is completely overshadowed by the recent overt "poisoning the well" attack on Martinphi diffed here [31]. Frankly, either both should be directed to not interact with each other at all, or perceived slights towards one another on both their parts should be ignored entirely as them trying to game the system against each other. Anything less is picking favorites despite the fact that there's no moral high ground justification in picking one over the other. Both would equally like to see the other banned, I'm sure.
Antelan may have in good faith posted this request, but come on, it is ScienceApologist we're talking about. If he doesn't have a thick skin, he really shouldn't be here "to combat pseudoscience" (his words). At the very least, a weakly figured "attack" on him shouldn't result in restrictions when strong overt attacks are made by him all the time. Goose and gander and all that. The rationale for the restriction was "treat[ing] Wikipedia like a battlefield and worsens the situation more than any off-hand insults could." It is ScienceApologist we're talking about. He says all the time that Wikipedia is a battleground and makes off-hand insults repeatedly. --Nealparr (talk to me) 13:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Enough of these tu quoque arguments. I'm tired of this fallacious crap from both sides. This has nothing to do with "protecting" anyone. This is not the first time he's done this, nor the most egregious, but it simply needs to stop. Martinphi apparently cannot disengage, so I'm making a formal restriction for him to disengage. Vassyana (talk) 14:29, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Further comment: It baffles me how someone can fail to understand the problem with Martin's comment about attention spans and the openly encourage essentially cherrypicking "the worst" from the diffs (which tends to ignore context, etc). Also, the one link you provide about "poisoning the well" appears to be some kind of response (edit summary "r") and doesn't seem to even come close to crossing any lines. The problem was not that Martin was making personal attacks, but rather that he constantly sticks his nose in reports about SA, regardless of its appropriateness. It's disruptive and needs to end. Vassyana (talk) 14:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Look, you or Antelan can make it out to be that Martinphi is the sole problem all you guys want. That's your perogative. But Martinphi commenting in a noticeboard post about ScienceApologist being disruptive isn't the reason ScienceApologist repetitively shows up in these noticeboards. Whether editors are right or wrong at a given moment in their beefs with SA, it's obvious that ScienceApologist earns being in the noticeboard all on his own, independently of what Martinphi does. Martinphi doesn't post all those notices, all those dozens of notices.
I've been watching the interaction between the two for almost two years now. They are both at each other's throats. The difference is that Martinphi is always seen to be the bad guy. ScienceApologist always skates by. They both do the exact same thing to each other.
Regarding the "r" diff, it's not a reply. Check both ScienceApologist's talk page (no conversation between Hrafn and him remotely around that date) and the article's talk page (no conversation between the two at all). It's not a reply. It's a "helpful hint" about how to effectively deal with Martinphi in an unrelated content dispute. Regarding Martinphi's comment, why not get some outside opinion on whether it's disruptive before assuming it is? Saying that Martinphi is instructing someone to not present the context of the dispute is, in my opinion, stretching the issue quite far. --Nealparr (talk to me) 15:16, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
I've whacked people on both sides of this dispute with cluesticks and I've received enough harassment to last a lifetime just from the blatantly obvious cases. I don't need a lecture about evenhandedness. Show me some solid evidence about SA if you wish to continue harping on him or I'm quite done responding. Thanks. Vassyana (talk) 15:27, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Well that got ugly real quick. Sorry I commented at all. PS Asking you to consider outside opinion isn't harrassment. --Nealparr (talk to me) 15:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
(ec) My tolerance is admittedly low today. However, I would have usually found the tu quoque arguments and the like far less irritating, though still problematic. Regardless, you are earnestly welcome to provide some solid evidence of recent problems. I will pay attention to it. I will review it. I will act directly on it as seems necessary and/or bring up a potential solution for discussion and review. I don't pretend to be aware of everything that happens and if something substantive is brought to my attention, I will attempt to do the right thing. It's just that I'm not interested in hearing the same complaints and logical fallacies, over and over from people on sides. Bring me something with some meat, preferably with a minimum of commentary, and I'll sink my teeth into it. Vassyana (talk) 16:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Neal, I sincerely did not mean to imply that you were harassing me at all. It was more a statement that I've been fair in this area and I've "paid my dues" for it, thus I don't need to be told about being fair. It was a statement of frustration, noting some offense taken, and I should have been more careful in my phrasing and presentation. On the point of outside opinion, I did post a note to AN/I, expecting other sysops and the community to review the decision. Vassyana (talk) 16:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Understandable that your tolerance level is low. Respectably, no, I'm not going to post a bunch of diffs against SA to demonstrate something with some meat on it. It's sort of my point that there's no meat on any of it. SA takes digs at Martinphi. Martinphi takes digs at SA. Both are contentious editors. I don't think it's right to give SA the upper hand by restricting Martinphi from any article SA gets to first. More to the point, I don't think that's a real solution to the problem. Restricting each other from each other probably won't help either. All that will do is create a "gold rush" to claim articles.
The only real solution is to ignore any request to intercede on either's behalf. This thread was started with Antelan asking you to help make Martinphi "stop doing things like this to ScienceApologist". Why? ScienceApologist does the same to Martinphi. Both have been at each other for a long time. There's no meat to any of these requests, and like I said, it's not like SA is squeaky clean on the matter. So why do anything for him at all? It doesn't take me posting a bunch of diffs to establish that he doesn't need support. One thing I will take the time to do is post the list of articles that have been locked down in recent months after SA decided to "participate". I have four that I remember off-hand, parapsychology, electronic voice phenomena, what the bleep do we know, and remote viewing. I know there are others, but I can't remember them all. In each of those articles, SA comes in and makes changes he knows are going to piss people off, edit wars with them for a bit, and boom: article locked down. It happens all the time. Should he be restricted? I don't personally think so. Really, I don't care. My point is this: He deserves exactly what he gives... that is, he deserves to be treated with the same "I don't care" attitude he gives to everyone else. In other words, if ScienceApologist goes around saying things and making edits without caring what people think, why should he get any community support in turn? Why should you care if Martinphi did pick on him? Requests to intercede on his behalf (like this one) should be completely ignored.
That's my point ^ Ignore any complaints about Martinphi in relation to ScienceApologist and any complaints about ScienceApologist in relation to Martinphi. All complaints are meatless and attempts to get the other blocked, banned, restricted, or otherwise gamed out of the system. My (unsolicited) advice is to simply don't buy into it. --Nealparr (talk to me) 21:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Background: I have copyedited Remote Viewing and so keep an eye on the article despite my lack of knowledge in the area, I came into the discussion yesterday to possibly shift direction when balance in the discussion was deteriorating. I also did not view MartinPhi’s comments to Ludwig as in anyway insulting to or referring to Science Apologist. Antelan’s comments initially made no sense to me, although I can now understand how he might have arrived at the understanding he did. I am aware that Ludwig is a new editor as one can see on the discussion on remote viewing and that MartinPhi is coaching him somewhat.

  • You are an admin I respect. Out of respect rather than disrespect I make the next comment to you in a straightforward way. Is there a possibility that your recent judgenent is based less on the diff Antelan presented rather than on an accumulated level of frustration one might rightly feel in this situation.
  • Might it be appropriate to ask two or three completely uninvolved admins who know neither SA nor Martin to view the diff. with the background information that one editor had been coaching another as obvious and so provide a judgment that cannot be attributed to the frustration those of us aware of this situation feel.

NOTE: As I post this, I see you have asked for outside assistance

  • If a ban is placed on one editor for other reasons than this diff., and I have to say watching remote viewing, I thought Martin was handling himself pretty well, then that restriction be placed on both editors. Not to do so leaves an open-ended situation, and tips the balance in any discussion both editors are involved in. At least with both editors on equal footing, some balance can be maintained. Until Antaean ‘s comments SA and Martin were handling business as usual.
  • Where I not feeling well today my better judgment might have kept me off your user page. As it is, I am commenting and hope you can take the comments with the respect and understanding I have written them with.

Am I supporting Martin in this case? Absolutely, yes. Do I edit at his request and ignore my own judgment and the level of integrity I strive to maintain? Absolutely, no.

I don’t require any kind of reply … Just adding comments for your consideration.(olive (talk) 16:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC))

Just wanted you to know that I have read your message and I am earnestly considering it. Vassyana (talk) 16:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
There has probably never been a more clear-cut case of two users who should disengage, or at least not seek out opportunities to insert themselves into disputes with each other. Admittedly, they share some topics of interest, and if their paths cross on such articles then so be it. But Vassyana is absolutely right; while I didn't find Martin's message overly condescending, the fact that he's inserting himself into the dispute is the issue. Look at the facts:
  • The dispute was on alternative medicine, an article which Martinphi has never edited. It is reasonable to believe that his interest was solely based on ScienceApologist's involvement.
  • The user filing the alert considered it resolved, after which Martin interjected with the predictable effect of reopening and prolonging a resolved dispute
OK, I understand Martin feels picked on. This time it was him; ScienceApologist has, I believe, done similar things in the past. It's very simple: they should both avoid one another except as pertains to specific issues on articles which they both edit. Neither one should go out of his way to inject themselves into a dispute involving the other, or to give helpful "advice" to other parties on how to deal with their opposite number. That's really not too much to ask; it's reasonable to make it a two-way street, but otherwise Vassyana is completely on target. MastCell Talk 18:53, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Consider this crap from SA's page:
"I act to mitigate, redesign, and occasionally destroy the offerings of users who think that a particular "breakthrough" or "notable idea" deserves more consideration than it has gotten in the academic world. Such grandstanding is forbidden by a variety of Wikipedia policies and guidelines (WP:V, WP:SOAP, WP:NOR, WP:FRINGE, WP:WEIGHT, WP:NOT, and WP:REDFLAG to name just a few). Wikipedia is inherently a non-innovative reference work: it stifles creativity and free-thought. If Wikipedia had been around at the time of Galileo, his ideas would have been subject to my incisive commentary and editorial braggadocio -- even if I agreed with him. I am a status quo promoter. NPOV-PUSHER."
And, how SA has made an effort to circumvent the civility rules on the top of his talk page. Consider that SA gang edits with his supporters, such as the ever present OrageMarlin, Fyslee and Antelan. Consider that SA has diligently worked to eliminate editors with views he does not agree with. Then take a look at his block record and tell me that you honestly think he is faultless.
To not edit in articles SA is involved with is to simply give Wikipedia to him. Trust me, Wikipedia is already sliding on the scale of respectability in the world--especially in the academic world. You do not want it to be identified as a skeptical platform to protect the status quo from new ideas.
Martin is about the last editor opposing SA's SPOV editing. I for one have given up and am taking the argument to the public. Where do you suppose the other banned or driven off editors have gone? Tom Butler (talk) 19:12, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
OMG! Tom, don't you realize that what you call "this crap from SA's page" is basically a rewording of the highest form of Wiki wisdom? You can read more about it here:
That you consider this to be "crap" is understandable, considering you promote OR of the worst kind and consider it your mission to use Wikipedia as a vehicle for promoting your OR odd notions. It is therefore natural you would oppose anyone who tries to apply Wikipedia's NOR and FRINGE policies, which apply to your editing and subject matter. You just don't have a clue about what Wikipedia is about. NPOV must be an obnoxious stumbling block to you, since you obviously fail to understand it. Your latest suggestion reveals you are truly clueless about the need for articles to be edited by editors who hold opposing POV: "If you want to separate the two, then I suggest that you give SA the fringe mainstream science articles and ban him from paranormal and human potential articles. In turn, ban Martin from the mainstream fringe articles and let him remain in the paranormal and human potential ones." You are again proposing that articles be written in a totally non-NPOV manner. You just hate that any criticism of your fringe ideas appears in the articles, even though NPOV requires it. Someone needs to give you a cluestick. BTW, taking your arguments to the public, if it involves discussing and criticizing Wikipedia editors, is a bannable offense. Make up your mind - either you edit here according to the policies here, or you take your OR and "new" ideas to the public and leave Wikipedia alone. IOW don't edit here at all. BTW, I don't know why you mentioned me above as I haven't been involved with you or your articles very much at all, and not for a long time. -- Fyslee / talk 06:10, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
"take a look at ScienceApologist's block record and tell me that you honestly think he is faultless"?!? No one is claiming he's faultless. I explicitly said otherwise. There may not be a good guy and a bad guy here, hard as that may be for a partisan to accept. There are just two editors who feed off of each other in a negative, disruptive fashion. Your comment, and the strawman embodied in it ("If you're not with Martinphi, you must be making excuses for ScienceApologist") is exactly why people are tired and frustrated with both sides here. MastCell Talk 20:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

What in the world are people talking about? I was helping Ludwig, and nothing I said related to SA. I looked in, I saw that he obviously hadn't presented things right, and I helped him. Had nothing to do with SA, except the complaint itself.

What, I repeat, are you talking about Vassayana? It had to do with admins not reading diffs, not SA.

Why was I following Ludwig around? Because we were recently involved with SA on other articles.

If you have even a single reason to think I was slinging tar at SA, then please bring it forth. As it happens, I was merely talking to Ludwig, saying how to do things. Since I consider him a friend, that accounts for my being there, not getting SA in trouble.

Vassayana, be reasonable: if I'd been wanting to get SA in trouble or sling tar at him, here's what I would have done: I'd have emailed Ludwig, told him about SA's ArbCom restriction, and collaborated with him to get SA at Arb enforcement. Duh. Just how dumb do you think I am? If I'm going to try and get SA, I'll do it properly. And I would be far too smart to sling mud at him in the meantime, because I already knew how that is perceived.

In short, this is a completely egregious lack of AGF on your part. I ask that you remove this restriction, and also remove it from the Arbitration page. You have absolutely nothing to go on, unless you think I'm a complete idiot.

Now, perhaps I am an idiot, but if I am it is to think that there is indeed an assumption of good faith on this wiki. I assumed that I could make an innocent comment, or actually a snarky comment about the attention span of admins in general, without it being construed as my trying to get SA.

Again, look at the situation there: there was no chance of getting SA. I'd known about that thread for a long time: do you think I don't watch that page? I can send you my watchlist. Do you think I would not have inserted myself earlier if I'd wanted to get SA? Do you think that I believed there was the least chance of getting SA? Get a little good faith. I was there for a brief comment to Ludwig, and nothing more.

I was restricted from an article once for doing exactly what SA did in this diff of Nealparr's [32]. In that case, SA complained, in exactly those words, that I'd poisoned the well. But you can't see it. You won't do a thing to SA.

But anyway, I avoid SA as much as I can, and that includes trying not to go to articles where he is. Show me one place where I followed him (if you look hard there might be one or two articles), and I'll show you people begging me to help (literally).

Of course, because of this, it is a completely easy restriction to follow, but it is also completely unfair, and I think it only shows your frustration with this situation. Frankly, I think you know that I'm not anything like SA, yet you want the situation to stop. Well, you can make it stop easily, by just banning everyone who disagrees with SA. But is that what needs doing? You gave SA an indef block, so you know what the reality is basically. Do you really think that SA needs to be protected against me...... even assuming you still insist that what I said at WQ had anything to do with SA?

I ask that you get this reviewed. Get other completely uninvolved admins to review that diff, and see if it is really me wanting to "get" SA. See if they really think it believable that it was my belief that such a thing could do SA the least bit of harm. Vassayana, the more I think about it the more I see that even if you consider me to have no good faith at all, and therefore that my little comment was trying to get SA, you also have to think I'm completely STUPID. Let me assure you, I know how people perceive our interaction, and I wouldn't be that dumb if I were trying to get him. Which is why I almost always avoid these discussions on him at AN/I and Arb enforcement. Which is why I avoided that one till it was already closed. I haven't even emailed Ludwig. Go ask him. But he could have made a good Arb enforcement request if I had asked him.

Please ask reviewing admins to read what I just said here. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 20:25, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec)If you had not repeatedly and inappropriately injected yourself into complaints and reports about SA, I would be willing to assume a whole lot more good faith. To be blunt, one assumes good faith as a starting point and it goes away in the face of contrary evidence. It's not a matter of one diff, but just another blip in a long-standing pattern of interaction. I did not block you. I did not even topic ban you. I did not even completely prohibit from you dealing with ScienceApologist. I simply prohibited you from injecting yourself in discussions, disputes and reports that involve SA where you are not already involved. If that restriction is truly that much of an issue to you, its necessity becomes even more clear to me.
I clearly posted a link to AN/I where I notified everyone of what I did. I will link to your message here, but you're free to comment on AN/I, like anyone else. Vassyana (talk) 20:41, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I am banned

If that's what you did, it's completely unfair. I completely object to it's being on my record, because I have done nothing wrong.
But that's not what you did. Rather, you handed all the paranormal articles to SA. What you did was say to him: you have complete freedom to edit without Martinphi being involved anywhere Martinphi hasn't been for a while. Remember, we edit very low traffic articles. You just handed most all the paranormal articles to him. Completely, as I am the only one who bothers about his POV pushing on most of them. He can completely remake the paranormal articles because of this. You think he won't notice? ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
In fact, you just banned me from Parapsychology and a number of other articles, now that I think about it. Yes, you did ban me, on most of the article where I edit. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
And you show obvious bias by shrugging off Nealparr's diff. I think you are completely biased against me. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
"Not currently involved". Your restriction doesn't come into play yet. The problematic scenario would be if you made no edits to the articles in your watchlist for several weeks or months, and then ScienceApologist makes edits you feel strongly against. Then you're not allowed to edit it, because you'd be "injecting" yourself. Or if you took a wikibreak for any considerable length of time. That's when it'd suck for you and you could consider yourself effectively topic-banned. --Nealparr (talk to me) 22:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Um, yeah, you mean like nearly everything on my watchlist, including EVP and Parapsychology (I edited there today before I realized the implications of this, but before that I hadn't edited since 19 May. And on EVP since 7 May) and most everything else? No, this is a topic ban from nearly everything. SA has the wiki to himself now.
If this is not changed, I will leave WP. I will ask to be blocked indef so as not to be tempted. This is completely egregious. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:25, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Or rather, as worded, you can edit content without restriction, but you can't participate in discussing the content.
Simple fix would be to change the restriction to discussions on noticeboards regarding ScienceApologist, but not directly involving you or a topic you are both editing. It's the restriction on discussing content that effectively topic-bans you. --Nealparr (talk to me) 23:06, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Pardon me for interjecting where I perhaps "do not belong", but I find this situation puzzling and disturbing. People should not be discouraged from offering advice to new people -- or to experienced people. Now, I'm not sure I entirely understand the restrictions on Martin, and I don't have any real experience with Martin, but I've had some experience with ScienceApologist and find him to be tendentious and disruptive, and fairly given towards edit warring. For example, he recently tried to add unreferenced trivia to the lead of water fluoridation opposition; when I reverted it, he reverted me (diff), and I let it stay because I know he won't stop. He seems to constantly try to push people's buttons. I'm sure Martin and ScienceApologist can go round and round "discussing" and getting nowhere, but when push comes to shove and ScienceApologist tries to edit in things which don't belong, or unbalance articles, then it is good to have a balancing opinion. It appears here that there is a bias against Martin in favor of ScienceApologist; hopefully I'm just misreading. ImpIn | (t - c) 04:09, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we need to move this away from this talk page, as Vassayana tried to blank it. If there are no objections within a reasonable time, I'll move it to AN/I. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Vassayana attempts to "blank" their own talk page...Why Martin, how dare they do that! The ignomy of it all. Shot info (talk) 04:43, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
It does not seem polite to me to in a way decree that "discussion on this is over" -- I was surprised. Clearly there is some interest in discussing this. If Vassayana is uncomfortable with the discussion cluttering up her talk page, then it should be moved to AN/I, sure. ImpIn | (t - c) 04:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Simple fix

The discussion surrounding Martinphi's restriction is getting a little overboard (eg. "I am banned"). This is probably because the restriction itself is a little overboard (eg. He is essentially banned depending on where ScienceApologist chooses to comment). The restriction is disproportionate to the problem: in a nutshell, Martinphi and ScienceApologist simply do not get along but otherwise can contribute to the project in a productive manner. Vassyana considered my "simple fix" suggestion, so let me elaborate here.

1) Martinphi should not enter into discussions solely to fight against ScienceApologist, or vice versa. That was the intent of the restriction in the first place. I think that's a given considering how much they don't like each other, and since any comment they make against each other is just white noise at this point (it's all been argued before). "Poisoning the well" against each other is also inappropriate at this point, considering the circumstances, and neither should do that. Both editors should refrain from posting messages to other editors that make oblique references to the other or their past history. Call it a "restraining order". This is especially relevant in various noticeboards where one of the editors is not directly involved, and in policy discussions where "poisoning the well" could effect other editor's decisions regarding policy decisions when the policy changes should be evaluated on its own merits rather than past histories of the editor posting the content.

The simple fix here is to not restrict the editors from conversations, but restrain them from "poisoning the well".

2) Martinphi should not make a comment that references ScienceApologist himself, and vice versa. This is a back to basics proposal. We're here to discuss content, not editors. If the above proposal were to apply to noticeboards and policy discussions, this one would be about content. The core of WP:CIVIL concerns addressing content, not editors, and while ScienceApologist is frequently accused of being uncivil, I think Martinphi has forgotten this core principle as well as he frequently makes comments about ScienceApologist himself rather than what he feels is wrong with ScienceApologist's edits. Back to basics. Talk about content, not editors. If the restrictions are meant to get them to stop fighting with each other, we really need to get their coversations off each other and on point.

The simple fix here is to not restrict editors from content discussions they are involved in, or potentially will be involved in, but rather restrict them from talking about each other. You can put the hammer down on this one and word it in no uncertain terms, the strictest possible way, because they shouldn't be talking about each other at all. On the other hand, they shouldn't feel disenfranchised from content related discussions either.

3) Martinphi should broaden his Wikipedia contributions, voluntarily, as a show of good faith. Part of the reason editors have a problem with Martinphi is that they feel he's only here to fight with editors on fringe topics, ie. WP:TE. As a show of good faith, he should voluntarily get involved in a wider spectrum of topics that need improvement. This probably shouldn't be a "restriction", but rather some good advice that he should voluntarily embrace. Like many editors (myself included), he's probably just a wiki-junky on topics he's into. But I'm sure he has other interests that he could spend some time on, and that would go a long way towards assuaging people that he's not here just to quarrel. Nearly everyone on the planet has a culture, religion, geography, history, sociology, etc. topic they can improve. Alterntatively, if Martinphi wanted to continue in his chosen area, paranormal topics, he can help out on folklore, culture views, beliefs, and so on, rather than making edits primarily centered around the fringe science aspects of paranormal topics.

The simple fix here is to change the environment where Martinphi and ScienceApologist would bump heads.

--Nealparr (talk to me) 13:11, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comments?

Holy crap Heh, none of this was here yesterday, and I thought it was resolved. Anyway, I just want to comment on this, which olive said was the reason for the restriction. I actually did not feel the "fleas" characterization was directed at SA, but rather to me (or anyone else who might have responded to the Wikiquette alert). However, it was also clear to me -- even though I had never met Martinphi before -- that his motivation for jumping in was due to past conflicts with SA.
Since his core advice was sound (if you think someone has been uncivil, provide a diff and possibly a quotation), and since I really didn't want an already-resolved issue to flare up for no reason, I chose to ignore the bafflingly unnecessary and insulting comment. However, at the same time I admit I was very relieved when I saw the restriction from Vassyana. I was worried Martinphi was about to make a federal case out of an issue between two other users that had already been reasonably resolved, and this restriction, I felt, gave me the option to revert&ignore any other unhelpful commentary he might add.
So, no comments as to whether the restrictions to Martinphi should apply in article talk space... but, as a previously uninvolved user, I can say that I thought restricting Martinphi from jumping into noticeboard discussions that don't involve him is a damn good idea. --Jaysweet (talk) 13:30, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:CyrilleDunant

User seems to be quick to revert and engages in NPA violations. You can say users talk page is peppered with it. User seems to remove other peoples comments. User might need to be explained a few things. -- Cat chi? 10:41, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Possible WP:BLP issues at Chris Crocker (Internet celebrity)

copied from an earlier section to unify discussion

Could someone else step in on this please? WillyJulia (talk · contribs) apparently doesn't like that myself and another editor are enforcing WP:BLP policies on Chris Crocker -- I know, not everyone's cup of tea -- and they seem persistent in speculating who the person is despite being asked not to and now here they are copying my user page which may not be a violation but it is creepy. I have to take a break now but would appreciate uninvolved parties suss it out more civilly than I feel I would. Thank you! Banjeboi 00:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Left a quick note with them, asking them to check out the article's talk page; between your message and the fact they seem to have stopped editing for now, not sure if there's much else to do right at this moment. – Luna Santin (talk) 02:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate the effort although they had already been engaging the talk page, the problem was they were posting the possible identity of someone who has purposely kept their identity and location private due to ongoing death threats. I believe that violates WP:BLP. Perhaps I erred but they also filled their user page with multiple copies of a copyrighted picture which has been added and removed multiple times from the article. This perhaps led them to copy my user page onto theirs. Perhaps not a violation but I would like help in how to approach this since I'm now of such interest to them. Any advice appreciated. Banjeboi 09:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A personal attack?

WillyJulia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) has made a statement on their user page "Benjiboi is a ripe fruit that bruises easily. When in doubt ask!"[33]. Could that be classed as a personal attack and/or assuming bad faith with another editor? Bidgee (talk) 11:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, actually they copied my user page to theirs and I'm unsure how to handle it per thethread above. Banjeboi 11:12, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Ok. I missed it. Thank you for the message. Bidgee (talk) 11:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
That's a single-purpose user that probably won't be around long, so the situation should take care of itself. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 11:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
There's a thread further up about this called 'help please'. Does this mean the stuff is continuing? :( Sticky Parkin 11:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Help!!!! This is continuing and we may need oversight to clean-up this] edit summary and some of their other work. Banjeboi 11:33, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
This is continuing, WillyJulia also added a WP:AIV on him, reasoning that he removed comments. It has already been removed by an administrator. Arienh4(Talk) 11:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
There was a recent case at MfD where an editor copied someone else's User page, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Tamr007. That one closed with Delete. EdJohnston (talk) 14:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
and the editor continues[34] with the other editor then the issues with the article. Bidgee (talk) 15:27, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
The editor also told me to stop reverting the blog that they where reverting [35]. The blog in question is about the article rather then the person there for there isn't a problem with the BIO [36]. Bidgee (talk) 15:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
I can see why they might be confused. The blog link at the top of the talk page mentioning wiki in the news is the exact same link that keeps being removed per BLP at the bottom... --Onorem♠Dil 15:52, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Which I've stated more then once in my edit summarys which the user must be reading for them to reply. Bidgee (talk) 15:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but that makes no sense to me. I agree that the link can't be used as a reliable source, but if it's a BLP violation just to include it in a discussion, then it should be a BLP violation to prominently display it at the top of the talk page. --Onorem♠Dil 15:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
I have warned the user about a personal attack against Benjiboi, and observed that they were just edit warring against Bidgee about the removal of a copyrighted image from their User page (which was eventually deleted from commons as <gasp!> a copyvio).
This user is frankly just causing problems. I would endorse a short block to get their attention until they can learn at least one Wikipedia policy. (So far, I count WP:BLP, WP:NPA, WP:RS, and WP:COPYVIO as all being violated in the space of like 20 minutes) --Jaysweet (talk) 15:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

To put it more bluntly: Please block this user as an WP:SPA with no contribs that do not relate to exposing the real identity of a WP:BLP, and for being a general PITA in other ways. --Jaysweet (talk) 15:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

They are now in communication with Bidgee (talk · contribs), so maybe he/she can straighten this person out. Perhaps advocating a block was a little premature -- the user is violating policy and generally creating a ruckus, but I think I was mostly just pissed off that I opened their somewhat-NSFW user page while I was at work. heh... --Jaysweet (talk) 15:58, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Isn't copying somebody else's User page a violation of GFDL? Corvus cornixtalk 20:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I have just issued the user a final warning after his reinsertion of a personal attack against User:Benjiboi on Talk:Chris Crocker (Internet celebrity). He doesn't look like he's going to be able to play well with others, and I'm not seeing any reason for anything other than an indef block. Horologium (talk) 20:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you to all who helped on this. I'm seeing this editor as only pushing to include chat comments as a source to "out" the concealed identity of a BLP, and not in any civil fashion, and then turning on editors, including myself. I hope they can leave that all behind but in the meanwhile just a thanks for helping deal with it all. Banjeboi 01:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

im trying to add a vital piece of information to the article and users are just shouting WP:BLP!! at me i have many reliable sources so there is no reason not to add it!--WillyJulia (talk) 10:51, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

People are shouting WP:BLP at you because you are acting as if you have not clicked on and read that link. Please do so now if you haven't already done so. In a nutshell, it says we have to be extremely careful about disclosing any sensitive and/or damaging information about living persons even if you have a reliable source. Since Crocker has indicated that he intends to conceal his real identity, that makes it sensitive information and we must be extremely careful about what we disclose and what we don't. Even if you have a reliable source.
If you check the talk page, you will say that I, for one, think his state of origin could probably be included in the article, but not his real name. Other editors may also have different opinions. However, Wikipedia operates by consensus, so it is vital that all controversial changes (such as this one) be discussed on the talk page. You have not really discussed there, other than to make a personal attack against Benjiboi. This is not how Wikipedia operates, and the community is rapidly losing patience with your unwillingness to learn and abide by our rules. --Jaysweet (talk) 14:06, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "could you please do me a favor?"

Resolved. No harm done, and no reason to believe this is more than a one-time event.

User:Abhaac has posted a request on a number of user talk pages, asking for help with a Master's thesis, and looking to "validate the knowledge evolution maps of identified users in Wikipedia". He plans to post a URL and a questionnaire. My approach to this kind of thing would be to ignore it. This could be legitimate, or it could be spam, or even a scam of some kind. What do you all recommend? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 11:36, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

As long as he doesn't ask for any personally identifiable information, I don't see a problem with it. It sounds like a valid topic for a thesis, and I can definitely sympathize with the need to get 3rd party objective opinions in order to validate the data in a Master's thesis (in my case, I was able to get my friends to do it in exchange for beer, ha ha ha...).
The only caveat I would add -- and this is an obvious one -- is that anyone who chooses to participate should have their virus protection up-to-date before clicking the URL, should not download any executables, and should not click on it at work or anywhere that a shock site would do more damage than just a minor scar on your psyche. ;)
When he does post the URL, it might be worth it to report back here and have somebody volunteer to click it, just to make sure it's not spam or malicious, and doesn't ask for personal info. Until that point, I am inclined to WP:AGF (especially since the story rings so true to my ears). --Jaysweet (talk) 14:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
There's one here User_talk:TharkunColl#could_you_please_do_me_a_favor.3F Personally I find any research about wikipedia, intriguing and think it should be encouraged/tolerated. Sticky Parkin 17:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
He asked me, and I said I would try to help him. If he ever actually does give me whatever links he wants me to go to, I'm going to fire up my old 600 MHz Windows Me machine... J.delanoygabsadds 17:26, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Even if it asks for personal info, people are free not to give it (or to lie), so why the emphasis on that as a potential problem? --Random832 (contribs) 18:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
A fair question. I would feel a little uncomfortable with someone canvassing Wikipedia asking for personal info, but then again, he is canvassing looking for volunteers, so then if he asked only the people who volunteered for personal info (and they obviously would be free to decline) I don't see a problem with it.
I'm inclined to mark this Resolved... Seems innocent enough, and in the unlikely event it turns out to be spam and/or malicious, we can warn people at that time. --Jaysweet (talk) 18:06, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I got one of these and didn't think enough of it to do anything about it - but if this became regular practice and my orange bar was on all the time with survey solicitations, I'd be a bit irritated. I hang up on phone calls like that. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I got one, saw it as canvassing/spam. I'd much rather see these research soliciations on WP:Village pump, where hundreds of editors will see them anyway, only my own take on it though. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:38, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I firmly believe the kid is acting in good faith and is legit, so he might actually appreciate your suggestion to bring it up at Village Pump... --Jaysweet (talk) 18:40, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Oh, no worries about his good faith here. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
I was about to point him to Village Pump, but then I noticed he's already got like a dozen volunteers, so I think the point is moot. I'm marking this as resolved, with the recognition that if Wknight's nightmare scenario came true, there'd have to be a policy enacted against this sort of thing. But right now, I see this as no harm, no foul. --Jaysweet (talk) 18:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] CorenSearchBot

Resolved. Added myself in the list. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:41, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Today CorenSearchBot chased me from article to article after creating new pages like Nahoutinga. I need to add myself in User:CorenSearchBot/allies. So any community approval before I proceed? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 13:29, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Just do it - I'm pretty sure you won't destroy Wikipedia (deliberately, anyway!). Neıl 龱 14:11, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Sure. Your recent article creation work seems excellent (better than mine, anyway) and if you do destroy Wikipedia, we can always block you. I see no reason why you shouldn't be on the list. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Molobo

I have blocked Molobo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log · rfcu) indefinitely. He's recently gone back to his old ways of incessant revert-warring and sockpuppetry, with two 3RR blocks within a week. His block history includes a year-long block from Dmcdevit (talk · contribs) as a last chance. Seeing as he has failed to take that chance, I see no reason not to declare him banned. Please review. At the very least, stringent editing restrictions will be required if we decide that a ban is not the way to go here. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 13:38, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

The user had a long history of edit warring and personal attacks. He blew his last chance(s). WP:NOT therapy. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Support block Edit history shows edit-warring, incivility. This user was warned many times. Enough is enough. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 14:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Support block per Otolemur, and support community ban due to the sockpuppetry. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 14:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse block - I don't know this particular user very well, but this thread is convincing, along with a brief review of the block log and its relevant reasons. Rudget (Help?) 14:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse a block to avoid further damage to WP, not to teach him a lesson, which hasn't taken anyway. Bearian (talk) 15:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
His talk-page still says he's only blocked for a week. BradV 16:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
I left a formal notice there. MaxSem(Han shot first!) 17:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse block. An editor could change over time. But I looked at his recent edits to Strategic bombing during World War II and found no reason for optimism there. His edits were rightly reverted. His source for the facts about the earliest German bombing raids in 1939 was a novel by an East German writer. EdJohnston (talk) 20:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse, unfortunately. I explained to Molobo on his talk page how he can constructively contribute to Wikipedia, but this has been explained to him again and again. When he was blocked for a year by Dmcdevit, it was his final chance to change his ways. However, he has exhausted the community's patience to the extent that short blocks are no longer an option. Khoikhoi 21:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse Good riddance to bad rubbish. Hopefully in a few months we won't see a topic here where he begs forgiveness and tries to get back in. Jtrainor (talk) 22:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
I endorse the indefinite block and have marked his userpage to indicate there was a consensus for the indefinite block, ie. a ban. Daniel (talk) 02:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mark Levin recent edits in need of arbitration

Intervention or possibly just arbitration would be appreciated at the Mark Levin page. An attempt to add a bit of seemingly minor information has been repeatedly reverted by user:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:74.68.132.134 (Sorry, still learning the ins and out of wikipedia, don't know how to fast link). Another editor has attempted to add this information, but it has been scrubbed. Despite a discussion thread being opened on the subject, the user has as of this time, not responded. The user hasn't really made a case as to why it should not be included. However, this user does routinely revert the inserted material on the Levin page, then makes unnecessary commentary that boarders on insult in their edit summaries. I would say this it is possible this editor mistook the links provided as an advertisment, as sometimes news articles include phone numbers or links to places where a person can purchase tickets to an event that is written about. However, in light of the fact that this did come from a news source, and given the remarks in the edit box, I feel that the reverts issued by this user were not only unconstructive, but purposely done in bad faith. Thanks for any help you may provide in this matter.Rocdahut (talk) 15:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I recall that someone attempted to add info on Rush Limbaugh's charitable activities to his own article a while back. This was resisted by some editors as an unimportant detail. Here in Mark Levin's article nobody has claimed the charitable activity was unimportant, but they did say it was improperly sourced. Now there is a reference provided at http://www.thechronicleonline.net, which seems to be the online version of a Christian newspaper. It is arguable this is a good enough source for the statement that Mark Levin gives benefit concerts. Anyone who doesn't like this source might raise the matter at the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. EdJohnston (talk) 18:35, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] featured article contains vandalism

Resolved. Vandalism removed

hi dont know mutch about Wiki, but i think i found several vandalism in featured article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheerness —Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.12.10.1 (talk) 16:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I have removed it. --Jaysweet (talk) 16:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Caspian Blue

Resolved. for at least 24 hours. IP blocked for 24 hours for violating 3RR

Re User_talk:Caspian_blue. Please see discussion on our relative talk pages [37] and [38], I am preparing a reply and it will be ready in a few minutes.

User attempting to set up dubious 3RR and admin intervention to support POV.

Thank you --60.42.252.205 (talk) 18:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Appears to be a content dispute over an edit to Comfort women with Caspian blue (talk · contribs) which has escalated out of control. I am not sure why this person has posted a report to ANI if they are not yet ready to. Shessh.... --Jaysweet (talk) 18:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Huh, the anon who blanked massively properly cited contents sinced yesterday and violated 3RR on MY TALK PAGE with repeated insulting comments regardless that I said "please stop!" and reported here? what a good gesture. --Caspian blue (talk) 18:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Please see summary with diffs on my talk page. [39] I just wanted to preempt this ... sweet individual from what they was obviously going to do next. --60.42.252.205 (talk) 18:26, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
To, Jaysweet, with all due respect, I do not have a content dispute with the anon, but have a problem with his attitude and mockeries. The anon began blanking contents since yesterday without any discussion with editors, so I restored it. Because to me, they're all well-cited materials regardless of non-English sources. The anon is the one who speaks contradictions as gaming the rule in order to make me look as bad as possible. What is wrong with my suggesting him to open a discussion on relevant talk page? The result is I should bear his mockeries such as I have been plotting 3RR report on him from bad faith and nationalistic intentions? The anon is the one who be summoned by me.--Caspian blue (talk) 18:53, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 60.42.252.205's 3RR violation as he/she requests

As you wish, I do report your 3RR violation on MY TALK PAGE. Did I suggest that if you have a content issue, then address it to relevant pages not as leaving insulting comments on my page. But you keep reverting regardless of my warning. And then you falsely accuse me of setting you up? All I tried to do is to cool you down and to prevent you from reverting unnecessary comments.

  • 1st 2008-06-12T17:06:27You are talking rubbish to label the edits as distruptive.
  • 2nd 2008-06-12T17:21:33
  • 3st 2008-06-12T17:32:41 Can I be honest, it appears to me that what you are trying to do is set me up for a complaint to an admin over some bogus charge to suit your own political agenda which appears to be Pro-Korean
  • 4th 2008-06-12T17:44:46 My friend, the intentions behind your actions are utterly transparent to any English speaker, never mind any experienced wikipedian (e.g. attempting to set my up for a 3RR in response to your reversion.
  • [40]If you notice, I preempted your WP:3RR warning predicting it entirely. I am sorry, no. It is an very old trick to use provocative revisions and threats on newcomers.

It is weird that the anon who're claims to be a newbie says about "old trick" of Wikipedia as trying to make mockeries on me. --Caspian blue (talk) 18:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Observations

A few observations:
  1. These three reverts [41] [42] [43] by the IP on Caspian's talk page were not appropriate. Please see WP:DRC. In the future, do not restore warnings or other comments on another person's talk page.
  2. Caspian blue did report this to AIV, and was rebuffed. It is not simple vandalism, but I think we all knew that.
  3. The IP objects to this 3RR warning, but it was only a warning, and no 3RR report was filed. If you don't like a warning, remove it. Both edits appear to be edit warring, so a 3RR warning is certainly not out of line.
  4. The edit war in question appears to be over whether the Comfort women were forced into it by the Japanese, or if Koreans forced their own citizenry into it and handed them to the Japanese.
  5. Caspian's characterizes the IP's edits as "blanked massively". This is not really accurate. It is a content dispute between two sources with very different characterizations of the issue.
  6. FWIW, Blueshirts (talk · contribs) and Selket (talk · contribs) appear to support Caspian's version. I am also inclined to support Caspian's version, from the little I know on the topic.
I do not support either version. I just worry about whether vandalism process is being used as a weapon in a content dispute. --Selket Talk 21:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  1. The IP's contribs do not show a single attempt to discuss this at Talk:Comfort women, so that's bad.
  2. The IP's contribs also seem to indicate an apologist pov for WWII Japanese war crimes (or alleged war crimes).
So that's what I see so far.. --Jaysweet (talk) 18:35, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comments: Indeed, the anon not only violated policies including WP:NPA, WP:3RR on my talk page, but also did the same thing on Comfort women as well.

Please check this Comfort women (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) --Caspian blue (talk) 18:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I just checked, and I believe the IP is one away from 3RR on Comfort women (unless I missed one). Also, reading his edits more closely, I am somewhat disgusted. He seems to be implying that Korean women were signing up in droves for the privilege of becoming Japanese sex slaves. I know this is a hot-button political issue in SE Asia, but this kind of edit warring without consensus is unacceptable.
Also note that, upon further review, Caspian blue has not been edit warring at Comfort women (only a single revert).
I have given the user another 3RR warning, and if the IP reverts again on Comfort women, I will file the report. --Jaysweet (talk) 18:53, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
If the first removal is regarded as "revert", the anon seems to already violate 3RR rule again.--Caspian blue (talk) 19:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
I have reported the IP to 3RR for edit-warring on Comfort women. Other editors have already started to copy-edit his change, so I'm not sure whether to revert it or what. --Jaysweet (talk) 19:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
I perceive that 60.42.252.205 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) reverted five times on the Comfort women article on June 12, which violates WP:3RR. His new edit at 18:58 UTC shows him continuing past Jaysweet's warning. It seems that some of his edits were well-intentioned, but he doesn't show much collaborative spirit. I have blocked the IP 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 19:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Can you remove personal attack remarks on me at his talk page? Such as Very shortly after, I received a number of increasingly hysteria warning threats [2] and revisions from a Pro-Korean editors Caspian_blue [3]. I recognised that I was being set up in an attempted WP:3RR or IP admin that would support his POV and post a note of this on his page [4] ... preempting exactly what I suspected 1 minute later [5].--Caspian blue (talk) 19:16, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
The complaints about Caspan blue on the IP's Talk page sound angry but not defamatory. I would not be inclined to remove them myself. I hope that all parties will discuss their reasoning at Talk:Comfort women so that any remaining deficiencies in the article can be addressed. EdJohnston (talk) 19:37, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Request for desysop of User:Can't sleep, clown will eat me

Heads up in case it gets missed for being added nearer the top of this noticeboard, I posted this notice per the header. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Unless CSCWEM has voluntarily subjected himself to recall there is no way (other than ArbCom) to desysop him. Of course, this lack of recall is in violation of basic tenants of consensus, which this project claims to hold so dearly. Bstone (talk) 22:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
If you can think of a better structure for possible desysopping that doesn't leave admins open to the whims of tendentious editors, feel free to suggest it. Black Kite 23:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
My thoughts on the issue here. Bstone (talk) 23:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Whilst I completely see your point (and this is a good example of how the current structure falls down), I don't see anything much in the way of a viable alternative there. The problem with "consensus" is that it's very difficult to measure. Black Kite 23:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
The lack of consensus about how to measure consensus is less of a problem than, or is perhaps a direct result of, the lack of consensus about what consensus actually is. Indeed, if we had consensus about what consensus actually is, we would not need to measure it, but rather we would be able to recognize it when it occurs. That said, I entirely agree with Bstone's short and to the point assessment linked above. DuncanHill (talk) 01:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, no, essentially the idea of "consensus recall" has been repeatedly rejected because nobody has yet proposed a workable system that would prevent such a mechanism from being abused to retaliate against administrators taking unpopular, but policy-compliant, actions. We ask our administrators to do tasks that create enemies - blocks, protections, BLP interventions, et al. Allowing those enemies to have an administrator desysopped by sheer force of numbers would be a disaster for the encyclopedia. FCYTravis (talk) 01:20, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Likewise no-one has come up with a workable system to deal with admins who have lost the trust of the community. Not everyone who thinks that a particular admin should be de-adminned is "an enemy" - though in my experience that is the first line of attack used against editors calling for such action. DuncanHill (talk) 01:26, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Sure, there's a system called the ArbCom. The ArbCom has consistently shown that it is unafraid to desysop admins who have abused the tools. That is the only legitimate reason to desysop anyone - abuse of the administrator tools. We don't desysop as punishment, we don't desysop because we don't like someone, we don't desysop for content disagreements. We desysop because someone has shown, through their actions, that they can't be trusted to legitimately and properly use the rollback/block/protect buttons. If that's the case here with CSCWEM, the ArbCom can make that call. If they feel it's an urgent matter, they can call for an emergency desysop. FCYTravis (talk) 01:40, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
I would not describe Arbcom as a workable system. It is a system that can be worked, but that is another thing altogether. DuncanHill (talk) 01:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
If the community decides who can be trusted to be a sysop then why do we filter all potential desysopings to ArbCom? No, it's a broken system. The community must decide, not ArbCom. Bstone (talk) 02:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, no, that's not how it works. Again, it is the case that admins may be called upon to take policy enforcement actions that could displease certain parts of the community. If administrators have to live in fear that if they take such actions, they could be targeted for lynch-mob desysoppings, then that creates a powerful disincentive to enforce policy. That is not healthy for the future of the encyclopedia.
If an administrator has misused or abused the tools, then that administrator should have the tools removed. There is no other valid rationale for removing them. FCYTravis (talk) 05:10, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
To me it smacks of some admins holding the community in contempt - basically, they are saying that the community cannot be trusted. Apparently we are capable of deciding who should have the tools, but we aren't capable of deciding that we made a mistake, or that someone hasn't lived up to expectations. An admin can be a bully without actually using the tools - just the threat of use is used by some as a way of preventing legitimate criticism. There are two or three who are almost guaranteed to turn up and threaten editors who criticize their friends - and a lot of other admins who, whether out of cowardice or ignorance, just let it go. Those admins who do call for accountability and responsibility from their colleagues get treated pretty poorly too. It is far, far too hard to get the tools - pretty much guaranteeing that anyone who does get them has put a huge amount of work into getting them, making adminship a very big deal indeed - so then, when it becomes clear that they are no longer the right person to have tools, they and their colleagues will fight the community tooth and nail to stop removal - and in a system which is already designed to make it excessively hard to remove. Adminship no big deal? Wikipedia's biggest lie. Admins have made it a very big deal indeed. DuncanHill (talk) 11:03, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
The community (and in reality a very small part of it) is entrusted in arguing whether a contributor is sufficiently trusted to be granted the tools - but the decision is that of a 'Crat who weighs the arguments for validity. Being entrusted with the tools, and being recognised as using them appropriately are different matters. There are some nasty little tasks that sometimes have to be done (this matter, for example) and decisions are sometimes taken that will otherwise be unpopular with the community (or a small but vocal part of it). The ArbCom, who are individuals with - presently and historically - sysop work experience, understand the responsibilities and pressures of administration activity and are far better to review complaints then either the community at large or (and especially) the sysop community. It is unfortunate in many ways that the removal of the sysop bit is far more difficult to achieve than the granting, but the sometimes contentious and unpopular work admins do will not get done for fear of having to go through the process (and never mind the result) every time somebody gets upset with a poor or disputed sysop action. Perhaps the community may decide to request temporary/conditional desysopping from the ArbCom more often in the future? Why not? There are more admins than there ever have been... LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Lisa-1982

Resolved. for now...

User is posting articles on a supposed Mafia family. Totally unsourced and at best a violation of WP:BLP, at worst blatant attack pages. Suggest someone steps in fast. Exxolon (talk) 21:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

User now indef blocked. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#3RR_and_removing_AfD_tags above. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:43, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I've deleted Mafia boss as unsourced BLP. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:46, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Probable sock of User:George-hans. I've never really dealt with socks before, anyone want to take a swing? Tan | 39 21:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Raised block to indefinite. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
...and it's outta here! :-) Tan | 39 22:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Been whacked, as it were? Tony Fox (arf!) 22:35, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm Probably sock of a Rico-Rico 1982 (talk · contribs) or something and another IP that I "battled" earlier today. Creating an article on a supposedly mafia family and its boss. Samuel Sol (talk) 00:17, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism-only account

Resolved. blocked indef

Special:Contributions/Richieleslie is changing sections of articles to copies of others with only the names changed to the article's subject, as well as other vandalism. I've given a test4im, but as he hasn't yet vandalised after that time, I'm reporting it here. TransUtopian (talk) 22:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Resolved, thanks to Tanthalas39. TransUtopian (talk) 23:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dreamer.se

I posted above, with no administrator response on this user: [44]. the user has been indef blocked elsewhere, and has engaged in fair use violations passed final warnings. Please handle, or say why not to handle. The Evil Spartan (talk) 00:03, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any recent vandalism and while there are many deleted image uploads from a few weeks ago, lately this editor seems to have been uploading fair use album art with rationales. Could you please provide some diffs? Gwen Gale (talk) 00:17, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes some more specific information would be helpful, a quick glance shows no recent final warnings (only fair use di warnings, which the user seems to have rectified). Removing user warnings isn't a prohibited activity on one's talk page. – Zedla (talk) 00:20, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Cbsite resuming edit war, cursing at other user in edit summary

Background: A few weeks ago, User:Cbsite and I had an extended conflict over The Color of Friendship. (I felt it should be a redirect, Cbsite felt it should be a disambig page, I cited a WP guideline supporting my opinion and attempted to discuss the issue, Cbsite ignored all attempts at discussion or building a consensus and just kept reverting it to a disambig. See Talk:The Color of Friendship, and that article's edit history, for further details.) Admin User:Ricky81682 eventually ended the issue by blocking Cbsite temporarily (he then posted this request for block review), and another admin had to protect Cbsite's Talk page to keep Cbsite from removing the block notice; for more details on that, I encourage you to check out the history of User talk:Cbsite, but it's a bit awkward to wade through as Cbsite reverts virtually every single comment made on his or her Talk page, usually declaring them to be "vandalism" no matter what the comment actually says.

Anyway, the reason I'm bringing this all up again is that today Cbsite once again reverted The Color of Friendship to a disambig, with no comments made; I still have it on my Watchlist, so I reverted it; and Cbsite has now reverted it again, this time with the edit summary, "Don't start with me again, fucking bitch." Given that this seems a fairly strong indicator that Cbsite is no more amenable to discussion or reconciliation of the issue than before, I thought I might as well bring it straight here rather than revert again and wait for Cbsite to break the 3RR and spout more profanity at me. Propaniac (talk) 00:13, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Blocked 48 hours for blatant incivility. However, I would like a review of this block's length. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Seems appropriate to me. There's no misinterpreting that summary. Kevin (talk) 04:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Nicer than I would have been (but there would have been complaints so thanks). It's clear what's going on. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:27, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Is there a speedy cleanup area?

Resolved. parked at AfD

Jay Albertson Park. I can't find my {{sofixit}} mop. Is there a triage area anywhere round here? Carcharoth (talk) 00:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure there's anything to clean up. The current article is, in its entirety, a copyvio of this (about a third of the way down the page); and although there are other versions in the history, they have problems of their own. The consensus may be that populated places are inherently notable, but it hardly follows that every public park in every such place is notable. Deor (talk) 00:47, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Sent on its way to AfD. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Prem Rawat Dispute

Alright, I'm bringing this to ANI, as I'm asking for administrative input. Let me give give you a little background information, for those who aren't aware of it. The Prem Rawat dispute has been quite a long dispute on Wikipedia, from what I've gathered, and includes these articles. An arbitration case resulted, where article probation was imposed. Now, I'm mediating the case on the content side of things, and so far, it's remarkably been going OK, albeit with a few bumps in the road, as well as one today, which is why I'm here. This thread started on the Prem Rawat talk page today, as I made a request to all parties here, which they all agreed to. Regarding the edits that were made today, I was asked about them on my talk page here, where Arbitration Enforcement was possibly requested, however, I am not sure if the recent edits fall under the terms of probation. What I am sure of, however, is that something needs to be done, and that is why I am here. I understand this is a contentious topic, and one that few administrators are willing to approach, but it needs some action, whether administrative, well, that's why this needs to be discussed. Thanks, and I hope something can be done here, whether its AE, protection, or whatever it is, something. Thanks again, Steve Crossin (talk)(email) 01:17, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

See Talk:Prem_Rawat#Declaration_of_agreement_to_proposal_by_mediator, in which Francis Schonken (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) agreed to the terms of the mediation. But today, he went ahead and made these unilateral edits bypassing the agreement. See also this user's block log. Why should active editors that are making excellent progress in constructive discussions in proposal pages set forth by the mediator be penalized with article protection? User:Francis Schonken should do the right thing by self-reverting and following the process that has been agreed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:32, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Well, at the moment, this "suggestion" that I made, remains that, a suggestion, and a mediator has no ability or power to enforce anything, merely to make suggestions. Possibly, this suggestion could be somewhat solidified? I think such things as a topic ban should really be used as a last resort, but one thing I do know, something does need to be done. Perhaps the edits made by Francis should be undone, that is not really my call to make. Steve Crossin (talk)(email) 01:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Your suggestion was accepted as a sound proposal by all active editors, as a step in dispute resolution, and an orderly debate is currently taking place because of that. Why should the disruption of that process be allowed? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:11, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm not saying that it should be, however I think that a topic ban here would be extreme, and that's why I'm asking at ANI. I note that no one else has commented here....as I thought, no one wishes to touch a topic such as this... Steve Crossin (talk)(email) 02:21, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't think that the one edit has disrupted the dispute resolution process. There hasn't been any disruption that I've noticed. Jossi hasn't even objected to the substance of the edit, only to the process. This is just informal mediation. If folks want to get caught up in procedure then they should pursue formal mediation. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:32, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
    • This is not about "process" but about fulfilling commitments made. Francis should undo these changes and discuss them as we all are. Wyy should he be exempt of making edits without discussion as agreed? Should other editors simply go ahead and bypass the mediation process, forfeit the agreements made and let hell lose all over again? Is that what you are asking we do? I find this to be completely unacceptable behavior. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:04, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Just informal mediation - Not a very nice way to describe the good efforts of a MedCab volunteer, which has led for the first time in a long time to an orderly debate, consensus, and true collaboration, is it? I would have hope that such efforts would be more appreciated, rather than be dismissed as it was nothing. Shameful. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:11, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Will is right. As I stated previously on the Rawat Discussion page, this process is only informal mediation, with no formal requirement to adhere to this process. Let's separate the process from the people. I think we all believe that Steve is doing a fantastic job and that his efforts are much appreciated. It is unhelpful to make personal comments such as shameful, about a stating a fact that the mediation is just informal, when you know that Will (and myself) strongly support what Steve is doing.
  • Having said that, I agree that the recent edit to the main article wasn't helpful to the goodwill around the current mediation, but any formal complaint needs to stand on its own feet in respect of the specific editing, and this case hasn't been made yet.Savlonn (talk) 06:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
  • While I do appreciate your comments about my efforts, I didn't bring this to ANI to be complimented :-). I brought it here to see if any further action needs to be taken regarding the recent edits, and I am still waiting on outside input from a user/administrator that isn't actually involved in the dispute. I'd appreciate outside input. Steve Crossin (talk)(email) 07:13, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Mediation is voluntary - it can be frustrating when parties feel that an editor isn't respecting the mediation or their agreements, but that's a conduct issue as opposed to content and needs to be dealt with in another format. As far as this particular situation goes, since it just came out of arbitration and the committee didn't feel sanctions were necessary, its unlikely that a single act by an editor, regardless of how frustrating, would rise to the level of needing sanctions. Shell babelfish 10:09, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

BTW, for the indicated edits I felt covered by the outcome of these discussions (I participated in all of them):
Probably I should have given clear links to these discussions in the edit summaries.
I don't exclude that I might have misappreciated what looked to me (for all aspects of my edits) enough consensus for proceeding with the updates. The lack of content remarks, however, seems to indicate I didn't misinterpret anything. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:41, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Sure, you have participated in the mediation pages, that is not disputed. Just that suddenly, out of the blue and without any discussions you decided to delete material, add new material, and change the article structure. All this without an attempt to explain your edits or make proposals as everybody else is doing. So far four editors have asked you to re-consider and self revert: Rumiton, and myself in article's talk, Will Beback in your talk page, and user Savlonn in this thread. So I would hope that in the spirit of collaboration and consensus building, you do the right thing, by self-reverting and making proposals that can be discussed and assessed alongside all others proposals. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:35, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] IP editor making personal attack

Please check out User talk:Andyvphil where 24.12.114.215 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is at 7RR or 8RR (more or less) calling this editor a WP:DICK.[45] The IP has been warned several times. I'm filing a new report here because this is only tangentially reported to the larger issue discussed here in the past few days. Thanks, Wikidemo (talk) 02:19, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand what I'm doing wrong. I'm linking to WP:DICK. I've asked for help in numerous places, but NO ONE has given me an answer to how this is a personal attack. Why does the link exist?!? 24.12.114.215 (talk) 02:27, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
I've never liked that one myself. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:31, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
I wonder who we get with an unblock request if that IP gets blocked... AvruchT * ER 02:33, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Perhaps you should take a look again at the boldface message at the top of the meta page to which your link redirects: "The presence of this page does not itself license any editor to refer to any other identifiable editor as 'a dick'." Your very first edit (from this IP, at least) was "Maybe if you would stop acting like a complete WP:DICK …" Deor (talk) 02:35, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd keep an eye out for this editor possibly being a WP:SOCK. If they've never edited Wikipedia before they're learning awfully fast. Warnings on people's talk pages, threats to "report" the editors reverting the dick comment, found the report here without a courtesy notice....something is a little odd. Wikidemo (talk) 02:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
I admit my first attempt at linking to it was in bad form, but I still fail to see how putting a link to it as I did the last umpteen times is wrong. I give up. 24.12.114.215 (talk) 02:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
I asked the editor to promise to stop doing it to give people a chance to explain things. If "I give up" means what I think it means, perhaps a block can be avoided. Cheers - I'm off for the rest of the night. Thanks for the help. Wikidemo (talk) 02:40, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Stunts like this AIV report are pure WP:POINT and I have blocked accordingly. --Kralizec! (talk) 03:06, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Regard abuse of Wikipedia policies by user

Well, it has been repeatedly brought to the notice of the administrators that a particular user from Pakistan, through a set of anonymous IPs has been indulging in personal abuses, POV pushing and racism against India.

He has violated the following rules: WP:CIVIL ([46],[47],[48],[49],[50]), WP:3RR ([51][52]), Wikipedia:Sock puppetry (119.30.76.138,119.30.67.8,119.30.77.149,119.30.70.188,119.30.78.21) and obviously, WP:NPOV


However, I observe that nothing has been done to this regard. Moreover, this last edit by the same editor clearly indicates that the user is unrelentive and gives the impression that the admninistrators are acting partisan in this regard. This is a very serious issue and may have far-reaching consequences. If this editor is allowed to continue uttering his venomous racist nonsense then I may have to escalate this matter.


Ravichandar84, this is the talk page to discuss things relating to the Pashtun people article. If you have issues with a user over his/her's behaviour you should take it to administrator notice board. Several administrators were involved in your/mines incident and they didn't find my actions offensive, I was leaving message on their talk pages and they didn't warn me about any thing.


-RavichandarMy coffee shop 02:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New sock of blocked User:Bov

67.170.205.8 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log) has been editing Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center exactly the same way Bov and his known sock have. I don't know if a checkuser is necessary, but, again, I can't block because of previous edit conflicts. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:23, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Thamarih

This user has a warning for personal attacks and threats less than 24 hours old and continues:

  • [53] - "Our belief is that the only reason Mr Russell is here is for sectarian harassment purposes, … It is our belief that Mr Russell is following a guideline and directive by the Internet committee of the Haifan Bahai organization to harass us, so we hereby reserve our rights at law. We also believe this individual is now stalking all our submissions on wikipedia."
  • [54] - The whole passage is too long to quote here.
  • [55] - Again, it's too long to repeat here.

This user is edit warring on Ayahuasca:

This user is harrassing me on my talk page with accusations of vandalizing Talk:Juan Cole:

How many blocks does this guy get? MARussellPESE (talk) 03:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Seems someone didn't get my e-mail....
I wanted to give them a chance to read and understand what I was trying to tell them, but it seems not to have stuck. They've been blocked for a month--I consider that pretty generous, seeing as how I was originally thinking six weeks might be the magic number. --jonny-mt 04:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Request a block review

I just got off a block (my first) by Kylu (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights). The background is, while doing the same image patrolling, cleanup, and moving I have been doing for months, I ran across multiple uploads by Ryulong (talk · contribs) that had WP:NFCC problems, the main one being that they didn't specify the copyright holder of the work per WP:NFCC#10a. I started flagging them to be fixed, but shortly after got a message from Ryulong telling me to stop and that (s)he would fix them because the talk page messages were annoying. I initially offered to consolidate all templates into a single message (as a matter of fact, I did exactly that earlier today after reviewing uploads for AreJay (talk · contribs) - this is my normal practice, I have done the same thing with images by SDC, Endlessdan, SlimVirgin, and others). In response, Ryulong protected his/her talk page (presumably so they could not receive any questions about image uploads.) I got a message from Kylu shortly thereafter from telling me to stop reviewing Ryulong's uploads. After I got that message, I stopped flagging Ryulong's images for copyright problems, to allow Ryulong time to fix them, and only was tagging for non-controversial housekeeping stuff - in fact, I was tagging non-free images that inappropriately high-res images in the image history with {{non-free reduced}} (which doesn't affect the current version) and I was fixing redirect links in the fair use rationales. I was nonetheless blocked. Kelly hi! 03:54, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

  1. You continued to edit after the request to stop, without a comment (see your contribs). Either:
    1. the New Messages bar was ignored (always a bad idea), or,
    2. there was some server-side technical difficulty that prevented you from seeing it, which is my AGF assumption, and therefore the block was to give you the opportunity to review the conversation, or,
    3. you were using the tool in an automated fashion, such as with an autoclicker, which would qualify as botting without prior permission. (This is the not-so-AGF assumption)
  2. These edits were focused on one specific individual, Ryulong, instead of simply looking at all new uploads. Please see your contribs during this time frame: they were all dedicated to the images being worked on by one individual, and until he protected his talkpage, left notices there also.
Now, granted I also disagree with his protecting his talkpage, I left him a note about it elsewhere and he agreed that I could remove the protection. There's only one method of preventing a user from editing multiple pages, however. This being a collaborative project, discussion is a vital step in preventing conflicts and would've prevented this block. ~Kylu (u|t) 04:05, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
The problem with that is there's no rule saying Kelly had to listen to you, given that Kelly wasn't doing anything wrong in tagging the images. You can't block people just because they don't listen to your advice. -- Ned Scott 04:09, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
If I understand correctly, you were not blocking because of the activity directly. -- Ned Scott 04:21, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
(ec)I'm confused here - if you notice a pattern of problem uploads by a particular user, you are nonetheless not allowed to review that user's uploads? This has never been a problem before (well, I guess it kind of was a problem with SlimVirgin (talk · contribs).) Kelly hi! 04:11, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
It was deemed of concern at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Abu badali. Daniel (talk) 05:23, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
What was the ultimate result of that? Is reviewing a user's logs not allowed? Kelly hi! 05:30, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Ah, never mind - found the arb case.[59]
7) An editor whose image's licensing or fair-use status is questioned is expected to address the matter promptly and civilly, recognizing that adhering to Wikipedia policy in this area is essential for both ethical and often legal reasons. Disagreeing with the concerns raised and/or requesting a third opinion are often legitimate, but personal attacks on the user raising the question are never appropriate.
9) Where the validity of non-free images is disputed, and especially when these are tagged for speedy deletion, it is important that the uploader be notified of this.
Kelly hi! 05:34, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
(ec)From first glance, this feels like an overly harsh application of WP:DTTR (an essay). Since this has come up numerous times, with many editors, I think we really need a policy instead of an essay regulating something that is apparently blockable. MBisanz talk 04:06, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
(ec) Bad block, though it has me confused.. Kylu seems to indicate that he's using the block because you were not seeing the "you have new messages" bar? I guess there was no malicious intent by Kylu, and he was using the block as a technical attention grabber? -- Ned Scott 04:07, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Partly to make sure that the conversation was read and partly to block illegitimate botting, were that the case, though I'm happy to see that this doesn't seem to have been the case. I'm not a "he", by the way. :) ~Kylu (u|t) 04:21, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
I was not using a bot, I was using Howcheng's script...so penis vandals get 4 warnings before blocking, but I get none? Kelly hi! 04:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Personally, I wouldn't use a block as an attention grabber like this unless it was something really important. I do understand Kelly's annoyance, but at least the block log does note that the block was only for a technical matter, and not for behavior. Forgive and forget time, maybe? -- Ned Scott 04:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
I'd be happy to drop it if Kylu put an entry in my block log to say the block was an error - I've asked on her talkpage. Kelly hi! 04:29, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Replied there. ~Kylu (u|t) 05:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Completely inadequate. Kelly hi! 05:08, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, I don't know how else to say this, but this just as frustrating as fuck. On the one hand, I have people have thanking me for applying copyright experience and participating in Featured Article reviews. So when I attempt to consistently apply WP:NFCC, no matter how polite I attempt to be, everything is fine until I look at an admin's image uploads, then I get threatened with blocking and accused of stalking and personal agendas. I got threatened with blocking for looking at SlimVirgin's uploads the other day, and now I actually got blocked for looking at Ryulong's uploads. Just what the hell is going on? Kelly hi! 05:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Kelly, I use the same method when I do my image and template runs, usually they are small enough a person does not mind. My suggestion would be to do a run through a person's entire upload record, and then post 1 note to their talk page listing all the images that need fixing. I agree that if a person has 1 or 2 mistagged images, odds are they have more, but many people strongly dislike templates (despite the fact we have them for a reason). MBisanz talk 05:59, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
But I already do' consolidate all templates into a single message - I do this with all users whose images I review, and I told Ryulong in advance that I would do this. I pointed this out and gave examples above. Kelly hi! 06:10, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
I mean more like 1 edit saying:
Image 1 has X, Y, and Z wrong
Image 2 has X, T, and Z wrong
Image 3 has G, H, and Y wrong
and so on. MBisanz talk 06:23, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
OK, fine - I deserved to get blocked. Somebody else enforce the non-free content criteria. Kelly hi! 06:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Kelly, I asked you to stop and slow down and I would review my own image uploads, which I was doing, except the orange bar and my talk page being flooded by those template messages was detracting from my attempts at fixing things on my own. I've been here for two years, and I'm well aware of how things should be tagged, deleted, undeleted, etc. After you simply seemed to ignore my requests, as well as tag images that I had fixed due to your initial messages, and the constant posts to my talk page, I protected it so I could get some work done. Now, every image I've uploaded that was non-free I've looked over and made sure it mentioned everything necessary, and deleted over-sized versions that had smaller resolutions uploaded, etc. The Abu badali decision has always been cited in situations like this, but I was aware of the issue, went about fixing it. In the short period of time you were blocked, I fixed everything I thought needed fixing. I even found a copyright violation on the Commons.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:47, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
That might have been relevant save for the fact that I was blocked after I stopped posting to your talk page or flagging "your" images with disputed fair use tags. Kelly hi! 06:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
You stoped both of those after I protected my page because you did not heed my request and during the reverting and editing I had to do to review every image I personally uploaded.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
  • In my view, double standards are being applied here. I had some problems with Kelly's work in the past (on other image issues), but in general Kelly does do good work with images. It is worrying that Kelly only ran into problems when pointing out image issues with SlimVirgin and Ryulong . It seems there are different standards for some people compared to other users. Not sure whether it is an "admin" or "vested users" situation, but in my view SlimVirgin and Ryulong should not have been so defensive. If a bot had dropped off those messages, what would their reaction have been? I agree Kelly should consolidate messages before dropping them off, not before, but the block by Kylu and the page protection by Ryulong were both poor judgment. Page protection isn't meant to be used to "turn off the orange bar", and blocks are not meant to "grab attention" unless it is clear there is a problem. In my view, this needed to be discussed, with patience and waiting for replies, not with blocks that are saying "stop and discuss first". Messages on a talk page, no matter how annoying, are not something to block people for. Carcharoth (talk) 07:29, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
    • If it's a bot, they usually don't come about 12 at a time. And if it is a bot, most of the time I don't care about the images in question and I remove the messages from my talk page (in the beginning of Betacommandbot's run, I just opted out for him).—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Fair enough. You haven't commented on your protection of your own talk page. Given that both Kyllu and me have said that this was not appropriate in this case, I take it you agree with that part of things? Do you have anything to say about how Kelly's work normally meets with no problems, but if the work runs into people who (a) get upset and (b) have people watching out for them, then there are problems? Either Kelly needs to change the way she does things, or some people think different rules apply for them. Or both. Which is it? Carcharoth (talk) 07:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
        • It was an impetuous move such that my page would not be inundated by "This image has an improper fair use rationale" or "This image needs old revisions deleted" or "This image is up for IFD" messages while I was actively editing the site.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
I would phrase the question differently: If an editor discovers that another editor has uploaded/tagged a series of images incorrectly, is it permissible to check all of their uploads, and in what time period does the uploader have to self-check their images before all of them are tagged? IMO once I see one incorrect images, all of that editor's uploads should be checked and tagged as needed. I don't think message bars are damaging and AFAIK, there is no policy that says "you may only notify X times per hour" or "you must respect a person's wishes not to be notified of tags". Maybe we need to re-write our tagging guidelines to discourage notification if so many people object? MBisanz talk 07:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Guidelines or not, am I the only one who thinks that posting a dozen or so messages one after another to a single editor is disruptive? It would drive me crazy! I don't mind a bot doing it (although even BCB rarely did it this way, even on a big run) but another editor? It's harrassment. And going through one established editor's contributions looking for faults is also harrassment in and of itself. Then telling the editor to stop and having them ignore you? That could easily be taken as proof of harrassment. No, we don't need a change in guidelines here, we just need people to use commonsense and to remember to not template the regulars with such gusto. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS used to be a sweet boy 10:19, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
If a user is found to have uploaded a images under faulty rationales, going through them all to check for compliance is really, really not "harrassment". Neıl 龱 12:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

←Not in isolation, no. But coupled with a dozen templates on your talk page that don't stop even after a request, then, yeah, harassment is what it looks and feels like (regardless of whether it actually is). ➨ ЯEDVEЯS used to be a sweet boy 13:31, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Possibly related issue

User:MBisanz and User:Ryulong tag-teamed me to block me to get me away from editing an article that where I questioned the source (I was blocked by MBisanz for putting a tag on an article requesting a fact check)[60]. Ryulong's assertion that his talk page is being flooded by anything after he hounded me on my talk page is a good laugh--he couldn't stop posting on mine after I asked him to stop, so it's do as he says, not as he does, which is typical Wikipedia behavior established/new editors: you'll be bashed over the head with policy, but don't try quoting it to an established user and don't template them, they're somebody, not anybody.. You can't win this one, once you've questioned an article or edit by Ryulong, Kelly, you're too new here, and they're going to let you know it. [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] If you complain, you'll just bring a whole lot more established editors to harangue you out of editing Wikipedia. Yes, copyvios are a serious issue on Wikipedia, but serious editing is not what anyone is wanted to do.--Blechnic (talk) 07:00, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

PS I now just edit crap and argue for and against deletions instead of doing technical editing in my area and no one bothers me. --Blechnic (talk) 07:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
That has nothing to do with the situation at hand. Your addition here is just an ad hominem attack.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Those are some serious allegations, and I don't think they should be dismissed out of hand. Someone care to analyze the evidence? Jtrainor (talk) 09:20, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
On second thoughts, I agree. I apologise for inserting the "off-topic" section header, and have changed it to "possibly related". In fact, it should be a separate section, probably, but I'll keep out of it now, as my initial edit and now my apology means it would be best for someone else to look into this. Apologies again for trying to keep the issues separate without looking into the allegations by Blechnic. Carcharoth (talk) 09:41, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
It does appear as though in the examples Belchnic gives, Ryulong was doing exactly the same thing Kelly was blocked for, namely, continually adding messages to talk pages despite the recipient indicating the message had been received. This is pretty hypocritical. Neıl 龱 09:43, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
(after ec x2)I've spent ten minutes looking at this. First off, the edits in question are all back in May, so I would have hoped that Blechnic would have got over it by now. Second, Blechnic doesn't seem to be the easiest person to get along with, managing to rub-up the wrong way several people he's been in contact with and fond from the start of writing long, bold-text rants about how unfair things are here and especially how named admins are clearly abusive. That said, Ryūlóng didn't help matters by reverting his talk page to try to get the message across, but others agreed with the action at the time and the page ended up protected to stop the rant being reinserted. My recommendation would be for Blechnic to drop this, as he's on a hiding to nowhere in pursuing it and taking it further may lead to in-depth investigation of his editing which might not be to his advantage. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS used to be a sweet boy 09:47, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
"Stop talking about this or we will investigate you" - do we really need to resort to threats? The removal of Blechnic's rant is not the issue, rather Ryulong's repeated addition of the same or similar messages. I would also point out May wasn't that long ago. Neıl 龱 09:59, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
"Stop talking about this or we will investigate you" - no, not really. More, if he does pursue this, the behaviour of both will be looked into and he (Blechnic) isn't pristine white. He is, of course, entitled to take this further. I just doubt it is a good idea, on grounds of drama if nothing else. As I say, Ryulong doesn't come out of this too well either, but I can see fault on both sides. And it was a month ago, since when Blechnic has been editing happily, so this is a bit of "picking at a scab". But your mileage may vary, of course :o) ➨ ЯEDVEЯS used to be a sweet boy 10:04, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
The issue in question is a month old and is not the exact same thing.
  • Kelly repeatedly placed image warning templates on my user talk due to the script being run to tag images. While I was planning on fixing every image, I asked Kelly to stop and I would do the work on my own (which is seen on User talk:Kelly). This was followed by continued tagging of images and my user talk, after which I protected my user talk. During this time, I asked Kylu for assistance with Kelly as I wanted to make sure I checked all of my images.
  • With Blechnic, I was trying to contact the user, and he removed everything saying I was taunting or abusing editing priveleges. He continues to assume bad faith, and his resultant block was for disrupting an article featured in the DYK, which I subsequently re-referenced because everything I had added was questioned and attacked.
Now, how are these two situations in any way related other than the user talk page being edited (in two completely different ways)?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 10:06, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
1) Kelly places messages on your talk page. You do not want these messages. Kelly keeps putting them on there.
2) You place messages on Blechnic's talk page. Blechnic does not want these messages. You keep putting them on there.
When boiled down, the two situations are similar. The difference is you protected your page to prevent further messages, and then you asked Kylu to deal with Kelly, which she did by blocking her - one or the other of these was wholly unnecessary, I believe the block. What point was there in blocking Kelly for templating your talk page, particular given a) the templates were correct, and b) you'd already protected it to stop her communicating with you further? Rather than insisting on her stopping because you were "dealing with your images", you could have just as easily stopped and waited for Kelly to finish going through them, instead of getting Kylu to block her - did that even occur to you? Neıl 龱 10:22, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Because I could go through things much faster without having to undo various edits after I had already fixed the fair use rationales on several images and before I could just go through my uploads myself and fix everything such that Kelly would not have to continually post the same message on my talk page? Given the rate, my page would have been flooded by the image templates, when protecting it (temporarily) so I could fix images in exactly an hour's time. Every fair use image I have uploaded is now tagged properly, has the copyright owners listed, and all that needed revisions deleted have had the revisions deleted. I asked Kelly to stop. Kelly didn't. Blechnic should really have moved on, but instead used this as an excuse to bring up a month's old resolved dispute.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 11:13, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Pedantry: By definition, if one party is still bringing a dispute up, it's not resolved. Neıl 龱 12:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, there was no problem for an entire month.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 13:19, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
No comment on the block or whatnot, but I wonder if this doesn't really boil down to "don't use Howcheng's shortcut when going through someone's uploads and tagging bunches of them"? Its fine for one offs here and there, but its rather silly to be using it knowing you're going to spam the crap out of someone. I know Kelly's trying to be helpful, but there have been several times in the past few months that her actions have been seen as incredibly abrasive and she doesn't seem to have taken that in to account. Maybe we should give some thought to notifying established editors to review their images if someone comes across a few instead of plowing through their uploads and spamming them to death? Its not as if someone won't come across their images again later if they don't fix them all. I guess I just don't understand why people who do mostly image work always seem to have the attitude that people shouldn't get upset when they're being a pain cause "its necessary" - if those folks just thought for a minute, they could figure out a way to do it and not be a pain ;) Shell babelfish 10:33, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Agree there - it is always better, even with a new editor, to list all the problematic images in one message, together with what is wrong with them and what needs to be done. Neıl 龱 10:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Come to think of it, my response sounded a bit one sided there. Its just as important for folks who are getting image template messages to understand that the work does need to be done and much worse things could happen in your day than getting a spammy talk page. Shell babelfish 10:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
We are talking about a dozen or so messages in very quick succession, including ones sent after a request to stop. Much worse things could happen in your day, but in your Wikipedia day, this would be close to the top of the list. IMHO. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS used to be a sweet boy 11:00, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree that it makes little sense to continue after one has been politely asked to stop. Checking images may be a required task, but leaving a template message on someone's user page isn't. Shell babelfish 11:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Why not leave a note on user Foo's talk page saying, "Hi there, I'm spamming a jillion image template messages to User_talk:Foo/img_tmp. Please have a look at them when you have time, thanks!" Gwen Gale (talk) 11:04, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I've been flooded with image templates myself; look at my talk page archives. It's very annoying, but I grin and bear it; I don't start demanding that the people who do it be blocked. *Dan T.* (talk) 13:33, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Alastair Haines - edit warring and incivility

On the article Gender of God, user Alastair Haines (talk · contribs · logs) is disruptively editing the lead text [68] and introducing grammatical clumsiness and discord with the title (and therefore implied subject) of the article. Specifically: He is changing "God is a central figure of many religions" to " God or gods are a central feature of many religions", ignoring the fact that the article is specific to God. While I believe he has good intentions, I also believe he has shown enormous stubbornness and refusal to entertain alternate views, and that this is harming the article. Rather than discuss the matter with me, he persistently accuses me of trolling [69], or simply reverts my edits without comment [70][71].

Additionally, the editor is using the talk page as a forum [72]. Since the content in question - part of a personal conversation with another editor - is so long and so clearly unrelated to improving the article, I removed it and urged Alastair to take the conversation to the user's talk page [73]. He immediately reverted this, and shortly started a WQA against me [74], which ended with another editor agreeing that the material is in violation of WP:TALK [75]. Despite this, Alastair has continued to revert its removal [76], insisting that he will do so until he is convinced of his being wrong and until somebody asks him politely to remove them [77]. Ilkali (talk) 12:08, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

It seems like there are two issues:
  • Gender of God edits, which seem to be in good faith and probably legitimate.
  • Talk page discussion which should be moved to user talk per WQA. I will leave a message on the talk page to this effect.
Toddst1 (talk) 13:42, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Languages