Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Take a look at these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

Unblock of Callmebc

So, about a month ago Callmebc was indefinitely blocked because he had basically given up on "editing in a collaborative spirit" and was becoming abusive and disruptive over the topic. Since there was no apparent way to fix his behavior, he was blocked for a long period of time. While blocked, he has remained up to date as a lurker on the topic he was previously engaged in, and we have been (quite genially, I might add) discussing how his editing habits might be improved, since he has an honest desire to contribute to these subjects in a constructive fashion. As you can see from his block log, he has not been a perfect editor, to put it mildly — however, we've discussed a lot of these issues, and I think he has a sincere desire to begin "editing in a collaborative spirit".

Since I'm not here to play parole officer, or pretend I'm some kind of behavior-police (something which I do not believe is the correct role of admins), I've mostly discussed with him how to address the concerns many people brought up in his previous blocks, and the discussion which led up to his indefinite block. In any case, since I didn't want to put words in his mouth or set "conditions" for unblocking him, we decided that he should work up a statement of compromises that he's willing to make to engage his unblock.

Statement by "Callmebc"

I wish to be unblocked from Wikipedia. I was indefinitely blocked apparently because of my attitude -- I put accuracy above all else, and I don't play well with others whom I suspect of not being honest. This has led me to be combative and somewhat sarcastic at times, with both other editors and admins. While I feel very strongly that whatever comments I have made were entirely justified in context, I understand that Wikipedia is not all about being accurate at all costs -- it is a social, collaborative effort requiring some degree of patience, tolerance, encouragement and giving editors and admins the benefit of the doubt even when I strongly disagree with what is being said or done.

I've been inactive over a month and thought about behaviorial & attitude changes I can agree to that would strike a balance between my wanting things accurate and up to date in a timely manner, and the Wiki process of collaboration and WP:AGF. This is what I think would be a good compromise:

1) I will refrain from making any changes at all to the main article page without first going through a Talk page discussion. If the discussion degrades to WP:TE, and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, and WP:GAME (as is often the case with politically sensitive topics), I will still avoid simply going ahead to make the changes anyway and instead will follow Wikipedia policies regarding WP:DR

The only exceptions I'll will be blatant vandalism and substantial undiscussed changes I have problems with in terms of accuracy and content -- I will just revert the first as a matter of course, and will revert the second with a note on the editor's home page to please discuss first on the Talk page. In the second case, if the editor makes an effort to discuss the changes, I will follow consensus and not object to putting the changes back even if I still have problems with them. If it is an issue with a single editor wanting to change something and there is no other feedback from anyone else, I will instead again follow Wikipedia policies regarding WP:DR rather than engage in an edit war.

2) I will endeavor to be polite, regardless of the circumstances and provocation. The articles I tend to be interested in are politically charged and regularly draw in anonymous IP's, sock/meatpuppets and the like. In the worst case I will only adopt a neutral tone and will strive to avoid even making sarcastic remarks, however "appropriate" the circumstances might be.

3) I will give everyone the benefit of the doubt, and then some, regardless of my suspicions. I will even go further and start with a clean sheet in regards to editors and admins I have bumped heads with in the past and regardless of my personal opinions. In real life, you get to pick your job but not your coworkers, and you are expected to get along regardless. The same is much the case with the Wikipedia -- you can pick which articles to work on, but you can't choose your coeditors, and you should try to get along regardless. They may include people you would never want to socialize with, but that's not the point of why you're there in either case.

4) In a nutshell, I will endeavor to improve the quality of articles without violating, however accidently, the collaborative spirit of Wikipedia.

-BC aka Callmebc

---

As you can see, it basically amounts to a self-imposed probation on all articles, with civility probation attached. I think this will satisfy most of the concerns which surrounded his editing pre-block, but I wanted to bring it up for discussion here. So, what do you think? It would be helpful if comment could focus on particular requirements you think are not met in this, if you are opposed. For consideration, --Haemo (talk) 04:02, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, I am always concerned when users try to get themselves unblocked in unusual fashions. I would rather Callmebc go through (since email is not disabled) and just request an unblock through unblock-en-l@lists.wikimedia.org first before coming here. If that is rejected, then fine, but AN/I is frankly too fast for a discussion of this type. If some admin is willing to consider it, I'd suggest unprotecting his user talk page and discussing it there instead of here. No opinion, just a random admin musing through. Frankly, after seeing your diatribes as unblock requests, I'd say to at least wait until the end of the month before even considering it and learn why your unblock requests got you deservedly blocked even worse. I'll add this: if (1) this thread goes nowhere, (2) he's emailed unblock and they've denied it as well, have him email me and I'll consider unprotecting his talk page after December 28 [that would be one month since his talk page was protected]. Even then, I'm going to ask that at least one of the users who you are edit warring with agrees to the restrictions and will reblocked immediately and permanently for any nonsense. After this many blocks (and especially given the attitude during the blocked periods), I think I'm being way more than fair. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:10, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

To be fair, this is not really an "unusual fashion". I was discussing with Callmebc on-Wiki when he was appealing his block in the usual fashion. However, our discussion was cut short when his talk page was protected, but he had contacted me via email, so we decided to continue the discussion via email. There is nothing unusual about this, and it seems slightly bureaucratic to insist on jumping through hoops like reposting an extensive discussion we've had via email on his talk pages, or emailing a list which will only result in a discussion here — since this is clearly a case where the community needs to get involved. To be fair, in addition, its now been more than 1 month since his block was implemented. With respect to the "too fast" comment, the community sanction board was merged with WP:ANI — so this is de facto the only place to bring up discussions of this nature; the consensus was that WP:ANI is not "too fast", but is in fact the correct forum for these discussions. --Haemo (talk) 08:11, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

To be honest it may seem bureaucratic but it is justified, he knew his talk page was going to be protected if he used it disruptively and he went ahead and gave a rather pointy reason for unblocking, wich was: "See below -- I was in the middle of composing an answer and proposition to Haemo when MaxSem shot first without asking me any questions. That wasn't nice or WP:CIVIL of him, was it?" the talk page was protected shortly after this last request was denied, there is no reason why the desicion to protect could be considered out of place. - Caribbean~H.Q. 08:30, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying it was out of place — I was simply explaining that the discussion we began there was continued via email, instead of by arguing over the protection. I merely made the comment to explain why it was not an "unusual fashion" — i.e. it's not as though he contacted me out of the blue, or something, asking for an unblock. --Haemo (talk) 08:35, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

• If Callmebc is unblocked, it should be on the proviso that there is a topic ban from articles related to George W. Bush's National Guard service, interpreted liberally and to include all comments including on user talk, and on a permanent final warning about WP:BLP. See VRTS ticket # 2007103010015799 and VRTS ticket # 2007111410017735 for evidence of this editor's single-minded determination to pursue an agenda in violation of WP:BLP, causing great offence to a living individual in the process. I am not in favour of unblocking, personally, but as I say, any unblock should be contingent on some form of editing restriction. The above comments about "accuracy above all else" do not augur well, indicating that Callmebc self-identifies as a bearer of The Truth™, rather than accepting or engaging the numerous legitimate criticisms. Guy (Help!) 09:00, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

  I don't have OTRS access, so I'll take your word for it. Since he appears to be mostly involved in the Killian Documents issues, and global warming, I'm not sure if he'll be willing to agree to that. However, he might, so I will consider broaching it with him after this discussion wraps up. He may be the bearer of The Truth™, but I think his comments show that he's realized that he has to compromise and engaged with us unenlightened ones, as well. --Haemo (talk) 09:04, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree with the above. Normally he would be allowed to use his talk page to argue his point but he abused it for days so no one should act like he deserves to be unblocked or any sympathy for his circumstances. Now, he should go through the process and ask via email. Frankly, I didn't realize he was getting to the point of OTRS tickets (I probably wouldn't have even offered to unblock if I knew he was that far gone) so Guy's topic ban has to be strictly enforced (I don't even want him on the talk pages there). Maybe even a requirement that he can only go on articles that don't have WP:BLP concerns? Either way, if he does "jump through all the hoops", I'll go to each of the talk pages and ask about him. Frankly, Haemo, I'm doing him a huge favor (as I feel this is going to take a lot of my time) and honestly, I'd prefer it if I felt that he realized that editing here is a privilege, not a right that can be abused and then "I'm sorry", "all is forgiven" after a diatribe against everyone. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:15, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, he's a passionate guy — he's shown me as much in his emails. I think he has experience which might be of use to the project; however, the problems related to his behavior are an issue for the community to settle. Passion and conviction are not a recipe for temperance — as his past behavior has shown. However, I think he understand now that temperance is necessary to participate in this community. As you can see, he's made some serious concessions and appears willing to talk about things. This is a big step forward, and means a lot more than just an "I'm sorry". --Haemo (talk) 09:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

• This editor should not be unblocked at this time. I have had first hand experience in dealing with him. Instead, advise him to participate successfully in another Wiki, such as WikiNews, for three to six months and then he can apply for reinstatement. - Jehochman ^Talk 09:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

• Do you really think that would help? The issue here is behavior; our sister projects are not test-beds for problem editors, and we should not use them as such. If we refuse to unblock him due to behavior problems, why would should inflict that behavior on a sister project in order test the waters for an unblock? It seems backwards — if he's trustworthy enough to edit WikiNews, then he should be trustworthy enough to edit Wikipedia — the negation of this should apply equally. --Haemo (talk) 09:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

• Sister projects have much less visibility as Wikipedia. Those who merely want to soapbox won't bother. Those who have a sincere desire to participate will. - Jehochman ^Talk 09:58, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not sure that's compelling. Perhaps they have a sincere desire to participate in a proper encyclopedia, not WikiNews or Simple English Wikipedia? An editor could very well be ready to turn over a new leaf, but not want to spend half a year doing something they have no interest in as a litmus test for whether they want to use Wikipedia as a soapbox. Many editors who want to contribute in good faith, and have turned over a new leaf would balk at such a suggestion and refuse. It's seem pretty punitive, and serves little purpose — if he's unblocked here, and starts soapboxing, then he'll have violated the terms he's already agreed to, and will be blocked. I don't believe in sending our problem users to other projects, especially as part of litmus tests which have no precedent (IIRC) and little evidence that they will actually do what we want. --Haemo (talk) 10:15, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

• JzG, I have OTRS access but can't see that one, either... o.O - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 09:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I really don't support him being unblocked yet, I know that unblock consideration can take place anytime but the last time he displayed disruptive behavior was about three weeks ago, while blocked this shows disregard for losing his editing privilege wich makes me question his desire to return, not to the point of assuming bad faith but I have to wonder if his intention is to push his past agenda in a more subtle manner. I wouldn't even consider unblocking this user without severe editing limitations like the ones presented above. - Caribbean~H.Q. 10:29, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify, he's come up with those above by himself as suggestions for restrictions he feels are reasonable. --Haemo (talk) 10:37, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I was refering to Guy's topic ban, and the subsecuent comment that sugested that said ban was extended to talk pages. - Caribbean~H.Q. 10:46, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Callmebc has repeatedly used talk pages to promote precisely the same offending content that was a problem in article space, and his abuse of his talk page for this was a factor in it being protected. I fixed the OTRS ticket links, incidentally. Sorry about that. Guy (Help!) 16:31, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I guess I can go along with this. The tone of his message is reasonable and the editing conditions he's come up with for himself look quite decent. Someone will always be around to enforce them. I don't think a topic-ban is necessary - if he comes back and does the same thing over-and-over-again we can just slap the ban back on. Cheers, Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 10:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

• I really do think we need to make it crystal clear that no comments about the individual concerned will be tolerated. Callmebc has offended the complainant, and the best course will unquestionably be for Callmebc to refrain form making any further comment in respect of this person. If that is acceptable to Callmebc then I have no objection; if Callmebc will not undertake to leave this person alone then I cannot support unblocking. Guy (Help!) 16:34, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I am a firm believer in second chances, but I think the myriad chances given to this user to shape up have been completely exhausted. It's rather easy for uninvolved spectators to say he should be allowed to try to edit articles again, but as a person who's borne the brunt of his attacks and incivility, I wouldn't consider it an option. ~ UBeR (talk) 19:43, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not exactly saying that; rather, I'm giving him an avenue to express his desire to contribute, and the concessions he's willing to make. You've mentioned that your concerns stem from his incivility and personal attacks. What more would you like to see from him that is not already expressed in terms of what he's agreed to? --Haemo (talk) 23:48, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, my first restriction on him potentially is that he stay off article space completely for one month, once and if he's unblocked; only talk space edits. I want to see if he is actually interested in discussing his views and can get others to agree based on persuasion, not by force. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:04, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm a non-admin who has had a lot of contact with "BC" since before he registered as Callmebc. While our opinions about the Killian Documents are quite different, I would like to note for the record that he has helped improve our articles about those documents in some fairly significant ways. "BC" has sometimes drifted into a self-defeating pattern of incivility (this appears to be cyclical, as do his bursts of amazing energy), but I'd like him to get one more chance. CWC 03:55, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Since ArbCom determined that User:Vintagekits deserves a second chance, then this erudite and productive editor deserves several - and promptly. Alice^✉ 14:22, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Callmebc was deleting my edits because he couldn't find an online copy of cited material, and later because he couldn't find what was in it. He could still do that under his understanding of truth: "The only exceptions I'll will be blatant vandalism and substantial undiscussed changes I have problems with in terms of accuracy and content -- I will just revert the first as a matter of course, and will revert the second with a note on the editor's home page to please discuss first on the Talk page." Only his unnecessary Talk messages will increase. -- SEWilco (talk) 03:45, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Callmebc doesn't have ('special counsel') Giano on his team, so I should imagine that if he pulls a stunt like calling good faith editors vandals and reverting them, he will get chopped off at the legs again - this time justifiably.

Callmebc needs to promptly give the undertaking to refrain from any personal comment whatever concerning the "complainant" (as Guy suggested) and then he should be unblocked. A preliminary step should be for his talk page to be unprotected so that he can give plain and unequivocal assurances there in full view of the aggrieved parties (and, hopefully, those same parties can confirm there and then, on Callmebc's talk page that they accept the undertakings in good faith). Wikipedia is a collegiate project and Callmebc needs to demonstrate that he has learnt that now; his relayed statement above certainly talks the talk - unprotecting his talk page would mean we could all be satisfied that he walks the walk too. Alice^✉ 05:29, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, just exactly that. Guy (Help!) 23:49, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

• I hope I don't seem like a sucker here, but it seems that callmebc recognizes the problems that lead to his block/ban and will endeavor to prevent them in the future. I, for one, would be supportive of a trial unblock to see how it goes. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 16:51, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Passionate at times. If he can control that, he will be a great editor. In addition, notice that, to the best of our knowledge, he has not used socks which supports the view that he is a good editor, just loses it at times. Give him a chance. Brusegadi (talk) 06:47, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

• unblock It is Christmas. Give him a chance (again). Seriously, he states he will make a strong effort to improve. He can always be blocked again if he reverts to his old ways. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 17:02, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Another non-adminstrator who's had exchanges with callmebc in the past; well said, Gtstricky, and a Merry Christmas /or insert winter holiday of choice/ to you all. htom (talk) 17:51, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

It's now five days since the matter of Callmebc's block and user talk page protection was raised here.

Although Guy does not seem to violently disapprove of the protection being removed, he's still omitted to un-protect User talk:Callmebc (I also requested that here).

Mindful of ArbCom's opinion in another matter: "Since administrators are strongly discouraged from reversing one another's blocks, it is of particular importance that blocking admins respond to good-faith requests to review blocks they have made. Similarly, administrators who perform independent reviews of unblock requests are expected to familiarize themselves with the full facts of the matter before marking the unblock request "declined."" and "It is important for all users, but especially administrators, to be aware of their own agendas, feelings and passions, and to deal with them appropriately, avoiding both biased editing and ill-considered administrative actions.", can anyone now suggest a way forward since the consensus seems to be to exercise some generosity of spirit here? Alice^✉ 02:48, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

It looks like no admin is willing to unblock. Having said that, I will make an offer. I've had a little experience with Callmebc and think that he is capable of being a constructive editor -- even a very good editor -- if he can rein in his passions. I'm willing to unblock Callmebc and give him advice as to how he can proceed constructively. The condition I require is that if he goes over the line, I will reinstate the block at my sole and uncontested discretion. I'm willing to serve as an informal advisor but am not willing to get into an endless back-and-forth. If he gets into a rut of tendentious editing or other inappropriate behavior, I re-block and wash my hands of the matter. Raymond Arritt (talk) 03:03, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that's very fair, Raymond. I hope Callmebc and Guy will think so too.

By the way, I've stolen your Highland Cattle for my user page. Alice^✉ 03:40, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Listen, just relax. I too am willing to unblock him, given the discussion here, but I want everyone to be able to chime in, and to get Callmebc's opinion about some of the suggestions made in the thread. I have been in constant contact with him via and email, and he is pleased with the way things are going. There is no need to create any additional conflict over this issue. --Haemo (talk) 04:08, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I oppose the unblock, as an editor who sees that callmebc still thinks he's got 'The Truth', as evidenced by his opening statement justifying all he's previously done: "I put accuracy above all else, and I don't play well with others whom I suspect of not being honest." That's "I have The Truth, thus I did the right thing and you all can't see it." Why would we continue to invite someone back whose 'apology' is 'yeah, but i was right and they weren't so they started it and i was just fixing everyone's mess'? No. No more agenda warriors and POV pushers, we have plenty. ThuranX (talk) 14:25, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Using a mailing list to delete a template

This matter concerns some emails on the public WikiEN-l mailing list in May 2007. I became aware of these emails only recently and through much of my own research. In May 2007 I was not a subscriber to wikien-l and I am still not a subscriber to wikien-l.

On May 16, 2007, David Gerard, a former arbitrator[1] and a current administrator with checkuser rights and oversight rights[2], wrote an email on the WikiEN-l mailing list and said "Find "what links here" from Template:Spoiler, open all articles beginning with a letter and clear that letter out. Or ten or twenty. Shouldn't take too long."[3] David Gerard also wrote an email saying "Can we kill this creature yet? Huh? Can we?"[4].

I don't know if admins on Wikipedia have any control over behavior on a mailing list, but this page says the WikiEN-l mailing list is moderated. The page also says David Gerard is a WikiEN-l mailing list administrator and a message at the bottom of the page says the WikiEN-l mailing list is "run" in part, by him.

I don't want to get into a discussion here about the merits or faults of that particular template. Is it acceptable to use a mailing list to tell other editors to remove a template from every article? --Pixelface (talk) 20:24, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

No, admins don't have any control over the Wikimedia mailing lists. They're moderated, but not by us. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 20:33, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I suppose I could send an email to the mailing list administrators, but this incident involves one of them. --Pixelface (talk) 20:40, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

There's really no issue here. The mailing list is open to all (unless someone is trolling or disrupting) and they are not censored. You are entitle to post there suggesting that {spoiler} is added to every article on the wiki. There's a whole cross-section of wikipedians there, posting an idea is at lightly to ensure someone opposes it as someone supports it. I can see no problems with David's post. Better people suggest things on an open mailing list, that use closed ones of like-minded people.--Doc^g 20:46, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I already know where you stand on that particular template Doc glasgow. You see no problem with users using mailing lists in order to delete things on Wikipedia? Better to suggest something on a template's talk page or guideline talk page than use a mailing list for meatpuppeting. --Pixelface (talk) 21:06, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

The mailing list is open and not censored, and may well have a wider spectrum watching it than any talk page you might suggest. Anyway, I'm not saying that there are not better places to propose things, merely that proposing things there is not forbidden, either to you or anyone else.--Doc^g 21:08, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

This email does not look like a proposal to me. --Pixelface (talk) 21:15, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

• Pixelface, you are now beating the dust which has blown over the bloody smear where the dead horse once lay. This has been to TfD, DRV, here, the mailing list, I can't think of a forum where it hasn't been shopped. The answer is: we don't do spoiler warnings any more. We have {{current fiction}}, you can make a counterpart for current video games if you absolutely must (looks like Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 December 15 showed that we simply don't do spoilers by any name), and everybody else has moved on. And to answer the specific point, the mailing list is officially endorsed as a venue for meta debate, but the dleetion debate and reviews were on-wiki anyway. Guy (Help!) 21:13, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

• You were present at the discussion on the mailing list in May 2007 and you personally removed the template from 222 articles using AWB after David Gerard sent the email. And you closed the TFD in November before the template had been listed for deletion for seven days. Is the WikiEN-l mailing list officially endorsed so editors can tell other editors to remove every transclusion of a template so it can be deleted as "virtually unused"? --Pixelface (talk) 21:31, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

• Seven months ago, and yes, I removed it from some articles where it was used inappropriately, but that's completely irrelevant - it was seven months ago, it's been exhaustively discussed on wiki since, and bringing it up again is not helping anyone. What admin action is supposed to be taken against someone for postings made on the official mailing list seven months ago and actions widely discussed in numerous venues since? Guy (Help!) 21:38, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

• It's not irrelevant that you read that email by David Gerard and helped remove templates and you closed the TFD for that template early. What admin action is supposed to be taken? Admins can undelete things. If a former arbitrator tells other editors to remove a template from every article and then the template is deleted because it is "virtually unused", I think that's something that requires an admin action. I suppose a steward action might even be necessary. --Pixelface (talk) 21:52, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

• It's a perfectly valid reason to delete something. May I remind you of CSD G6 - Housekeeping. And what are yu suggesting by "a steward action might be necessary"?--Phoenix-wiki ^{talk · contribs} 21:59, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

• If a template being "virtually unused" is a valid reason to delete it, any editor could remove any template from every article in order to get the template deleted at TFD. Stewards perform desysoppings. --Pixelface (talk) 22:13, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

The official Wikipedia mailing list is in fact used to discuss things regarding Wikipedia. If this surprises you, you may also be interested in learning about when the War of 1812 was fought and who's buried in Grant's Tomb. But these attempts at forum shopping are frankly pathetic, and are rapidly straining the limits of an assumption of good faith. Phil Sandifer (talk) 21:36, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Is the official Wikipedia mailing list also used to tell other people to remove a template from every article? --Pixelface (talk) 21:41, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Stop trying to make it look contraversial. It isn't secret or anything, there are archives that anyone can look at and anyone can join the list if they want. There's no issue here.--Phoenix-wiki ^{talk · contribs} 21:49, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

And yes, it can be used to tell someone to remove a template from every article, if there's consensus to do so, which there is here.--Phoenix-wiki ^{talk · contribs} 21:51, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Phoenix-wiki, you are free to read the May 2007 mailing list archives and tell me where there was consensus to remove that template from 45,000 articles. --Pixelface (talk) 22:05, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm a subscriber to the list.--Phoenix-wiki ^{talk · contribs} 22:10, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

So show me where there was consensus on the mailing list to remove that template from every article. Does WP:CONSENSUS refer to consensus off Wikipedia? --Pixelface (talk) 22:19, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, when someone notes that they dislike the widespread use of a template on the mailing list, the mailing list is in fact an appropriate place to suggest they remove it from some uses. Come on, you can't really think there's anything untoward here. Phil Sandifer (talk) 21:52, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

The mailing list is an appropriate place to tell editors to check "What links here" for a template and have them remove it from every article? --Pixelface (talk) 21:59, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is. If the template is no longer wanted, it's a perfect place.--Phoenix-wiki ^{talk · contribs} 22:01, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying a template should be removed from every article and then listed for deletion at WP:TFD? --Pixelface (talk) 22:08, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

If there already seems to be consensus that it shouldn't be there.--Phoenix-wiki ^{talk · contribs} 22:10, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

It's a complete red herring anyway. The point is, most of the uses were clearly redundant: ==plot== followed by "warning, plot details follow". The bulk of removals were for this reason, and there was extensive debate at the time at WT:SPOILER and other venues. This attempt to refight an old battle is very tiresome. I closed the TfD (a little early, but only a little) because it had reached a point where no new arguments were being advanced. I had done pretty much nothign on spoilers for months, and my only removals of spoilers were clearly redundant. DRV upheld the deletion, there is no consensus to have spoiler warnings, the onus is on those seeking to add content to justify it, in this case there is no consensus, onl a continual restatement of the same rejected arguments. I suggest that the spoiler fans fork the content into a new project whose mission is to protect the reader form finding out that the boat sinks or the wolf gets it. We have had the debate, examined our navels at length, and conluded that, good faith not being in doubt, spoiler warnings are not what Wikipedia is about. I was wondering why the whole thing was being shopped to yet another forum, but I saw that {{tl|current fiction} was deleted, and it was deleted because the small pro-spoiler group was trying to turn it back into {{spoiler}}. It seems to me that they have had their quota of kicks of the can and should probably just find something else to think about. Guy (Help!) 23:28, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

A template should be removed from every article after a TFD that results in delete, not before. --Pixelface (talk) 00:30, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

There is just one problem with your argument, the template had largely been orphaned for at least 5 months. This is a completely different situation from removing a template just before sending it to TfD. --Farix (Talk) 00:43, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

It was continually removed from every article for several months. --Pixelface (talk) 01:49, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

As someone completely uninvolved in the debate either then or now, I would like to note that it is entirely unclear that the suggestion given in the linked emails was to remove the spoiler warning from all articles. The context appears to be:

• Someone points out that many spoiler tags are misplaced
• Someone else (apparently an admin, although I fail to see what difference this makes) suggests how to go about locating and cleaning up misplaced templates
• This same person expresses frustration that removing the template from inappropriate places is creating an edit war.

72.193.221.88 (talk) 22:43, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

When Wikipedia:Spoilers was locked for two weeks, Pixelface declared that he would no longer participate in any discussion about spoilers as long at the page was fully protected.[5] Since the edit protection has expired yesterday, Pixelface returns to making the same controversial changes to the guideline page that got the page protected in the first place.[6][7][8] and is now bringing this half hearted "bad people must have done bad things" even when there is no proof. This has gotten us nowhere in the last 7 months and has simply poisoned the well. Combine this with the edit warring over whether descriptive plot summaries based on the primary source constituted "original research" leaves a huge impression that Pixelface is simply being disruptive on the entire matter. --Farix (Talk) 23:13, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

• I see Guy has protected WP:SPOILER for four more weeks. --Pixelface (talk) 15:08, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

• You know, there is something strange about this debate. Consider for a moment: Wikipedia is a tertiary source, drawn from reliable independent secondary sources, yes? So any supposed spoiler must by definition already be out there in secondary sources, because of course we would never go to a movie and then come back and write a review into a Wikipedia article, that would violate policy and guidelines. All the pro-spoiler crowd need to do is use {{fact}} on anything which is not in the secondary sources. If the secondary sources consider it a spoiler, in the case of current releases they generally won't print it. The major broadsheets review all kinds of things, they don't tell your the plot twists because they'd never get another press pass and their readers don't want to hear spoilers. Once the cat is out of the bag and we have reliable secondary sources for the plot twists, removing, obscuring or otherwise obfuscating in Wikipedia is shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted. Can someone provide an example of a spoiler printed only in a small number of reliable sources, hidden or avoided in most, and which therefore may present a valid case for a spoiler warning if one were to achieve consensus? Guy (Help!) 23:46, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

• The {{fact}} tag will no longer exist if one can use a mailing list to recruit editors to remove it from every article and then list it for deletion. --Pixelface (talk) 00:18, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

• Spectacularly irrelevant. I see no evidence that anybody has ever proposed removing {{fact}}, and it's extremely unlikely that removal would fly, since it is of crucial importance in marking content whihc is deficient per policy and guidelines, in a way that {{spoiler}} unquestionably was not. You also failed to answer the substantive point re sourceability of supposed spoilers. Guy (Help!) 21:11, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

• David Gerard performed disruptive canvassing when he told editors on the WikiEN-l mailing list to remove a template from every article. There's your proof. Here David Gerard admits to removing the template from "10 to 20,000" articles. And here an editor says the template was removed from 45,000 articles. This is about the behavior of David Gerard using off-Wiki communication that led to 45,000 articles being changed. --Pixelface (talk) 00:15, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

David's suggestion to the mailing list is hardly canvassing. He has also been cleared of disruption charges at least twice now over his removals of the spoiler tag, especially when the concurrent RfC wasn't show a consensus of the redundant spoiler warnings which he was removing. --Farix (Talk) 00:39, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

What are you referring to when you say "He has also been cleared of disruption charges at least twice now over his removals of the spoiler tag"? Does that have to do with WikiEN-l mailing list? --Pixelface (talk) 03:21, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Two rejected Abcom requests and one rejected AWB abuse report. As for the connection to the ML, it's because you are insinuating that David's comments on how to clean the over usage of the spoiler warning is the proof that the edits to remove spoiler warings were disruptive. --Farix (Talk) 04:13, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Venue total was wikien-l, a TFD, an RFC, WT:SPOIL, AWB, arbcom, mediation, back to arbcom. And now another one, several months later. I'm slightly impressed - David Gerard (talk) 12:59, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Note: There's also further discussion on the subject at Wikipedia_talk:Spoiler#Spoiler_tag_wording and the next section. Merry Christmas everybody! Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 14:17, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Proposed block of Pixelface

The misrepresentations of this mailing list thread are bordering on spurious personal attacks, frankly. David Gerard was responding to a comment about somebody's dislike of the overuse of spoiler tags. His response amounted to "Remove them one by one." There was not, in that post, any attempt to coordinate efforts to remove the tags. The only thing that prevents these lies from being personal attacks is the simple fact that discussing something in an official and public discussion forum is not against policy, and is in fact why the mailing list exists. Would somebody please block Pixelface for these disruptive attempts at character assassination? Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:52, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I am an editor with no prior participation in the spoiler template issue, and no prior interaction with Pixelface. After reviewing this ANI report, which I can only describe as spurious, and Pixelface's talk page, which is full of warnings for similar incidents, I support Phil Sandifer's recommendation that Pixelface be blocked for repeated personal attacks, incivility, and tying up administrative resources with frivolous and vexatious complaints. —Psychonaut (talk) 01:59, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

What have I said that you consider a personal attack? I don't think I've tied up administrative resources with frivolous and vexatious complaints and I find that statement offensive. --Pixelface (talk) 03:26, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

You are taking David's comments on how to clean up the template usage and insinuating that it is proof that David disrupted Wikipedia when it obvious proves nothing. That is a personal attack. --Farix (Talk) 04:13, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's a personal attack to say an editor engaged in canvassing which led to the disruption of 45,000 articles. What do think about comments like "Can we kill this creature yet? Huh? Can we?"[9] and "Kill it with a stick" and "and also please kill it."? Do those comments prove his email telling editors to remove the template from every article was in good faith? --Pixelface (talk) 04:30, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

"There was not, in that post, any attempt to coordinate efforts to remove the tags." In this email, David Gerard said "Could all reading this please go to the above URL and get hacking?", a reference to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Spoiler. --Pixelface (talk) 11:46, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I have not misrepresented anything here. And I have not attempted to "character assassinate" David Gerard. David Gerard wrote "Find "what links here" from Template:Spoiler, open all articles beginning with a letter and clear that letter out. Or ten or twenty. Shouldn't take too long." after Phil Sandifer wrote "Nuke the spoiler template. Nuke all "spoiler" policies." on the WikiEN-l mailing list in May 2007. --Pixelface (talk) 02:11, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

As a non-admin, I support the idea of a block. It should be clear that nothing is going to happen to David Gerard from the other admins comments, and frankly the evidence you just presented doesn't even begin to constitute canvassing. So what do you want to happen? The template was unnecessary and isn't coming back, which should also be clear. So what do you hope to gain by all of this? If you're not willing to stop warring over this dead issue, you should, unfortunately, be blocked until you're ready to contribute productively. AniMate 02:25, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

If you think that template was unnecessary, that's fine, you're entitled to your opinion. But this about using a mailing list to tell people to remove a template from every article. And please do not tell me I am not ready to contribute productively. You're free to examine my contribution history. --Pixelface (talk) 03:31, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

David didn't tell anyone to do anything. All he did was suggest a way to clean up the spoiler tag's over usage. Nothing more, nothing less. --Farix (Talk) 04:13, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

He did, actually. And you forgot the part where he referred to editors trying to keep the template in an article as "blithering idiots."[10] --Pixelface (talk) 08:58, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I won't say that a block is necessary , but a RfC on his actions is probably called for. --Farix (Talk) 02:45, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd also support an RfC instead of a block at this point. Chaz ^Beckett 03:45, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I sincerely hope an WP:RFCC is not being considered in order to prevent a request for arbitration from being made. --Pixelface (talk) 04:53, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

No, it would be filed to address your conduct. Your continuing assumption of bad faith is part of this behavior. Go ahead and request arbitration if you believe it's necessary. Chaz ^Beckett 04:55, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

At this point users have had an opportunity to present their views on this matter. It does not appear that any administrator action is called for at this time. It may be of interest that earlier this year an arbitration request on the "spoiler warnings" issue was declined by ArbCom. On the other hand, a principle currently under discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters/Proposed decision#Editorial process: fait accompli might also be of interest. I do not believe that any block is necessary if all parties move forward from this point in good faith and engage in productive discussion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:19, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

see also: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters/Workshop#Editorial process: fait accompli --Jack Merridew 10:24, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

The request for arbitration in June 2007 did not address behavior on the WikiEN-l mailing list. Thank you for your input. I appreciate it. --Pixelface (talk) 02:33, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure the arbitration committee has any say over conduct on the mailing list, or what exactly the arbitration committee should do about Wikipedia editors expressing their opinion with civility and in good faith on that list. --Tony Sidaway 02:38, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

David Gerard wrote, "if, God forbid, the accursed thing isn't killed after all, its harm will have been mitigated."[11] Saying "kill it with a stick"[12] and referring to a template as an "accursed thing"[13] and saying "Can we kill this creature yet? Huh? Can we?"[14], and "Usually spoiler tags end up in nonfiction articles because someone puts a bit of irrelevant cruft in with a vague relation to the subject. Then it needs a tag because OMG SPOILER."[15] and referring to editors trying to keep the tag in an article as "blithering idiots"[16] is expressing one's opinion with civility and in good faith? Or were you not referring to David Gerard in your comment? --Pixelface (talk) 08:43, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Forgive me, I wrote misleadingly above about David's wikien-l comments. Yes, you're right, they were delivered with good faith, civility, common sense, and HUMOR. --Tony Sidaway 09:23, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems patently obvious to me that editors expressing opinions with civility and good faith on mailing lists is of no concern whatsoever to the Arbitration Committee. —Psychonaut (talk) 07:35, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Psychonaut, I invite you to read the WikiEN-l mailing list archives for May 2007. You can see every email with the word "spoil" in the subject line here. I realize that the Arbitration Committee deals with behavior on Wikipedia. But I see no reason why behavior that's unacceptable on Wikipedia becomes acceptable when it occurs on a mailing list. --Pixelface (talk) 08:51, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I will state for the record that I recently started a thread relating to a deleted article on wiki-en-L, as an introduction to new information that had come to light about the subject. My explicit reason for doing so was "I'm posting this to the list as opposed to AN to reduce the signal to noise ratio, knowing that there are many people moderated here right now but that a range of opinions is still available and the list is publicly accessible" (quoting my own email there). It was implicit in my email that the discussion would wind up at some page or other of Wikipedia; however, this was a quick way to bring the subject to the attention of a broad range of editors and admins, many of whom do not read AN or AN/I constantly, and even fewer of whom would have watchlisted DRV or the pages related to the subject. In my mind, that is an appropriate use of an official and publicly accessible Wikipedia communication process - to draw a subject to the attention of a broad range of people who may otherwise not be aware of the issues. The spoiler warning issue was not discussed on wiki-en-L in isolation from other related on-wiki discussions. Indeed, in my experience almost every subject discussed on the mailing list is being discussed somewhere on-wiki, frequently in little-watched pages, and the inclusion of the subject to the mailing list often brings more diverse opinion and suggestions. Risker (talk) 07:02, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I support a block of Pixelface untill such a time as he's ready to accept that we don't use spoiler warnings.--Phoenix-wiki ^{talk · contribs} 12:49, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

The beatings will continue until morale improves. —Steve Summit (talk) 21:43, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

For added comedy value, check the template-based notice Pixelface left on my talk page. I think he deserves 0.01 points for sheer creativity in finding a new venue to shop this to (and he didn't even hit WP:CSN the first time around, despite dark threats to on WT:SPOIL), weighed against the -10,000 points of ability to actually build consensus to keep spoilers on rather than sit muttering in a corner "we wuz robbed, it wasn't that nobody cared and those who did thought we were wrong." Possibly he would benefit from writing some article text for that "encyclopedia" project of ours - David Gerard (talk) 12:57, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

The dispute resolution steps are now venue shopping? I've written plenty of article text. You're free to examine my mainspace edits, here and here. Using a mailing list for meatpuppeting is an interesting tactic I'm unfamiliar with, but it looks like you accomplished your goal. Wait, I'm sorry. Shall we be speaking off Wikipedia on our mailing list David? --Pixelface (talk) 14:08, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

It certainly appears to me that Pixelface (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a vexatious litigant and should be censured as such. ➥the Epopt (talk) 17:25, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

That's as may be, but we're much better off with Pixelface's complaints on this page than when he put them on Wikipedia talk:Spoiler. Small progress, but a move in the right direction. --Tony Sidaway 17:36, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed.

I've blocked Pixelface per the consensus and reasons presented here. John Reaves 18:30, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

• I applaud this decision and echo many of the statements made above. The user's behaviour has been highly problematic and his use of deliberate obtuseness to goad other editors into personal attacks or other forms of vexatious expression is unacceptable. Eusebeus (talk) 19:04, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
• Regrettable but unavoidable. The spoiler issue should not be revisited for at least six months, in my view, to allow the dust to settle. Guy (Help!) 23:10, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
• I oppose the block as I can't see anything actionable, and I think this has turned into something of a witch hunt of those questioning the dominant mindset on this issue. I actually think that the complaint is ultimately without weight, but I do not believe Pixelface knew this at the start. I think we should encourage an atmosphere where people's actions can be justly questioned and then, in cases like this where even if correct no action would have been required against the alleged protagonist, people could be credited with the intelligence to decide for themselves what the facts are and move on. Orderinchaos 05:21, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

• This is a very bad block and needs to be undone. -- Ned Scott 05:24, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Unblock

I have unblocked Pixelface (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I believe there may have been grounds for a one hour block, but we are treating this guy worse than some of our persistent trolls and vandals, and I did not like the pack hunt mentality which was emerging above. A venue such as RfC would have been, and still would be, preferable for these concerns about Pixelface's actions / behaviour, and I propose those with more cause or knowledge than myself about the matters concerned take steps to initiate such a forum. Orderinchaos 05:26, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

A public lynching versus a forced sequestering? Excellent idea... John Reaves 08:27, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree with OIC. The block was unneeded and regrettable. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 10:19, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

As the likely candidate for victim of vexatious litigant, I don't think a block achieved anything more than heating tempers. "Cool down" blocks never do. And the polite and civilised rotten tomatoes and cabbages returned in his direction above say all that any reasonable person should need as a response to draw a conclusion from - David Gerard (talk) 15:18, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Davidkevin (talk · contribs) persistent personal attacks, hostility, assumptions of bad faith, etc

initial personal attack [17], evidence he was warned [18] and evidence he read it [19]. More personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith [20]. Using "newsspeak" to disparagingly refer to something another editor has said [21], more hostile comments [22], again assuming bad faith and using disparaging remarks [23]. More attacks [24]. Hostile comments here after a reminder to follow 3RR [25]. Some uncivil behaviour and bad faith assumption here on another article [26]. --Crossmr (talk) 00:53, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

What Crossmr is failing to mention is that we went around on his abuse of the rules to force a bias on the article literally many months ago (well over a year I think), and I finally withdrew because his manipulative actions were making me so angry that I didn't want to have a flamewar. His record of what I honestly perceive to be abuse of the rules is long-lived and can be seen in the edit record for anyone who cares to examine it.

Yes, I have been intemperate, and I'm sorry for having let myself be goaded -- but the very existence of this complaint is evidence of what I've been talking about. You will note that he trolled my User Talk page in an attempt to goad me into violating 3RR so that my criticism and attempts to set the article at least partially right would be forced to cease, and when I wouldn't fall for that, he now attempts to get you to do his dirty work for him.

It is my honest belief, however poorly put, that he and some other editors are in collusion to exercise tight control over this article in a concerted effort to minimize or keep out entirely any mention of the enormous criticism LiveJournal management has received by a significant portion of its user base, which should be reflected in the article. I honestly believe, based on this apparent collusion, that this group of editors is in fact deliberately acting in bad faith, against the common purpose we as editors are supposed to share, that of making a valid, credible encyclopedia.

I would request that an objective group of editors and/or administrators carefully examine the entire edit record of the LiveJournal article -- I sincerely think that if you do, you will see a consistent pattern of edits to remove criticism, citing the letter of the rules while violating the spirit of them, a pattern so consistent and determined that most editors trying to correct the problem simply throw their hands in the air and give up, having other things to do with their lives, leaving the biased editors maintaining their control.

(Please note that one citation censored for allegedly not being from a reliable source gave any user of Wikipedia or LiveJournal the precise means for examining for themselves whether or not the allegation of mis-management in a particular context was true -- how much more reliable can one get than by enabling readers to make their own test of the evidence? I would hope that applying the scientific method will never be construed as violating a Wikipedia rule!)

I will withdraw from attempting to edit there for a period of time (which, after all, is Crossmr's immediate goal in invoking you) and temporarily give him the "win" he appears to so desperately need, while hoping for an independent audit of the edit record.

Don't take my word for it, or his -- examine the edit record! -- Davidkevin (talk) 01:36, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Also see this entry [27] on the Reliable Sources/Noticeboard for another current example of two editors questioning the imposed control over the article and the disparaging reaction from one of Crossmr's allies in this dispute, which shows one of the reasons I believe there is a concerted, bad faith effort to create article bias. -- Davidkevin (talk) 01:57, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Your assumption that there is some sort of conspiracy to control the point of view on the article doesn't excuse your hostile and aggressive comments made on the talk pages. it also seems to have nothing to do to that and more to with any opposition facing you as evidenced by your language on the other article's talk page. WP:V and WP:RS are quite clear. The threshold for inclusion is verifiability not truth, and things like random blogs, users comments to blog postings, forum postings, etc are not considered reliable. Trying to create a point of view based on those is original research, this policy directly addresses applying the scientific method and if you're analyzing evidence to draw a conclusion or put forth a theory that a reliable source hasn't drawn it doesn't belong in articles. However, the issue here isn't the LJ article but your behaviour in relation to it and other articles. I'm happy to debate anything with anyone on wikipedia, but that ends when someone can't conduct the debate with respect.--Crossmr (talk) 02:25, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I see you're trying to goad me again, but I'm not going to bite except to note (as anyone who looks at my total contribution record will see) that I have no trouble addressing respectfully anyone whose behavior is respectable. What I perceive you doing with the LiveJournal article is not.

And that's all I'm going to say to you here. -- Davidkevin (talk) 02:42, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

It is not rocket science, DK. Instead of beating the WP:CABAL dead horse, go find yourself some sources. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 06:58, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

A.) Some horses are in fact alive despite popular assumption-without-examination that they're dead.

B.) Instead of my citing selected sources and risk people assuming bias on my part through that citing (much as your buddy above has actually done to obscure the total picture) I would ask that the entire edit record be examined so that other editors and administrators may see for themselves the full picture of what those involved in biasing the article have done.

C.) In all seriousness, regardless of whatever wiki-sins I may or may not have committed, you could use a lesson in how to post in a civil manner yourself, as your comment above serves much to prove my points. May we both learn better. -- Davidkevin (talk) 07:16, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Orangemarlin

After numerous warnings from many editors I put an alert out on this user. In response, he has suggested that users, apparently including me, should be executed. [28] Guido den Broeder (talk) 16:32, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I really don't like it, but I have to go right now. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 16:36, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

(ec) While intemperate, this is not a serious threat. Your userpage states that English is not your first language; please be aware that hyperbole of this sort is common in English (especially American English). Raymond Arritt (talk) 16:38, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, he clearly speaks of executing people in a figurative sense, as in blocking accounts. Nothing wrong here.--Atlan (talk) 16:42, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

This sounds like the figurative "X ought to be shot" or "...hung from the nearest tree" metaphor from my own breed of English. It's frequently used in relation to public figures, and I think most people who use it would be utterly shocked if the target of their comments did meet their end with a bullet. Orderinchaos 07:24, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

A death threat is a death threat, hyperbole or not, and should be dealt with. Guido den Broeder (talk) 19:28, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Whatever. Guido is a disruptive element to this project. He has stalked me to other articles in which he has absolutely no interest, until he went on the attack. Time for him to be blocked AGAIN. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:51, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

This is ridiculous, and may be an insinuated threat, which is illegal and does not belong on WP. Even if it was somehow being metaphorical, it's completely inappropriate. Even if Guido is a disruptive editor. GusChiggins21 (talk) 07:04, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

It's obviously a metaphor...please have a thicker skin, people. OrangeMarlin is a prolific contributor and I seriously doubt he would ever suggest real-world violent action. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 19:31, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I've thought about with respect to the coach of the Los Angeles Kings, but that was merely a fleeting thought. And as a physician, I took that oath, something to do with "do no harm." This is kind of ridiculous AN/I, isn't it? Can we close it and move on to more serious things like drinking beer? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:38, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

This is quite silly: American English is rife with such terms. In fact, I suggest you watch 12 Angry Men, and not how Henry Fonda's character rips apart the prosecution's reliance on the phrase, "I'm going to kill you". Guido, as a linguist I know that the Dutch are generally fairly good with English: British English. Not the same thing, really. •Jim62sch• 19:54, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah, but Fonda was wrong. Guido den Broeder (talk) 20:12, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I really doubt that. American television is the primary English influence in the Netherlands. A Dutchman will say gas and garbage instead of petrol and rubbish, without even knowing whether that's American or British English. But that's another discussion entirely. I will say though, that while the Dutch are generally proficient at foreign languages, colloquialisms are not their strong point.--Atlan (talk) 20:06, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

If you consider this normal conversation, then perhaps it's time that somebody gives you a wake-up call. Language differences do not play here, it's the attitude. An attitude, that is universally unacceptable. Guido den Broeder (talk) 20:23, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Really? I thought the problem here was a death threat. So now it's an attitude?--Atlan (talk) 20:39, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

• The phrase in question was "I think we should execute a few of these trolls first, and if a couple of innocent bystanders get shot too, so be it." Obviously Orangemarlin was speaking figuratively, but there is room for increased drama and misunderstanding there. If you mean "I think we should block a few of these trolls first, and if a couple of innocent bystanders get blocked as well, so be it.", then say that. Effectively, if there were any trolls around, OrangeMarlin fed them by using such language. Best to avoid using such language, rather than waste time having to defend yourself like this. Of course, the blow-up over semantic issues obscures the point that blocking indiscriminately and causing collateral damage is a bad idea, and will likely get admins desysopped rather than thanked. Carcharoth (talk) 20:40, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Fonda was wrong? Not sure what version you saw, but certainly not the real version.

As for the Dutch and learning English, I'm not so sure that British English still isn't what's taught, but perhaps it isn't. Nonetheless, colloquialisms are the hardest part of any language to learn.

I like this "An attitude, that is universally unacceptable". Shame it isn't true. •Jim62sch• 21:10, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

• There is a problem here, but not an easy one to solve. A number of articles attract virtually no attention other than from POV-pushers; that leaves one or two good Wikipedians fighting the NPOV corner against all comers, and leads to burnout - at this point trolls will often come along to poke them with a stick. It happens that many (though by no means all) of these good Wikipedians are admins. Wikipedia, as a project, seems to have "delegated" management of POV targets to a people who are then considered expendable, or even considered the source of the problem, when burnout strikes. As they get more experienced, the POV-pushers become more adept at querulous argumentation, citing policy and constantly trying to establish a new "neutral" average between their POV and the current state of the article, a kind of ratchet effect. Cold fusion has twice been reverted to the 2004 FA version due to the pernicious effect of "fringecruft", there are many other articles where minority activists dominate the agenda. I've seen this at articles like Simon Wessely (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and user:ScienceApologist is one of the on-admins who is burning out fighting off the kooks. The bad news is, when that happens, the kooks will move in big time. Watching articles prone to kookery is a thankless task, I go back every couple of months to Crop circle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and sometimes I'm horrified at what's been done. This is not an especially healthy situation for the project, but these articles at the margins, the ones that form the core of the fringe cosmology obsessions, Remote viewing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and other paranormal subjects, simply don't get enough eyes to impede the POV-pushers, because most editors (rightly) can't tolerate the stupidity that goes on there. I also think some people are burying their heads in the sand and ignoring the fact that Wikipedia is now probably the number one most important place to promote your fringe view, mad theory, band or whatever. I don't know a good way to fix this. Guy (Help!) 21:14, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

• Honestly couldn't agree more with Guy's comments above. It's a big problem in politics areas too, even fairly mainstream ones. The worst ones are those who persistently fly under the radar but are pretty much incapable of improving the encyclopaedia, as they do far more damage to our credibility and integrity than even the worst vandal, who is guaranteed to get reverted by a neutral outsider or article watcher at some point. Orderinchaos 07:22, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

It is something that cannot be fixed, and that will eventually (probably soon) grind Wikipedia to a halt. At some point we will simply run out of undisputed topics.

What happens on Wikipedia is furthermore a reflection of the world, where tolerance, civility and interest in the truth diminish by the day. It is only normal, alas, to find the same here. Guido den Broeder (talk) 21:34, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

It can certainly be addressed ("fixed" is an ambitious word). It's not hard to identify accounts which employ Wikipedia as a venue for advocacy at the expense of the encyclopedic mission and policies. I can name offhand half-a-dozen such single-purpose advocacy accounts, most with real-life conflicts of interest. It is currently very difficult to restrict such abuse, particularly as current sentiment appears to extend significantly greater understanding and benefit of the doubt toward a nascent single-purpose agenda account than toward longtime contributors attempting to deal with such problems. The answer is simple: restrict such accounts aggressively if they prove unwilling to subordinate their real-life agenda to the goal of writing a respectable encyclopedia. As to Guido's contention that the world today is less tolerant and civil than it was 10, 50, or 100 years ago, I wonder whether someone who's not white, male, European, Christian, heterosexual, etc would share that view. MastCell ^Talk 21:59, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I do not belong to that privileged group. I've experienced discrimination for many years an I can tell you: it's getting worse fast. Guido den Broeder (talk) 22:11, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Mastcell and JzG. There are an increasing number of accounts that exist only to attack stable articles, and introduce unsourced or poorly sourced nonsense. I typically see several a day. Many people in WP are like ostriches with their heads in the sand, in denial about this problem. But it is real, and I can show many many examples of just pure nonsense pushing.--Filll (talk) 22:35, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

An interesting conversation. I would favor Mastcell's approach, except that it's unclear to me that he'd identify the correct people to oust from Wikipedia. Perhaps a better approach would be to beef up the efforts to grant "featured" status to articles that deserve it, and then make an exception to 3RR: anyone can revert as often as they like to the most recent version that passed Featured Article Review (FAR).Ferrylodge (talk) 02:00, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Weren't you placed on some restricted editing by ArbCom? And didn't you violate it recently with a 3RR? So, you're point is what? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 09:28, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not clear what your point is here, Orange Marlin. Editors placed on editing restrictions or who have recently been blocked shouldn't have that waved in their faces unless it is relevant to what is being discussed. How would you feel if people kept bringing up this incident in a few months time? For what it is worth, I see Ferrylodge's point about featured articles. The pointh is that if a group of editors take an article by the scruff of the neck and work hard on it (on a draft page if need be), and then carefully integrate the changes and pass it through FAC, then there is a standard there to keep to. That is much better than incessant low-level edit wars. And the amount of referencing needed for FAC sometimes reduces the potential for edit warring full-stop. Carcharoth (talk) 10:32, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

While not especially helpfully phrased, Orangemarlin kind of has a point: the fact is that Ferrylodge almost certainly would not agree with most neutral admins' choice of who to oust, because he's the kind of editor that sits right on the margins of actual bannability, hence the broadly worded content restriction allowing pretty much summary banning from any article on his hot topic by any uninvolved admin, given evidence of disruptive editing. That he has edited such articles disruptively despite this restriction is probably not a good sign. So, yes, there will be people like Ferrylodge who will hotly dispute the decision as to who should be restricted or politely asked to leave, we should listen to such concerns courteously but always with an eye to the editor's history. Sure, some inveterate POV-pushers may occasionally highlight a genuine problem with Wikipedia, but most of the problems identified by such people are actually the problem I identified above but seen fomr the other end: they are not being allowed to skew the article far enough their way. In some quarters, the existence of people like this - Judd Bagley being a canonical example discussed recently - is seen as proof positive that Wikipedia is evil and failing. As far as I can see it, the fact that we kicked Bagley off is a good thing and we should not feel ashamed of that, even though we may regret the fact that some people are constitutionally unable to contribute to the encyclopaedia that should not stop us from recognising these people and showing them the door. I believe that the very high profile of Wikipedia coupled with the relatively small resources and practically non-existent hierarchy makes this perhaps the largest single challenge we currently face. Simple things like everybody watchlisting the date article for their own birthday, or maybe choosing one hotly disputed topic of only tangential interest to them, may help to offset the problem of long-running wars between dedicated armies of POV-pushers and small bands of defenders of the wiki. Arbitration cases like Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche 2 are informative; see the infobox on talk:Lyndon LaRouche for the escalating dispute on that article and its related subjects. Guy (Help!) 21:55, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Just as a side note, this stuff is cropping up elsewhere in relation to Orangemarlin (talk · contribs) and/or edits he has performed in. See: user talk:JzG#User:Guido den Broeder, WP:WQA#User:Filll (II), WP:WQA#User:Orangemarlin and now WP:WQA#User:Filll (III). Seicer (talk) (contribs) 07:25, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I'm scared. Oh wait a minute, Guido is fishing for a forum to whine about me. And JzG's comments were started by me--you can read his reply. So, since I wet myself in fear of the attack by Seicer, let me go get drunk. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 09:28, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. This is not an isolated incident; you have been commented upon elsewhere for your rather controversial edits. Your comments above in this matter and elsewhere are evidence that you could really care less regarding the outcome of discussion. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 17:09, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, if you look more closely at the places where he has been "commented upon," I think most would agree that Orange Marlin should be proud. His editing behavior is noteworthy only because so few are willing to stand up to those who constantly add fringe gobbledygook to Wikipedia, quite frankly. Antelan ^talk 06:20, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Equally, I suspect, there are articles where POV-pushers have failed to gain traction, and where those keeping the articles NPOV and in good condition, are remaining civil and not burning out. What is needed is to find more people that won't burn out, or at the least to actively replace those that burn out. Burn out is, to a certain extent, unavoidable. More, and less discriminate, blocking won't solve the problem of burn out. Getting more new editors involved will. Has anyone considered that the reason some people are feeling all alone and burnt out is because their attitude to editing has driven off some POV-pushers (but not all) and new editors? Carcharoth (talk) 09:21, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Is there someplace we can figure this out? With the US Presidential Election comign up, all the political articles relevant are also taking a beating. In fat, I posted all over about a Huckabee group actively conspiring off-wiki to muddle the article, only to be rebuffed and ignored all over. The article's being defended, but I had a stretch off wiki due to real world, and in that time one of the biggest pro-Huckabee editors swept in, removed all criticism, redistributed tiny toned down versions into the rest of the article, and thus eliminated about half of the bad stuff about Huckabee in the article, despite its' being sourced and so on. It's too late to fix it now, and I'm dropping the article from my watchlist, becauseof that real world stuff (health).

Perhaps we need a POV-Pusher project, or NPOV taskforce, where we can list an article a day, and members sweep in, restore a real NPOV, and then move to the next? we could all agree to keep 'fixed' articles in our watchlists, thus assuring that multiple eyes would review for true neutrality and so on? It would really only take three or four neutral eyes on an article to keep it straight, though banging articles into shape can be tough. Those most likely to do well on this already know how to use the talk page, and build consensus... Just an idea... ThuranX (talk) 14:32, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Edit vs. a revert

Just a question about 3RR.
1) If I edit text (not an undo) that had been stable for days, on a page and
2) another editor reverts my edit. (that editor had not made any edits to the page in several days)
3) I soon after revert his edit.

Is my first edit considered a revert? (#1 above)

Here are the my two diffs and the other editors revert. my 1st edit, other editors revert, my subsequent revert. The text in question starts with "It has also been referenced in a scholarly journal." Thank you. Anthon01 (talk) 16:45, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

It depends. The important point is the effect of an action, not whether it's accomplished by hitting the "undo" button or other automated means. Per WP:REVERT, "A partial revert is accomplished either by an ordinary edit of the current version, or by editing an old version." So an ordinary edit can be a revert depending on its effect. Raymond Arritt (talk) 16:51, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

So if I start editing text on a page that no else is editing and later someone reverts my edit, does my original edit considered a revert? WP:REVERT says "Wikipedia three revert rule, a revert is defined far more broadly as any change to an article that partially or completely goes back to any older version of an article." My edit was not a change to an older version of the article. Anthon01 (talk) 17:10, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I would say no, but if you're arguing these kinds of semantics I'd take a look at the bigger picture of what's going on in an article.--Crossmr (talk) 17:12, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

The article is Quackwatch. The edit I made lead to a revert that began a mini revert war. My 1st edit was here. Anthon01 (talk) 17:16, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I must agree with Crossmr. The fact that you're so concerned with precise technicalities is not a good sign. Raymond Arritt (talk) 18:42, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Generally: when in doubt, take it to talk. Persistent edit warring is frowned upon and can lead to blocks (not necessarily a statement targeted at you, just in general); gaming the system isn't a good way to handle things. – Luna Santin (talk) 09:31, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Deliberate Fair Use Rationale vandalism

Any chance that an admin can have a word with Phoenix741 (talk · contribs) with regard to Image:Haven(comics).jpg. This user is very verbose about his dislike of FUR and is repeatedly removing deletion tags from this image whereby his FUR is "BLAH BLAH BLAH" etc. I'd also suggest he be kept on someone's watchlist as his protests/disruptions are becoming more vndalistic.--WebHamster 17:37, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Can we have a total namespace ban on this user? This isn't the first time he's done this. Will ^(talk) 17:44, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

As far as i can see, the fair use rational is disputed because it isn't explicitly stated that the fair use claim is for the page on the comic itself? Couldn't somone just have added it in? Hang on a minute I'll go do it now. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 19:23, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Beaten to it by User:Addhoc. Sorted. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 19:29, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

That wasn't the point. Phoenix741 (talk · contribs) is constantly refusing to adhere to FUR guidelines, so much in fact that he is positively anti them. Check his talk page for more evidence. This is just one example of a litany of similar disruptions. But if you prefer to paper over the gaps instead of sorting the problem out properly then feel free. The more you let this guy do the more he'll do it. Likewise he'll keep uploading images and then expect someone else like you to supply the FUR. Rather than sorting the problem your response will add to it. --WebHamster 09:48, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Id an image is obviously fair use, as this one clearly was, then what is the problem with someone else providing the fair use rationale? Looking at the page in question the only problem with the rational that was already there as part of the template was the fact that it didn't mention the page on which the image was deemed fair use to use on. So he has a thing against the guidlines? So what? If you want him sanctioned you need to come up with a lot worse "vandalism" than this IMO. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 12:57, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

This specific image is not the point, it's just one more example in his disruption of WP and his determination to not stick to the guidelines. If you're okay with that then screw it, I'm fucked if I'm going to get in a sweat about it. Alternatively if you want editors deliberately espousing the rules then go for it. Sticking to rules doesn't seem to be de rigeur round here any more. As you are so keen to supply the FUR why don't you just leave him a message giving him carte blanche to upload images you'll trail behind him sorting them out for him. Strikes me that people just don't give a fuck any more. --WebHamster 13:43, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

No need to get frustrated. You only gave the one example image, and in this case, the best (for wikipedia) course of action was for a rationale to be added. Where is the problem with that? If you want to suggest that this user is overall detrimental to the encylopedia please provide some more evidence of disruption.Theresa Knott | The otter sank 14:15, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, if you guys want to paper over the gaps then so be it. I'm not an administrator I have better things to do than amass evidence when I've already pointed you at his talk page. As far as I'm concerned I've notified the administrators and done my 'civic' duty. Also as far as I'm concerned you haven't done yours. Why should I care? As far as I'm concerend it's now confirmed as okay to do as he does. Thanks for the reality check. In future I'll stick to editing and I'll let you stick to doing nothing. --WebHamster 17:32, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Suspicious behaviour from User:Geryt69

Watching recent changes I noticed the above user making a small edit to an article, changing a png to a PNG in an image name. I looked at his contributions and became suspicious as he replaced the image on several pages with the edit summary "minor edit". So I compared the two images in GIMP and there is a small difference in the map shading. I've reverted as hanging an image for a different one clearly isn't a minor edit, but it looks to me as if a user created a sock in order to make the change, which seems strange. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 19:18, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Professionally speaking I would always prefer a png to a PNG or a jpg to a JPG. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:10, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

So would I but the reason I reverted was that the two images are actually different, although the difference is not obvious. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 21:31, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Steganography? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 02:14, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

The difference is around northern Greece, southern Macedonia, southern Bulgaria, Albania, and northwest Turkey. It looks like the languages spoken there have been slightly moved around. Kesac (talk) 04:16, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

The differences are slight, but real. It was marking them as a minor edit, and by a newbie, that made be suspicious. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 10:33, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

POV pushing on Religion in the United States

I hate to bring this up on the noticeboard ("nothing administrators can do", yada yada), but we are experiencing some fairly heavy POV pushing at Religion in the United States, to the extent that it is quite detrimental to the encyclopedia, and needs to be addressed now. We have a user who has openly proclaimed himself to be antogonistic to Christianity (see Talk:Religion_in_the_United_States#Revamp_of_the_article) and pro neo-Paganism inserting that Neopaganism has 10 million followers in the US, and is thus the second largest religion (and against consensus at that). He gives very pro-Pagan sites, while reliable sources put the figure much extremely lower (200,000-1,000,000). This user has been warned about such POV pushing before, but to no avail. Of course, I can do nothing, as I will break 3RR. I am very close to ignoring all rules in this instance, as this is clearly false data and POV pushing. Someone please help. The Evil Spartan (talk) 21:26, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

He admits that his source is some guy's estimate (not an actual survey) ... comparing that up against US census data ... well, you can see where this is headed. --B (talk) 22:38, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Notwithstanding the comments below, if the additions have unreliable references and are against the existing consensus are they not then vandalism (which can be reverted without reference to 3RR). If it is a content dispute then you may need a third opinion. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:41, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there's any real dispute. One user was attempting to remake the article in his own image. There were two sources claiming that there are 10 million Pagans in the US. One was a Christian "oh noes, the evil pagans are taking over" source from 1986 and the other is a recent (2005) estimate from an Australian college professor, whose paper gets more g-hits on Wikipedia (5) than it does on the rest of the planet combined (4) [29]. Both claims are worth the paper they are printed on. US census data and every meaningful source on the planet puts the numbers something under a million. This is purely a case of one user pushing a POV. --B (talk) 22:53, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Certainly looks that way; not vandalism but misguided POV-pushing. MastCell ^Talk 23:07, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Certainly seems so, and could probably be cut off at the source without any other issues arising. Jmlk17 10:05, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Is this possible?

Can a user do this? --Esimal (talk) 21:32, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes they can. Note that removing a warning is confirmation that they have read it. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 21:35, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

(ec) "You took the words right out of my mouth...." --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 21:37, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

It's acceptable behavior only if you intentionally have a redlink userpage. --W.marsh 00:33, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Rubbish. You can do it no matter what your userpage is like. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 06:56, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

That's funny, I only notice the redlink userpage people doing it... --W.marsh 14:01, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

This question seems to come up quite a bit... Jmlk17 05:25, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

It does. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:05, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps because not all language versions of Wikipedia have the same rules as here. Guido den Broeder (talk) 12:24, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I dont have a red link user page, check it out. Lobojo (talk) 14:12, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

You will notice that I have a long archive history on my page. I have, I believe, twice ever removed content from my talk page. One was this time (I don't appreciate being templated by new users, and at that by users who are universally agreed to be POV pushing, see above thread); another time was when a user was harassing me about leaving for a while. I choose to keep a redlinked username for now (and, as not being an admin, I don't see why else it should be important to have a blue one). The Evil Spartan (talk) 16:55, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Laos blocked in 2006 asking for unblock

Resolved

 – Unblocked, no username violation The Evil Spartan (talk) 16:57, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I just noticed this... User talk:Laos. He edited in 2005, and was blocked mid-2006 by Pschemp, who appears to be no longer active, as a username block. Laos says the username policy was for names made after 2006. Just wanted to draw some attention to it, since it seemed somewhat odd. Lawrence Cohen 22:46, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

He's complaining "I think that Pschemp's recent actions need an audit from a level headed admin to see if anyone else is in the same boat: his/her responses to apparently diffident questions on his/her talk page appear prickly and inflammatory on occasion" but saying he hasn't edited in over a year? Something seems strange. That aside, I'm not particularly opposed to an unblock. --B (talk) 23:19, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Pschemp last edited Dec 7 which isn't that long ago. I've left him a note about this discussion. Suggest that Laos either be unblocked or asked to choose another name. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 00:17, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Barring a more compelling reason, I don't see why the username policy wouldn't apply; however, I'm not clear on why this username is problematic? Am I just missing something? – Luna Santin (talk) 09:27, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

He probably got that idea from the username policy. "The username policy covers accepted practices and behavior in naming and operating a user account on Wikipedia for accounts created after 2006-12-08." It was added in this edit by Patsw in April 2007. However, there is a typo that no one has noticed for almost a year, evident in the talk page discussion that led to the date being added to the policy. Wikipedia talk:Username policy/Archive 6#Grandfather policy refers to the date as 2005-12-08. While we can also talk about what relevance the "grandfather policy" truly is, there is also the question of which version has a typo (that is, if anyone actually cares). Someguy1221 (talk) 09:43, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Note: The user have been unblocked by jpgordon. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 09:29, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

User:hopiakuta

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I've kept an eye on this user since a virtually indecipherable post made by the user on an article talk page. The user page is a ton of gibberish code and pasted templates from all over WP, and the talk page is more of the same. I don't know how the user either expects to communicate with or respond to others with the state of the userspace, but I felt it was borderline enough not to merit blanking without a second opinion. Could somebody take a look and consider a course of action? MSJapan (talk) 23:15, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe the userpage should just be deleted? There should be an Mfd though. The talk page doesn't look like a big deal thoug, just a warning not to sign with a name that isn't yours--Phoenix-wiki ^{talk · contribs} 23:23, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

There are already three or so threads on this user; he uses a screen reader. I believe the most recent one is on a subpage of AN/I. There are users working with him. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 23:27, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/User:hopiakuta. Gimmetrow 23:37, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

(ec) With the best will in the world to User:hopiakuta (I perceive him as well-intentioned) and other users, I am aware from experience that there are communication challenges here, and it's not just a one-way issue. He (?) clearly thinks in a different manner, both functionally and structurally, from the mainstream. I feel a little guilty discussing him in his absence (?), but it seems fairly clear that the issues are not going to go away; however, I am also aware that several users have made valiant attempts to decipher the issues with him. I don't think he would welcome the deletion of his user page; having seen it, it seems to be a place where he keeps things of interest to him. It may seem like gibberish to some, but I'm sure to him it makes perfect sense. The issue seems to be how we can talk to hopiakuta, perhaps off-wiki, to try and reach some accommodation for his (and our) obvious differences. Although he uses a screen-reader, that is not the only issue, and I'm not sure where this can fruitfully go. However, with twelve minutes to go until Christmas, I wish him, and everyone else, the compliments of the season. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 23:49, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

To be sure, he does not seem to use a screen reader, he's said he uses an ordinary browser (albeit one with, apparently, unicode problems and large page issues) with a large font. —Random832 00:35, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Let's be nice to hopiakuta! Delete the user page? That's like vandalism, isn't it? For some of the world, it's Christmas. What a thing to do during Christmas; vandalise a user page and try to say it's the community's consensus. Hi, hopiakuta, welcome to WP! Congolese (talk) 05:27, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I personally think if he wants to put stuff we don't get/understand on his userpage, as long as it's not directed at other editors or offensive, who cares? We have a diverse community and many of this user's mainspace contributions improve the encyclopaedia - often minor edits making needed corrections. I'd worry more frankly about the POV pushers and vandals and trolls who actually damage the encyclopaedia. Orderinchaos 07:16, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

That would be fine, if that were the case, but there are some perfectly understandable statements made by him in that other discussion. When he can describe his symptoms without all the templates and such, and can therein avoid linking every other word, the fact that it happens elsewhere seems to me to be a matter of intent, especially if he's making a mess of things to try to make a POINT to get some sort of accessibility implementation (which I do not believe would solve the problem). MSJapan (talk) 20:57, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Please remember to assume good faith. —Random832 22:08, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, please AGF. Read the linked sub page at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/User:hopiakuta. This person, if you read their off-Wikipedia writings, writes like he does here everywhere. Please don't disparage a person with obvious problems! Lawrence Cohen 14:47, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

My partner's a psych and reckons whatever it is limits his ability to organise, so he have to have everything in front of them while he works. Hence the seemingly random storage of all sorts of pasted text and linked text in userspace (note he does *not* do this in mainspace). He's obviously very intelligent and is well versed in the English language, which is great as it means he can be of use and benefit to the project, and in fact, if one examines his contributions, is of use and benefit to the project. Therefore why treat him like he's doing something wrong? We're aware of the issues, so we can assist him in his goals here where he requires it and ignore whatever he chooses to do in his userspace, which he obviously sees as a necessary part of him being a solid contributor. The rules on userspace are basically for two reasons - to prevent it becoming pseudospace (i.e. articles that don't meet our notability or other criteria effectively finding a new home) and to prevent it from becoming a home for personal attacks or other directed abuse or BLP violations. Neither of these is occurring. Orderinchaos 16:30, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Boehner

I'm a bit concerned for the new user Boehner (talk · contribs). I'm not going to provide diffs here, as he only has 16 contributions so far. But of those 16 contributions, all but the one to his user page have been reverted by a variety of users. In just a short time, he managed to get into two edit wars and subtly push an anti-Global-Warming POV on three different pages, mainly through addition of unsourced weasel statements, most recenttly with a false edit summary. I'm bringing this here since I'm honestly not sure what to do with him. While his POV-edits and intentional blue-linking of his userpage scream banned sockpuppet to me, I'm very much struggling to assume good faith, as this may just be a newbie in need of serious intervention. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:17, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, who's the Global Warming editor that this might be? — Rlevse • Talk • 01:23, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Been struggling to place this one. Maybe yet another sock of User:Scibaby (who has been doggedly persistent), but the approach is somewhat different. Raymond Arritt (talk) 01:46, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I was going to suggest the username was not appropriate but its done. Happy sock hunting! Brusegadi (talk) 01:44, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe, but it's a fairly common name. The leader of the Republican party in the U.S. House of Representatives is John Boehner. Raymond Arritt (talk) 01:52, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked Boehner for 24 hours as he returned about 30/40 minutes a go to Global warming with more of the same after being warned. Gnangarra 04:08, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Sagbliss

An edit by 76.67.136.114 popped up in my watchlist. He's made a lot of inane edits today, and it's obvious that he is permablocked User:Sagbliss. I reverted all his edits (which, irritatingly, took longer than I'd expected, though BEANS means I'm not going to say why). What's also obvious is that this is just the latest IP numbers he's using. I was quite willing to give the IP a week's Kwanzaa vacation from WP, but in view of his likely ease in using an alternative number wasn't sure that this would help anyone. Indeed, not quite knowing how best to proceed (and because he doesn't seem active right now) I didn't even leave him a warning message.

(I have to say that at least one of the school articles he vandalized does look like a grotesque puff piece, richly deserving a radical edit. Though not vandalism, of course.)

Over to somebody else. -- Hoary (talk) 07:10, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I took a cursory review and couldn't tell for sure if 76.67.136.114 is really the same as Sagbliss (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). I haven't followed Sagbliss' case, though. In any case, though, the recent edits by 76.67.136.114 were vandalism, so I left a lump of coal in his stocking. (Anthracite coal, to be specific.) --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 07:21, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

A perusal doesn't exactly tie much together... could be, but also might not. Jmlk17 07:54, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Public-access television

RE: 70.59.33.63 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
70.59.33.63 individual has engaged in an Edit war on Public-access television^[30].Two administrators (myself and User:Beetstra) have removed directory entries on Public-access television, which in this case^[31] clearly do not abide by the appropriate content policies and guidelines Wikipedia:NOT#DIRECTORY and Wikipedia:NOT#REPOSITORY. Merely being informative does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. I welcomed the anon, and get called an ass?^[32], perhaps another editor would kindly remind this person of WP:CIV and WP:NPA. thanks--Hu12 (talk) 10:11, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

• It appears the ip created the user Deproduction (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to give the illusion of broader support for his position^[33].--Hu12 (talk) 10:20, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Or, if we assume good faith, they could have just decided to register. We needn't bite their head off for that. Posted to talk, will probably do so again in the future. Seems like a content dispute, at first glance. – Luna Santin (talk) 10:22, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
    • The wording^[34] of the "new" account's post is what caught my attention. Albeit a bit vague, I'll AGF. --Hu12 (talk) 10:30, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Mathewignash, fair use and image uploading

Resolved

 – last chance spent and gone — Coren ^(talk)

Long story short, this user is yet again uploading images with inaccurate or incomplete licensing / rationale. He was originally blocked here for failure to heed notices about his uploading habits, after which he stopped uploading box art sans rationale. He was told here (bottom of the thread) that photos of copyrighted images can't be given free licensing because they're derivatives of copyrighted works, and has received two later warnings for uploading screen grabs of TV clips with no rationale. He's still at it. Chris Cunningham (talk) 12:01, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Just block him already. This has got to be at LEAST the fifth or sixth time I've seen him in here. Let's get that clampdown effect going already. ThuranX (talk) 14:33, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I've indef-blocked him. He was already on a parole from indef on the condition that he not upload images anymore. — Coren ^(talk) 15:52, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Just to point out that there was discussion on Steel's page which led to an amendment that he would be allowed to upload images if he told an admin first. He asked for permission for a bunch of files in November. But of course it's possible that his medium-term memory loss kicked in again. Chris Cunningham (talk) 16:09, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Hrm. The parole did change and currently Mathew is allowed to upload his own GFDL images (but no fair use images) as much as he likes, and he's allowed to add rationales to already-uploaded fair use images providing he doesn't remove the no rationale tag (so someone else can check it over - something that (seems to be working). I thought of noting the change in his block log, but that thing is already very long and the parole could have later changed again, so I didn't. In hindsight, perhaps I should have, and I apologise for any confusion. The warnings he got yesterday were for fair use images uploaded in mid-2006, so I'm unblocking since everything seems to be in order here. – Steel 15:05, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Quite allright; I did look around a bit but didn't find the discussion that led to changing the conditions— I'm leaving a note on the user talk as well. — Coren ^(talk) 16:41, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Possible block evading sock puppet

Resolved

 – 1 week block and tagged

• A B Pepper (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)
• 97.88.205.124 (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)

IP 97.88.205.124 has begun making disruptive edits against users whom the blocked User:A B Pepper has previously attacked. This IP has been editting Christian views about feminism - Pepper's main article. They have engaged in tendentious reverts directed at users Pepper does not like [35][36][37][38]. And after a checkuser this IP has been described as a possible sockpuppet of A B Pepper (see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/A B Pepper).

A B Pepper was blocked on September 27 2007 for incivility, personal attacks and sock-puppetery (using IP 75.132.95.79). These are the users A B Pepper attacked:

• User:Cailil[39],
• User:Afaprof01[40][41],
• User:Sxeptomaniac‎[42]
• User:C.Logan[43]
• User:Orangemike[44] (this is incivility rather than a personal attack)

There is evidence of staking behaviour from this IP against the users who warned and attempted to enagage A B Pepper.

• Cailil[45] [46];
• Orangemike[47][48][49];
• C.Logan [50][51][52];
• Sxeptomaniac[53][54][55].
• Diego[56][57] - User:Diego warned A B Pepper for incivility [58]

Last night 97.88.205.124 threatened to stalk User:Bobblehead[59]. With an edit summary violating WP:NPA. They also began stalking a number of other users:

• User:Latreia[60][61][62][63]
• User:Evan Carroll[64][65]

I brought this to Slrubenstein's attention and they asked me to bring it to RFCU and then here. This looks like a case of simple harrassment to me: threats to "correct" others, stalking edits and tendentious reverting of users A B Pepper dislikes; couple that with the fact that the checkuser sees this as a possible sock of A B Pepper and I'm ready to call it a WP:DUCK--Cailil ^talk 17:58, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation

A persistent anonymous user is adding dubious sourcing, POV edits and edit warring concerning litigation involving this company. Also engaging in personal attacks on Talk pages and in edit summaries, such as [66]. --Samiharris (talk) 18:13, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

This page is currently listed on WP:3O. Just thought I'd give the admins a heads-up on that. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 18:48, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Article has been protected.--Samiharris (talk) 14:16, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Editor constantly reverting page to factually incorrect state

Now, I rarely bring anything to ANI, since I try to stay out of edit wars and out of the spotlight, generally. But I noticed the other day on my watchlist that Qpel had be reverted to a factually incorrect state by User:Timharwoodx, who claimed my edits were full of grammar errors. OK, I have no issue if someone thinks my grammar is atrocious--just tell me what the problem is and I'll fix it! But reverting to a factually incorrect version is obviously inappropriate, so I reverted and asked him on his talk page to point me to the grammar errors so I could fix them, while keeping the information correct. He then proceeds to revert me again (with an inflammatory edit summary) and personally attack me on the article's talk page while refusing to engage in discussion. I reverted a second time, but as I don't want to get into an edit war (and he's refusing to do anything except insult me in the third-person on the talk page), I figured I would bring it here.

What should I do? —Dark•Shikari^[T] 18:20, 25 December 2007 (UTC)`

(Comment from passer-by) I find it quite amusing that the first reversion of the text, which cited poor grammar, contains a blatant spelling error. FWIW, I believe this reversion was a bad one. Ros0709 (talk) 18:30, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry about the reversion; I think yours is in the right. Of course, if Tim brings up some valid points then please consider them. As for him; his language is quite nasty indeed. I'd suggest taking a calm approach; the one you took on the article's talk page seems a bit too excited, though it is on the right track. I left a note on the article's talk page; hopefully the user will be able to communicate with a third party without being aggressive. I'll leave a note on his talk page about this, too. Cheers, Master of Puppets ^{Care to share?} 18:34, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Although this is an English Wikipedia, this is by no means resolved to fluent English writers, per Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ#Should I use American English or British English?. In fact, we welcome those that have English as a second language. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 20:02, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Changes made by 82.148.96.68

I hope this is the right place for my questions. I cannot find any information on what to do with my problem. I noticed that 82.148.96.68 made a lot of edits. Some of these were clearly vandalism, but a lot were just changes of dates and numbers. These are quite difficult to verify. I have been at it for a while, but I cannot put all my effort on just verifying and reverting changes from this user. What should I do? Is it allowed to revert all changes from a certain user, if some changes are found to be vandalism?

For example, today the user made 8 changes on airline pages within 11 minutes. He/she changed a lot of dates from 2007 to 2008, and in one case 2009. By checking sources I managed to find evidence of at least one case of vandalism. I also found one case from yesterday, and two from before that. None of these had been detected earlier. Judging from the talk page, he/she has a history of vandalism.

Thus, I wonder about two things: Firstly, what to do with the user? I have never thought about indefinite block of an anonymous IP address is a good thing up until now. Secondly, how can I request help to go through all of the changes made by this user? Or can we revert all of the changes to save us all a great deal of work? --τις (talk) 20:34, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I've gone with the Chuck Norris method. Let's see how he responds. The Evil Spartan (talk) 20:58, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I rolled back a few as they were referenced to a specific edition of Flight International from 2007 and the new figures had no reference at all. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 01:23, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

India related articles showing up as nonsense to be deleted

Don't know why or how to fix it, but a number of India related articles are showing up in Category:Nonsense pages for speedy deletion. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 22:14, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I reckon it's just a database hiccup. It should work itself out. --Haemo (talk) 22:17, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

{{IndicText}} was vandalized earlier. Null editting the pages should solve the problem.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:19, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Fixed now. --Haemo (talk) 22:25, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Aha! thought it might be that, but didn't see how. Dlohcierekim 22:26, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Long-time abuse by User:24.7.81.82 in television related articles

This user (under multiple IP numbers) has long vandalized multiple television-related articles by posting blatantly false information (for example, posting television premiere dates as far in the future as 2023 without any supporting resources, or sans any hope of verifiable information). When he is given a final warning, he will stop posting for a period -- basically long enough to get out from under any notion of being banned. He has, however, been banned on multiple occasions. He does not communicate with anyone when they post a warning to him or a note to him. Is there anything that can be done to stop him outside of continually watching and grabbing him each time he posts? --Mhking (talk) 22:29, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Address has now been blocked for one week following report to AIV. Can anyone determine how static this IP is, there might be a case of a tariff involving months. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:33, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

It's comcast cable internet. Thje only edits are from the vandal, so I think it's safe to assume a static IP and block for 3 months. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 22:41, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Done. Addhoc (talk) 22:48, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks -- I hope I haven't overreacted over this --Mhking (talk) 22:58, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Anon Spamming Articles

An anon is spamming Wikipedia with links to the Cyber Crimes Us Organization. This person is even adding such links to articles where they are not directly relevant. It seems that every single edit made from this IP address has been to add these links. Here are some diffs: [67], [68], [69], [70], [71], [72], [73], & [74]. ~ Homologeo (talk) 01:49, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, he stopped about 24 hours ago, so there's not much to do. Just keep an eye on them. --Haemo (talk) 01:51, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I reverted most of what's left. But as Haemo said, there isn't much we can do, since it was a while ago and the IP has stopped. —Kurykh 01:53, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I nuked the remaining spamlinks. MER-C 01:55, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

GusChiggins21 blocked for edit warring by involved admin

Hi everyone. User:GusChiggins21 has been blocked for edit warring by an admin who was involved in the edit war. As I have stated on his page, I believe this was a personal block, and unfortunately, was far from the first personal block for this admin. To make matters worse, the person did not even violate 3RR, and the block was for 1 week for a first time offens; the only warning received was from another person who was just as involved in the edit war (believe me, those kind of warnings only exacerbate the situation). If this bit with RKLawton/Sarah777 tells us anything, it was that this kind of stuff is not right. The block was (surprisingly) declined without much comment, so I have brought it here. The Evil Spartan (talk) 02:22, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

On the surface, the block looks inappropriate and the {{fact}} tags look appropriate. I'll admit, though, that this is way over my head so I may be missing something ... but in the cases I examined, the places where he added fact tags seemed to be material that was not addressed in the existing cites. You should notify Raul of this discussion so that he can participate if he would like. You should also notify the admin who declined the user's unblock request. --B (talk) 02:45, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Given what I've seen I would unblock and ask the involved admin to recuse. As a noob I feel uncomfortable undoing the actions of an other admin.--NrDg 02:48, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Then maybe as a noob, you should look at the facts of the case, and offer an opinion that actually makes sense. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 04:01, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Woha, don't bite his head off. henrik•talk 10:10, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Of course, this is par for the course for Herr Executioner. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 13:17, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

First, GusChiggins is involved in an roving edit war on many intelligent design related articles with half-a-dozen editors who patrol those articles. They tend to attract POV pushers (like him). He was warned of his disruptive behavior, and persisted in it anyway. Moreover, EvilSpartan claims I am involved in this roving edit war. This is false. I haven't reverted any ID related article in two weeks or more (not withstanding the revert I did at the time I blocked him). The block is legitimate on its face. And lastly, I stand by every admin action I've ever done, EvilSpartan's insinuations not withstanding. If he has a problem with my previous actions, come out and say it. Otherwise, it's clear that they are what they are - empty claims, without merit. Raul654 (talk) 03:09, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

His editing on [Michael Behe] certainly constituted tendentious editing and most likely 3RR. I haven't looked with a microscope to see whether 3RR was formally violated, but that doesn't matter: the purpose of 3RR is to forestall edit warring of the type that GusChiggins21 was engaged in, not to provide an inviolable right to a certain number of reverts per 86,400 seconds. Raymond Arritt (talk) 03:27, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

As one of the editors who "patrol" these articles (love that terminology), GusChiggins activities were, at first, not very concerning. But I think 6RR exceeds my personal patience level (which, as most of you know, is about 4.7 seconds), irrespective of what the validity of his edits. However, since the validity of those edits are germane to the conversation, let's just say that the preponderance of evidence supports Michael Behe's absolute lack of support in science, notwithstanding the learned opinions of B and Evil Spartan. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 03:48, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Adding one or two fact tags maybe, but this sort of fact-bombing isn't the way to win friends and influence people. Gimmetrow 03:54, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

One more thing. Did B or Evil Spartan, the obvious unbiased individuals that they are, fail to read over the fairly large number of warnings given GusChiggins? Well, just in case you missed them, and I know it was difficult, since there were SOOOO many, but here are a few.

• Speedy deletion
• Edit warring
• Edit warring and personal attacks
• Personal attacks
• 3RR warning-Note this was done by me.
• Civility request

This must be a world record for a user only around for about 30 days. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 03:58, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Essentially, GusChiggins has quickly engaged in disruptive editing in violation of WP:POINT, apparently gaming the system though this is probably due to sincerely held beliefs and misunderstandings about policy rather than deliberate mischief. To take an example, here a fact tag is added with the comment The statement that they are "plausible link" need citation. when the next reference cited (at the end of the following sentence) covers the point in detail. GusChiggins does not grasp or accept NPOV: Making necessary assumptions, and supports fighting for a portrayal of evolution that deviates from the scientific consensus.[75] The block for edit warring is amply justified, and the user needs to learn to work constructively towards consensus and to show a willingness to learn rather than barging in demanding that all others comply with his distorted understanding of policies. .. dave souza, talk 09:57, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Point of clarification – GusChiggins has been blocked for WP:Disruptive editing, not edit warring, and his actions fit the Definition of disruptive editing and editors remarkably well. .. dave souza, talk 11:36, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Raul routinely blocking users with whom he's in an edit war

If he has a problem with my previous actions, come out and say it. Otherwise, it's clear that they are what they are - empty claims, without merit.. I do have a problem with your previous blocks. I believe you have repeatedly blocked users with whom you are in an edit war or whose edits you found disagreeable, under sometimes misleading edit summaries, and always for far longer than allowed by WP:BLOCK. Since you asked for examples, I will provide almost every non-checkuser, non-maintenance, non-vandalism block you have done in the past several months:

Special:Contributions/88.97.182.121 - (The Great Global Warming Swindle) 1 week for "vandalism and POV pushing" for this. No warning, Raul directly in an edit war with this user.

Special:Contributions/24.99.55.240 - (WTC) 1 week for "vandalism" (in fact, was POV pushing, had no warning, did not deserve block).

User_talk:Obedium - (Global warming) - As stated on the talk page, "Really, the problem is that Raul654 is in an edit war with this user, and blocked him inappropriately. The indefinite block is only an extension of that. ~ UBeR (talk) ". Raul in a direct edit war with thisuser.

Special:Contributions/199.82.243.71 - (The Great Global Warming Swindle) - blocked, apparently, for having the chutzpah to state this. Reverted by Raul. Raul in a direct edit war with this user.

Special:Contributions/69.29.207.159 - (Intelligent Design) blocked for this innocuous mistake.

Special:Contributions/204.9.255.65 (Intelligent Design) "vandalism" - blocked for this and removing a small section, without warning. Article which Raul edits, giving opposite point of view.

Special:Contributions/Mawest217- (Intelligent Design) - blocked for "vandalism" for having the chutzpah to add an {{NPOV}} tag to an article you routinely watch: [76]. Reverted by Raul, in a direct edit war with Raul.

Special:Contributions/204.52.215.13- (Intelligent Design) - blocked for POV pushing for again, adding POV tag: [77]. Speaking against Raul's POV on an article he routinely edits.

Special:Contributions/67.180.115.190 - (Intelligent Design) blocked for "POV pushing" for [78]. Reverted by Raul, in an edit war with Raul.

Special:Contributions/207.250.84.10 - (An Inconvenient Truth) - blocked for inserting the word "controversial", with a source, and after using the talk page, and in a direct edit war with Raul: [79].

Protected article - (Global warming) protected your own version of the page: [80]

Yqtb: (Intelligent Design) locked his talk page for removing a message from you: [81], which is allowable by policy (not to mention blocking him 24h for quite mild vandalism on an article you were involved in).

Special:Contributions/70.144.68.148 - (The Great Global Warming Swindle) - blocked for "POV pushing": [82]. Reverted by Raul, in an edit war with Raul.

User:UBeR - (global warming) -blocking for 3RR, etc. on an article which you clearly have a stake: [83].

Special:Contributions/Brittainia - (global warming) - edit warring.

User:Rtc - (Intelligent Design)- blocked for "trouble-making" (which, as every time, involved a point of view opposite your own)

User:Iantresman (ultimately global warming related) - blocked for "harassing" a user whose POV you agree with on the articles they were editing.

Special:Contributions/65.202.145.2- (The Great Global Warming Swindle) - blocked for a week for POV pushing for this (reverted by yourself of course, which is not POV-pushing, and certainly not justified without a warning, and most certainly not from an admin who is POV pushing in the opposite direction.

Special:Contributions/68.145.124.154 - (The Great Global Warming Swindle) - blocked for edit warring with you.

Special:Contributions/Zeeboid - (The Great Global Warming Swindle) - blocking an editor with whom you were in dispute, and losing a good contributor for it while at it.

Special:Contributions/216.67.29.113 - (ID) [84], etc. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive229#Admin_blocking_a_user_with_whom_he_was_in_an_edit_conflict ANI thread.

At this point, I tire of going any further back than April (I believe the mountain of blocks above suffices). So, no, to answer your questions, my statements were not "empty claims, without merit." The Evil Spartan (talk) 13:13, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Once again, as is so often noted here on AN/I, an Admin has stood up for and rigorously enforced Wikipedia's policies, esp. about NPOV, on a controversial article, and someone is right there to file a complaint that their fringe theory isn't being given due weight. When are we going to protect good admins making good blocks? We ought to have a policy permitting blocks for spurious and malicious reporting of admin abuses. I looked at a few of these, not all, but a lot of these IPs like to add weasel words or spin the intro to fit their anti-global warming attitudes. I'd bet that a checkuser would show that some of this is the same editor, coming back week after week. Raul654 is a solid admin who is protecting Wikipedia from stupidity. Stop wasting WIkipedia's time, and AN/I's time, with baseless accusations. ThuranX (talk • contribs) 13:59, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't have said it better myself. It's clear from the half-dozen admins commenting above that EvilSpartan's thread here has absolutely no merit, that this should never have been brought here in the first place, and that he's wasting everyone's time. Raul654 (talk) 14:43, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

That looks like more wagon-circling from the admins, who think that there should be more policies to let them shoot the messenger whenever anybody dares to criticize their behavior and actions. *Dan T.* (talk) 14:58, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

It also looks like a continuing attempt to make the system more cumbersome and bureaucratic, so that admins are prevented from blocking disruptive editors on topics they are knowledgeable about. If pristine "uninvolved" admins are ready to spring into action every time a problem is reported this would not be an issue, but don't forget these are issues subject to organised attempts by well funded outside bodies aiming to distort WP to present their own view, regardless of policies. .. dave souza, talk 16:30, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

My own two cents: The block is good. ARB has repeatedly stated that admins are to be given wide latitude in blocking tendentious editing, especially when faced with organized efforts. The corresponding complaints in ANI are simply an extension of that disruption. Yes, Raul might have gotten another admin to block, and probably would have had no difficulty in finding one— but also the blocks were not controversial by any stretch of the imagination and he did not need to do so. — Coren ^(talk) 16:50, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Slow edit war at Baillieston

Baillieston (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Involved users

• Rumsitna (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Smur (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Boratt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Blairtummock (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• and others

Appears to have been going on for the last two months or so. This only came to attention after one of the participants posted on my talk page in a canvassy sort of way. No attempt has been made to discuss on the talk page and bad faith is being assumed. MER-C 02:58, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Muhammad

User:Totipooh has been disruptively removing controversial portions of this article, without any consensus. While I believe that the editor is acting in good faith, we cannot continue to just revert him all day. I request a short-term protection of Muhammed until this blows over. Lankiveil (talk) 03:00, 26 December 2007 (UTC).

Semi-related is this web petition, I unfortunately suspect we'll have a lot of new editors happy to unilaterally censor the page in the coming days. Lankiveil (talk) 03:04, 26 December 2007 (UTC).

So protection would be best? J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 03:07, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Totipooh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) doesn't appear to speak English and has done nothing but repeatedly blank material from the article. (6 times in an hour.) Any reason he/she shouldn't simply be blocked? I don't see any need for further protection to the article - it's one disruptive SPA who can simply be blocked. --B (talk) 03:08, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Just checked the article, it's already semied. If others come do the same thing, it might be easier to fully protect it than to block everyone, depending on how many there are. J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 03:10, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I think protection will be best, the recent edit history of the article is nothing but the images being removed and then reverted, again and again. This particular user might be blocked (although blocking someone who doesn't speak English does not seem terribly sporting, I fear it may sadly be necessary), but that petition site should send a crop of replacements before long. Of course, I leave it up to whatever you admins deem most appropriate. Lankiveil (talk) 03:12, 26 December 2007 (UTC).

The article is already s-protected. Full protection is only used for an edit war. But in this case, it's one person vandalizing the article, not an actual dispute. --B (talk) 03:27, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

The user moved from the article to the talk page and started blanking pictures and leaving comments like "Pictures Removed By Your Brother Ahmed Natik Please Ask Allah To Reward Me The Jannah" in their place. I have blocked him as a vandalism-only account. Problem solved. --B (talk) 03:32, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Another user there is now making what appears to me to be legal threats [85]. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 05:33, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I've now added the legal threat warning to the editor's talk page. --slakr^\ talk / 05:36, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

68.123.72.85 automated additions/categories

FYI - ip address 68.123.72.85 is definitely running some automated tools to improperly categorize any article related to Christianity. A quick look at the IPs Special:Contributions/68.123.72.85 is an obvious indicator of abuse; Also someone needs to mass-undo all these changes because they are all way out of hand... --Virgil Vaduva (talk) 03:12, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Please edit protected Waterboarding article

Editors have reached a consensus regarding a change of the first three paragraphs. I am asking any administrator who sees this to edit the article: please replace the first three paragraphs of the article with Shibumi2's version found here, along with expressions of support from most editors who have weighed in on the subject. Neutral Good (talk) 03:38, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

There is no such consensus. Please read the talk page. Lawrence Cohen 04:07, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

The specific section that he claims supports this edit is:

• [[86]]

I've asked previously, as more and more people keep bringing this Waterboarding article to the noticeboards (all the noticeboards, in fact). Can we get a variety of admins to come in here and review the arguments? It's getting damned incivil in there now, and it's going to only get worse in the next two days as people return from Christmas break. Nearly all the heated disputes are directly related to interpretation of policy. Lawrence Cohen 04:18, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Just a note as well, this "new" account called Neutral Good left a warning of some sort on an another user's page at User_talk:Inertia_Tensor#Warning:_Do_not_remove, warning him to not remove that notice, which is a bit out of line. He seems to be a "bad hand" account of an editor intricately familiar with Wikipedia. Lawrence Cohen 04:11, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Note: a quick look at User:Neutral Good's contributions to date is consistent with the hypothesis that User:Neutral Good is a single-purpose account freshly created by an experienced editor, apparently solely for astroturfing the Talk:Waterboarding page. -- The Anome (talk) 14:07, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

And rather aggressively, at that, leaving warnings on various users talk pages with warnings within warnings that they aren't to be removed, along with threats to "fix" the article once semi-protection became irrelevant to him (this is before the article was fully protected again, before he could "fix" it). Lawrence Cohen 14:12, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Interestingly, Neutral Good edited their own talk page to remove critical comments [87] immediately before editing WP:AN/I. I wonder just how many real people are behind the various "waterboarding is not torture" accounts, many of which have similar styles of writing and argumentation? -- The Anome (talk) 14:21, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Haizum

In looking more at this, is Neutral Good (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) actually Haizum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)? Read this old ANI archive and User talk:Haizum. He was banned for very aggressively going after others, had a major bone to pick with me because I wouldn't let him twist policies to his suiting and break NPOV on Blackwater Worldwide, and vowed to return under sockpuppet accounts on his talk page unless he was unblocked. He wrote:

I'm fully capable of coming to terms with my actions. However, I will not volunteer this when it is clear that there is a double standard in play, specifically when my edits are trolled for alleged infractions that were never subject to administrative action. I feel that is a fair stance to take. Now, we can do this honestly; I will accept a long but limited block for my actions with the mutual understanding that there was past administrative malice and a questionable ANI, or, I will change my IP address (I subscribe to two different ISPs) and create a new account with a blank slate. Yes, I'm sure at this very moment you are recoiling at my ultimatum, but note that my preferred concession keeps me publicly accountable for my block log. I ask you, which is preferable? --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 20:57, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

This seems very, very similar. And it's been just over a month, since Haizum was removed from any editing ability when his talk page was protected. Lawrence Cohen 14:33, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Another Haizum sock

Please block User:Newanda, a demonstrated sock of Haizum as well that somehow wasn't blocked before. Thanks. Lawrence Cohen 14:40, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Block both. Evidently SPAs. Will ^(talk) 14:42, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Filed RFCU at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Haizum. Lawrence Cohen 16:01, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Stalking

So... this has gone on for months now... so maybe this is pointless. There have been a number of complaints filed and 24-hours blocks enforced, but Alice continues to harass me, following me onto pages I edit and trying to start fights. After being told to shape up by multiple administrators there was about a two week break in which she left me alone. Now she is at it again, this time at Kingdom of Kongo where she has massively spammed the talkpage.[88] She then went and encouraged another editor to get into a dispute with me.[89] Since this user doesnt contribute anything to Wikipedia (see Special:Contributions/Alice), why hasnt she been banned? Jose João (talk) 03:42, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I looked at the diffs you posted, and the article history. Alice isn't the problem. You are. Mr Which??? 04:21, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

That's a really intelligent thing to say. Really, based on that comment, I truly value your input. Jose João (talk) 04:23, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't give a damn whether you "value" my input or not. You're the problem in the disupute. From the diffs you posted, and the history of the article you posted, Alice isn't a problem. Period. Mr Which??? 04:31, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Please try and maintain basic civility ([[WP:CIVIL). Jose João (talk) 04:37, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I have done so. Writing "damn" doesn't make a post uncivil. Mr Which??? 04:43, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes it does. Bstone (talk) 04:48, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. Or are you saying that every time someone swears in a post, it's uncivil? That seems a ludicrous proposition on the face of it. Mr Which??? 04:50, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Good natured vulgarity can be appropriate, but you have been rude and uncivil. I ask you to please stop. Bstone (talk) 05:17, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

"Good natured vulgarity"?!? AN/I is truly turning into a theater of the absurd. I have been neither rude nor uncivil in this discussion, and I'll thank you to stop accusing me of such. Ask around. Find out how many other people thinking using the word "damn" in anger makes one's post "rude and uncivil." Mr Which??? 15:05, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

We will agree to disagree. Have a good day. Bstone (talk) 15:37, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Based upon what you've posted here, it appears that no such stalking has taken place. Not only that, but it appears that your charges that Alice does not contribute to Wikipedia are baseless. Finally, it appears, based on what you've pointed to here, that she encouraged another user who you are in conflict with to utilize the standard procedure established for conflict resolution. Did I miss something that you are inferring here? --Mhking (talk) 04:29, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

• For the record, he's now dropping 3RR warnings on my page for restoring the sourced material he deleted en masse (and without discussion at talk) at the article in question. Mr Which??? 04:35, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

If you do not understand what is under dispute, then do not try to mediate. Jose João (talk) 04:37, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

No 3RR has occurred yet. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:38, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Right. You leave 3RR warnings before any violation. When there's a violation you report it to the 3RR noticeboard. A warning prior to a report is required as proof the user was aware of the rule. Jose João (talk) 04:42, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Right. Are you aware of the rule? Because you're now on the edge of it, and violating WP:OWN all over the place, as well as making frivolous complaints to AN/I. Mr Which??? 04:44, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

MrWhich, I noticed you removed the valid warning from your talkpage, incorrectly stating it was invalid. Just so you know, if you try and revert again, I post the diff of the warning, not a link to your talkpage, on the noticeboard. Please abide by {inuse}-politeness. Thanks, Jose João (talk) 04:49, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Users are allowed to remove warnings from their talk pages, per WP:TALK. There is no incivility, except for what is being brought upon by editors who are being overly hostile in the pursuit of this. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:51, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

• I also don't care what you "noticed", Perspicacite (Jose Joao). The "warning" was improper, as it was placed by someone on the verge of 3RR themselves, and who is far more invested in the article. I'm not going to get blocked protecting this article from your mass removal of sourced content. Mr Which??? 04:53, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

• (ecx2) And he's now using the {{in use}} template to prevent anyone from interfering with his mass deletion of sourced material. Mr Which??? 04:40, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

No, actually, I am using the inuse template to source the material - much the same way I did with Angolan Civil War. Jose João (talk) 04:42, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

And while we're discussing politeness, isn't it considered impolite to redirect your user page to your user talk page? (as the user in question has done here?) --Mhking (talk) 04:48, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

No. A user is allowed to do that, per WP:USERPAGE. Can we stop making mountains out of mole hills? Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:52, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Noted. Fair enough. --Mhking (talk) 04:55, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, it seems as if some users are wanting to make mountains out of mole hills -- on both sides of the argument. Currently, Kingdom of Kongo has an inuse template, so it is fair to assume that massive changes will occur on the affected page. Given that not all changes are complete yet, let's not rush to conclusions that sources may be curtailed or outright removed.

It would have been nice to have discussion before the massive editing would have occurred, but I see no major reason to revert all the changes at the moment. Let's see the finished result and base a discussion at the talk page based on that -- use WP:THIRD and etc. if there is any disbelief later that an error has ocurred.

There is also no appearant stalking by Alice (talk · contribs). She posted some useful guidelines and policies that need to be aided by.

Let's keep a cool head here guys. No incivility has yet been performed outside of the word "damn," which is not showing incivility -- given that Wikipedia is not censored for language, and that the word "damn" was not in reference to one particular user. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:57, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

• Now Jose Joao has unilaterally deleted Alice's post to the talk page. I will be re-adding it as a vandalism reversion if he continues. Mr Which??? 06:22, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Have fun with that. Oh, and 3RR applies to talkpages too, just so you know. Jose João (talk) 06:29, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

• If you continue to disrupt the talkpage (and removing appropriate comments constitutes disruption), I'm certain you will earn a well-deserved block for that disruption. Mr Which??? 06:33, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring and blocking over Wikipedia:IRC channels/wikipedia-en-admins

I see Phil Sandifer (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has blocked Giano II (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) for 72h over the 3RR violations at the subject page. I am frustrated by what is going on there as well but I don't think blocking (of one participant) is the answer. I have offered to unblock if Giano will undertake to stop revert warring and work to find a way through this. I seek consensus for that offer. ++Lar: t/c 05:01, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

This whole dispute is a despicable mess. I don't really know what Phil Sandifer is trying to accomplish by blocking Giano; the page is already protected. If Giano is not unblocked soon, then I will do it myself. Sean William @ 05:04, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

The page is not protected. Dmcdevit·t 05:19, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah, so it has since expired. Then, since Giano has stopped, what's the issue? Sean William @ 05:23, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

• I have to interject here. I unprotected the page. It didn't expire. The protection was without basis, as it was meant not to protect a page from vandalism, but only to allow admins to edit it but not Giano. That was obviously an attempt at winning a content dispute with the use of the buttons, and that's flat out wrong. In fact, the fact that the author of the page, who is also a primarily invested person in the subject of the page, issued the protection should never have stood even a second's analysis in the first place. Don't we worry about conflict of interest anymore? I've been accused of WP:OWN for wanting a picture to stay, but I never used protection to get my way. Geogre (talk) 06:06, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I concur. I'm not sure why Giano has been singled out, there seems to be bad behavior there by a number of parties. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 05:06, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Again for the same 3RR violation? This isn't helpful. I support an unblock. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:06, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Not for the same 3RR violation, but for violating 3RR again on the same article. Raymond Arritt (talk) 05:11, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

EVERYONE really ought to undertake not to edit war over this, but if we start handing out blocks for revert warring here, the list ought to be a bit longer, there is a lot of tag team reverting going on on both "sides". So singling out Giano doesn't seem right. Still, I'd prefer if he undertook not to revert war. (regardless of who else is doing it) That was my offer. If someone else chooses to unblock him without that undertaking that's their affair and I won't oppose but it wasn't my offer. ++Lar: t/c 05:08, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I forgot, Giano's probably in bed sleeping off his holiday feast, he hasn't edited for a few hours. So an undertaking not to revert war may be some time in coming if he were willing. ++Lar: t/c 05:10, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, if it were another person I'd be happy about Lar's proposal, since a block serves no purpose when it is preventing no harm. However, this particular person has made it more abundantly clear than any other non-banned user in memory that no amount of agreements to stop disruption should be trusted. I would agree that Giano has had legitimate grievances, but his only response ever seems to be to magnify disruption and drama with the exactly wrong ways of going about disagreeing with others. I have less than zero confidence that he is interested in actually pursuing polite dispute resolution about the actual issue here, and reinforcing his immunity from community norms with Yet Another unblock. Has no one yet realized that if a user has been unblocked 10 times in expectation of good behavior only to be blocked again that we should no longer expect good behavior? Dmcdevit·t 05:19, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Blocks are preventative, not punitive. If there is edit warring on the page, protect the page (again... it was protected for a while, I assume it expired?), don't block one (and only one) party to the edit warring when there are multiple parties warring. If the edit warring doesn't stop, then seek additional remedies. Blocking Giano for 72 hours accomplishes what? Increases drama and that's about it. An arbcom case has been initiated, that would be the place to deal with long term issues. I do not agree that Giano's only response to issues is to magnify disruption and drama, I don't quite think that's a fair characterization. I do deplore his approach when the red cape is waved under his nose, to be sure, but this block of one (and only one) warring party solves nothing. That the community has figured out how to get his goat by now is an indictment of what exactly ??? ++Lar: t/c 05:26, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

No, chronically unblocking on no reasonable presumption of good behavior is what has been causing the drama. And starting this thread is just more of the same. "Punitive" doesn't mean "severe" and "preventative" doesn't mean "short." I'll tell you what the block prevents: more disruption from this user who has been involved in nothing but it for several days straight. You're missing the whole point of protection and unblocks on condition of good behavior. If someone has demonstrated that they cannot be trusted to reform after such dispensations, then you are only enabling the disruption by indulging them with page protections and early unblocks. None of this has any bearing on whomever he was edit warring with. By all means warn and/or block them as the situation calls for, but don't bring up a red herring. Dmcdevit·t 05:41, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

There are several other people, who I won't name to avoid drama, who also have chronic unblocks but have (through being an invested user) continued with the borderline behaviour. If this is a reason for a long block or ban on Giano, then those other editors should face the same summary justice. It works both ways. Carcharoth (talk) 11:20, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

He was blocked for 3RR, unblocked, and the page was protected, so there really wasn't any justification for reblocking him. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:11, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Giano should be unblocked so he can at least address an arbcom case that has been filed naming him.--MONGO (talk) 05:17, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

• 1st revert: 20:55, 25 December 2007 "Arbcom has no control"
• 2nd revert: 20:59, 25 December 2007"RV not a beleif that happens to be the truth! - now stop edit warring"
• 3rd revert: 21:01, 25 December 2007"Rv back to the truth"
• 4th revert: 21:03, 25 December 2007 "rv edit warrior who seems to have an aversion to the truth'

Seems like obvious disruption per WP:POINT.--Hu12 (talk) 05:17, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

And the team of folks that was doing the reverting on the other side of the issue? Them, too? Videmus Omnia ^Talk 05:19, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

You make lots of sense, Videmus. That could be a problem when dealing with those who want to see Giano taken out. Mr Which??? 05:20, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Giano has been offline for almost five hours. In the past hour, John254 has initiated an Arbcom case on this issue, and Phil Sandifer blocked Giano for 72 hours. This does not give the impression of positive interaction to resolve an issue. Risker (talk) 05:20, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Whenever someone brandishes their certitude of having "the truth" things rarely end well. Raymond Arritt (talk) 05:20, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

My gut instinct says that anyone convinced that edit-warring over this sort of "content" is a good use of their volunteer hours ought to be trout-smacked, if not blocked. Same goes for anyone who hits 5RR with an edit summary reading: "Rv to truth; Now stop edit-warring!". But that's just my gut instinct. MastCell ^Talk 05:21, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I missed the memo where we stopped blocking for egregious and deliberate 3RR violation. Please go ahead and point me towards it. Otherwise, this is as straightforward a block as they come, and I am shocked to see any serious consideration of overturning it. If I missed a 3RR violation from somebody else I am happy to block them as well, but this is clear cut and deliberate disruption and a flagrant violation of 3RR. What possible justification is there for undoing the block? Phil Sandifer (talk) 05:22, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

• Because it was already dealt with. You know, hours ago, when Giano was still online and available? He was blocked, then unblocked, and resolution was reached. Sheesh, it'd be really cool if you had bothered to do some research before dropping a block for activities on such a disputed page. Mr Which??? 05:24, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
  • My fault. He had been threatened with a block by Ryulong (another involved admin). Much discussion ensued (you know, in the thread right above yours on Giano's page), and resolution was reached, as East points out. Mr Which??? 05:29, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
    • MrWhich: regardless of how upset you might be, I think the level of sarcasm you're using here is not likely to produce good results. Just my view, take it as you like. ++Lar: t/c 05:32, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
    • I fail to see anything looking like a backing down or calming on the part of Giano - in fact, I see a comment to the effect of "I would rather be banned than stop." I am also somewhat perplexed by the notion that a deliberate and egregious 3RR violation is something one threatens blocks with. Giano knew full well that he was crossing an electric fence line. Threatening a block was pure theatrics. This is a simple matter - if you egregiously and deliberately violate 3RR, you get blocked. Phil Sandifer (talk) 05:35, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

To clarify, my block was for the six reverts on December 25th. I see no blocks in his log after the 23rd other than mine, and so it does not seem accurate to say that he has been blocked for the same violation twice, unless we have recently amended our blocking policy such that once you are blocked for something you can then violate that policy to your heart's content. Phil Sandifer (talk) 05:25, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Would it have perhaps been better to leave this to an uninvolved administrator, since you're apparently an operator in the IRC channel under discussion? Videmus Omnia ^Talk 05:26, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I had already squashed that by protecting the page; Giano did not touch it after its expiration. Blocking him again just pours gasoline on the fire. east.718 at 05:27, December 26, 2007

My understanding is that deliberate and knowing 3RR violations are blockable more or less straightforwardly. The fact that the page was protected to stop the edit war does not seem to me to remove the validity of a 3RR block - if it did, we would ultimately not have a 3RR blocking system given the routineness of protecting pages during edit wars. Phil Sandifer (talk) 05:31, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Phil: It might be a good approach then to block everyone that was edit warring? You've singled out one person. Or perhaps to bring the concern here and seek consensus for the block? Or ask an uninvolved admin (not me, by the way, I think I'm involved enough) to carry it out? ++Lar: t/c 05:30, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Were there other 3RR violations? Phil Sandifer (talk) 05:31, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

The 3RR is not a weapon. It is also not a legitimate excuse to block a single person when everyone is revert-warring. Protection is optimal in a situation such as this. Sean William @ 05:34, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

• The "bottom line" is that if blocks were going to be handed out for that messy edit war, the list should have been MUCH longer than one. Mr Which??? 05:36, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

No, there were technically not other 3RR violations, and no, Giano is not exempt, but 3RR is a bright line, not an entitlement. Unless the others revert warring during the same time period were also blocked, (there were more folks on the "other side", go look at the edit history and you'll see) you're singling out one editor and that's not really fair. Guess what, WP isn't fair and that's generally a good thing... but if you want this block to stick, you need to show equanamity in my view. ++Lar: t/c 05:37, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

The admin who dealt with the edit warring decided to protect, rather than block, so as not to have to block multiple people presumably. It might have been wiser to leave things that way. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:37, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I do not see anybody else who deliberately and flagrantly violated policy in the way Giano did. Frankly, Giano's edits were so transparently disruptive that I have trouble treating their reversion as substantively different from reverting vandalism, but that is neither here nor there - in my judgment, Giano made a flagrant and extreme violation of a policy that is explicitly a blockable offense, making his block straightforward. If there are other straightforward blocks, I will make them. Otherwise, please feel free to block for what you see fit - I deliberately limited my actions to the conservative one, which was blocking a clear and deliberate 3RR violation. Phil Sandifer (talk) 05:39, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I see many people who "gamed" 3RR by tag-teaming Giano. This is a blockable offense as well. Oh wait, they agree with you, so you consider their reversions as merely reverting Giano's "vandalism." Wow. I didn't think anything could make this block look any worse, but this last post accomplished just that. Mr Which??? 05:44, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Another note - having an arbcom case raised against you does not give you immunity from straightforward blocks such as 3RR blocks. If Giano wishes to make a statement, I'm sure somebody will move it from his talk page to RFAr for him. Phil Sandifer (talk) 05:41, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

• This is an odd situation - were the other people doing the reverts on the page (Ryulong and Betacommand) participants in the IRC channel as well, or just Phil? Were the edits to the page being discussed there? Videmus Omnia ^Talk 05:44, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

• • I have not been in the IRC channel in a week and a half, and have no information to speak of on what the larger dispute is about. I saw a 3RR violation to the tune of six reverts. I blocked. That is the extent of my involvement in this matter. Phil Sandifer (talk) 05:50, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Unless the other edit warriors on that page (and yes, the other side was tag-team edit warring. No ifs ands or buts about it.) receive similar blocks, this seems to me it's a "Cuz it's Giano" block, and not only would I support an unblock, I would think the consensus here supports any unblock that I would make. SirFozzie (talk) 05:45, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you have evidence of tag-team reverting as opposed to multiple editors who actually and genuinely believe Giano's edit to be wrong? If so, please present it and I will block straightaway. But remember - agreement between users does not constitute tag team editing. Phil Sandifer (talk) 05:50, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

• WP:DUCK perhaps? Or is the rule, "If they agree with the blocking admin, they're just participating in "agreement between users"?

Perhaps it's time to start looking for more inventive solutions: unblock Giano, on the strict condition he stops revert warring on that page; impose a temporary single revert restriction on anyone editing the page in the future, blocking any and all violators; look into the substance of Giano's complaints -- I disagree strongly with the way he's going about things, here, but the complaint itself appears legitimate, or at least worth inquiring about. – Luna Santin (talk) 05:50, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and unblocked. Sean William @ 05:51, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. I doubt the problems will end here, hence the proposals above. – Luna Santin (talk) 05:55, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I am off to bed, as it is late and I am tired, and, more to the point, I have nothing further to add to this discussion at present - Giano made six reverts in 24 hours. I blocked at a reasonable duration for deliberate and egregious 3RR violation. This block does not preclude blocks on other editors, and I will not unblock anybody if somebody feels that other editors should be blocked. But this is not a block based on deep and subtle reasoning - there are three reverts in excess of what is allowed. I blocked. Very simple.

If I missed any 3RR violations on the part of other editors (including clear cases of actual tag-team reverting as opposed to multiple editors who agree that the edits were rubbish) please note them on my talk page and I will block in the morning. I maintain that this is a straightforward 3RR block, and strenuously deny any involvement in the underlying dispute - I've not been in IRC in a week and a half, and am unaware of any history of dispute with Giano that I have, though I may well be forgetting something. I would, frankly, be shocked at any overturning of the block, as it is wholly within the letter and intent of policy. Phil Sandifer (talk) 05:54, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I suppose Phil has been in IRC and heard tag teaming there? I suppose he is counting David Gerard's "edits," which are reverts? Never mind that, though: blocking in an instance like this is obviously inflammatory, not preventative. Look how much disruption it is producing, how little it prevents. Look at how much tempers have risen, how little they have subsided.

The idea of talking to the other parties as if they were equals has never occurred to those wringing their hands over "edit warring," I know. I know this because they are absent from the talk page to the article.

When you see really widely respected people editing one way and the other, you can either form the conclusion that one side is edit warring or that the sides aren't talking. If you conclude the former, you are wrong. If you conclude the latter, then just go look at the talk page and read it. You'll see, then, whether there is dialog or monolog.

In this case, the facts say that en.admins.irc has been the home of horrible behavior. The other side wants all suggestion that such might have ever occurred (and all in passive voice) edited out, and they say that they have the facts because they spend all day in the channel. Well, there is a way to prove it: we can post the damned logs. That would be improper, so people have been e-mailing the people who don't want the edits, trying to enlighten and persuade. Oddly enough, they have gone on edit warring, engaging in WP:OWN, and saying that there are no such instances. Amazing.

Phil is neither neutral in this nor uninvolved, and blocking for 72 hours is absolutely insane when there was no attempt at resolution beforehand. In fact, there have been no attempts at resolution at all. Geogre (talk) 06:03, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a shred of evidence of my involvement? Because if not, that's a rather flagrant personal attack there. Phil Sandifer (talk) 06:05, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

• Are you, or are you not, an IRC-channel operator? Vested interest in the content of that page, I would say. Mr Which??? 06:27, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

• No more than I have a vested interest in any other policy page for being a Wikipedia administrator. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:35, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

All this is very disturbing. We see experienced editors who are edit warring, and a proposal that a clear violation of 3RR be overlooked. The fact that the admin requesting the unblock is on record as a strong supporter of Giano only adds to the overall unseemliness. I agree with the gist of Giano's comments about IRC (having been a former participant there) but he went about this entirely the wrong way. Could we full-protect that stupid page for a week or so -- on the wrong or any other version -- until people's tempers cool down? Raymond Arritt (talk) 06:19, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

That might have worked, in a universe where the page hadn't already been protected several times and yet administrators continued the edit war despite the protection. I already count about eight unambiguous instances of abusive administrator action not even counting the edit warring and rampant misuse of rollback. David Gerard, Geogre, and Wknight94 all made reverts while the page was protected. David Gerard and Geogre both used protection powers during the edit war they were involved in. Doc glasgow and Sean William both reversed another admin's block without allowing enough time (10 minutes and one hour, respectively) for consensus or input on the matter. Coredesat and David Fuchs both blocked a user that they also reverted in that edit war. All for this inconsequential project-space page about an IRC channel. It's ridiculous. Dmcdevit·t 08:33, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Dom: You have made my point... while I find Giano's edit warring abhorrent, clearly he knows far far better. But, when you looked into this matter, you found bad behaviour by far more parties than just Giano. Blocking just Giano is partisan, I fear. I don't think compounding the matter by blocking everyone else you named off (now, well after the fact) would be at all constructive so I don't buy Phil's argument that others should go ahead and block whomever else they feel deserves it. That seems a recipe for a range war if you ask me. Raymond: I think it's irrelevant that I was once an adamant opponent of Giano and now find he has useful things to say while deploring his methods. I call partisanship as I see it. Geogre: If you're including me in those who are hand wringing about edit warring by one side, you far miss the mark. I think all parties here were warring and talking past each other. That includes you, at least to a certain extent, as well as Beta, David G., Irpen, AzaToth, Cordesat Ryulong, you name it. The lot of you know better. There have been bouts of people actually trying to talk a bit on the talk page but they don't seem to last very long before it descends back to talking past each other, and then edit warring again. And for what? ++Lar: t/c 13:12, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

As the edit war has resumed, I have asked for page protection at WP:RFPP. It is to be hoped that the protecting administrator has nothing to do with any of the edits over the past few days or with operation of the channel. I share in Dmcdevit's sense of absurdity. Risker (talk) 08:47, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I've fully protected the article for 7 days, per policy and left the following comment on the talk page -> : Fully protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. - okay, folks. I'm a regular WP:RPP patroller, as many of you will know. I've not, to my knowledge, ever edited the article before. I've no interest in who-did-what-to-which-revision but I know an out of control article when I see one. This needs to stop. To that end, I've fully protected the article against editing for a period of a week. This is no more nor no less than I would do with any other article and, as with anything other dispute, please, please work towards consensus on the talk page here. All of you should know this stuff already. If there are any changes to be made in the interim, please use the {{editprotected}} template here so everyone can see it and judge accordingly and, hopefully, a neutral admin can hop in an do what's needed. If anyone does otherwise, I'll be less than impressed - you all know the rules - Alison ^❤ 09:07, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Autoblock, please help

Giano has been unblocked, but remains autoblocked. Could somebody please help (and then, could somebody PLEASE teach me how to undo autoblocks according to this horrible new system? It didn't use to be a problem!) Bishonen | talk 10:25, 26 December 2007 (UTC).

I have removed Giano's autoblock. --Coredesat 10:31, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Coredesat. Would you (or someone else) have time to educate your fellow admins on how to undo autoblocks? It's a reasonable request from Bishonen. We don't want the technology to lead to a reduced pool of admins who have the knowledge of how to undo an autoblock. Do the instructions at WP:AUTOBLOCK cover the new system? Carcharoth (talk) 11:16, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I sort of found it by chance by browsing Special:Ipblocklist until I found the first autoblock mask corresponding to Giano's 72 hr block, then unblocked that number on the regular unblock page. WP:AUTOBLOCK seems to say that we have to do just that, as weird as that sounds; it states that admins have to keep an eye on the block list for any additional autoblocks that pop up as a result of an initial block. I suppose this means the tool is useless in its current form; the last time Giano was caught up in an autoblock (one I admittedly caused), it took ElinorD a little while to find the mask for it, and we both found it at about the same time. --Coredesat 12:48, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Possible block of user making repeated disruptive edits to Theresa Duncan article

Resolved

This was posted in the middle of the page, I am just posting it at the bottom.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:14, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! I got fouled up. Candy (talk) 05:16, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

User 75.32.190.138 has recently been making repeated deletions of external links on the Theresa Duncan article, and during the past 24 hours has reverted attempts to undo his edits far more than three times. His comments are grossly uncivil and he has disregarded attempts to discuss his changes on the article's talk page. He is trying to push his own POV; no one else has come forward to support him as the authority he says he is. Note that he has identified himself as Alex Constantine on the talk page but has never registered and has made edits from other IPs as well. A review of the revision history of the Theresa Duncan page should make this clearer. Candy (talk) 05:11, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Looks like the IP was blocked for 24 hours by Pigman. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 05:42, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Ioeth (and Pigman). It took me about 20 minutes to make my post (I am not that experienced at this!), and I think that must have been done after the last time I checked the page! Candy (talk) 05:52, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

All the same, good job and thank you for making the report. Keep up the good work! Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 05:54, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Legal Threat against Wiki at Talk:Muhammad

Made by Farazilu (talk · contribs), see [90]. --Strothra (talk) 06:13, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

User has already been warned and given a link to the policy. Nothing to see here. -- Kendrick7^talk 06:23, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

He has been blocked until the threat is withdrawn. --Versageek 06:40, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

He has been unblocked, details are in his talk page history.. --Versageek 06:59, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Farazilu

He has, among other things, declared a cyber crusade to remove images of muhammad from wikipedia. Also, he thinks it's encyclopedic to call Adolf Hitler a hero. See: Special:Contributions/Farazilu. I honestly don't think he will ever be civil or back down. Zazaban (talk) 09:13, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Looking ay his contributions I have to say that he is here for drama rather than writing an encylopedia. Some people enjoy conflict for conflict's sake but do we need to tolerate them here? I think not. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 10:45, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. We definitely do not need more people who aren't interested in looking at things from multiple sides and respect compromises. henrik•talk 11:54, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

He is, also rather problematically, organising the edit war on Muhammed externally, (http://www.thepetitionsite.com/2/removal-of-the-pics-of-muhammad-from-wikipedia) which has got that article locked down. WilyD 14:03, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Well as long as the article is protected, the only problem will be in related articles being targeted (if there is rampant vandalism is can stay protected forever, thats what edit requests are for).

Someone might want to start watching articles in related categories like Category:Muhammad, Category:Prophets in Islam, Category:Islam, and Category:Arab statesmen for cross-pollinated vandalism/POV-pushing Mbisanz (talk) 14:09, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Talkpage posts removal

A user has just gone and removed several posts from Talk:Owen Hart. Is this against policy? Cheers, Davnel03^{Sign It, Junior!} 15:25, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

While removing other users' posts can be frowned upon, removing posts not directly related to improving the article is somewhat different. Wikipedia is not a message board or social network, and the posts removed regarding Owen Hart's death appeared to border on speculation and conspiracy talk rather than ideas about how to make the article better Whitstable (talk) 15:28, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. At WP:TALK, one of the examples given as an appropriate time to edit others' comments is when you are deleting material not relevant to improving the article. This removal seems to fit that description. There may be an argument to be made about archiving the discussion instead of deleting it, but there's really no reason to leave it on the talk page. --Onorem♠Dil 15:33, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Using a secondary account for disruptive purposes

There is a chance that Whitstable (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is using the account Whitsttable (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) for personal attacks and incivility. I already left a warning about the incivility and personal attacks here and the user acknowledged seeing them here. Now, there is a chance that the users are not the same, based on this comment. My opinion, is that User:Whitsttable is the one that needs blocking, as they are the clearly disruptive account. Maybe a checkuser? - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:00, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

See below. Whittstable has been indef blocked for attacking, amongst others, Whitstable. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:08, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

It appears User:Rjd0060 clicked on user:Whitsttable to issue a warning without noticing that the vandal had redirected their user page to mine and talk page to mine, hence the warning was left on my page and not that of the vandal. No harm done, though. Whitstable (talk) 16:16, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

That is correct and I have since removed the warnings, with my apologies. - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:37, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

re Whittstable (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and User:Whitstable

I have just indef blocked the former for attempted harassment of various wikipedians, including the latter. One of the acts of vandalism was to redirect User talk:Whittstable to User talk:Whitstable. I should be grateful if anyone with the requisite skills could undo the redirect. Oh, and please feel free to review the block and tell me I got it right (or tell me I was wrong, if you really must...) LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:06, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Clearly protection of that talk page is needed as he is still redirecting it. EconomicsGuy (talk) 16:10, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I should be allowed to make sockpuppets if I want, because I'm an experienced user. I am far more advanced than most of you here, so please do not even think about blocking my sockpuppets again. Whitstable. (talk) 16:15, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Too late. — Satori Son 16:17, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

These accounts are clearly a violation of the username policy, as they're attempting to impersonate another user. I've blocked two or three this morning already, and I'm expecting another 60 or 70 before lunch. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 16:18, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Impersonating a username is one thing, attempting to use such impersonations to attempt to sully the impersonated account is another. Is this grounds for checkuser to find and (temp) block the ip/range? LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:25, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Might be worth thinking about what is going on here, here and here Whitstable (talk) 16:26, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

There is sockpuppetry involved and he claims that his address changes when he disconnects his modem (see here). - Caribbean~H.Q. 16:28, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like Iamandrewrice. He also left these insane ramblings on Jeffpw's talk page earlier today. EconomicsGuy (talk) 16:32, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

And this edit which is an anagram of my username and appears to suggest I am a sock. WP:DUCK seems to indicate it all goes back to the same source? Whitstable (talk) 16:36, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Another - User:Whitstabble - creating redirects again. Whitstable (talk) 16:39, 26 December 2007 (UTC) Another

WP:DUCK indeed. If last time is anything to go by block first ask later. Last time Yamla had to rangeblock nearly 200.000 IP's for 3 hours to stop this. This guy is seriously annoying as you and I already know... EconomicsGuy (talk) 16:42, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

And I know too. - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:43, 26 December 2007 (UTC)