Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read 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

BLP violations

User:David Shankbone has decided "out" real life people for contributing to Wikipedia Review; see his talk page and User talk:Jimbo Wales. No matter what the editor has done, Wikipedia is not the place for this, and WP:BLP applies. My first inclination was to delete/request oversight of the edits, and warn David, but given Mr Shankbone is quite popular due to his numerous image contributions, I thought I would bring it here rather than risk a wheel war (the last time I used admin tools with regards to an established contributor for obvious and knowingly violating established policies, it was undone and I didn't hear the end of it for weeks). Thoughts, please. Neıl ☎ 16:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• My thought is that Neil has a personal issue with me--he took it upon himself to go around to all articles where other users put my name in the image captions and removed them, why just me, I'm unsure--so if I get blocked then it should be by somebody other than Neil. He has a personal animus. If anyone wants my reasoning for stating that Paul Wehage is the fieryangel at the Wikipedia Review, let me know. But as Lawrence Cohen stated, our policies don't exist to protect editors of other websites. --David Shankbone 16:34, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • David, applying the image use policy does not amount to a personal issue - I simply noticed this while reading the last ANI thread about you. I should point out I haven't even considered blocking you - this is why I have brought it to ANI for discussion. Please do not deflect the issue with rubbish about some personal animus. I have none with you. I also note you have repeated your BLP violation. Neıl ☎ 16:41, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
    • The last ANI thread was not about me, but about User:SqueakBox, and I had started it. He had taken a false COI argument that the fieryangel--my good friend Paulie--and applied it here. You have also misapplied it, by the way, but not with removing it from the image captions. When I saw that was happening, I raised the issue myself and nobody addressed it (I can hunt through the diffs - I raised it at the time Jus4helpin was putting names, not just mine, in captions. Regardless, you overapplied it. --David Shankbone 16:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
      • If there are any other contributors who have their name in the article's image caption (whether put there by themselves or by someone else), feel free to let me know the name and I will work on removing those, too. It is quite hard to find them unless the name is known. Neıl ☎ 16:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
• Whether an editor has been here for five years or five minutes is irrelevant. If a user is using Wikipedia to further some sort of vendetta and are in danger of bringing the project into disrepute, all steps have to be taken to stop them doing so, whether they be Shankbone or Willy on Wheels. Suggest indefinite block as the post above shows the outing will not stop George The Dragon (talk) 16:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• Wrong. I outed the fieryangel of the Wikipedia Review, who has spread false information about me and reveled in the outing of User:Newyorkbrad. I also stated that User:Musikfabrik is Paul Wehage, something he stated himself and that was backed up by his friend Jean-Thierry Boisseau. I have violated no policies. --David Shankbone 16:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• I don't think an indefinite block is warranted or appropriate. An agreement to stop would suffice, providing David's various BLP violations - which he is continuing - are deleted or oversighted. I would like a neutral admin to step in here. Note the link David provides doesn't even back up his assertion - all it states is that a user holds the copyright to a piece of work on a person Wikipedia has an article on, nothing more.Neıl ☎ 16:41, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• Agree with Neil (with some surprise as I hardly ever do). There's no possible way David isn't in the wrong here. — iridescent 16:45, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, I would like a neutral admin as well. Preferably a non-Wikipedia Review member. --David Shankbone 16:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but I just wanted to ask why (possibly re-)revealing who Musikfabrick is/who fieryangel is is so important? What does it matter, really? Wouldn't just not doing it lead to less drama/in-fighting? I agree he may have done you some harm, but really, how does (re-)outing/revealing his identity him help the encyclopedia? And obviously an indefinite block is over-the-top. Mahalo, David. --Ali'i 16:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I've tried to stay out of this mess, if that make me neutral enough. And I've never contributed to WR, And I consider myself a friend and general supporter of David S. I agree that the talk pages text there does not prove the identity, especially since a/copyright was asserted for more than 1 article, but never proven, and b/J-T B says it was an account used by several people (in apparent ignorance of our prohibition against that). As for people at WR, I suggest the safest rule is that we should stay clear of any not explicitly admitted corresponding WP identities, and in fact it might even be well that the correspondence be explictly admitted here, not just in WR--do we want to accept their standards? David, please redact. I dont think this calls for oversight, but thats up to OTRS and the office if there's a complaint. I am undecided about the part of attributing real people to purely WR identities. DGG (talk) 16:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment-I do not see any BLP vios, David Shankbone did "out" (in the Wikipedian sense of the word) another editor. My main point is that the title of this section in innacurate--It's not a BLP vio, it's this Wikipedian idea of "outing" that is the problem. daveh4h 17:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I suppose if the question is one of importance then it's not "Important" - except that over on Jimbo's page you had yet another person, this time an IP editor spreading Wehage's FALSE BLP INFORMATION ABOUT DAVID SHANKBONE there. Not one person has removed that, not one person has asked for oversight. My reputation both on and off Wiki has been damaged by Wehage, and I encourage anyone who also feels the same, including Newyorkbrad, to contact me. I have his I.P. address. I have evidence. But I do note that both Lawrence and Neil left up the BLP violation about me, nobody has removed it, but yet I have violated no policy. I haven't outed anyone. I found out who someone was off-sight, and then found out they outed themselves here. So, I have violated no policy. Yet I have been one of the most constructive and productive contributors to this site, and few people seem concerned with my reputation - only those of offsite trolls. --David Shankbone 17:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Lest we forget, David Shankbone does not actually exist outside of your own imagination George The Dragon (talk) 17:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

...BLP doesn't apply to editors. Shankbone isn't your given name. I redacted the outing only, I don't know about anything else, because I saw a good contributor--you--doing something that could get him banned. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 17:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

No, David Shankbone is the subject of several mainstream media articles. You all need to start acting like it's a BLP, because that name is tied to me whether any of us like it or not. Just because "George the Dragon" hasn't done anything noteworthy doesn't mean other people here haven't. --David Shankbone 17:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Are there any other User:Something that we have applied BLP standards to? I think this would be a new thing... Lawrence Cohen § t/e 17:14, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

We simply can't go allow slander and defamation of editors on this site. Many of us have editor names that, because our work here became noteworthy off-wiki, is tied to us. That makes it a stage name, a pen name, or whatever else you want to call it. It's beyond the realm of comprehension that some of us would not see that. And I'm not the only one - asked TonytheMarine, User:Durova, User:SlimVirgin, et al. --David Shankbone 17:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Why are you outing anyone, anyway? If said slander and defamation is occurring on wikipedia, we have ways to deal with that (and outing people is not part of it, last I checked). If it is occurring off-wiki, deal with it off-wiki. Outing someone here because of something they did elsewhere seems quite juvenile. --Kbdank71 17:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

My reading of BLP is that it applies to all living people. So unless we have zombies on Wikipedia, I'd say that the general principle applies to editors. That said, it applies to WR editors, as well. -Chunky Rice (talk) 17:31, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

David, please place here or send to me -any- comment on WR by thefieryangel where she agrees with the outing of NewYorkBrad. I doubt it. Anyway, she has never even had account on wikipedia so what she writes on another site, is her own affair, and if you are equating her with a Wikipedia editor you can't have got that correct, nor could you prove it as there is no evidence for it. She's said she's never had an account on wikipedia, and we have no reason to doubt that. If you've outed her (I've not looked at the edits concerned, but you've just admitted it) you are outing (and by doing so, sort of harrassing someone who is not even on this site so is entirely entitled to voice her opinions on another site- it's no business of this site to have on it identifying material about an unrelated person who happens to disagree with some things on this site but has a complete right to voice her opinions without attempted, and probably wrong anyway, outing from an editor here. Lawrence- TFA is not even an editor here, and yes, even for editors who are outed by others here, we remove identifying info.Merkin's mum 17:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

"WR by thefieryangel where she agrees with the outing of NewYorkBrad. I doubt it. " Merkin - you appear entirely unfamiliar with the situation and the actors involved if you are writing that. Anyway, I think I have said enough...I will allow you all to discuss this. I'm on Wikibreak. Paul: Lulz! --David Shankbone 17:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

for t hat matter, false information posted here should in fact be removed--the rule against outing -- or untrue attempted outing --protects widely in both directions & applies to anything connected with an identity. David's right there. It applies to all. DGG (talk) 17:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Has anyone actually _read_ BLP? If it applies to editors _as editors_, we first ought to shut down WP:AIV, since those vandalism reports aren't backed by reliable secondary sources. This noticeboard would be second, then arbcom etc. --Random832 (contribs) 17:36, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Look, I think personally, it may be time to abandon anon and pseudonymous editing, as I've opined elsewhere, but the policy here is to allow it, and to enforce allowance. As long as that's policy, I'm behind it, regardless of personal opinion. Therefore, except under certain tightly controlled circumstances as outlined in the m:Privacy policy, and/or in matters related to articles, in accordance with WP:BLP policy, no one should be revealing private information about others against their wishes, whether true or false. No one. We cannot control what is done at non WMF sites but it's not something to be encouraged here. Period. I don't think it matters whether one is a WR participant or not. I don't know all the particulars here, but if people are outing the particulars of David's pseudonymous identity, that's wrong, the information should be deleted or oversighted and the people cautioned or sanctioned. But that goes both ways. If David is outing the particulars of other people's pseudonmymous identity, that is also not to be tolerated and should be dealt with the same way. Regardless of how much of a Meatball:VestedContributor David may or may not be. No free passes. ++Lar: t/c 17:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

David, will you redact the outings? If David will not, then can someone else? I had best not do it, as I have a personal animus against David, now. Apparently. I'm not sure how. Neıl ☎ 18:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify at least one bit of the sound-and-fury - there is no doubt at all that User:Musikfabrik is connected to Paul Wehage, as MF has admitted it themself, so that doesn't constitute "outing". — iridescent 18:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

No, but DS might provide what he thinks is proof that thefieryangel who posts on Wikipedia Review is the same person as this Paul W, but it will not be sufficient proof, as he is probably incorrect. As to indef blocking- no but the info should be removed as it may be wrong anyway, and Mark W is presumably a real person, that DS is accusing of something he might prove to his own satisfaction, but not beyond reasonable doubt. The info should be removed, and whatever sanction which usually applies to people attempting to 'out' others, applied; at least a warning and if he re-posts the info, the same as what usually happens to people who do that. With allowances made for him being a frequent contributor, perhaps. But given that, people might expect better than the sort of behaviour that usually would be from an IP or a new user. Merkin's mum 19:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

It may well be true that there's a connection between User:Musikfabrik and Paul Wehage but I don't think you can reasonably conclude that there "is no doubt at all" about that purely on the basis of the account having claimed such a connection. (posted for and on behalf of Vladimir Putin) 87.254.71.190 (talk) 23:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, as one of the major participants in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jean-Thierry Boisseau, I'd be genuinely surprised if thefieryangel is Paul Wehage. Wehage was part of the Musikfabrik role account, yes, but there are several pieces of information that mitigate against him being the account on Wikipedia Review. Further, I will not disclose. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 21:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• Based on all the above, is it fair to say the consensus is that David Shankbone needs to stop posting this sort of thing as it's inappropriate on Wikipedia? If it stops him doing it in future (one way or another), this thread has achieved its purpose. Neıl ☎ 21:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Moreschi- through my own info, I'm pretty sure TFA is female.:) Neil, has anyone warned DS on his talk page, I think this deserves at least a warning. Merkin's mum 22:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Moreschi. It's been a while since I read Wounded Vanity Review but I seriously doubt FA is Paul Wehage (or Jean-Thierry Boisseau). Possibly an androgynous role account - but let's not go there...--Folantin (talk) 11:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• I provided evidence at the Wikipedia Review that Paul Wehage is "the fieryangel" over there and has been making defamatory statements about me, Erik Moeller, Wikipedia, Jim Wales, et al. I don't really care whether you all agree with this or not. I don't plan to be around here much anymore. The thread for the evidence is here. If anyone, like User:Merkinsmum, who has lambasted me and others on Wikipedia over at the Wikipedia Review as "Wikiwhistle" and supported the trolling of Paul Wehage/TheFiery Angel, questions why I would do this, they only need Google my name at the WR and read the things TheFieryAngel (and Merkinsmum/Wikiwhistle) wrote about me there. Enjoy the photos. --David Shankbone 14:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

New pieces of info have come together over the last few days: thefieryangel is not Paul Wehage nor JT Boisseau, though I'm 99 percent sure, now, as to who are the persons involved, and completely certain as to one.

Regardless, I would suggest that this petty tit-for-tat between Wikipedia people and Wikipedia Review people is not very productive. "You out us so we out you" is simply not coherent. The trolls all fall silent eventually...so ignore. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 15:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

DS- I will stand up for people if I think they're being wrongly accused of something, I'm just like that. Several people now have told you TFA is not this Paul bloke. And I'm entitled to my opinions. It doesn't stop me contributing to wikipedia productively and I have spoken out against any forms of outing repeatedly on WR, just as I am now. To be honest, I never expect to have to do so on Wikipedia. I half-hoped we were better than that. The Electronic Frontier Foundation campaigns to protect people's anonymity online and Mike Godwin previously worked for them. I think that contributors' rights to anonymity is part of wikipedia ideology (within reason, of course) and you do no one any good by linking contributors' accounts in this way- do you want everyone to be outed? You know nothing of my life circumstances, nor of TFA's, (who I don't know particularly well, I'm just speaking out because I think she and this Paul bloke are being picked on, and also we don't know that what is being said about her or Paul is even true.) there are reasons why I used another name on WR aside from why people usually do so. (Which aren't to do with WR or WP, but unrelated, real-world people.) Not that I will ever trust you with those reasons. Are you wanting to be the Mr.Brandt of Wikipedia? Merkin's mum 17:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I guess the ethos you need to consider, lover of Wikidrama (per your User box) is that when you live by the sword, you die by the sword. MM, you started threads ridiculing me on the WR--"Bloke's treating Wikipedia like a job!"--and ridiculing others on here, and you seriously expect some kind of courtesy extended to you? Where do you get off? And by the way, I have had it confirmed that Paul Wehage is TheFieryAngel, now from another source. I removed that source's identifying characteristics from their e-mail and forwarded it on to admins and the Foundation (ask Georgewilliamherbert, Slimvirgin, jpgordon, Jimbo, et al.) You have tied your self in with the wrong crowd, MM, and if being called the Daniel Brandt of Wikipedia is what you want to call me, then so be it. As far as I'm concerned, Wikipedia sucks. Why does it suck? Because of people like you, Merkinsmum. Now, go on over to the WR and chortle some more at the expense of others who have given far more to this project than you have the ability to do. Hey! maybe you can take that comment and have a tea party with User:George_The_Dragon and whinge about how arrogant I am because I point out the obvious. I believe it's part of the wisdom of the crowd that mediocrity shall reign. Invite Paul Wehage (Somey knows he is TheFieryAngel - TFA has only used 3 IP addresses the entire time he's posted at the WR, right Somey? Right Somey?! Lulz!). Think about it Merkisnmum/Wikiwhistle: You are defending someone who has had expressly wanted to "tear this place apart." Oh, and Paulie/Jean-Thierry/Musik Fabrik: I'll be seeing you all, bay-bees! Shankbone's gone rouge... --David Shankbone 17:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I have not followed this thread, don't know what it's about, see that it's long enough that I'm not going to try to catch up at this stage, but another "Fuck off" edit summary just popped up on my watchlist. After the "Jesus fucking Christ" edit summary I saw last week, I'm beginning to wonder how much we expect editors here to put up with, and just what our civility standards are. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:04, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

There are certainly some strange double standards with regards to civility. Any amount of off-wiki abuse is supposed to be ignored, even when the culprit interacts with the victim on-wiki. It's very odd we sanction this Jekyll and Hyde behaviour. Nevertheless, if we want to keep Wikipedia "pure" and not engage in outing and such like here, there are plenty of off-wiki venues for those who want to pursue these fights, especially blogs. It takes about 5 minutes to set up one at Blogger [1] and you can write what you like there. I imagine you can even link to your blog from your user page (what was the WP:BADSITES ruling once again?). --Folantin (talk) 18:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I have not even heard of User:George the Dragon although I'm sure I would love to have tea with him as I like tea.:) I've not tied myself in with any crowd and will answer back on WR if I think people there are being particularly dodgy. I don't winge particularly about anything, I do have a sense of humour but don't think that's illegal or blockworthy, within reason.:) Since I value being on wiki I try not to be too evil about those here, this is something I'm trying to do more intensely as time goes on. But sometimes you have to let off steam, or have a laugh, or whatever, it's preferable to going on a rampage like some people do on wiki.:) As you can see by my userpage, contribs etc I do try to focus very seriously on civility. Merkin's mum 18:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

This person has now taken it upon himself to edit my userpage [2] which I was unaware of and another user kindly reverted. He is clearly not going to stop and he has gone on wikibreak to seek to avoid any consequences of his actions. I will now apologise to him if I have upset him, but he should stop this picking on women. He knows nothing about my life and doesn't realise what he is doing. Meaning no undue disrespect to WR, a lot of people choose to use another name there, because of what are seen as risks from some contributors there. Merkin's mum 20:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Block?

Given David Shankbone's latest spree (all after "going on Wikibreak") such as:

• calling Merkinsmum a cunt
• "I'm through contributing here", more outing
• gloating at outing users, telling a user to fuck off and outing a user all in one diff
• as well as this and this
• And (admin-only) a deleted contribution with another outing,

I believe an indefinite block needs to be considered at this time before David does any more damage. However, if I do it myself, I will no doubt be accused of being involved, so would someone neutral do it, please? Neıl ☎ 09:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Indef? I'm going to go on record as being a softie and say that I don't think that's justified yet. But a week at least would seem sane (call it forcing the wikibreak, if you will). dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 09:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

As long as we don't call it a cool-down block, a week with a final warning would be agreeable. Neıl ☎ 09:53, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Teeheehee, calling anything a cool-down block is guaranteed to start moar drama (maybe that's why they ask about it at RfA?). dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Just tell the guy to get a blog then he can post whatever abuse he likes about editors off-site - and they will still have to be polite to him here. This is the standard, hypocritical Wikipedia way of "civility". David's main mistake was choosing the wrong venue for his rants. He certainly has some justification for his behaviour (not that I condone it), far more than The Undertow, whose friends are currently trying to save him from any sanction for his incivility. --Folantin (talk) 11:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I doubt bringing the_undertow into this will do any good. Please don't try and fan the flames further still. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 11:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

"Fanning the flames". How about assuming good faith about my motives? I merely noted the differing attitude of admins towards two cases of uncivil behaviour. --Folantin (talk) 11:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

(Update: Oh, I see [3]. I wasn't even aware of that comment before I posted here. Makes an interesting comparison). --Folantin (talk) 12:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to read the whole thread above as it is upsetting to me (though I respect other's opinions.) Just to say that I didn't mind the swearing, it was the threats of further action towards me that particularly concerned me. Obviously I am not impartial :) but I think a short block would be in order, of a short duration bearing in mind DS's contributions here, but also bearing in mind that most people who threaten outing or other stuff aginst an editor are treated severely. It would depend on how he acts after the warning I think he's been given. Obviously, if he himself uses my real name off site, I would expect him to be treated as any other editor would if they did so- ColScott etc (who I personally disapprove of) and be given a longer block. But not indef at this point. I also still disagree that TFA has exactly advocated outing- she just said that she cannot fault Brandt if he does so, in the light of the BLP problems on wiki (not an opinion I share as I'm firmly against outing.) DS didn't do this after I made a thread about him, months ago- he has just done this now because I stood up for someone, and because he can. Merkin's mum 12:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

"Obviously, if he himself uses my real name off site, I would expect him to be treated as any other editor would if they did so- ColScott etc (who I personally disapprove of) and be given a longer block". Yep, off-site outing of Wikipedians is not on. Just to clarify, I was referring to fighting off-site abuse with off-site abuse. Obviously, if David leaves Wikipedia then nobody will have any control over him in these matters, so it's probably in everyone's interests to persuade him to stay. --Folantin (talk) 14:43, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Having briefly dipped in to look over the issue, contributions, and incivility of this individual, and having reverted trolling to a userpage on my watchlist, I would have to agree that a block is justified. WP:CIV specifically says a couple of things (emphasis mine):

1. "A pattern of gross incivility, however, is highly disruptive, and may result in warnings or blocks."
2. "...one single act of incivility can also cross the line if bad enough; for instance, an egregious personal attack...or severe profanity directed against another contributor are all excessive enough that they may result in a block without any need to consider the pattern."

I think giving a 'pass' to someone based on their previous valuable contributions sets a precedence. Nobody should be above WP:CIV, and the policy says as much in the opening sentence. Coldmachine^Talk 13:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

DS definitely needs to cool off, but an Indef isn't warranted. He's been the subject of extended trolling here for a long long time, and for months he's dealt with it better than most can. From the IP vandal who hates that he puts his names on his photos to the constant attacks about living with some dude, to the constant wikilawyering attitude putting just about anything he says or does under extreme scrutiny, DS has taken a metric shitload of grief. While I think he should've learned to laugh it off and ignore it, or just get up and go shoot more great photos, I hardly think that, given the less than stellar support I've seen him get in those cases, we should now turn around and bring the fgull force to bear on him, when we couldn't be arsed to bring it to help him. There will be those who say 'two wrongs don't make a right, and though we messed up before, we shouldn't fudge it now to balance it' I say taht our lack of action meets the 'all it takes for evil to win is for good men to do nothing' ethical failure. We didn't do enough when we could, DS flips out, now we call for his head? No thanks. He needs to hear from the community that he needs a week or two off, but as the block for a week was already overturned, we need to simply emphasize to him how he is both valuable and clearly overtaxed, and needs to go away voluntarily for some time. Even a few days can do a world of good for clearing the head. I'm not addressing the off-wiki stuff, just what I've seen here. ThuranX (talk) 04:01, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

No, an indef isn't warranted you're right but right now the response from the community has been "please don't go". All that does is shout loud and clear that it's okay to be as uncivil as you like provided you've been a good contributor in the past. Yes, blocks aren't punitive, but WP:CIV expressly states the conditions for when a block is appropriate and there are examples abound for why one would be fitting in this case. And as for the so-called Wikibreak: why were several breaches of WP:CIV then made after it was announced? It's nothing more than someone being a diva and the reaction from the community is exactly what was sought by this individual: "please don't go, your contributions are valuable". Sorry, but there are plenty of other valuable contributors out there who don't behave in this wholly inappropriate and utterly unacceptable way. A one-week imposed block is appropriate in this situation. Any other less notable editor would be given that treatment, why make a special case? Coldmachine^Talk 14:56, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Mr Shankbone has been taunted and threatened and libeled and insulted up and down and sideways all over the place, on Wikipedia and off, in a legitimate and serious real-world stalking incident. People who are being threatened in real life as well as on WP get a pass on getting grumpy here when provoked. David may well benefit from some cooldown time. However, blocking to force him to take some would be punitive and attacking the victim.

Administrators should endeavour to help ID and block those harrassing him. If you feel he's behaving over the line please try communicating with him privately first, and not blocking. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:23, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

"An eye for an eye makes everyone blind." Many of those who engage in "outing" and other harassment of Wikipedians offsite try to justify their actions by claims of wrongdoing by Wikipedia and Wikipedians. Retaliating by trying to "out" them too just makes it seem like there's little reason to consider Wikipedia and Wikipedians to have moral high ground over the much-vilified "attack sites". *Dan T.* (talk) 02:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, and there's nothing in WP:CIV or anything elsewhere which says retaliation is perfectly acceptable. It isn't, period. As a long standing contributor, in fact, David should have known this better than most. There is simply no excuse for this behaviour. The 'wiki break' which he is allegedly on is not in fact happening: he is not taking a break to cool off. A one week block is still justified in these circumstances. Coldmachine^Talk 11:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks like he's left. Congratulations. At least we still have our White Priders. --Folantin (talk) 17:14, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I beg your pardon? Mind the remarks you make. Being in a minority has absolutely nothing to do with this situation. If David has chosen to leave Wikipedia it's perhaps because he realised his thoroughly inappropriate behaviour was only digging himself into a deeper hole. Political and personal views have absolutely no bearing on an individual's capacity for common decency, basic manners, and mature conduct. Coldmachine^Talk 18:21, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

"Being in a minority has absolutely nothing to do with this situation". What relevance does this statement have? --Folantin (talk) 18:49, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

The same relevance as your own remark about "white priders". David has moved on from this; I suggest we all do the same. Coldmachine^Talk 18:56, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

What exactly does being in a minority have to do with White Priders? --Folantin (talk) 19:00, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

While baiting is amusing, it won't work with me, sorry. Here, have the last word; it's all yours. Coldmachine^Talk 19:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Since you can't give me a straight answer to a straight question then I suppose I'll have to. Off you go and enjoy your barnstar. --Folantin (talk) 19:16, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Rosencomet, canvassing and COI

Rosencomet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has apparently once again solicited off-wiki for people "to open new Wikipedia editor accounts" to come support him and help protect "his" articles. See the "Attempted Vote-Stacking, Again" section here. This is not the first time he has broadly appealed for help off-wiki on a large scale. I have confidential but trusted info that he did this kind of canvassing with an email to 30 people in the Fall of 2007. He has been repeatedly warned about engaging in canvassing, by multiple admins.[4][5]

Despite consistent warnings from a wide variety of editors (dating from the very beginning of his time as a Wikipedia editor in August, 2006) about his conflict of interest in promoting the Starwood Festival, Association for Consciousness Exploration (ACE), and people he hires for these events, he has continued to engage in this behaviour. These comments and warnings are so numerous, I'm just supplying a link to his archived talk page and letting the TOC there speak for itself rather than citing specific diffs.

User:Rosencomet has been reasonably found to be [*OUTING INFO REMOVED - NO OUTING PLEASE *] (see the Starwood Arbcom finding of fact.) [ * OUTING INFO REMOVED *] "...is the conceiver and a founder of ACE, the Chameleon Club, the Starwood Festival, and the WinterStar Symposium, and is both the primary event organizer and product manufacturer for ACE." (from the ACE website) He is also the executive director of ACE[6] and he handles public relations/communications aspects of the organization. (see paragraph #4 here and the ACE website link above in this paragraph.)

Please note also that [*OUTING INFO REMOVED *]/Rosencomet personally sells books/CDs/DVDs/items at the ACE website and store. If any doubt exists about his COI, see this book excerpt with Mr. Rosenbaum's photo and compare it to this ACE CyberCatalog page. Note the caption saying "When you phone A.C.E., ...you'll probably be talking to THIS MAN" (emphasis in original.) Interestingly, since I referenced this webpage in my COI Noticeboard posting in mid-Dec. 2007, Rosenbaum's picture is no longer featured on the current version page. I had to go to the Internet Wayback Machine for a cached version from July 2007. (Unfortunately the picture doesn't seem to be in the archive cache anymore although the element properties clearly show the link to www.rosencomet.com/catalog/images/biopix/jeff.jpg.) The picture was the same in all versions of this webpage available on the Wayback machine from Dec. 2003 through July 2007 and to 20 Dec 2007 when I last accessed it. In other words, the picture of Rosenbaum (which was on this web page for at least four years previously) was changed within the month after I made reference to it in my COI statement (which Rosencomet was aware of), a strangely coincidental occurrence.

As I indicated at the top, Rosencomet's level of ownership of articles he has started or contributed to is quite high and readily apparent. Changing or deleting info in his WP:OWNed articles usually calls forth aggressive challenges from him and sometimes wikilawyering. He continues to assert that his judgment is sound concerning inserting references to his organization and events into articles.[7][8]

AfDs for any articles in which he has a vested interest invariably results in new SPA accounts voicing opinions and the re-emergence of the Ekajati sockdrawer, resulting in a time drain on editors, admins and checkusers. Now he also admits that he is canvassing [9] to affect AfDs for articles he wants to save.

Despite being warned exhaustively by editors, admins and Arbcomm, and in defiance of COI admonitions by all of the above, he rarely ventures outside his walled-garden area of interest: promoting the careers of those who appear at the Starwood Festival, or whose books and tapes he sells on the rosencomet.com website. Over his time on WP, he has has proven to be a tendentious and disruptive editor.

I have ideas about actions I'd like the community to take but I'd prefer to hear feedback and suggestions from others before I voice them. Pigman☿ 04:40, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Rosencomet says I misrepresented his letter asking people to become editors to vote with him. I reprinted the letter on his User Talk page in dispute of his claim of misrepresentation. He has deleted it. So, reluctantly, I reprint it here:

From: Jeff (SURNAME REDACTED) (mailto:REDACTED)

Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2008 2:43 PM

Subject: Wikipedia Cabal Alert

Dear Folks,

You are all people I have approached about helping me preserve the articles on Wikipedia related to individuals and subjects important to our community. If anyone receiving this has not logged in to Wikipedia as an editor, please do so. It's really easy, and you become one right away. But please, use a nickname rather than your own name, like almost everyone else does. Believe me, there are some people who take this stuff way to seriously, and will hassle you about your activities; plus, no one can challenge you on Point of View or Conflict of Interest issues if you remain anonymous.

If you have already become an editor, I urge you to edit...anything! Even correcting typos or grammar here and there will establish you as an editor; if you don't, when you vote on something they'll put a flag next to your name that says "this editor has provided few or no edits besides this issue", which is a way of saying that you're not really an editor, but probably just a sock-puppet (fake additional account) for some editor who wants to pad the votes. We are not doing that; you are real people, not dummy accounts.

There are two articles nominated for deletion that I'd appreciate help on. First, go to their articles, click on the words "this article's entry" in the box at the top explaining that it has been nominated for deletion. That will take you to the deletion nomination page for that article. Please register a vote to keep; to do that, you must hit "edit this page" at the top, then click your cursor right below the last person's entry and add Keep - This subject is notable enough. Keep should have three apostrophes before and after it. You can word the last part any way you want, or expand on it and say why you think so, although someone may argue with your reasoning if you do, and you may not want to keep checking back and responding. After your entry, remember to print four tildas like this (EXAMPLE REDACTED), which will add your Wiki name and entry date to the vote. If you have the time and interest, you can actually try to improve the article with new citations and data, but this stuff happens fast so first register your vote RIGHT AWAY.

The articles nominated for deletion are Dennis Chernin and Nicki Scully. Please feel free to read the articles as they presently exist first, and see if you agree that they are worthy of inclusion; I am not trying to twist your arms on any of this. I'm just trying to make sure our community has some folks looking out for our interests on Wikipedia and expressing their opinions. Also, there are a couple of editors who have a problem with articles either written by me or associated with Starwood, and others who have issues with Pagans, hippies, New Agers, or whatever they perceive these folks to be, and even three people working together is a lot on Wikipedia.

Other articles tagged as having questionable notability include Philip Carr-Gomm, Richard Kaczynski, Skip Ellison, Morwyn, Vivianne Crowley, and Chas S. Clifton. Most were tagged by the same person who nominated the other two. He also tagged Nevill Drury (if you can believe it), but retracted it for now. He succeeded in deleting the articles of Phil Farber (author of Futureritual), Pamela Ball (author of over fifteen books on New Age and magical subjects), and Halley DeVestern (who sang with Big Brother & the Holding Company the year they did Starwood). He and his little group successfully deleted the following as well: WinterStar Symposium, Jeff Rosenbaum, Victoria Ganger, and Taylor Ellwood, and tried unsuccessfully to delete Sally Morningstar and Matthew Abelson. They've also been deleting mentions of Starwood and WinterStar wherever they find them using one excuse or another.

Please feel free to contact me about any of this, either by phone: cell - (REDACTED), off - (REDACTED), or e-mail me either here or at (REDACTED).

Thanks for your interest. I will continue my efforts to keep articles about prominent members of our community present, up-to-date, and free of slander on Wikipedia, and monitor subjects like "witch" and "psychedelic experience" for misrepresentation. Thank you for any help you can give me.

Ad Astra, Jeff

This is a more-in-sorrow-than-in-anger situation for me. I have nothing against him as a person, and I think he has done some good work here on Wikipedia, as well as for the Neo-Pagan community in general. I just wish he would listen more carefully to those who've tried to reason with him with regard to appropriate Wikipedia practices and manners. -- Davidkevin (talk) 15:40, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment I’m afraid this will take a while to respond to, so I will ask you to bear with me. I am also not nearly as experienced and skilled as Pigman in diffs and retrieval of text, nor can I compete with his wikilawyering, but I will just have to say my piece and improve it later as I have time.

First, the e-mail that Davidkevin posted here was a PRIVATE one to friends that was not addressed to him, and I feel it is improper for him to print it ANYWHERE without my consent. Unfortunately, someone forwarded it to him and others without asking me (for which he has apologized). It cannot be judged out of the context of numerous conversations I have had with the people it was actually sent to. I think it is unfair to include it here, and wrong of him to have posted it at all, with full knowledge that I opposed his doing so.

Second, the above statement by Pigman contains several misrepresentations. I do NOT personally sell anything. To do so, I would have to profit in some way, which I do not. I sell nothing I own, and I’m not an employee of ACE, nor am I (or anyone else in ACE) paid for the work I do. We are all volunteers. Even if I took an order over the phone for a book, to say that disqualifies me from writing or editing an article by that author would be like saying a clerk who works at the desk of a Borders or Half-Priced Bookstore can’t edit an article about any author who’s book is sold there, or artist whose CD is sold there. Worse, in fact, since he IS paid. I get nothing from editing these articles. I also do not hire speakers or acts; ACE does, by general vote of its members, one vote each.

Third, I don’t see how my e-mail can be called canvassing according to the definitions on Wikipedia:canvassing. It says: “Canvassing is sending messages to multiple ‘’’Wikipedians’’’ with the intent to inform them about a community discussion.” It doesn’t even forbid canvassing; in fact, it has a section about how to do it if you DO canvass. The page discusses conversations with ‘’’Wikipedia editors’’’, not encouraging new people to become editors and get involved. Yes, I may have gone a bit far by giving specific examples of deletion nominations I disagreed with and thought my friends who I had prior conversations with would also be interested in. However, I specifically said “Please feel free to read the articles as they presently exist first, and see if you agree that they are worthy of inclusion; I am not trying to twist your arms on any of this. I'm just trying to make sure our community has some folks looking out for our interests on Wikipedia and expressing their opinions.” This was a private conversation with people I was encouraging to become involved in Wikipedia, with examples of why I thought they should, and was part of a larger discussion which should NEVER have been posted without my permission on Wikipedia. (This is the reason I resisted being outed as to my identity by Pigman and wished to remain anonymous; I’m sure anyone aware of Newyorkbrad’s recent problems would sympathize with that, and understand why I recommended any new editors use a nickname.)

My intent, which would be clearer had this e-mail not been posted out of the context of the larger conversation I was having with the individuals I sent it to, was not to vote-stack but to get more people in the communities I relate to (such as the Neo-Pagan, magical, multi-cultural and consciousness exploration communities) involved in Wikipedia. I think more people in all sorts of smaller-interest communities should do so: Native Americans, Santerians, Voudon, the polyamory community, those interested in entheogens, etc etc – communities where under-representation, misrepresentation and misinformation are a problem. I felt that in this case there was a small group calling all the shots, and more people with experience and knowledge in the fields would help matters. But I did NOT want them to simply support my votes or opinions, and I told them so emphatically when I first broached the subject with them; I trusted their judgment to edit responsibly.

Fourth, I disagree with Pigman’s opinion that I should not edit any article either of an individual that has appeared at an event I have worked on, or insert a mention of a Starwood appearance or connection where it is appropriate. The arbitration did not come to that conclusion, and when I specifically asked one of the arbitrators, Fred Bauder, to "state for the record that I am not violating the arbitration, and am not disallowed to edit articles by either speakers or entertainers simply because somewhere in their appearance history there was one or more appearance at the Starwood Festival or WinterStar Symposium, events run by an organization I am a volunteer with and neither receive payment from nor hire for. I also need a statement that there is no reason I can't edit an article about a Llewellyn author." His reply was "You are welcome to edit any article, including articles about associates, provided you cite reliable sources. It is best to not rely on personal knowledge."

Fifth, the history of my interaction with Pigman shows, IMO, that he has his own POV issues with Starwood, and that while he invokes the specter of the “Ekajati sockdrawer” (none of whose actions I am responsible for), he recently went on a tagging spree with help from Mattisse, who’s many sockpuppets [10] don’t seem to bother him in the least. Mattisse, if you recall, was a primary cause of my problems in the first place. Most of my links to the Starwood website were in response to her citation request tagging spree just days after I began editing on Wikipedia. She not only used sock-puppets to multiple-tag and vote-stack, she actually created fake articles and blamed them on me! (For instance, Anne Hill, Musart, and Children of Earthmaker) So Pigman called her out of retirement, so to speak, as it relates to my editing, and along with Kathryn they tagged, edited, and deletion-nominated dozens of articles I wrote in a few days. My reaction was NOT to engage in revert wars, but to ask three different arbitrators for help. (Here’s a link to the letter I sent Fred Bauder at that time. I also contacted Thatcher and Newyorkbrad)

As an example of Pigman’s POV issues concerning Starwood, he has made statements about Starwood concerning his opinions of its connection to drugs and sex (made under the guise of discussing whether mentioning youth programming was "promotional"), implying dangers to children, offering no factual material to back these slurs up. (Kathryn agreed with his statements, and she offered to pass on "info" about the same to an editor privately, away from the sight of Wikipedia editors observing the conflicts you two have had with me. In fact, she claimed to have "a bunch of info about this", which she characterized as "the unpublished reports of multiple friends and acquaintances over the years". She evidently doesn't mind going off-Wiki to promote her positions.) All this can be found on the Starwood Talk Page [11]

I realize I am far from a perfect editor, but I feel that I am being judged by someone who has set himself up as if he were my parole officer, watching me all the time, and creating a hostile environment in which I sometimes overreact and beg for help from wherever I can find it. Whether it’s an occult author that’s never been to Starwood or something as innocuous as Marvel Comics mutants or Turkish Taffy, I can expect an edit from Pigman or Kathryn immediately after mine. Pigman has actually set up a watchlist User:Pigman/Starwood-Rosencomet Watchlist on my editing! They still act like all I do is promote my events, when I have hardly written a new article about anyone who has been to Starwood in nearly a year. They set the bar so high, that they claim that since ACE got permission from Llewellyn Worldwide (the world’s biggest and oldest occult publisher) to reissue a few cassette tapes back in the eighties, I should not be allowed to edit any articles by ANY author who’s ever been published by Llewellyn. He deletes any mention of Starwood wherever he finds it as undue weight, even if the subject of the article posts his disagreement, as with Paul Krassner (who has been at 6 out of the last ten Starwoods, and written articles about his experiences there in The Nation Magazine, Ariana Hufington’s Blog, and High Times). Also, he treats guidelines as laws and disagreement as aggression, and ignores it when an arbitrator supports my side of a disagreement. On some complaints, Thatcher has told him more than once that what I edited was not a violation of any policy, and he has ignored it. He has even warned me against disagreements discussed on talk pages, when that’s exactly where the arbitration told me to have them.

In December I created an alphabetical sample of the kind of editing I have done since the arbitration[12]. I include it here to show that I have NOT been aggressively editing, revert-warring, or limiting my edits to Starwood-associated articles. I will provide an update soon, showing that aside from some disagreements on certain existing Starwood mentions (mostly resulting only in discussions on talk pages and deletion nomination pages), I have not been creating new articles linked to Starwood or inserting them into articles. I have mostly been creating new articles about occult authors who have NEVER been to Starwood (like Nicholas R. Mann, Al G. Manning, Vivianne Crowley, Ed Fitch, Prem Das, Laura Huxley, Sally Morningstar, Gabrielle Roth, Dorothy Morrison, Luisah Teish, Nevill Drury, Chas S. Clifton, Morwyn, etc), and adding material to beef up articles threatened by deletion. Pigman keeps characterizing me as a big problem, aggressively and contentiously editing and disrupting Wikipedia. I deny that; I have had few conflicts, almost all reactions to his (and Kathryn’s) behavior towards me, mostly kept on talk pages. I have also sought help from arbitrators whenever possible, and would very much welcome any further help to deal with conflicts when they arrive.Rosencomet (talk) 18:52, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary break after really long posts

It is hard to make a single comment on all of this, but I did spend a good while reading this so I'll at least start out with something. If Rosencomet actually believes that that email is acceptable in regards to wikipedia policy, then that is problem #1. It effectively becomes a message to wikipedians because you are encouraging them to become editors, then telling them exactly how to vote in your favor. It is the ultimate bypassing of consensus. I see on the AfDs that meat puppets have arrived in response. Rosen may choose to continue doing this in the future, maybe more discreetly so we don't find out about it here...oh well. However, if you are actually defending such a thing, then this becomes a blockable offense. I will comment more later, this is just a start. I also encourage both Rosen and Pigman to condense further responses so people can actually read this. -- Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 19:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Off-wiki canvassing via private email communications is definitely sanctionable on-Wiki. See: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/CAMERA lobbying. -- Lawrence Cohen § t/e 19:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I am not going to defend it. I simply ask where in the canvassing rules it mentions anything about conversations with people who are not editors when you talk to them? A technicality, perhaps, but when can you forbid conversations with non-wikipedians, or sanction for them? In any event, I will certainly be more careful in the future about anything that seems to push anyone, even a non-editor, to edit in favor of a particular position. However, in the context of the prior conversations I have had with the specific people this private e-mail went to, they would tell you that I made it clear that I wanted them to edit as they saw fit and vote their conscience, not follow my direction. And I hope you are never called to task for the content of your private mail. -- Rosencomet (talk) 20:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

It is wikilawyering to suggest that by mailing people who are not then contributors to become editors and to vote or edit in a certain manner is not covered by WP:CANVAS. The intent is to vote stack or otherwise disrupt the usual WP processes, and might be considered more serious as you are seeking both accounts previously unknown to the community and also suggesting how they may appear to be more neutral in their contribution history - a clear attempt to promote an agenda over the process of consensus. My opinion is that you should be indefinitely blocked for these serious matters. -- LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

We can't sanction for talking. I can mail all my employees right now to say, "Hey check out this cool article on Wikipedia," or to discuss Wikipedia issues. But as soon as I send the email that says or implies "Also, check out this debate(s) to support me or our interests", I lose in epic fashion and should be banned. You did just that--in my opinion, this is a blockable offense. We have no way of knowing now how corrupted consensus and integrity of the articles may be now, but we do know that you have at least once done this. See again: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/CAMERA lobbying. You did the same thing that CAMERA did, essentially. -- Lawrence Cohen § t/e 20:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

When Rosencomet says he has had few conflcts on Wikipedia, please see [13]], during which Rosencoment ongoing supporters User:Hanuman_Das, User:Ekajati, User:999 and subsequently others -- see: Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Ekajati -- were found to be sock puppets. I realize that by bringing this up, Rosencoment will accuse me of sock puppeting because of a screwed up episode that lasted two months some two years ago involving some of my family, never repeated. I learned from this and paid the price, including over six months of daily harassment from Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Ekajati that continued even after the Starwood Arbitration. -- Mattisse (Talk) 21:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

* Addendum: Nearly all the above mentioned sock puppets were almost exclusively editing Rosencomet/Star Festival articles, voting in those articles' AFD's, etc. -- Mattisse (Talk) 16:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

(e/c)Go here, click here, vote keep...lose in epic fashion, indeed. I'm tempted to make a joke about the email being a copyvio - it certainly is a textbook example of canvassing. -- SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

(undent)Since some opinions have been expressed, I might as well say I also consider it a blockable offence as well. I have to say even I am surprised at the specificity of Rosencomet's letter above concerning actions to be taken. I suspected as much but didn't have that info when I brought it here. I also see that Rosencomet's real world identity has (mostly) been redacted above. Since this info was already explicitly established as part of a public Arbcom case and is extremely pertinent to COI issues, I didn't see it as an issue of "outing" but perhaps my judgment is flawed in this case. In any event, I don't think I can block Rosencomet due to my lengthy and extensive interactions with him. If there is a general consensus for blocking him, someone else will have to push the button. Cheers, Pigman☿ 23:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

After viewing the input of editors so far, I feel that enough have expressed their opinions that what I did was a violation of the policies against canvassing. I must apologize for having done so. I can only say that I did not read it that way, and was unaware of the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/CAMERA lobbying case (though I've got to say that comparing that case to what I did is like comparing a war to an argument). I truly meant to encourage friends of mine that had expressed an interest in my stories about my work in Wikipedia (of which I am proud, despite my stumblings) to get involved and help improve and support articles about people and subjects important to the communities we share. I see that the way I went about it, and particularly my specific mention of articles nominated for deletion that I hoped would be kept (even though I specifically told the folks I contacted to review them and vote according to their own judgement), evidently crossed the line. Both articles have been deleted; ironically, Nicki Scully probably would have survived if not for my blundering.

I am contacting each person I sent my e-mail to and asking them to ignore it, telling them that what I did turned out to be a violation of Wikipedia policy, and that there is a case against me for having sent it out. I accept that I owe the Wikipedia community an apology, and offer one sincerely. I can only say that I felt that an undue number of articles I had created, mostly NOT related to my personal activities, were being tagged and/or nominated for deletion on notability issues, including several I thought were extremely notable, and I thought this was once again a campaign by an editor with a history of conflict with me to attack articles not because they were actually non-notable, but because I had written them. In the past, I have tried to ask arbitrators for help in such cases, and either gotten no response or, in some cases, been told that my editing was acceptable, but the editor(s) in question simply ignored the arbitrators. When I tried to get help from other editors, I was accused of canvassing. For the sake of fairness to the subjects of the articles, I had hoped that more eyes on the issue would be a help, and I have always wanted more involvement in Wikipedia by people from the communities these subjects are important to, so I thought sending out this e-mail was a good thing all around. However, I accept that my actions were improper, and I can only apologize, retract my e-mail from those I sent it to, and promise never to do it again.

Over the past many months, I have written many articles about individuals who are unrelated to the events I work on. I have created little or no new links to the ACE or Starwood pages, and no external links, though I have vigorously discussed the merits of deletions of existing mentions and wiki links on several talk pages and deletion nomination pages. In a very few cases, like Firesign Theatre, I followed up such a talk-page discussion with a revert of a deletion, but not more than one revert. An examination of my work since the arbitration last year will show that aside from talk pages and deletion pages, the vast majority of my work has been to either add to and improve articles (especially ones tagged or nominated) or to write new ones unconnected with my personal work. I can supply records of this if asked (and given time).

I can only hope that I will be allowed to continue to edit here. I truly believe I have been an asset to Wikipedia in the fields of my interests, and occasionally elsewhere. I have spent hundreds of hours just adding to bibliographies and discographies, finding citations and references, expanding and wikifying text, turning in-text notes and links into proper references, and other just plain work. I have never visited the articles of those I've had conflicts with and tagged them or treated them the way I saw myself treated; and I realize that articles don't belong to anyone, but I'm just saying that when I have had a problem it has been reactive, not proactive. I am not here to cause trouble or vandalize or disrupt, just to write and improve articles. With very few exceptions, I think my editing has improved a great deal over the last year. I sincerely hope I can continue to contribute, and I will seek to get a better understanding of Wikipedia policies. I hope I can get the help I need to operate appropriately and find the resources I need when an honest disagreement exists about good-faith edits, and I will refrain from ever violating canvassing policies either on or off Wikipedia. -- Rosencomet (talk) 17:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Recommended actions

By my reckoning, no one has defended User:Rosencomet's actions, four editors have clearly recommended a block, one editor has less clearly stated what Rosencomet did was "a textbook example of canvassing" without specifics of action and one edtitor's opinion seems unclear on actions to take. While Rosencomet's apology above is a consideration, I also note that here, Davidkevin says that Rosencomet's letter was posted to 4 Yahoo groups. This genie doesn't go back in the bottle that easily. This is not an isolated event and his actions over the past two years have generated a number of RfCs, mediations and an Arbcom case. My recommendation is a minimum three month block and if I had my druthers it would be for much longer or permanent. -- Pigman☿ 18:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Could you link to the arbcom case? -- Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 18:16, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Certainly. The evidence page is here. The main page is here. I'll save you the trouble of going through this rather lengthy and convoluted case and say the proposed remedy in relation to Rosencomet was the following: "Rosencomet is cautioned to avoid aggressive editing of articles when there is a question of conflict of interest. If edit warring or other conflict arises, it may be best to limit editing to talk pages." -- Pigman☿ 18:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Um, it's probably worth mentioning that I was the one who brought the case to Arbcom in the first place although you can see that many other people participated. Please also make a note of the Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Ekajati to be clear who was defending Rosencomet's actions in this case. -- Pigman☿ 18:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment I only sent the e-mail to a few friends. Only a half dozen received it, and none have expressed an intention of becoming editors. Unfortunately, one of my friends didn't understand that it was not meant for the general public, and HE forwarded it to the yahoo groups without my consent (and he has apologized), where Davidkevin read it. I have sent an e-mail to the people I originally contacted saying that my e-mail had violated wikipedia canvassing policies, and that I had apologized on wikipedia, and urging them to ignore the first e-mail. -- Rosencomet (talk) 19:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment having no one to advocate for me, I would repectfully point out that this case involves this e-mail and it's violation of wiki canvassing policies; at least, that's the only current evidence being considered. It has nothing to do with an Arbcom on activities that took place in 2006 during the first 4 months of my editing which doesn't mention canvassing once. Also, I had no knowledge of Ekajati's sockpuppets, nor were they the only editors in support of my position in the Arbcom or the two mediations that preceded it. Within days of my first edit, I found myself to be in the middle of a war between two people using an army of sockpuppets: Ekajati and Mattisse (see Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Mattisse. I didn't even know what the word meant. If you read the decisions, you'll see that it also said:

"Rosencomet was initially unaware of important Wikipedia policies and guidelines like reliable sources, verifiability, autobiography is discouraged, notability, and others.[14] He has made good faith attempts to understand policy [15] [16] and particpated in a MEDCAB mediation over the issue of links. His editing has improved significantly and his range of editing has broadened.

Passed 4 to 0, 16:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)"

Pigman's right about one thing; it was a convoluted case decided at the end of March 2007 that covered activities starting from August 2006, and I don't think it can or should be re-tried via a snapshot now. I don't think this decision should be about everything I have ever done or been accused of doing since becoming an editor, or whether Ekajati or Mattisse had more sock-puppets, nor should that Arbcom be selectively re-hashed by the one who brought it as part of this case.

I made a serious error in sending this e-mail out. There is no question of that. But unless some objective analysis of my editing since then is conducted, I don't think the Arbcom should be mixed in here. -- Rosencomet (talk) 20:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Your editing has always been borderline tendentious and tending to promote your own interests, so that at least has not changed. -- Guy (Help!) 21:01, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Disclaimer: I mediated (for a while) the case that wound up at the ArbCom case.

I think a block would be, at this point, needlessly punitive. Pigman is right -- the genie doesn't go back in the bottle. Blocking Rosencomet, for any length of time, is not going to undo the damage, both realized and potential, in this incident. But it's also not going to teach Rosencomet anything that he isn't already being told by a flood of editors -- myself included -- in varying degrees of detail and empathy. And since the incident in question is one that is off-wiki in nature, a block inherently cannot be seen as preventative.

An indefblock, as suggested by Pigman above, I think is grossly inappropriate, since Rosencomet does seem to actually want to do better. Does he fall (far) short of the mark at least some of the time? Obviously, as this incident evidences, yes. But his apparent desire to be a positive Wikipedian, no matter how misplaced his efforts, makes an indefblock inappropriate.

That renders any block levied at this point in the process, after the incident is by and large over, purely punitive. And I would like to remind all involved here that we don't do that here and we shouldn't do that here.

Here are my suggested constructive solutions which would both be in keeping with policy and would help Rosencomet grow as an editor:

1. topic ban, either for a defined length of time or until marked improvement is evidenced.
2. mandatory mentorship, either for a defined length of time or until marked improvement is evidenced.

I suggest specifically that these two be simultaneous.

I, of course, welcome comments on this proposal. -- Revolving Bugbear 21:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment: I need to make it clear (and I apologize for not having made it clear already) that I am only a member of two of the four YahooGroups to which the letter was posted, and that in the two in which I saw the letter it was in fact Oberon Zell-Ravenheart who re-posted it, not Rosencomet himself. It very well may be as Rosencomet says, that it was Oberon's idea to do the reposting, not Rosencomet's -- I've known Oberon personally for 36 years and he is both a man of immense good will and also occasionally a man of impulse. I have no doubt that he thought he was doing a good turn.

Even if it was originally addressed to specific individuals and not intended for group publication, however, the letter as it is written, seen out of the context of being part of a chain of correspondence, still thoroughly appears to be an attempt to "ballot-stuff" in an edit dispute, and inappropriate by the rules under which we all are supposed to work as Wiki-editors.

Having occasionally corresponded with him, and seen some of his interactions with other editors, I don't think Rosencomet had evil intent. It appears to have been a "doofus" kind of action, something of which I don't doubt we all have been guilty at one time or another in one context or another -- Goddess knows I certainly have, both here in Wikipedia and in plenty of other places, too.

I agree that banning is merely punative and only grossly instructive at best. I think, with no intention of being patronizing, that mentorship is a much better solution for Rosencomet -- if I had had such, perhaps I wouldn't have made as many mistakes as I did when I first took up here.

I don't think a topicblock is appropriate as there are subjects about which he is knowledgable, where he can greatly improve articles. Under active mentorship social errors such as this current situation can be avoided, and we all win.

I wish him nothing but well. -- Davidkevin (talk) 23:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I certainly have no objection to dropping to topic ban suggestion if there is agreement that Rosencomet can trim the things that have been getting him in trouble. My suggestion for a topic ban was more out of caution than anything else -- there are some people whose patience is running extremely thin, and it would be disastrous for a boneheaded but well-intentioned move to wrench an otherwise positive mentorship. But like I said, if it's not necessary, that is of course fine. - Revolving Bugbear 23:50, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

(Response to Revolving Bugbear's 21:32, 16 May 2008 post above which I took far too long to write.)

With all due respect, Revolving Bugbear, I think you are wrong. Yes, a punitive block/action is never appropriate. We do not block punitively; blocks are only to protect the project, not to punish. However. I know I also weigh the editor's history (if any and if I can) leading up to any incident. This is not Rosencomet's first incident of canvassing (see [17] from Dec. 2007). I also have concrete evidence that he sent a different email to 30 recipients (in Dec 2007, IIRC), again canvassing off-wiki for support. I can quote from that email if requested to do so but my source has requested confidentiality.

Over the many months of my interactions with Rosencomet, I have consistently provided him with polite help, links to appropriate policies and guidelines, explained situations when he was unclear about WP process or protocols, etc. I briefly explained how to provide a statement in the request for arbitration, an arbitration case I myself brought against his actions, particularly reminding him to keep it under 500 words because I was aware of his tendency to write at length. While certainly not a mentor to him, I've done my best to educate and tutor him in the mysterious ways of Wikipedia during our exchanges. While Rosencomet and I have often been in conflict and at odds over these months, I've always hoped he would eventually shed his ownership issues with articles and develop an understanding of WP:V and WP:RS as well as other policies.

Instead he has developed an ability to wikilawyer: to disregard policy, to ignore or creatively "reinterpret" well-established WP guidelines to serve his goals, to claim community consensus is actually a cabal organized against his work here. To put it plainly: He doesn't play well with others. That is not a blockable offense. But serial violation of the same policy, particularly when blocked for it the first time, is. Pigman☿ 00:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

You are right, Pigman, you were not a mentor to him. That's what he needs -- focused, exclusive, intense guidance. With all due respect to you, and without calling your actions into question at all, you can't really expect to be instructive to someone when you are in conflict with them. Rosencomet has expressed to me that he feels that "no one is in his corner". That may be a situation of his own making, but he realizes that he needs to change the way he does things in order to be accepted and productive. That can be shown to him, but not, to take your example, by a party to an ArbCom case essentially filed against him.

What are you trying to accomplish pushing for this block? Whether or not you think he's any good at it, he clearly shows a desire to improve and to understand, so this is definitely not an indefblockable offense. So what, exactly, will this block accomplish? There is no instructive or corrective merit to a block here. What good will it do, other than to satisfy a few users who are irritated? - Revolving Bugbear 12:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I take your point. At best, I've just been courteous and occasionally helpful to Rosencomet; this is not, in any imaginable way, equal to mentorship. I can, however, take issue with "he clearly shows a desire to improve and to understand." (my emphasis) I'd say he expresses a desire to improve right here, right now, on ANI, faced with a block. Is this a failure of WP:AGF on my part? Perhaps, but as I said above, I also look at his history and explanations in relation to the canvassing. He was brought up once here at ANI for doing it on-wiki. If that was the extent, I'd be more lenient. We now have two separate instances of canvassing off-wiki that we know of. Above in this thread, he tries to wikilawyer and split hairs about whether he was really canvassing. While the CAMERA incident isn't close in scale to his known canvassing violations, it is related.

As Guy mentioned above, Rosencomet has also been a tendentious editor during his 20+ months on WP. I believe this is related to the tactics he then uses (canvassing, for example.) I agree an indef block is extreme and not appropriate. My suggestion was three months because I see such canvassing as quite antithetical to consensus on WP. His record of policy violations on WP, which includes letting others use his account, has been remarkably consequence-free for him. When caught on one thing, he stops that thing but, lo and behold, he's caught on a different violation a few months later. This is my point: He games the system by playing at being the ignorant victim. What editor of 20 months and fairly extensive WP experience doesn't know such canvassing is a policy violation? After being warned once before, four months earlier? Pigman☿ 19:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Support block

I have experience of trying to work with Rosencomet. He may mean well, but in practice he wears out any and all opponents by attrition. He wore me out. As long and as copiously as he has edited here, he still seems unaware of, and uninterested in, the practice and culture of the place; the meatpuppet e-mail posted above is a good example of his methods, but far from the only one. I read with interest his post above, which sounds rather like this is the first time anybody's ever tried to explain basic policy to him: I hope I can get the help I need to operate appropriately and find the resources I need when an honest disagreement exists about good-faith edits. This elicits benevolent assumptions of good faith from many who have posted above. However, my experience of his editing techniques is not "an honest disagreement about good-faith edits," I wish it were. Instead it resembles that of Pigman: I've done my best to educate and tutor him in the mysterious ways of Wikipedia during our exchanges... Instead he has developed an ability to wikilawyer: to disregard policy, to ignore or creatively "reinterpret" well-established WP guidelines to serve his goals, to claim community consensus is actually a cabal organized against his work here.

I support Pigman's proposal for blocking Rosencomet for at least three months. Revolving Bugbear asks what good a block will do. At a minimum, it will free up the time and energies of good editors, which Rosencomet uses up. These people could and should be writing articles, rather than struggling to contain his tendentious editing. (Please read Pigman's post immediately above carefully.) Bishonen | talk 22:12, 17 May 2008 (UTC).

If you feel that saying he "expresses" a desire to improve is more appropriate, I will concede that point. However, the distress he has expressed to me seems rather genuine, and I'm inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt on that. Maybe he's struggling with some of the policies, maybe he really never got around to reading most of them (you'd be surprised), or maybe he really does think he can weasel his way around them ... in any case, I think a focused effort to make him aware and respectful of these things will show improvement. I could be wrong, but I think it's worth a shot. - Revolving Bugbear 22:18, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I support a block as well--and to my mind, the only course here is indef. In light of the fact that a) he previously was blocked for sharing an account and b) he's been warned before for canvassing, I'm of the mind that it's time to close the door. Blueboy96 22:23, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

--Support Block: Short list of Wikipedia attempts to educate Rosencoment--

Coflicts arose around the large number of articles associated with Rosencoment's Starwood Festival and his apparent control of other Wikipedia articles listed on the Starwood Festival and related pages. At one point, there were over 145 links from Wikipedia articles going to Starwood Festival commerical links selling CDs, tickets etc.. Rosencoment and those later found to be socks repeatedly replaced these commercial links when they were removed. There were also other problems such as WP:COI. Regarding attempts to reach an understanding with Rosencoment over policies and guidelines in editing on Wikipedia, please read a sample of energy of editors that has gone into such attempts:

• Starwood Festival Talk Page [18]
• Starwood Mediation 1 [19]
• Starwood Mediation 2 [20]
• Starwood arbitration (December 2006) request[21], Evidence [22], Workshop[23],Proposed decitions[24]

It was during the Arbitration that it was revealed that major supporters of Rosencomet at that time were Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Ekajati

If you want to see the scope of the number of articles that Rosencoment and supporting socks were WP:OWN at that time, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mattisse where many (but not all) of the articles covered by Starwood Festival are listed. –Mattisse (Talk) 00:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support block. Mattisse's links are quite illuminating, and I well recall my interactions with this editor... The purpose of the encyclopedia and that of Rosencomet are at odds with each other; Rosencomet views the project as a means to publicise his endeavours without regard to WP standards of impartiality or conflict of interest. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:25, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support indef-block. Rosencomet's actions, and the diffs provided by other editors, speak for themselves. I have also attempted to educate Rosencomet about policy, repeatedly, for almost two years now. I believe he simply does not care about the Wikipedia community, nor the quality of content on Wikipedia, and is only here to promote his own interests. His canvasssing e-mail of December offered suggestions to 30 peopl of how to game the system and subvert consensus. He was warned, briefly blocked for it, and now has done it again. What I have seen is that, when caught, he often expresses remorse and promises to change; then when people have moved on to other things and he feels he's not being watched, he returns to violating WP:COI, WP:RS and WP:V and lashing out at those who remind him of WP core policies. I do not believe he will change; I do not believe he wants to change. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 00:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support indef-block. The assumption of good faith gradually dwindles over time if the editor concerned keeps up the same behavior. It had seemed to me that he was mellowing out in January, 2008 around the time of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeff Rosenbaum (2nd nomination), but evidently this did not continue. We have to assume that people *know* when they are using Wikipedia as a vehicle for promotion of their business enterprises. Nobody should be surprised when such a thing is pointed out. EdJohnston (talk) 01:07, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

More from the Avril troll

As indicated in this section above, there was a threat of further trolling/vandalism/disruption from sleeper accounts. Perhaps the "resolved" tag on that section means it's not getting any attention, so I guess I'll start a new section. There have been more Avril questions, and our friend seems to be obsessed also with Summer Glau. Since individual accounts are being used, some editors believe that each questions should be treated in isolation. I myself have to think that if it walks like a duck . . . . Here are the contribs from Emac1, Pikecatcher, Lop Lop 7, Seven seven and eleven, Jellojolts, and table top dancer. There is also another Tor exit node being used. --LarryMac | Talk 20:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I recommend blocking [quack, quack], esp. the Tor node, based on the history of such things these accounts obviously are not here to build an encyclopedia. As an aside, what the hell started all this Avril Lavigne tomfoolery in the first place? Anyone want to enlighten me [if it's in the ANI archives, just tell me and I'll go search]. RichardΩ612 Ɣ |ɸ 20:12, May 15, 2008 (UTC)

Whoopee! They've moved on to the Entertainment ref desk and started asking questions about Shakira? 80.222.66.180 looks like another duck. RichardΩ612 Ɣ |ɸ 20:37, May 15, 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I don't see what all the fuss is about. If (he? she? it? they?) is going to be a nuisance, just use common sense on the Reference Desk when answering questions. A lot more energy is expended trying to track them down and ban them than is expended just ignoring their imbecilery. Ziggy Sawdust 20:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

My declaration that I would remove all of the trolling on sight got met with some rather harsh disagreement: [25]. Corvus cornix_talk 20:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Disagreement from an enabler is not something I'd worry about. And Ziggy, if you could magically make everybody ignore trolls, I'd give you a million dollars (or the currency of your choice). But people don't ignore trolls, they feed them. I'm giving up, nobody seems to really care all that much. --LarryMac | Talk 21:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

If it will make everyone shut up, I'll personally handle all Avril Lavigne-related questions on the Refdesk. Ziggy Sawdust 03:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Part of the fuss, of course, is that the disrupter is now attempting to "negotiate" for the right to disrupt. See User:Hot JJ's comments at Wikipedia talk:Reference desk#April Trolls in May. Personally, I'm for banning this user (and all of their aliases and socks as they are revealed).

Atlant (talk) 15:24, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

So if I read that thread right, you have a user who admits to having numerous socks and is admittedly trolling the reference desk, and is using a TOR node on top of that...tell me again why they haven't been blocked? Wildthing61476 (talk) 15:36, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

They have been. Reality check time: if someone has been having fun fucking with the reference desk, they aren't going to slow down or stop if we let them ask one question per day. I suppose, maybe, if I thought they would, I'd wait and see, but we all know they won't. This person is in it for the laughs, not the information. RBI. It's going to be a bother, but it's the only way. --barneca (talk) 15:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Time for a checkuser on all the identified accounts? At the very least, we'll be able to block a few more TOR nodes... --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 15:50, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I take it that if I come across any more of these I should report them to ANI. Or should I just contact an admin directly? RichardΩ612 Ɣ |ɸ 15:56, May 16, 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the last edit from Jellojolts, I'm of the opinion now block 'em all and let Jimbo sort 'em out. Wildthing61476 (talk) 15:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Prestidigitator looks like a target as well. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 16:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

And User:LLOTAAMI. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 16:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

User:LLOTAAMI blocked. I'm not too certain about Prestidigitator. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 16:21, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Jen17op looks dodgy. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 16:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Done. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 16:37, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion: When an account looks obvious, block. When an account looks questionable, remove any of their questions that seem trolling, and put something similar to this: User:Barneca/Sandboxen/Page2 on their user page, and block if they violate it. --barneca (talk) 16:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Questions cut and pasted verbatim from elsewhere on the web are a red flag. Still, I don't know if removing the questions when people have already started to provide answers is more or less disruptive than just leaving them up there... --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 17:04, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Added cut&paste to link above. And I'd agree, if someone starts answering, it's probably best to leave it alone. But surely the people who frequent the reference desk all know what's going on by now? Are a lot of these questions getting answers? --barneca (talk) 17:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I've had neither the time nor the inclination to check them all out - but it does look to me as though the ones he/they posted recently have had some replies. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 17:09, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Is User talk:Jellojolts blocked? There's no msg on the talk page but this is the one responsible for the recent mayhem on the desks. To answer the question: yes, most of the questions do get responses from good faith posters. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 17:29, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Huh. Well, if it's not overwhelming the reference desk (i.e. people seem to be answering everything, and legitimate questions aren't going unanswered), and people want to feed trolls, I'm not going to spend much time protecting them from themselves. --barneca (talk) 17:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah, meant to say, Kurt blocked Jellojolts an hour and a half ago. --barneca (talk) 17:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Can a non-admin check if someone's blocked? Zain Ebrahim (talk) 18:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure, just go to their contribs page and click on "Block log" under "User contributions" at the top. Deor (talk) 18:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

How about we unblock them and let them ask questions at my own subpage? Ziggy Sawdust 18:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I would agree with that, and I stop my disruption. What do you say? 84.29.75.114 (talk) 19:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Here's another: Vincebosma. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 19:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

This might be a bit harsh, but why would we enable someone who is deliberately trolling and disrupting the project? Wildthing61476 (talk) 19:21, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm unsure if this is anything to do with this, but for a few minutes back then the Science ref desk had some huge avril pics obscuring it. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

The vandalism to the Science ref desk was from User:84.29.75.114 (see above), a TOR exit node that's now blocked. In light of that, I think any users fitting the above pattern of trolling should be blocked. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:24, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec)It was the anon IP above (check his contribs). Apparently he's quite good at disrupting. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 19:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Here's another: User talk:Youlipo. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 19:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Bevwint - not 100% certain about this one. What are we looking for here (aside from when they were created and whether they've been OPs at the RD)? Zain Ebrahim (talk) 19:50, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Here's one more: User:Retlon chick. Okay, I'm tired now. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 20:01, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

One more: [26]. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 20:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Yup, all the trolls to User:Ziggy Sawdust/Avril pronto! Ziggy Sawdust 01:06, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Evrik

I direct your attention to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Epicaricacy‎ where users have come forward to admit that their participation was the result of off-wiki canvassing by Evrik (talk · contribs), who appears also to have solicited the support of a sockpuppet of his indef-blocked pal South Philly. It seems to me that some sort of sanctions against Evrik for his crude attempts to game the system are in order, but I leave that to you folks. What to do about the AfD, which appears to be irredeemably tainted, is a whole other question. Deor (talk) 16:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, I asked people to weigh in, but I did not ask anyone to vote in any way. I did not ask anyone to create sockpuppets, or meatpuppets, to participate. In fact I notified a couple of admins of South philly's sock puppets. Which I can document. I have tried my best to remove myself from this discussion and have in not participated in a couple of days. As for the AfD, I think it was done in bad faith. I'm going back on wikibreak. Thanks. --evrik ^(talk) 16:25, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

* I don't understand in what sense this AfD, which I filed, was in bad faith. I filed it May 12 at 15:19, and admittedly I am no expert at filing AfD. [27]. At that time, the article consisted purely of dictionary-type info and material lifted from schadenfreude [28]. On Talk:Epicaricacy at that time, three users besides me were arguing with Evrik that the word should re-direct to Schadenfreude. He gave flip answers, and reverted a re-direct all but him thought was agreed-to. On Evrik's own talk pages, which he has deleted since this notice was filed, he gave similarly flip answers to other editors who were asking him why he was changing links that used to go to Schadenfreude so that they went instead to the stub he was creating. Since I thought Evrik was ignoring consensus about his new article, I filed the AfD in the hope that a wider consensus would persuade him. I never before encountered Evrik on Wikipedia and had no personal reason to get into an argument with him. I noticed his actions after this edit to Internet troll, which is on my watchlist. [29]. At the time he made that edit, he had not yet created the article, so it was a red-letter link. I deleted the link [30], he created the article and reverted my delete. At this point I went to his talk page, found the upset messages from other users and his offhand answers, left a message saying he shouldn't link to non-existent articles. Rather than saying, "I have now created the article", he came to my talk page and left a message "How would you define non-existent?" [31] If an AfD was the wrong way to approach this problem, I apologize. It was done in good faith. betsythedevine (talk) 17:53, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Record of canvassing friends and/or sockpuppets

• Evrik has now deleted his recent user-talk, which would document his recent actions, and replaced his user page with a display of his barnstars (including one given to him by his suspected sockpuppet South Philly.
• Evrik was investigated for having South Philly as a sockpuppet. [32] It seems to me that the first investigator had pretty solid evidence the Evrik was in fact the same as South Philly, even though they used different computers, noting that over a 20 month period they never once overlapped their editing sessions, which seemed quite unlikely. But the second investigator, citing what a good contributor Evrik is, gave a tortuous explanation of why they might not be the same person, giving Evrik the benefit of the doubt as an established editor. His conclusion: "In the best-case scenario, it looks like Evrik drafted a friend to help revert-war with Boothy443, then this friend went on to do some editing independently, always staying loyal to his teacher in various disputes, big and small. "
• Evrik was also involved in a January, 2007 sockpuppet investigation for the same kind of apparent vote-stacking [33]. The suspected sock English_Subtitle returned to Wikipedia on May 12, after a 4 month absence, to take part in the epicaricacy AfD as well as other edits. w:Special:Contributions/English_Subtitle.
• It seems like more than a coincidence that of the 10 Keep votes for "epicaricacy", 6 were apparently from Philadelphia, based on information on their talk pages: Evrik, plus Sur_de_Filadelphia, Marketstel, Raider.adam, Eagleapex, and LBlanchard. After the topic of canvassing was introduced on the talk page, a 7th participant came forward to say that Evrik had recruited him. [34]. And so did an 8th person, who had not taken any part in the discussion. [35].

Now it is clear that Evrik is a hard-working and productive editor of Wikipedia. It is also clear to me that his past encounters with admin reproaches for edit-warring and vote-stacking have not made much impression. I would like to see the "good" Evrik continue to edit here but the "bad" Evrik has wasted a lot of other people's time over this already. betsythedevine (talk) 18:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

n.b. I had originally deleted User talk:Evrik/Archive 12 after a speedy deletion request, but Betsythedevine informed me that it was relevant to this ANI discussion. I've restored the page. Also, User talk:Evrik/Archive 11 doesn't appear in Evrik's archives. I'm noting this for purposes of the discussion; otherwise, I haven't checked out the case. (I'm more interested in checking out the IUCN database against lists of state parks and National Register properties at the moment.) --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 18:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

• FYI, I just added the link to my archive 11 for the discussion here. What evil thing did I do? --evrik ^(talk) 18:57, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Relevant material from Evrik's deleted talk pages

Thanks to Elkman for restoring this material, but in case it gets deleted again somehow I want to put the relevant parts here.

• From May 16 I just now became aware of the guideline on canvassing, and I think it makes good sense. In the future, if you want to discuss Wikipedia disputes with me, please contact me through my talk page, for the sake of transparency. ike9898 (talk) 13:50, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

• From May 9 :

Hi, I don't understand why you have altered many links for schadenfreude, which has an article, to Epicaricacy, which doesn't, and is a practically unknown word. Please would you explain this? Someone else has already reverted your edit in template:suffering, and I think the rest should likewise be reverted. - Fayenatic (talk) 20:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Fayenatic. Epicaricacy seems to exist only in lists of curious words, whereas schadenfreude is in everyday usage. I can't see any reason why Wikipedia should use the former. Can you explain? Otherwise, I am inclined to revert. Grafen (talk) 22:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I would tend to disagree. --evrik (talk) 16:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I came here to comment on your repeated addition of a link to the non-existent article "epicaricacy" to Internet troll. I see that you have made similar edits elsewhere. It isn't good Wikipedia practice to persist in edits that others question without giving some explanation of why your edit makes Wikipedia better. betsythedevine (talk) 17:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Non-existent? --evrik (talk) 17:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I made this comment based on the article's non-existence yesterday. I see that today you have created it. You still haven't explained why you think this article's existence (it used to re-direct to Schadenfreude) is a benefit to Wikipedia users. betsythedevine (talk) 18:04, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I assume good faith as Evrik is a solid editor here on Wiki and I have great respect for him. But I wanted to ask a similar question. Why wouldn't the term "schadenfreude" link to schadenfreude? --Midnightdreary (talk) 18:12, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

that was a mistake. --evrik (talk) 18:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I hope you can see from this (as well as from early discussion at epicaricacy) that before the AfD other editors tried to engage evrik in a respectful discussion of his actions but without success.

Added by betsythedevine (talk) 19:09, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I see that Evrik has now asserted (on what basis I don't know) that User:English Subtitle, another !voter in the AfD, is a sock of someone unnamed—though I assume that the section heading "SP" indicates "South Philly". I guess my question is, If Evrik was aware that socks were improperly supporting his position in the AfD (including double !voting), why didn't he divulge it in that discussion? Deor (talk) 19:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Wrap up

Here's what I think happened, and note I've been familiar with these users from way back. I think Evrik and South Philly know each other IRL. So, they talk to each other and support each other. I do not think they are socks. Then some falling out occurred, like maybe Evrik got tired of SP's socking, but could be all sorts of things. So Evrik reports on SP's socking. SP retaliates by reporting Evrik's canvassing. Now what I find really odd is these socks: English Subtitle, Stonewall Revisited, Amnesia grrl, 216.185.29.69 reporting themselves at SSP. I've indef'd the names and 3-month blocked the IP. See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/South Philly (3rd). That leaves Evrik. He's posted a "retired" note on his pages, but maybe he'll come back. So, I'll leave a note about the canvassing there. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that there's probably nothing else to be done at this time (though I pity the admin who chooses to close the AfD in question). I'd like to point out, however, that it was not any South Philly sock who reported Evrik's canvassing. It was other users who he canvassed—even though the canvassing was already fairly clear, albeit unprovable, from the evidence in the AfD itself. Deor (talk) 00:57, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I really am sorry that the outcome of all this has been for Evrik to "retire" but I hope it will be temporary. Nobody is claiming -- I certainly am not --that Evrik is wicked, but I do think he got carried away by his enthusiasm into doing a number of inappropriate things. I complained about the actions (so did others). My complaints weren't meant as a personal attack. Everybody, in Wikipedia or elsewhere, sometimes does stuff others think they shouldn't. I think that Evrik must be a very good person on the evidence that he has so many loyal friends, quite apart from the good work he has done in Wikipedia.

On a less friendly note, if Evrik's ally South Philly had defended Evrik by citing Wikipedia policy instead of insulting and wikistalking me, he could have helped to calm the discussion down instead of heating it up. I am sorry that my annoyance about what I saw as inappropriate tactics caused me to waste my time (and other people's) with excessive posting about these issues.

I am going to try to change the AfD to a Merge and Redirect, and I will make sure the ultimate Wikipedia article has a section mentioning "epicaricacy."betsythedevine (talk) 09:56, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, I still believe South Philly was Evrik's Bad Hand sock. I went over the logs during the linked investigation above, and remain convinced that two computers were involved, at either work and home locations, or home and cafe, etc. No overlaps, ever; long sessions on one computer, then logged out, then twenty minutes later the other would start up. Like clockwork. SP always turning up to attack whoever had disagreed with Evrik, often twenty minutes after Evrik's last edit, *never* online at the same time. The logs were pretty much statistically impossible for two users in the same time zone, imho. Even if by some bizarre confluence of events SP was actually a meatpuppet, Arbcom "has ruled that when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sock puppets, or several users acting as meatpuppets, they may be treated as one entity." - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 01:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Redvers failing to AGF

• Redvers (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

I wish to complain about this admin, who has twice openly criticised me groundlessly ([36] - the words "as usual" there are also unjustified - and [37]), offensively mentioning me by name when I was far from the only person in that position. When I complained to him about this, he posted a comment on my talkpage [38] in which he suggested that my comments supporting a block of another user (who violated WP:NPA numerous times, including telling another to "grow a brain" - naming no names) were becoming increasingly disruptive (how can expressing an opinion shared by numerous others be disruptive, but them expressing it isn't?!), and that I make attempts to throw petrol on the various fires that spring up.

He suggested that calling the incivil user "nasty" was a personal attack [39], and I was told that I was intentionally trying to create or prolong drama. I suggested that naming me in this when I wasn't the only one was harassment, and I was informed that I was going to be looking down the wrong end of an RfC. I'm not happy about this behaviour and seemingly I'm not the only one ([40], [41]).

BTW, I'm not giving {{ANI-notice}} to those involved because I imagine they're watching this page; if you think they need it then feel free to do so. Thanks. —TreasuryTag—t—c 16:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

His criticisms are not "groundless" in my view. Either way this is probably something that could be solved without escalating it to ANI. It's sorta ironic that your response to someone claiming you try to stir up drama is.. to create another drama-stirring thread on ANI. The best way to respond to his criticisms might be to ignore them, don'tcha think? naerii - talk 17:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Redvers has serious issues with maintaining neutrality in his dealings on AN/ANI. Don't make me laugh suggesting that Redvers would ever listen to a template warning, let alone to a courageous ignoring campaign. Redvers only ignores comments against Redvers. Your comment shows AN/I naivety in the extreme. The ironic thing is, if you get too 'Redvers' on Redvers, he does exactly what you recommend, he ignores you, despite the fact he most likely initiated the entire too and fro in the first place. MickMacNee (talk) 01:23, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

POV warrior needs inmediate blocking

88.8.106.89 (talk · contribs) is making POV removals, personal attacks and BLP violations (see here) and edit warring faster than they can be reverted and warned. Please block quick --Enric Naval (talk) 16:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

He seems to have stopped after a final warning --Enric Naval (talk) 16:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

The WHOIS report gives back TELEFONICA DE ESPANA which is probably a service provider. As with any anonymous IP addy, it's important to assume that it's not just a single user. Remember, if they start up again, don't just immediately report to WP:AIV. You'll have to start with lower warning levels. If the patterns are exactly the same, start with a level 2 warning. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 19:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Meh, he made a run of edits when I was not on the computer, so I could only give him 1 level 2 warning for 9 different POV edits :( He started making the same type of edits only six hours after getting a final warning. Please make another final warning, and the next time block him directly. The same IP has started editing again after a few hours, and all his new edits are POV removals on the same spanish nationalist topics. For example on a template on Africa topics where he has removed spanish territories on Africa[42][43] that had to be protected[44] Ceuta[45][46] and changes to make some plazas de soberania look lik actual national territories[47] (another spanish nationalist POV) --Enric Naval (talk) 09:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

User:ThegreatWakkorati

Resolved

 – Blocked, then indef blocked and talk page protected. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

• ThegreatWakkorati (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)

User breached BLP here (article was the subject of one of Sceptre's blanking a little while ago, so I think it best to keep it completely free of potential BLP problems). I explained why I reverted the user's edits. I was threatened, and the user has just reinstated the offending content, and proceded to attack me, explaining that they don't care about our sourcing/BLP policies. Requesting another admin look into this, as I am involved and haven't been completely clean myself (sarcasm in response to the threats). J Milburn (talk) 17:10, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I was just going to leave a stern warning, but looking at their talk page, they've had a consistent problem with this. I'm blocking for 24 hours, feel free to discuss with me on my talk page or here if you feel that's not appropriate. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 17:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. J Milburn (talk) 17:21, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec - decided to add anyways as a vote of confidence) I am not an admin, but if I had not decided to look at Thegreat's talk page to see what J Milburn had said in response, I would have reverted and given ThegreatWakkorati a {{subst:uw-npa4im}}. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 17:23, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

For reference, the incivility continued after my post- [48], [49]. J Milburn (talk) 17:29, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Hm. Abusing protection templates as well, wonderful. Not looking forward to that unblock request... Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 17:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Serious threats and personal attacks against myself and others on the user's talk page. Requesting another admin looks into this- again, I would rather not act because of a COI. J Milburn (talk) 22:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

<-Now, I want to kill him for reporting me and write an article about how he was mangled, why, and what he could have done to prevent it. Also, use the autopsy photos without proper premission.. Yeah, he needs to be permabanned and his Talk page protected. Corvus cornix_talk 22:10, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Barneca took care of it. I probably should have made the original block longer anyway, but oh well. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah, forgot to mention it here, I got pulled away from the 'puter for a bit. I gave him an out, to apologize after a week, but I get the distinct impression that won't happen. --barneca (talk) 22:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

systematic disparagement by Wikipedia Rational Skepticism

Members of a group identifying themselves as "Wikipedia Rational Skepticism Project" have targeted a number of articles, including "Energy Psychology" "Thought Field Therapy" and "Emotional Freedom Techniques" with specious rewrites of objective data. By definition skepticism in principle and practice, violates Wikipedia policies on NPOV as their revisions of entries are entirely biased with an agenda of debunking with no more claim to adequate expertise than active disbelief in a topic. Consistently entries from experienced sources with expertise on the subjects in question are deleted on the basis of NPOV and replaced with pejorative labels like "pseudoscience". A quick scan of the history of "Emotional Freedom Techniques" edits and comments gives ample evidence of these abuses.

The primary reference given by this group for justifying their skeptical comments is "The Skeptical Inquirer" a splinter group magazine with an agenda of promoting disparaging opinions via pejorative labeling. Attempts to elevate such publications to equal status with professional journals and authoritative writings by experts in a given field must be confronted as a thinly disguised campaign to use Wikipedia for commercial gain--specifically promotion of an organization actively soliciting members and selling subscriptions.

Wikipedia must have effective policing of abuses to the intent of providing unbiased content in order to remain a viable informational source for readers. I'm certain there are attempts from any number of splinter groups intent upon promoting and aggressively revising their favorite targets, whether they be anti-abortionist, political religious groups, skin heads, creationists, or in this case debunkers using the trappings of science terminology to attack specific targets. To allow such systematic and organized discrediting activities to continue unchallenged threatens the integrity of Wikipedia and risks turning it into the equivalent of a messageboard for highly politicized agendas. After all if The Skeptical Inquirer can be cited as an adequate authoritative source then anything Pat Robertson preaches, Rush Limbaugh spins, or political party eschews can be referenced to justify revising legitimate article entries.

I ask administrators to review the activities of this group and effectively prohibit their disparagement of legitimate on the basis that their agenda, as stated, is to deny readers access to information that they have targeted to actively disbelieve. After all, who cares what anyone else believes and disbelieves? Wikipedia is not a forum for voicing, let alone enforcing, personal opinion.

Greywolfin (talk) 17:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I haven't reviewed the contributions yet, but I do take issue with your assertion that "By definition skepticism in principle and practice, violates Wikipedia policies on NPOV". Per WP:WEIGHT, "Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them...But on such pages...the article should make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite majority-view content strictly from the perspective of the minority view." If a hypothesis is scientifically implausible and this implausibility is born out by empirical data, this needs to be mentioned in the article. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

As an update, I think this edit] displays a poor understanding of WP:NPOV on your part. WP:LEAD clearly states that a lead should "briefly describe its notable controversies", and I think User:Fyslee's summary of the experimental findings and the notable criticisms accurately reflects the later contents of the article. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

• I will also ask admins to monitor this group, and help them enforce WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NPOV against the legion of True Believers who ceaselessly strive to make our articles on these fictional or fringe subjects appear to be more than they are. Rational skepticism is as close to WP:NPOV as makes no odds in the matter of paranormal, fringe and pseudoscience subjects - extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, after all. I am reminded ot the tests applied in Kitzmiller v. Dover, which showed that ID is a faith-based idea, not science. Many of these subjects are part of a belief system that lacks objectively verifiable evidence, and are claimed to be true because the only "reliable" sources are the wholly uncritical ones which support them. Science does not publish papers in Nature on the subject of hokum still being hokum, of course we use the sources which specialise in investigating extraordinary claims, people like Randi and Clarke. Also, how many genuinely new editors find this noticeboard with their fourth edit? Greywolfin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has the appearance of coming from someone's hosiery drawer. Guy (Help!) 17:53, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Account created 5 June 2007,[50] first edit nearly a year later.[51] Such a pattern often causes me to say "hmmm..." Raymond Arritt (talk) 18:09, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Hmmm indeed. What else was happening around then? (wanders off to Arbcom archives) ETA June 2007 was right in the middle of the Paranormal Arbcom case. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:04, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks like that sock is a busted flush. Worth blocking? Guy (Help!) 22:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Ludvikus

Ludvikus (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Could some come review this user's situation? He has been blocked for a full two years (for what was called disruption), and now the situation is getting quite complicated. I think he would appreciate if someone would look over this mess. Please start here, and read to the end. There are allegations of email harrassment, claims of secret agendas, and accusations of neo-Nazism. I have been told this is the place to report such matters, and he can't do it himself. I think the whole thing needs to be reviewed. Thanks. Ostap 17:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh boy. This has already received input from El_C, jc37, jpgordon and Cobaltbluetony, all of whom the user has declared are involved. There's a summary of a section of the user's recent actions about 3/4 of the way down that talkpage from User:Huon which might be of use. My own interaction with him has come at Talk:Zion (disambiguation), which I believe independently confirms Huon's diagnosis. --Relata refero (disp.) 21:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Is this one of those situations where the admin community splits into those who agree with him (none thus far), and those whoa re involved, conflicted or in some other way not appropriate to review? Guy (Help!) 22:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

More like, it's exasperation over trying to deal with a very problematic user. The sole question is whether the two years is justified, according to the talk page. Let's take a look at the block log:

1. Blocked for 48 hours for disruptive editing.
2. Nine days later, blocked for 24 hours for personal attacks.
3. That block extended to one week for further personal attacks.
4. Two weeks later, blocked for six months as a "persistent troll"
5. Two months after that expires, 24 hours for disruption at AfD.
6. Five days after that, blocked for two months for General disruption, as discussed in multiple places. Last straw: Creation of abusive WP:BLP for WP:POINT purposes.
7. Now, five months after that block expired, he's blocked for two years for Disruptive editing: a re-occurring problem.

So, perhaps the community should be asked, is a two year block appropriate, or would a community ban be more appropriate? Or can perhaps this editor be educated? Maybe a mentorship would be appropriate here. The problems are manifold and complex; this is not an editor attempting to damage to Wikipedia, but rather is an editor who seems unable to work within the style and strictures Wikipedia expects and requires. The two year block seems to me to be an expression of frustration at the seeming intractability of this editor's issues. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 01:40, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

It is pivotal to note that the entire workload of dealing with thousands and thousands of words daily on talk pages (that try to reinvent the wheel without even bothering to glance as the basics or history) and low quality, mis-formatted edits, falls on a few pf us. Not to mention facing the consequences of bad faith and disruption when he doesn't get his way, or when he breaks one his promises. The point is that we cannot be expected to keep going like this (he still doesn't feel he's done anything wrong and that it's all one grand conspiracy — but I'm increasingly drawn to the less than good faith conclusion that this is a game for him, seeing how far he could take argumentation for its own). Either way, it's exhausting and Wikipedia is not therapy (see comment at the bottom of this and my latest one here). El_C 02:06, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• This sounds oddly familiar. We've had a similar (though decidedly not the same) sitatuion with an editor (User:Asgardian) which led to several RfCs, 3PO, and finally arbitration. Well-meaning user with "some" good edits, but who was causing problems due to block reversion, and poor (misdirective) edit summaries, among other things. What reminds me of this was the lengthy go-almost-nowhere double-talk talk page discussions. He too was treating this as a game (and admitted so at one point. I bring this up in the case any results of his arbitration may be useful to be applied here. Here's the link: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Asgardian-Tenebrae. - jc37 03:40, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

If I am reading that page right, the result was a year of editing restriction, not a two year block like Ludvikus got. I think a restriction is more appropriate in this situation. Ostap 04:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

He was placed on restrictions (a generous route in light of the sheer scope of the disruption), but failed to adhere to their terms. El_C 05:49, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I realize that, which is why he did deserve a block. But two full years? I would think a day or a week would have been more fit. Ostap 05:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not just that, obviously, but tendentious conduct elsewhere, too. He was already blocked for over 8 months last year. El_C 06:15, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I found his last two-month block pretty unfair also. Regardless, I truly think you should reconsider the length of this one, and give thought to the proposal brought foreward by Alex Bakharev. Ostap 06:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, well, you're supporting him rather consistently and uncritically, so it isn't a shock you would arrive to further conclusions that are favorable to him. I am opposed to it; I don't think Alex (or you) bothered looking into the matter closely. Not to mention that Ludvikus still maintains everyone else (many editors across many articles) is in the wrong and that he's 100 percent innocent and being persecuted. Same problems are just going to repeat. El_C 06:38, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

In light of his long history not only of tendentious editing, but also of trying to manipulate other editors, including myself, I would be in support of a community ban. —Ashanda (talk) 06:48, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• I certainly support a lengthy, perhaps indefinite block. Some editors above seem to support Ludvikus' POV, but support for his POV does not excuse the way he pursues it, which genuinely does appear to be highly disruptive. Past blocks and discussions show that Ludvikus is probably not actually capable of being less problematic, unfortunately. Guy (Help!) 09:25, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Sock of The Kohser needs blocking

Resolved

Thekohser (talk · contribs) outed Arise Sir Loin of Beef (talk · contribs) as a sock of his here. I blocked, but then Kohser pointed out a potential conflict of interest to me, so I've undone my block. Somebody with no such conflict should probably redo the block. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:09, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

• Since he is banned, there is no need to play his silly semantic games. All socks are supposed to be blocked, by any admin. Guy (Help!) 22:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Scientz and possible breach of WP:BLP

• Scientz (talk · contribs)

I recently noticed that User:Scientz has information on his user page which includes dates of birth and personal information about the private lives of people in his family, who are not in the public eye, and do not edit Wikipedia. I believe this breaches the guideline at WP:UP and the Biographies of living persons policy. (Specifically, "What may I not have on my user page?.... Personal information of other persons without their consent" and "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion, from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space.") I have removed the information twice, and been reverted by Scientz. I have explained my reasons to him, and asked that he remove the information, but he has refused. I would like further opinion on this but I have brought it up here because I think it is a serious breach of WP:BLP. --BelovedFreak 19:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

From his comments, he seems to believe that his user page actually belongs to him, which certainly is not true if one reads WP:UP. I'm not an administrator, so I can't take much action, and I'm not sure this is a blockable offense, at least not at the moment. You could always take this up at the WP:BLPN and gather more opinions on the matter. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 19:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, looking at the page, I see a gross violation of WP:UP. You could be bold and start a WP:MFD, but I'd recommend talking to others about it first. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 19:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Concur with BLP violation. Content removed again, user warned.  Sandstein  20:16, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I see the page has now been deleted. Thanks for your help.--BelovedFreak 13:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Multiple IPs doing same vandal edit on Tinley Park High School

I've been chasing this vandal edit [52] for the last couple of days. It's appeared several times, and from different IPs. I've only worked my way up to a level 3 warning on one of them, but it's time for stronger measures. DarkAudit (talk) 22:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

You should probably take it to WP:RFPP where someone will review whether page protection is appropriate or not. Sasquatch t|c 22:53, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Done. And responded to quite swiftly. Thanks to all. DarkAudit (talk) 23:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

User:LaraLove's controversial userbox

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

 Done Per WP:BOLD and my comments (way, way) below. This is a long, drawn out argument essentially over someone expressing that their feelings were hurt. No admin action needed. --InDeBiz1 Review me! / Talk to me! 21:59, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:LaraLove/Userbox/RacistOnlyOnWP
• User talk:LaraLove

The userbox can be seen at the top of Lara's user talk page. It was originally in template form as a subpage of hers, but Lara deleted the page during the MfD. When she did, the MfD was closed (a reasonable conclusion), but Lara then moved the non-transcluded box code to the top of her talk page. At the time I suggested (here) re-opening of the MfD to determine the appropriateness of the box despite it not being on its own page anymore, and the closing admin said that he was willing to reopen the discussion but wasn't sure if it was proper due to the actual page having been deleted. Depite my having voted keep at the discussion, I'm concerned that Lara's continued display of the box, following an MfD that suggests it was deleted, will cause problems. There was already this removal by another user. So I'm preemptively posting this issue here so that it can be sorted out hopefully prior to the inevitable conflict that will arise. Equazcion •✗/C • 22:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Is it time to reconsider LaraLove's admin status? Corvus cornix_talk 22:38, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

No. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely not. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 23:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

What? No. SQL^{Query me!} 07:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not sure if this is the way you guys should be talking to anyone with regards to their own page or talk page. As I understand it, it is our personal right to write what we want on our own pages so long as it is really factual and does not to any degree compromise on wikipedia's functionality or intergrity. Dare I say this but I see someone above saying something and almost immediately another becomes like a meat puppet. --Dave1185 (talk) 22:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

• You don't own your userpage. Yes, for the sake of courtesy and precedent, people shouldn't edit your userspace trivially, but if there is a legitimate cause, then anyone can do so. People thought the userbox was trying to be flame bait and a little too divisive, and thus they can raise issues on it. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 22:51, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

• If that be the case, mind telling this User:White_aasian guy to stop adding so many tags to his page? --Dave1185 (talk) 23:21, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

• • Uh, what? Are you really saying that you think I'm a meatpuppet of Equazcion? Anybody who agrees with somebody else must be a meatpuppet? I have had no dealings with LaraLove, I'm only concerned with her political positions and her incivility with the inclusion of this userbox. Corvus cornix_talk 22:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, I thought you behaved like one when you utter those words and I quote you: "Is it time to reconsider LaraLove's admin status?", it is almost as if you were trolling for fire. Kapish? --Dave1185 (talk) 23:21, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

• Ah, I see. If anyone agrees with anyone else about anything, they're a meat puppet? Corvus cornix_talk 23:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

• I seriously doubt about your ability to visualise things. Was that really necessary of you to add the line above after agreeing on something? But you did not state so. Hence, your behaviour fits the profile of a meat puppet and a troll. --Dave1185 (talk) 23:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

• Above read and ignored. Corvus cornix_talk 23:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

• Striked! Btw, I really admire your guts to keep defending the indefensible. --Dave1185 (talk) 23:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

• Un"striked". Leave it alone. Corvus cornix_talk 01:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't care about the userbox, but about its message. This also goes beyond having admin tools. Frankly, I would not choose to associate with anyone professing a legitimate distinction between "white pride" and "white supremacy." I would suggest this be taken to RFC, as its going to turn into a firestorm. Amerique^dialectics 22:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Could we perhaps just comment on content? Such as developing a consensus to ask Lara to remove the MfD'd box? Unless there are diffs suggesting that Lara was adding non-NPOV content somewhere, her beliefs (and peoples' perception of them) are probably not what we should focus on. --Bfigura ^(talk) 23:00, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Let's not make this a continuation of the unpleasantness that led to the creation of the userbox in the first place... I'm already regretting posting this incident. My intention in bringing this here was to determine if the MfD should be re-opened to discuss the userbox, despite it not residing on its own page anymore. There's no need to argue about racism here. Equazcion •✗/C • 23:00, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Lara's obviously been a bit pissed off and stressed out over the past few days. I'm sure that once she's calmed down and moved on a bit she'll remove it herself. What we don't need right now is yet more calls for people's admin bits to be removed on ANI and threads that are only going to upset already stressed users further. Can we just let it rest for a few days? I'm sure the userbox isn't hurting anyone. 86.137.221.99 (talk) 23:00, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Uh, that was me. naerii - talk 23:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Pissed and stressed are really irrelevant in this case -- unless you want to argue that in creating those user-boxes she was non compis mentis. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 23:16, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

That's a rather offensive userbox, but let's give LL time to voice her side...... Dendodge .. Talk^Help 23:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

She already has, see the MfD, and also see my comment there. This really isn't going as I had planned... I was just trying to get the MfD re-opened, but instead this is turning into a painful rehash of past events. Does anyone want to actually comment on whether or not the MfD warrants reopening? Equazcion •✗/C • 23:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I am going to say yes - moving it from template to where it is now didnt change to controversial contents. Viridae^Talk 23:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Reopen to remove offal. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 23:31, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Leave it alone. We have an encyclopedia to write. Let the drama die. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Whatever minimal disruption was caused by the userbox in question is being outweighed by the cries for blood here and elsewhere (of which, of course, not all opposing parties are guilty). Lara's obviously been stressed out about recently, and the absolute worst way go about resolving things is to start a large discussion on a centralized noticeboard with her in the spotlight. I think the point has been made that some people consider the userbox to be in poor taste, but there is some point where their pursuit of the matter becomes disproportionate to the offenses presented and devolves into insensitiveness and attempts to cause distress to an already fragile person who is feeling harassed - all when the short-term substance of the complaint is actually very little.

The Wiki did not end over userboxes in 2006, and will not end over a single one now. Can we please avoid such a discussion for now and try to squash this through calmer, less high-profile channels? east.718 at 23:37, May 16, 2008

• Quite right, this really is the proverbial storm in a teacup. Such a lot of attention over so very little. Just leave it be, move along, really there is nothing to see here. Polly (Parrot) 00:29, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

The issue of this userbox needs to be resolved. It was 6 to 3 in favor of delete when the MFD was archived. It's obviously inappropriate to a large number of people. Yet when Jim62sch tries to remove it, he gets reverted. We need to come to some sort of conclusion about the userbox/code/whatever to call it. I'm very sorry that Lara is in a fragile state right now. But she put up a pair of very inflammatory userboxes, intentionally, knowing full well the consequences of her actions. Her fragile emotional state is no excuse for the inappropriateness of the boxes. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 00:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

To clarify, this can be done here, or by reopening the MFD and continuing it, either way. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 00:33, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Swat, I really think you ought to back off on this issue, please. Whether unintentionally or otherwise, you're not going to help resolve this situation by continuing to post on this situation. SirFozzie (talk) 00:37, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Back off the issue? Did I start the issue? No. Was I one of the first 10 posts on the issue? No. However, I'm the target of the userbox. It's inappropriate, and I intend to back off as soon as it's gone. Lara's completely inappropriate behavior is not my fault, and instead of saying "Oh no Swat, how about you just sit there and take it when emotionally unstable people make inappropriate userboxes targeted at you", perhaps she ought to simply take responsibility for her own behavior, and not do it in the first place. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 00:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

The encyclopedia isn't going to die if she has it on her page for a bit longer. We aren't going to diffuse this situation by edit warring over her user page. Leave it for a bit. Ignore it. Continuing against it will just inflame the situation. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 00:56, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

And we aren't going to diffuse anything by burying our heads in the sand and doing nothing. And I have no idea what you're talking about edit warring. Nobody is edit warring. I certainly haven't touched it. Only one person did, and he was reverted, once, which brought about this AN/I thread. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 01:02, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Take it easy, I'm not accusing anyone edit warring. I'm saying don't do so by removing it again (not addressed specifically at you, by the way; but at anyone who reads it). Waiting it out is not "burying one's head in the sand; it's giving someone time to cool off and think better of what they've done. Do you have a better solution? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 01:07, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

(to SwatJester) I think the concern was that LaraLove's position - as stated in this userbox - is a direct result to a comment you made at WP:RFAR. For good or ill, your remark agitated a response from Lara. I would submit that your point and position is quite clear on this matter, so further comments might enflame the situation without adding further information to the debate, or without bringing us any closer to a resolution. I also note, with some concern, that no one actually said "Hey Lara, could you consider rephrasing that userbox?" UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 01:16, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

SwatJester was standing firm against racism. That is noble. LaraLove's response was not. LL's comparing White Power to Black Power and that it is much less horrible than White Supremacists/Nationalist/Neo-Nazis was disingenuous and incorrect. Her creating this userbox is intentionally exacerbating the situation. Support of racism, either implicitly or explicitly, should be eliminated. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:41, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

No, Swatjester was violating our [WP:NPA|policies by personally attacking other editors]], and probably should have been blocked for his statements. He needs to get out of the situation, because his involvement is definitely part of the problem, and his continued involvement is going to continue making things worse. GRBerry 01:50, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

That's mostly what I was getting at - Even if SWATjester had/has a point, a point on which I stand mute, it's getting lost in the ZOMG Drama. I honestly think that no real discussion is possible until things calm down, and that's the point I tried to make. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 02:00, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Aaaaaaand we're getting off track again, back to the main point which is the appropriateness of the userboxes and what to do about them and/or the MFD. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 02:18, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

It says someplace that Wikipedia is Not Censored. Except by administrators. And in general by any small group that decides to dislike some aspect of some other editor's talk page and claim that they are offended. (Whether they actually are or not is immaterial and not questioned; indeed, it would be offensive to ask whether someone who claims offence is truely offended or merely trolling).

Why not simply desysop all of the administrators and give all editors including IPs the right to block any other editor whom they disagree with? The number of admins is vanishingly small compared to the number of editors; eliminating them should have little effect on Wikipedia. Loren.wilton (talk) 02:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

In my view, there's no possible reason why one should be proud to be white. It's just a physical attribute; nothing to be ashamed or proud of. El_C 02:57, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Some people are proud to be alive. Often they think they have reasons for that pride. Is it only white people that aren't supposed to be allowed to have pride in their existance, or does this require eliminating the Black Pride article too?

Personally I think people should Get A Life and not bitch about the fact that their neighbor found something harmless to be proud of. After all, the neighbor might not be Catholic, and it might not be a sin for them. Loren.wilton (talk) 03:06, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Far from harmless, white pride encourages racial supremacy and separatism (even though race is a mere construct and need not divide humans from one another). Blacks and catholics [etc.] historically faced massive persecution, unlike whites as group. El_C 03:33, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm as picky about racial sensitivity as the next person, but I don't think a Wikipedia userbox "encourages" anything at all. Perhaps this is me being naive, but I would hope that our editors have enough common sense and/or the ability to think for themselves that they do not let a small graphic on a Wikipedia user page influence how they view the world. Do I agree with this specific UBX? Most certainly not, but I respect the user's right under the United States Constitution to display it, as covered by the 1st Amendment. Now, should it progress to a blatant promotion of racism, I might have a different view of things. Best regards, --InDeBiz1 Review me! / Talk to me! 03:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

As an aside, users don't have a 1st Amendment right on Wikipedia. The 1st Amendment applies to state action, not private organizations like Wikipedia, which is free to censor whatever it sees fit. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 04:18, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I actually was talking about white pride as a concept (in general), not about the userbox (sorry if that was not made clear). El_C 03:49, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Ahhhh, gotcha. My apologies. --InDeBiz1 Review me! / Talk to me! 03:51, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

No problem, I can see how it can be confusing. I supplanted "it" (which was mistaken for the ubx) with white pride. El_C 03:57, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Aaaaaand we're off the topic again of the inappropriateness of the userboxes on the talk page. Can we deal with that? ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 03:07, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure. It is worse for you to be discussing this issue than for that box to be on her talk page. Since you see fit to discuss this, I conclude that the box should remain. Heck, I might copy it too if you keep this up. GRBerry 03:12, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that would really decrease the drama. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:19, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I've spent the past 15 minutes trying to figure out what any of you are talking about any why it is an issue. The passing editor does not give a crap. Switzpaw (talk) 03:47, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Both userboxes cast Wikipedia in disrepute. The first one says "only on Wikipedia" (when, in fact, the ADL and SPLC both consider "white pride" to be racist). Admins are held to a higher standard than average editors, so this is inappropriate. On the other hand, maybe it's a useful warning to other editors - after all, "I am not a crook" worked so well in the past. The latter userbox claims that "Wikipedia approves this message"; displayed on a page of someone who announced that they are a Wikipedia admin is unacceptably misleading, and once again casts the project into disrepute. In addition, of course, it was Lara herself who labelled the_undertow (and herself) as supporters of an organisation considered by the ADL and SPLC to be racist. If she labelled him (and herself) as adherents to a philosophy that is described as racist by reliable sources, she has no right to somehow cast the project into disrepute. Userboxes attacking the project are an inappropriate use of Foundation resources. Admins are held at a higher standard than the average editor. Displaying such userboxes is unacceptable. Guettarda (talk) 04:19, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• Lordy, lordy, we just can't let the drama die here. Now I remember why I quit frequenting this noticeboard. Hmm, those were good times... Guess I'll go back to that. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:07, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, either way it looks like they've been removed. Probably a good thing since she purports to speak for Wikipedia...which of course she can't. User space usage has a fair amount of freedom but it ends when you make these kinds of statements on behalf of Wikipedia. RxS (talk) 05:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Mmm, the savory flavor if tit-for-tat Wikidrama. Let's see. SWATJester goes after Undertow for being a bigot, then finds other reasons to throw Undertow under the bus. Lara gets upset, and points out the problems with this situation that she sees, including attacking the man, not the edits. SWATJester and others get upset that Lara builds a Userbox shining a spotlight on them. They delete it in a tiny tiny XfD, based on the 'not the purpose of template space'. She builds it inside her User Talk. They riot on moral grounds 'White pride = White power, how offensive, remove, delete, block, untool'. If their actions in going after Undertow were so perfectly right and can withstand any scrutiny, then they shouldn't care, and can ignore her. If, however, they realize their actions are open to debate, then they are right to be defensive and want to hide their shames. Leave the UB, and like others here, I'm tempted to put it on my page too. SWAT is actually in the wrong here, as is Equaczion, who said 'this isn't going as planned' (did he expect an avalanche of 'bad lara!'???). I'm with GBerry and others, this is a stupid waste of resources and time in the name of Wikidrama (tm). ThuranX (talk) 05:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I already wrote a lengthy post at the Adimins Noticeboard and it was soon archived. Now I am going to write what I feel now. I personally feel that the userbox is acceptable. The aim of Wikipedia is to improve the encyclopedia. The comment about Undertow being racist had nothing to do with the matter at hand. Being racist, even if Undertow is or is not, does not hurt wikipedia. And the comment did not help the discussion. Lara Love took it personal, as with many others who have worked with and/or befriended Undertow. You can look through ALL of Undertow's contributions and find nothing about his supposed being racist hurting Wikipedia. The comment that was posted was one's personal interpretation on something that Undertow had posted somewhere (I can't see the deleted edit as I am not an admin). When the Administrator's Noticeboard thread was posted, people argued wheter white pride and white supremacy were the same thing. The thing is, IT DOESN'T MATTER. The user had done nothing wrong by Wikipedia standards, except for the incident in which he unblocked a user, and possibly shouldn't have. The purpose of the discussion on whether Undertow should be de-sysopped or not was about the incident and whether it was warranted or not. It was not about the personal views of Undertow.

Lara Love was appalled, as were many others, including me, about the discussion of whether White Pride v. White Supremacy. She did not agree with it and made a userbox explaining her views. It is pointed to the controversial comment, and she is stating her opinion on it. Wikipedia is not here to judge the views of a user, it is here to build an encyclopedia. And that is what I feel many people are failing to see. <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 05:26, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with both of you generally, it's the "Wikipedia approves this message" part that needs to go. Otherwise I don't think it rises to a level where it deserves this much discussion. The rest of the content is a little pointy but there's worse in other userspace. RxS (talk) 05:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

(ri) Many months ago there was the infamous "polemical" debate about my user page because I was listing the number of US, UK and Coalition troops KIA and WIA in Iraq. Noting the sacrifice in Iraq was bad, but Lara creating userboxes that clearly violate WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL and WP:POINT is good and we should all just let it die, decrease the drama, have a pity party or LaraLovathon or whatever, right? Ah, but then, nobody is reading Wikipedia:Userbox#Content_restrictions, eh? If they did, her user boxes would have been dumped as fast as guano goes through a goose (and no, her ub's do not qualify under the "occasional exception" criterion. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 14:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

But you were making general social commentary, whereas LaraLove is commenting on Wikipedia policies and her stances on them, making interacting with her regarding WP issues easier. General social commentary is bad; commenting on Wikipolicy makes interactiosn easier, just like being a known inclusionist or deletionist helps. ThuranX (talk) 15:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you have it the wrong way round. General social commentary is normal. What Lara did was create userboxes that attacked other editors, while making false claims about Wikipedia policy. She created userboxes which were meant specifically to create drama, but which had the potential effect of casting the project into disrepute. (If you read WikiEn-L, you will see, that journalists managed to misinterpret things as innocent as the meaning of "Good Articles". Having an "administrator" make "official" claims about Wikipedia is a huge risk.) Guettarda (talk) 16:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

THuranX, Guettarda is correct. creating anything that clearly be construed as WP policy is bad. Really. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 20:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Need of 3rd Party - Userboxes During the Discussion

I need to get some more opinions on this. The userboxes that were/are on LaraLove's page are both being reverted. I reinserted them twice [53][54]. And they were reverted twice [55][56], both stating they were deleted via MFD. However one of the MFD's is closed and archived, stating that it was deleted by the editor, and the second is still open. Neither discussion carrie(d)(s) a cosensus on whether they should be deleted, and neither does this thread as it is still open. Should they remain on the page as the discussion is carried here or should they be removed? <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 06:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Leave them removed until this thread has been archived and the community has made a definitive statement on what is acceptable and what is not. Depending on the outcome, I'll edit them appropriately or send them into oblivion forever. Lara❤Love 06:50, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

The consensus is now overwhelmingly clear at MFD that the userboxes are inappropriate. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 17:30, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

You think? I'm not happy at all, i tried to avoid having it closed too soon without any consensus or any acceptable compromise (rewrite it to something less inflammatory for example) but it was closed anyway. It seems users can't have opinion/belief-userbox'es and it could be now appropriate to discuss on WP if the userboxes should go (as FeloniousMonk has pointed, Wikipedia is not a social networking site) and most of them do not meet Wikipedia:USERBOX anyway (clearly divisive and discriminatory). We are drawing a line right now, and it should be applicable elsewhere too, and not only on witch hunting season Iunaw 20:12, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Reply from Lara

I want to first apologize to everyone for the language and outbursts from me the past couple of days. It's been a rough week and all this went down on my days off, so there was no forced break from the drama. Having been at work for the evening, I am now, even after reading through all this, calm. This is going to be long (shout out to FT2 <3), but it all needs to be said. I'll state my views, for the record, and then bring the discussion back on track and clarify my reasoning for everything.

I would go pull quotes, but quite enough time has been wasted on this already. So I just ask that SWATjester's comments in the above thread be taken and applied to himself. I'm not sure who posted the message that is currently above what I'm typing, tho I'm sure I'll EC and it will be someone else at that point, but there is no sig, however it ends with "Wikidrama (tm)." They pretty much summed it up. SWATjester used an edit where the_undertow eulogized his Latino friend to refer to him as a white supremacist. This was shocking to many. He was asked to strike it by me and others and he not only refused, but he added another paragraph with another link (I believe) to the Arbitration case. I opened the ANI thread and pointed out, using many diffs, that the_undertow is not a supremacist. Regardless of what white pride means where ever you live is irrelevant. People are racist by their beliefs, not depending on what your opinion of the title they chose to identify as. Plain and simple, pride != supremacy.

Guettarda stated above that I'm a member of a white pride organization. I never claimed that, and I'm not. I would never be accepted into one, because I'm not a racist. I have friends of various races, which would prevent me such membership, not that I would ever want such a membership. The fact that racist organizations use "white pride" to cover their supremacy does not make all who identify as white pride racist. Our own article reads, "a slogan used ... to promote the heritage of persons of white European racial identity." Whether or not you agree that those of white European heritage have a right to be proud, there are people who do. And while I don't dispute racists use the term to mask their supremacy, it is not, or rather should not, be acceptable to label those who are not racist in their beliefs simply because they identify as a term abused by racists. OrangeMarlin referred to me as defending White power. Whether this was a mistake or an intentional attempt to skew others' view of the situation, I would never attempt to defend white power. My beliefs in no way put me above any other race. I am proud to be a female. Proud to be a mother. But that makes no claims on my feelings about men... I love me some mens ;). I am proud to be white. But that makes no claims on my feelings about any other race. I love all my friends, and I have friends of many races. MessedRocker stated in IRC to me that such an explanation is cliche. I really didn't have a response and I don't care to even have it clarified. Supremacists do not, as far as is my perception, befriend those of other races. So it's seems a valid defense to me. Regardless, this is not even something I normally talk about. It's not something I display or proclaim. It's something I feel and generally keep to myself, because it's not a thing. However, I told SWATjester this in IRC because he was saying I didn't understand what white pride was, so I shouldn't be defending t_u, or something like that. I told him so that he'd see it was coming from someone with similar beliefs. He brought it on here to sidetrack the discussion at hand. That being his inappropriate comments.

The fact that SWATjester is taking these boxes as personal attacks on him is ironic, to say the least. First of all, they're not directed toward him specifically. Rather him and everyone who supported his statements. SWAT wrote: He's just another angry, out of control, white supremacist. Desysop him now please... And later added I stand by my statement. The undertow's extensive history editing favorably on Stormfront and other white supremacy related articles, supports my contention.[57] This was met by calls for SWAT's tools by Neil and dihydrogen monoxide.[58] He was also asked on his talk page and on the Arbitration page to remove his comment. This was after the first, he later refused to remove it and added the second.

I told him in IRC I was taking it to AN. You'll note he posted his reply three minutes, I believe it was, after my post. He didn't even read it. I posted links, many diffs, throughout my posts on that thread detailing the situation that lead to the editing of the race articles. It showed NPOV editing and an attempt to bring consistency to all race articles. There was no white-washing. These diffs were ignored. The community endorsed SWATjester's statements. I was, and continue to be, blown away. That is why I created the userboxes. It wasn't to call SWAT out or be a bitch. It was to force the community to go beyond ignoring the actions and letting them slide, to officially endorsing them. As long as his statements remain unretracted, I consider that a community endorsement that such unsubstantiated attacks are acceptable and, by what has happened over these userboxes, just as I had expected, that those on the receiving end of such attacks are not allowed to voice their disgust. Rather the attacker is supported as the victim.

SWATjester labeled the_undertow a white supremacist based on an edit he misinterpreted. He then supported it based solely on the articles t_u edited, obviously without doing any research on the edits whatsoever. This mislabel was accepted by the community. The community has made a dangerous statement with this endorsement. It has given free reign for administrators to label editors based on the articles they edit, despite the constructive, NPOV manner in which they do it. That sets a nasty precedence that serves only to damage the encyclopedia. It's extremely important, in my view, that articles on taboo topics be NPOV. When editors do not want to involve themselves in such articles for fear of being labeled something they are not, then a disservice has been done. If SWATjester and those who support his statements stand by them the way they say they do, then they should not feel attacked by my userboxes. the_undertow and I have been mislabeled as racists. If those comments stand unretracted, I have every right to display my disgust. We have been personally attacked. SWATjester claiming my userboxes pointing out that discussion are a personal attack on him... I think that says a lot about his confidence in his claims. My userboxes are factual. I'm labeled a racist here. No one that knows me IRL labels me as such. I am not a racist, I just play one on TV Wikipedia. Neg. My userboxes:

How reliable is Wikipedia?
Not very.
This user is a racist by Wikipedia standards, though not by beliefs.
Thank God it's only the Internet.

IGNORANCE
If it's your misconception,
it's your right to mislabel others to damage their reputation.
Wikipedia approves this message.

These are both statements of fact. The community has set a standard, as I detailed above. And it's a fact, as shown in that thread, that there is a staggering number of editors in this community that disregard what one's beliefs are and categorize them by a misconception. If I were racist, I wouldn't proclaim it just to deny it. It's a misconception that all those who identify as white pride are racist. Period. It's sort of like my RFA, where I was opposed for being an ageist. I provided diffs of me supporting the RFAs of very young editors, including a couple of my opposers... and they still opposed me as being an ageist. When you're given evidence that your perception is wrong and you continue to stand by it, that's willful ignorance. My userboxes are fact. And as long as the community sees fit to allow SWATjester's comments to stand, I should be allowed to display my userboxes in disgust with that standard.

That said, I won't debate further on my view of the differences between white pride and white power/supremacy/nationalism. If you disagree with me and view them as the same, go merge the articles. Because as it currently stands, by our own references, they are different. And when an encyclopedia disregards it's own content, there's a greater issue at hand. Therefore, any such debate should take place on article talk pages. I've clearly spelled out my beliefs. If anyone chooses to continue to view me (or the_undertow) as a racist, then that's on you. I care not. As you prefer to not associate with racists, I prefer not to associate with people so ignorant as to label me as one. Lara❤Love 06:47, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Nothing I said was offtopic. The misconception is ignoring the crypto-nature of white pride. And you do not get to monopolize the debate. El_C 09:03, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Which means that a great many of us strongly feel that white pride is a crypto-racist belief and we will not be intimidated over that stance. El_C 09:10, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• Lara, take off the Spider-Man suit and come down from the Reichstag. Your userboxes make personal comments about another Wikipedian, and that needs to go (your userpage does not currently have them, I think). Sure, you disagree with him. We know that. We don't make userboxes saying "user foo is an ass" and I think you know that. The subject of white pride and racism generally is incredibly sensitive, inspires very strong feelings, and is inherently prone to misunderstanding and misconstruction. Further escalation is not wise. Guy (Help!) 09:09, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

So, if calling others racist is a no no, can we get a similar injuction against SWATJester? sauce for the Goose must be sauce for the Gander in this case. ThuranX (talk) 15:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, LaraLove, that was me with the 'Wikidrama (tm). I missed a tilde in my sig. ThuranX (talk) 15:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Similar "injuction"? Sure. Just like you, SWAT should not be creating attacking userboxes, and should not be creating userboxes which make false claims of endorsement by Wikipedia. Just like everyone on the project.

Where are these userboxes of his? Or are you just using a hypothetical to take another "swat" at him? Guettarda (talk) 15:55, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

SWATJester should redact his comments about The Undertow, if Lara has to redact hers. Hypocrisy makes the project look worse than blunt free speech. ThuranX (talk) 20:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually what should happen is that everyone should take a very deep breath and review what they themselves did to make this happen. Lara acknowledges that she is upset for personal reasons, and lacks objectivity as a result. Everybody should acknowledge that there is a fine line (if any line at all) between white pride and overt racism, and that such opinions are considered grossly offensive by a sizeable proportion of the population, so should take very great care to avoid the appearance of advocating such opinions, or accusing others of same without good evidence. Nobody can unsay what has been said, it's fatuous to try. Wikipedia allows diffs to be cherry picked from the very end of a long-escalating debate and used to portray people as extremists when actually they have merely taken part in an escalating argument. Clarify, talk at length, and come to an understanding. Do not demand retractions and apologies, state instead that you are upset and ask the other party to explain themselves in more detail, rather than simply assuming the worst. Is SWATjester here for the purpose of attacking people? Of course not, nobody thinks that, he's here for the encyclopaedia. Is Lara here to cause drama and make trouble? Absurd, Lara is here for the encyclopaedia. So why the fight? Because Lara is taking things personally, and because SWATjester stated things in perhaps more forceful terms than he should. This is perfectly fixable, provided the peanut gallery shut up and discussion is left to people who are genuinely interested in helping the two to reach an accommodation. Guy (Help!) 21:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Let me clarify. If the community allows SWATjester's comments to stand, my userboxes go back up. They are not directed at him, as I already stated. If I have to reword, or update the link, to make that clear, I will. They are directed at him and EVERYONE that supports his inaccurate statements, and defends his right to say them while stifling my same right. Too many people are missing the point. This isn't an attack on him (he attacked the_undertow and then me). In this action, the community has to make a decision. Is it okay for administrators to mislabel editors as racist based on the articles they edit and against all evidence? Right now the answer is Yes. And it's a yes topped off with a standard that the mislabeled editor has no right to fight back.

So there ya go. Answer the question. Is it okay for administrators to mislabel editors as racist based on the articles they edit and against all evidence? Lara❤Love 16:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Your question is loaded, presupposes facts not in existence, and misrepresnts the facts. Is it any wonder that nobody wants to edit it? You're obviously looking to get a very specific answer. I called The undertow a white supremacist. I did not call him a racist. There's your first error. Your next error is "against all evidence" when in fact, I've presented extensive evidence from both his own edits, and outside sources, including the leading anti-hate groups, but don't let that stop you from getting the answer you want. I could propose the counter question "Is it okay for an administrator to flagrantly violate WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, make offensive userboxes just to prove a point, call editors ignorant ID'ers, insult people on IRC, and refuse to accept that possibly people might disagree with her view?" But that question would be just as loaded as yours. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 17:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

It is quite clear to me at least that editors can edit the race articles without being labelled rascist, can edit the pedophile articles without being labelled pedophiles, etc, etc. People get judged on how they edit article, yes, but never purely on the articles they edit. Thanks, SqueakBox 16:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, then. So you do not approve of SWATjester's I stand by my statement. The undertow's extensive history editing favorably on Stormfront and other white supremacy related articles, supports my contention. Considering there's no evidence to support "favorably" in the_undertow's edit history? Lara❤Love 16:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

From where I stand, feel free to keep the userboxes. With all due respect, just don't put anything like "I have white pride" on a job application. Regards, Amerique^dialectics 16:56, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Lara did just as much to label undertow a racist as did SWAT. Per reliable sources, white pride is a racist movement. She also called it "libellous" that SWAT implied that he was a racist. And yet she not only did the same, she provided corroborating evidence. Having labelled undertow a racist, Lara is now creating additional drama.

What matters in Wikipedia is what can be verified by reliable sources. Reliable sources say that white pride is a racist movement. Lara insists that reliable sources are unacceptable - her word trumps reliable sources. And when she doesn't get her way, she creates drama. Which was, of course, the underlying problem here. Moulton insisted that his say-so trumped reliable sources. Moulton refused to abide by policy, and chose to try to get his point across through drama and disruption. Undertow appears to have decided that he was willing to sacrifice his adminship to advance this position. Lara seems to have taken a similar approach, betting on the fact that if you create enough disruption and drama, the community will decide it isn't worth the trouble, and we should allow volume to trump reality. Guettarda (talk) 17:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

You serve no helpful purpose here. My links served as no such evidence. SWAT said that the_undertow edited the race articles favorably. I showed evidence to contradict that. You're doing nothing but attempting to skew the situation. Lara❤Love 18:34, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I've lost a great deal of respect to several individuals (admittedly, I already did not hold them in high regard, but still) who seem to go to great length to diminish, or outright deny, the overwhelming crypto-racist usage of the term white pride. [Don't move this] El_C 18:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

No useful purpose as opposed to your own conduct? Some of us think otherwise. Again, people are entitled to disagree. El_C 18:37, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I already stated that I didn't realize the double-standard on pride. Does that make me uneducated on the matter? It would seem so. Where I live, the KKK is a few stones over. That hateful bullshit is racism. That is supremacy. As far as putting it on an application, as I said, it's not something I display. It's something I feel. If there's a more appropriate name for it, then I'll go find it. Regardless. SWAT said he didn't call the_undertow racist. He called him a supremacist, which is a racist ideology. And a major point being overlooked is that the_undertow's Arbitration case was about an admin action, not his editing history. So, there's another question yet to be answered. SWAT said He's just another angry, out of control, white supremacist. Desysop him now please... And followed with The undertow's extensive history editing favorably on Stormfront and other white supremacy related articles, supports my contention. But that's false. His edits do not support the contention. He later stated Also, please note that I was not asking for him to be desysopped because of his beliefs. So then, what was the point? Why were the statements made and what was the desired reaction? Lara❤Love 19:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) This is now in an ArbCom case, Lara. No sense in arguing Swat's comments on that case here, unless you're intentionally starting a war on Wikipedia, making with drama, and trying to stir up trouble. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:07, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Equazcion •✗/C • 19:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

You have a point to make, Equazcion? KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes. You're telling other people to drop it and stop creating drama, but this diff seems to show that you aren't interested in practicing what you preach. Please take your own advice and drop it, and stay off of Lara's talk page unless it's to post some sort of actual communication rather than to edit other people's comments. Thank you. Equazcion •✗/C • 19:15, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

There are several issues here. One is Swat's allegations, made on a Rfarb. That's being handled by ArbCom, and Lara should drop it and stop using it to justify all her drama-mongering. Another issue is Lara's userboxes, which she has admitted she intentionally created to cause drama - I believe she said to "get attention". Another is whether White pride is racist, which pretty much 100% of non-racists agree, that's a racist term/concept. The one I'm telling Lara to drop is Swat's comments. I am asking her, like Guy and Raymond arritt and others, to stop with the drama-making already. Clear now? KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Perfectly. I hope that in the future, when you want to get a point across, you stick to posting it in a comment rather than editing other people's comments in order reflect it. Equazcion •✗/C • 19:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

A dozen people still fighting over this crap and not one has gone over to White pride or White power and added reliable sources discussing the apparent distinction or crypto-racism. Frankly, anyone still feeling self-righteous needs to get off their high horse and do a little editing. --Relata refero (disp.) 19:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

The dismissive "do a little editing" rhetorical device and the devaluation of genuine, strongly-held positions by labeling it as "self-righteousness," is as tiresome as it is predictable. The article namespace? I heard of it. El_C 20:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Predictable? Really? And yet you continue. Listen, El_C, I agree with you emotionally, but you've made your point, and you started belabouring it a bit some time ago. And I'm serious. You're saying this with such certainty, but when I - who know very little about the actual levels of meaning lying behind all this, and am happy saying "heh, white pride/power/separatist, what a neo-nazi" - look for reliable sources in the articles, I don't find any. I look for the scholarly sources on it, and I discover levels of semantic complication and contradiction that I can't easily disentangle. So if you're genuinely so certain about what you're saying, you'd get a little more credit if you'd actually demonstrated that what you're saying is backed up by a bit of editing, and a knowledge of the sources. In other words, its not a rhetorical device. This is an encyclopaedia. If you want to make a difference, stop calling other editors whose lives dont have to impact you racists if they don't like it, and share with the rest of us - and the rest of the world - how you know they are. OK? --Relata refero (disp.) 21:23, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it has gotten rather trite. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 20:54, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

As I say, if you tire of the response, imagine how tiresome is the provocation. --Relata refero (disp.) 21:23, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Delineate! &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 21:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

None of those who claim that white pride is a reasonable lifestyle choice have removed the intimidating skinhead white power Ayran youth pic from the article. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:38, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

And it should be removed because? &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 20:54, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Squeak wasn't saying it should be removed. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 20:59, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed I was not saying the pic should be removed. Its a very good photo for the article, and we certainly need to cover rascism issues fully on wikipedia. I am a bold editor and if I had wanted it removed I would have done so myself, I have no fear of being branded a rascist merely for editing rascism articles. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:33, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Oops, I misread a rhetorical question. Sorry Squeak, my bad.  :( &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 21:41, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I concur with Squeak and El C. The problem is, this isn't something that editing "white ideology" articles will make go away. Amerique^dialectics 21:50, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think anyone would claim that racism will disappear if we all edit "white ideology" articles. In fact, I'm generally puzzled. Why are we still discussing this? Has someone come to a conclusion about the userboxes or not? --Relata refero (disp.) 21:55, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Editing those articles is not the bloody point: the point is Lara's point: [59]. We're not trying to get to the moon here, we're trying to stop someone from blatantly mooning other editors. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 22:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay everybody, seriously, enough. Per WP:BOLD, I am marking this resolved as a non-admin. I highly suggest everybody back away from what has turned into, at its core, a heated debate about whether or not it's appropriate for a user to point out that they had their feelings hurt. Are the statements made by the userboxes good for the overall health of the project? No, probably not. BUT, they are the opinion of an experienced user who understands the WP:CIVIL policy and is acting, in my opinion, within the guidelines. Stretching those guidelines a little... maybe, but this particular subject has turned into a nightmare that is largely unnecessary. --InDeBiz1 Review me! / Talk to me! 21:41, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Being bold is one thing; being WP:DENSE is another. Sorry, but, have you thought to ask the why? question? And no, the answer is nor teh dramaz? &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 21:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Please explain how I'm being "dense." As I've already said, back away from the heat of this thread - which is now longer than some of the projects featured articles, at 65 kilobytes - and examine what's really at stake here. Lara's upset because somebody erroneaously (sp, yes, I know) called her "racist." She created a userbox that probably should have been taken as tongue-in-cheek. Somebody else missed that message and started this thread. I believe common sense should rule out here, rather than the persistent arguing. Marking again as done. --InDeBiz1 Review me! / Talk to me! 21:59, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

See my above point about point. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 22:02, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Relata refero's point about editing the related articles, the white pride article actually does a fairly decent job describing the different views of it. White folks who support white pride feel it is unfair because other groups are allowed to have "pride" while it's considered unacceptable when "whites" (whatever that means, considering it does not mean the same thing everywhere) want to do the same. The opposite view (which I very much hold) is expressed with "Opponents of the white pride movement argue that movements such as black pride differ from white pride in that black pride is a defensive strategy aimed at rectifying a negative stereotype. They argue that racial categories that have an illegitimate origin can serve a legitimate political purpose when affirmed in a positive way by subaltern groups. This does not apply to dominant racial categories such as white people; rather it serves to mask white privilege." The article also makes clear, without stating it directly, that there is significant overlap between white pride and white supremacy, which is pretty much unarguable. Obviously the article could be improved, but compared to this discussion, it's an exemplar of reasoned discourse.

I feel SWATJester was clearly in the wrong to post the comments in the way that he did, and I doubt LaraLove is a racist in the commonly understood definition of that term and can understand why she would be upset over what has happened here (though creating the user boxes was precisely not the way to respond). However, there is a rather severe naivety at work when someone thinks they can blithely associate themselves with the notion of "white pride" on a diverse forum such as Wikipedia and not see a severe negative reaction as a result. Pride in whiteness goes back to the nineteenth century (and not much earlier, surprisingly). A hell of a lot of non-white people (and even some white ones, cf. the history of Jewish people in the US for example) have been murdered because of it. Many if not most of the groups who espouse "white pride" today are in fact white supremacists, often with violent tendencies. Anyone can say "I have white pride" on Wikipedia if they so choose, but they should recognize that a lot of non-white editors (and even many white editors like myself) are going to react to those assertions extremely harshly given the history of the United States and indeed the Western world. Anyone who says that white pride is different from white supremacy (which it technically is) and then casually infers that white pride is okey dokey and that folks who don't agree with that are "ignorant" or "stupid" (cf. LaraLove's talk page) need a serious reality check.

Guy's comment above is helpful. It would be nice if we could agree that Swat didn't phrase his comments well at all (a simple apology for infelicitous wording would be helpful, and not too much to ask) and LaraLove had a right to be upset but the userboxes were a bad response and should stay down. They are obviously both here to help the encyclopedia which is what matters most.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I know, Guy is totally the calming voice of reason here. People should have followed his gentle suggestion and gotten out of the way. Relata refero (disp.) 22:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Close this?

I don't really see any reason this discussion needs to continue. Someone should close it as archived. Equazcion •✗/C • 21:57, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it.

Off-topic

Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

I personally see no point in this thread continuing, it is achieveing much heat and no light. PLease take it somewhere more appropriate in a more civil manner (this is directed at EVERYONE participating) Viridae^Talk 07:57, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

While I appreciate your personal feelings, nothing has been resolved at this point. So it's not in any form productive to halt discussion. Archive top dropped down to that of side-tracked discussion that has no potential to go anywhere positive. Lara❤Love 08:09, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

---

We don't need to merge those articles, but it is mostly racists who draw the distinction (and it's notable therefrom), and claim white pride to be un-racist. You're proud to be white... why? Or is it just something to say, pushing perceptions of political correction for its own sake. El_C 06:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I already stated my views. This is just attempting to again distract from the point at hand. Lara❤Love 07:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, well, I feel it's pivotal. And I'm entitled to express that. El_C 07:27, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Whatever it is, its pointless. After reading her reply, you knit pick over that? Seriously. And calling others who make this distinction racist as well? Thank you for calling me a racist. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 07:37, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

No, whimsically. I don't know why I bother. It is impossible to have an intelligent discussion with this much latent hatred. El_C 07:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

All under the guise of "pride," What about some humility, for once? Or perhaps pride for merit, not for skin colour. Pitiful. El_C 07:54, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

User:Betsythedevine

User:Betsythedevine removed my comments to a discussion, accusing me of being a sock ... here. I am not a sock, just a person who can't remember their password. I wouldn't have registered this account had I not been forced to. Thanks. Amnesia grrl (talk) 22:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Then why did you admit to being a sock at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/South Philly (3rd)? — Rlevse • Talk • 03:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I didn't read it as that. What I read was Betsythedevine referencing an IP address talking about being unable to log into their account, and then Amnesia grrl saying "Yeah, that IP address was me" (rather ambiguously I admit). I don't see her admitting to be a sock at all. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 05:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Still a sock I say. Brand new acct first edit is to an afd and legit new user? hardly. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Catherine Deneuve

I've been having disputes with IP 70.108.119.24 (talk) (who also appears to be engaging in sockpuppetry - I have already filed a report on the matter[60]) on the Catherine Deneuve article. I have attempted to engage in discussions with this IP, but it keeps reverting material without fully discussing the matter. This started when one particular IP (which is a likely sockpuppet) made full-scale edits that had several formatting mistakes.[61] I reverted that edit. Afterwards, identical edits from other IPs (once again, likely sockpuppets) were made and then reverted by me and another user. Back and forth reversions have continued to take place, and I've been trying to explain to that IP about the problems with its edits.[62][63] However, as I said previously, the IP continues to revert material without fully discussing the matter - even after being warned by an admin.

As you'll see in the revision history of the article, the IP made yet another reversion, but I have not reverted it myself, due to the fact that I do not want to be blocked for 3RR. I am trying to be as civil and constructive about this process as possible, but to no avail. I tried to request page protection, but it was denied. There is historical context that I feel should be factored in to this situation, though, which is what I was trying to explain in the requests for page protection article. There was a situation that almost literally mirrored this whole ordeal a couple of months ago, between me and another user, in the same Catherine Deneuve article. The administrators that handled that situation seemed to factor in the exact same points I've been attempting to convey in this recent dispute; thus, semi-protection was offered and 3RR-based blocks were not issued following cases that were filed. I'm not saying that every single administrator should act the same way, but I think this is significant to note. Once semi-protection was granted in the previous situation, that other user finally engaged in full discussions, and a constructive resolution was soon reached. That's what I was hoping for in this situation as well. And now that the IP once again reverted material without fully engaging in discussions, this only further emphasizes what I've been trying to explain.

Thanks to anyone who looks into this case. -- Luke4545 (talk) 23:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Wheel war? MFD

Resolved

RE Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Running/Encyclopedia Dramatica

Someone want to review the closure and unilateral reversal from this to this.

Obviously The Full protection placed per ArbCom clarification, is being ignored. A (editable) copy of a page was created in the userspace during a content dispute. Per Wikipedia:User_page#Copies_of_other_pages. "pages kept in userspace should not be designed to functionally substitute for articles or Wikipedia space pages". This is infact an editable substitue for Encyclopedia Dramatica which already exists in the appropriate articlespace. The appropriate talk page is sufficient to make {{editprotected}} changes, not the userspace. While I appreciate User:David Levy's interprative lesson, I fail to see how edits Not pertainng to the dispute, cannot be achieved on the appropriate article talk page. --Hu12 (talk) 23:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

NOthing to review - see David's talk page. Viridae^Talk 01:57, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Stifle

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

There isn't a consensus that Stifle was misbehaving here and the objection seems to indicate that there is no such thing as a mistake. This isn't productive. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:58, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

---

Resolved

 – Generic claim of rouge admin abuse, nothing that can't be fixed well before the deadline by a dose of AGF and actually talking nicely to Stifle.

NOT RESOLVED This is not resolved at all. The primary issues of retaliation, lying, and false statements on part of the admin in question have not been addressed.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Stifle claims to be an admin and has been abusing authority as an admin. Examples include # deleting bona fide pages from the college football project

1. "re-speedy-deleting" an article that already had a consensus of keep
2. giving an incorrect wikipedia policy on speedy deletion
3. failing to retract the incoreect policy statement made on the page where the statement was made
4. failing to follow basic guidelines on notability and reliable sources
5. taking retaliation for attempting to delete other pages the user posted
6. failing to properly convey policy on GFDL licensing and use of copyrighted material on Wikipedia

For these, and other offenses, please look into this matter.--Paul McDonald (talk) 23:37, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Could you provide some diffs? Also, I think your statement "Stifle claims to be an admin" is misleading, since it implies that he is impersonating one. bibliomaniac15 23:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Stifle is in fact an administrator. We need differences (examples) of what you claim is abuse of administrative tools; without specific examples, it is impossible to verify your claims. Horologium (talk) 23:50, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

This appears to be a case of a WikiProject's claimed ownership of a series of articles. Corvus cornix_talk 23:51, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Were the deletions inappropriate? Yes. Are the AfDs okay? Yes. If you can show me a history of this being a problem with him then we may have something, otherwise it's already been taken care of. Wizardman 23:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

He speedy deleted them, you challenged at DRV, he decided that AFD would be appropriate. You got what you wanted at DRV. Now, you need to convince the community at AFD that these articles meet the community's standards. The project, like any project, is a small subset of the community, and meeting the project's standards is not particularly relevant. GRBerry 01:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

There were two part that were clearly inappropriate: First, these articles were deleted immediately by the admin, rather than placing the speedy tags and letting someone else judge. The speedies were of course all overturned almost immediately at DRV, and letting a second person judge is a good way of avoiding problems like this. I will sometimes do it myself its its obvious nonsense or the like, but otherwise, I find it inadvisable. {Perhaps we need a firmer rule in the matter. Not a violation of the letter of the rules to do it that way, but a clear violation against the spirit--speedy being for unquestionable & uncontroversial cases. Second, is doing them all at once. It would have been better either to discuss first the question about the notability in general with the WikiProject involved, or to do one or two as a test. Taking them all at once this way seems pointy. However, if the Project does want to define every head coach of every football team as intrinsically notable, I think that seems at first view to be against common sense, and they need to explain it to the community at large. Projects dont get to do their field entirely their ow way--but their views are to be taken very seriously into account. DGG (talk) 02:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

You missed the fact that I overturned the deletions when it became clear to me that it was not the way to go. I corrected my mistakes. Stifle (talk) 08:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Specific examples

1. View Revision history of Oscar Dahlene, specifically the 17:17, May 16, 2008 revision. The user's comments state, "Undid revision 200817445 by Guest9999 (talk) - only admins may remove speedy deletion tags" -- this is absolutely not true. Admin is knowingly stating that something is policy when it is not--see discussion User talk:Paulmcdonald#Oscar Dahlene for detail.
2. View aforementioned User talk:Paulmcdonald#Oscar Dahlene for what I believe to be a retaliation delete. I commented on another topic on the admin's user page wher eI believe a big mistake was being made, and the admin retaliated by attempting to speedy-delete an article that already reached a consensus of keep.
3. View User talk:Stifle#Kulveer ranger, where the admin is attempting to assert that only GFDL material may be used on Wikipedia, yet we know that there are fair uses of other licensed categories.
4. View User talk:Stifle#Vote stacking assertion, where the admin accuses me of something called "vote stacking" referencing Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football#HELP! Emergency Action Required!. Note how the tone of writing changes when the group is considering reporting the admin's behavior.
5. View User talk:Stifle#College Football Deletions, where the admin incorrectly states that one of the reasons for deletion was that the source cited was the college website, when in fact it was a different website. The Admin deleted 22 articles in 6 minutes, and obviously did not take the time to give even a cursory review.

Will that be enough to get you started?--Paul McDonald (talk) 06:26, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

1. Well, generally that is the way it is done. If you disagree with a speedy delete tag, you should use the hangon tag (as someone did), not remove the speedy delete request.
2. The article in question had no such consensus formed. There was an AfD for a similar subject that had limited participation.
3. Whole text copyright infringement is certainly not acceptable. Articles of this nature are routinely deleted without any controversy whatsoever.
4. Stifle was quite right: what you did is utterly unacceptable.
5. Stifle seems to have acted in some haste, but also agreed to restore the pages and also seems to be perfectly aware of the other source. Wizardman, GRBerry and DGG all address this issue clearly and rationally above. Vassyana (talk) 06:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to the folks who have contributed to this for me. In so far as I made mistakes with my administrative tools, I reversed them soon thereafter when I was convinced of them. And saying that a keep result on an AFD on an article about a single person means that everyone who has occupied a similar position to that person is automatically notable is deeply disingenuous, and without waiving that, it's not in accordance with WP:CCC either.

Let's let the AFDs run their course. I've already withdrawn one in the face of decent proof of notability. Stifle (talk) 08:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and WP:NAM :) Stifle (talk) 08:14, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

1. Generally, the way it is done is to lie to people? I'm not complaining about the speedy delete, I'm complaining about the admin saying that "only admins may remove speedy deletion tags" when the admin knew that was not true, said it anyway, and has no intent of retracting the false statement.
2. Again, the issue is not the article, the issue the admin making the false statement "content on Wikipedia must be available under the GFDL"
3. Mabye it was canvassing, maybe it wasn't. Some say yes, some say no. That's not the issue here, the issues are the false and misleading statements the admin is making.
4. But the other users fail to address the admin's false and misleading statements and blatant disregard for truth.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

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

I've left a stiff warning for User:Paulmcdonald for his canvassing/campaigning/votestacking. I hope this helps avoid any further disruption of that type. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 17:57, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the "stiff warning" because I didn't know that making a notice on our project discussion page was bad. As I said before, I'll be sure to be more neutral in the future--and not every editor agrees with that assessment.

Spartaz states: "the objection seems to indicate that there is no such thing as a mistake. This isn't productive" WRONG the objection is that the admin is lying and otherwise making false statements about Wikipedia Policy to other editors. And that is not productive.

Is there any reason that the actual issue has never been addressed?--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

SPA

Resolved

 – Blocked by East718RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 09:14, May 17, 2008 (UTC)

Not sure. But can you take a look. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 00:21, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

You misspelt "duh". Sceptre ^(talk) 00:41, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

More trolling on Talk:Handlebars (song)

After the page was protected due to some edit disputes that I was involed in, I took the discussion to the ptalk page, it did not go so well. User:Rau J has used my attemptes at discussion to continue to troll and refusing to engage in civil discussion, trying to accuse me of the one being evasive. see here. JeanLatore (talk) 01:06, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

How am I trolling? I have been uncivil once and that is because everyone has a tolerance limit. I think that you are simply wasting everyone's time waiting for the protection to end so that you can continue to avoid discussion. This right here is a perfect example of what I mean. Instead of discussing on the talk page, you go to ANI to waste both ours, and others time on a dispute that should be able to be resolved rather easily. Rau's Speak Page 01:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Cardiff123098

Resolved

 – blocked 31 hours and left warning--Rodhullandemu 13:34, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

This user has been abusing Welsh and Cardiff related articles for months and it's time s/he was banned. S/he deliberatly introduces incorrect information into articles and ignores countless vandalism warnings. WL (talk) 01:48, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Is this acceptable?

Resolved

 – All text on Wikipedia is free to copy behind the GFDL Gwen Gale (talk) 03:06, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

For reasons into which I shall not go, I Googled my username. One of the first places it came up was at a WP mirror, http://medlibrary.org/medwiki I checked at the mirrors list, and apparently it's GFDL-compliant--but here's the question: it came up on my search because my name was on Barneca's user-talk page. The full URL that came back was http://medlibrary.org/medwiki/User_talk:Barneca . I thought userpages and their associated talk pages weren't supposed to be part of mirrored content? Or did I misunderstand?Gladys J Cortez 02:33, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I've done the same before and have seen dozens of similar mirrors. I am unsure of the policy relating to this, however. Malinaccier (talk) 02:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Everything's GFDL'd. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay--I've just seen some of those "if you're finding this talk-page somewhere other than Wikipedia..." disclaimers, and just wanted to make sure all was well. If so, this can be marked resolved--thanks for your time!Gladys J Cortez 02:58, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Live mirrors are discouraged as they may use an excessive amount of server resources. The site has been reported to m:Live mirrors Nakon 04:15, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

User:198.85.213.1

Resolved

 – IP blocked... for now.

This user, 198.85.213.1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), is not listening and reverting edits again. I've already reminded him about edit warring, but it seems does not listen, he again reverted valid reverts on Makie Sasaki and especially Mobile Suit Gundam SEED: The Movie. He's getting on everybody's nerves now. Clearly WP:BRD will never work with this editor. Can this address be blocked (for at least two months) because of his actions? I need answers or actions ASAP. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 02:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

This IP has been blocked. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 08:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Why only three days for the trouble he has caused? Anyway thanks. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 08:54, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Other than open proxies or IPs like schools whence large amounts of vandalism come, IPs are generally not blocked for long periods of time as it is more likely to inconvenience regular users than impede blocked users. Stifle (talk) 15:23, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

User: Propaniac

Resolved

 – edit war has stopped

This user has declared an edit war on an article that I created at The Color of Friendship. My last edit conformed to what she and two other editors suggested, but she undid the change never the less and left threatening posts on the edit and on my talk page. Dispute resolution isn't working, because it's clear that the problem here is not one of Wiki policy but the editor herself.Cbsite (talk) 02:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

After this comment ("don't tamper with my work any more") , see WP:OWN. This is an edit dispute and doesn't belong here. And yes, users are allowed to warn you about blocking; that is not harrassment. After the warning, everyone is allowed to go to WP:AIV and request an admin to look at the situation. So, I'll ask you, Propaniac was adding a link to the other movie. Explain why you don't think that it's necessary (sort of a moot point since it's at the new article but still). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:51, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, given that Cbsite is reverting against the logical consensus that this be a disambiguation page (given that there are 2 works that match it) and several editors have told him to stop his edit war, he should probably stop post-haste. And this is not an AIV issue... This is not simple vandalism. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:10, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

No, I was disambig-ing at first and then disambig-ing and hatnote-ing; she felt that a redirect to the 2000 version, with a hatnote at the 2000 version, were all that were necessary.

Actually, the most recent edits by Ricky81682 and Steven J. Anderson seem to make the most sense. And excuse me, but it's not my edit war!Cbsite (talk)

Regardless, the whole thing looks like it is over now. No need for any action, since there is nothing to stop... I am marking as resolved... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:21, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Indefinite block of User:Rubidium37

Could someone please review the block of User:Rubidium37 to see if it was justified.[64] --Jagz (talk) 06:23, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Why? If it was not, the user is free to make an {{unblock}} request.  Sandstein  06:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Seems like an obvious throwaway vandalism account. Stifle (talk) 08:16, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

This is such an obvious disruptive SPA it's clearly blockable, and if his master gets caught in the autoblock, all the better. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:37, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Chip Reese

Resolved

76.30.158.58 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)/76.30.158.238 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) /Shinertex (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) have been reinserting a POV pushing unsourced quotes into and filling up the lead of the Chip Reese article multiple times, request that an administrator look into this, the data has already been removed by at least one administrator already and was ignored.▪◦▪≡SiREX≡^Talk 07:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

First, I removed them again and gave a larger explanation which could help. Second, I'm watching the page but going to bed soon, so if it continues, ask for protection and tell them that it's coming from one username and 2 anons (which might require a checkuser to get at if it's really bad which it's not). Once they cannot edit the article, they'll either lie in wait or more likely actually discuss the issue. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your assistance. ▪◦▪≡SiREX≡^Talk 09:14, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Didn't see that this was brought here previously. As it was, I went ahead and protected the page.Balloonman (talk) 18:40, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Imbris

Could someone please take a look at Special:Contributions/Imbris. This guy is edit warring all the time,[65] groundlessly accusing other people all across of bad faith, of inserting nonsense and of undermining consensus and trying really hard to impose his own views no matter what it costs. He has been warned numerous times already.[66][67] --Eleassar ^{my talk} 08:44, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Per this comment, Zscout370 had some interaction with him at Commons which got him blocked there. From his editing, he's in that whole old Yugoslavia argument area, but this time focusing only on the flags. His log is full of image uploads (indicating a continuation of the fighting from Commons) and a couple page moves that look like they have reverted. However, a clean block log and no indication of an AIV report suggest a edit warrior but one who hasn't gotten to the point of full complaints yet. I would wait until someone points out something specific. I've notified him at well. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:58, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

The relevant Commons discussion is here. I declined a block at the time (giggy; first comment) barring further evidence, and Zscout blocked later following further evidence and discussion. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 09:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Disabling autoblocks on blocked accounts

Could someone remind me what the legitimate reasons are for an admin to disable autoblocking on an account? I don't want to give details in case there are privacy concerns, but in general should an admin give a reason for undoing an indefinite block and then re-enabling the indefinite block with autoblock disabled? Should I ask the admin concerned, or should they have given a reason in the log? Carcharoth (talk) 13:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• I'm guessing the most usual reason would be that the IP is shared with productive editors, for instance a workplace or college network. Black Kite 13:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes, collateral damage. But, I agree that the blocking admin should say as much in the block log. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Yes, it would be useful, unless somehow that information might give a clue as to the IP address of another user, which I know has happened before. Black Kite 13:27, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed with the above, ask the admin, he prolly knows what he's doing :). -- lucasbfr ^talk 14:21, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

While, since I don't know the details, I can't comment on why the admin is flipping the block, it should be noted that we have the new IPexempt tag, which would avoid these problems from the other end. Also, we have a very good historical case of this being a red-flag of shenanigans... If we know the specific admin and the specific unblocks in question, we may be able to comment intelligently on this. Can we get more details?!? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I thought it was only one account, but it now turns out it was two, though the two accounts are still related. I will e-mail the admin concerned, but may not get a reply before I go on wikibreak in a few days. Would it be acceptable for me to e-mail someone else to let them deal with it instead. It may be completely harmless, and I don't want to embarass anyone or cause any drama. Carcharoth (talk) 17:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

The admin in question is now directly commenting on the issues involved here, so I think I can now openly ask them on their talk page what is going on. I'll apologise straightaway if there is a simple reason for all this. Carcharoth (talk) 20:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Post made here. That same post notified the admin of this thread. As I said there, I don't know that much about how block and autoblocks work. I only just noticed for instance that the change included "account creation blocked" (I had read that as "account blocked"!), hence the header of this section focusing on the autoblock disabling, rather than the account creation blocking. Again, I'll apologise straightaway if there is a simple explanation for all this, but I would like to find out what was going on here, even if it is just me learning a bit more about the different options on a block and when to use them! Carcharoth (talk) 20:40, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, it effectively allows BC to continue editing, while disabling account creation. It seems ok to me. I think there are other ways to do it (eg if Beta gives his autoblock ID, we can lift it (and it's undetectable by the way)), but I don't think there is more to see here (the autoblock would have expired half a day later anyway). Giving ipblockexempt is not something to do lightly, for it allows editors to contribute through open proxies and fully blocked IPs. I guess there would have been much more discussion if Versageek did that instead. (disclaimer: I am just guessing here :)) -- lucasbfr ^talk 21:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

It was an autoblock that BC had been caught up in. My question now is: when I unblocked Betacommand2, did I undo all that stuff about account creation and does the autoblock disabling get removed as well? Carcharoth (talk) 21:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

When you unblocked BC2 you undid the account creation and autoblock of that account. But it would not have undone the autoblock on another account on the same IP. MBisanz ^talk 22:12, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Please unblock User:Лис

Resolved

 – Username unblocked, unblocking admin thanked

Per the altered Wikipedia:Username_policy#Non-Latin_usernames please unblock the blocked username Лис. Non-latin is no longer banned. -- Cat ^chi? 14:14, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• Why? Is the user seeking an unblock? Its been over 2 years since the account was blocked and the world moved on. Otherwise should be also unblock every other account that was blocked under that policy. Better to wait for the users concerned to request it. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes. The user seeks an unblock via IRC. Being blocked he obviously can't edit. I obviously am making the request on behalf of him. -- Cat ^chi? 14:19, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Done then. -- lucasbfr ^talk 14:23, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Thanks. -- Cat ^chi? 14:41, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

He can still request unblock on his userpage. Why didn't he do that? — Rlevse • Talk • 01:15, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Please undelete the redirect Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Davenbelle

• User talk:Thebainer#Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Davenbelle

In the absence of a response from the deleting admin User:Thebainer, I hereby am requesting an undelete of this redirect.

-- Cat ^chi? 14:51, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

You should list that at Wikipedia:Deletion review. Stifle (talk) 15:21, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

... where it's unlikely to succeed. Time the cat dropped his obsession. Guy (Help!) 16:55, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletions have a criteria for a reason. Wikipedia:Deletion review is not the right address. -- Cat ^chi? 17:03, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:CSD#G10 covers this. It looks like your private redirect so you can refer to the RFAR without having to note that you, too, were part of it, but in the end the deleting admin's deletion summary is spot on; we don't have redirects to case pages like that. It's not like it needs to be referenced that often anyway, especially if you stop obsessing about it. Guy (Help!) 17:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I beg your pardon. The incompetence of people (in general) has lead to that dispute to continue for the past three years. How dare you blame me for the incompetence of others. The only person obsessed here are people like you who are obsessed in making my job more difficult.

WP:CSD#G10 CLEARLY does not apply and you know it. RFAR pages are not attack pages and the redirect does not disparage anything. "We don't have redirects to case pages like that" is not a speedy deletion criteria.

-- Cat ^chi? 17:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Try G6 instead. I think arbitrators should be allowed to do arbitration-related cleanup without ridiculous processes. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 17:34, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrators do not get a special say when using their admin tools. Administrators particularly arbitrators are not in a position to ignore comments and complaints to their talk pages about their admin actions. Deletion of the redirect saves to no purpose aside from wasting my time.

G6 cannot apply as me disagreeing with the deletion by definition makes it controversial.

-- Cat ^chi? 17:40, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

No, your disagreeing means you're making a fuss. It is perfectly reasonable for an arbitrator to delete an arbitration-related page. Don't make a fuss out of nothing. SheffieldSteel's suggestion is a good one if you are really all that bothered. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 23:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I think I understand whats broken here. This culture of arbcom being the divine authority on everything needs to change. I have no reason to use Drv or any other processes on wikipedia if arbitrators are not binded by them. -- Cat ^chi? 00:52, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Why not create a subpage of User:White Cat and make it a redirect? That would be just as useful / convenient, wouldn't it? SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 23:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Why would I need to userify such a thing? Because of arbcom incompetence? No thanks. -- Cat ^chi? 00:54, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know why we bother, if we know nothing else at all about cat, we know that he will not stop beating until the stick has worn away and 8 out of 10 owners say their cat prefers what's left of the horse. To be honest, even if we had an RfD and ten endorse DRV's I'm pretty confident he wouldn't drop it. He never drops it. He never has and probably never will. Guy (Help!) 23:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

This metaphor doesn't get the message across. Why not block me indefinately? I dare you. If I am as bad as you claim to be, why am I allowed to edit? Is it possible maybe you should find a new prey? -- Cat ^chi? 00:52, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

If Sheffield's idea is too much trouble, just put a link on your user or talk page, and then you can name it what you like. I've never seen so much time wasted over something so trivial. Black Kite 00:58, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Then why are you even posting an opinion? It obviously isn't as trivial as you say it is. The underlaying problem is arbcom itself. ANI will not resolve the issue. -- Cat ^chi? 01:04, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Well you just confirmed my point - I actually meant wasting time here at ANI. This clearly isn't the venue, it isn't going to solve anything, take it elsewhere. Black Kite 01:09, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

This isn't going anywhere productive. Drop it already. Nakon 01:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

My intention was resolving this like a minor event, my inability to do so through ANI proves it isn't as minor as I thought it was. -- Cat ^chi? 01:23, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Please do not add {{discussion bottom}}. I am not interested in continuing this discussion but I have no desire to let it get branded like that. -- Cat ^chi? 01:23, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Disruption from the part of User:Mecena

Even though said user was repeatedly indicated that there is no need to place articles in subcategories back into the ubercategory, he continues to revisit the same pages over and over again, silently re-adding the category to articles on Romanian novelists, poets etc. - although they are already in the respective categories (for novelists, poets et al), he adds "Category:Romanian writers" everywhere. I tried to reason with him myself on his talk page, but he doesn't answer, nor explains his edits. Dahn (talk) 14:58, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Said user has finally decided to acknowledge the messages left and I interpret this as a pledge that he or she shall not carry on with the disruption. He or she did do the same again to one article after I posted this report here, but not after answering on his or her talk page. So I presume this would count as "resolved". Dahn (talk) 17:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Cardiff City / 2008 FA Cup Final

Resolved

 – Cardiff city have three strips, playing in third strip not depicted on their page.

The two articles seem to contradict each other. Cardiff's away strip is all white in the Cardiff City article infobox but is Black & Yellow on the FA Cup Final Page. As this is a current event that will probably get a lot of visitors today can someone familiar with football/teams/strips/football infoboxes sort out the correct depictions and make sure they are in both articles? Exxolon (talk) 15:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm watching the match at the moment, and it appears that Cardiff are playing in their third strip today, for whatever reason. Doesn't look like it needs to be changed. Stifle (talk) 15:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah - didn't realise they had three strips - I don't see a picture of the third strip in the Cardiff City article so that should be added at some point. Marking resolved. Exxolon (talk) 15:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Ziggy Sawdust/Avril

Anyone else think there's something funny going on at the above page? _GB^T/C 15:21, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Seems like a pretty good way of removing the disruption or appearance of disruption from the reference desk without either a) going on a banning spree or b) potentially making rather unpleasant comments hinting at people being troll enablers. WP:NOSPADE anyone? 78.86.18.55 (talk) 15:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Something "funny" indeed. I'm fairly certain that every account that edited that page is the same person. I know people don't own their user pages but if it keeps him off the refdesks then I'd say it's a good idea. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 15:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, they could be same, or they could be multiple children in the same classroom. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:54, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

It's Saturday...pretty much everywhere. _GB^T/C 17:03, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Is this proper behaviour?

I asked an administrator for advice, he told me to open a case here. Apologies for the long story ...

A few weeks back, User:Opus33 reverted my changes in Joseph Haydn several times, creating a discussion in the talk page (Talk:Joseph Haydn) just to agree if a reference to a commemorative coin dedicated to Haydn is worth to mention in that article. The final decision was to let the reference to the coin in the article. After that, I personally thank him in his talk page (User talk:Opus33) and told him I will be changing other articles, like Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart and Ludwig van Beethoven. Changes were done and no more controversy about this topic happened.

However, I changed the article Schloss Esterházy two days ago and the same user User:Opus33 removed my contribution again, arguing "These coin paragraphs are really obtrusive and should not be included". He did the same in other article. Then it seems like if he is looking for help with User:Eusebeus and now this new user is asking for a similar discussion in the article Schloss Esterházy just to add a reference to a commemorative coin. I do not see the reason why they are so protective about "their articles" allowing changes that only they like. It sounds to me like the living stone of Wikipedia, where every one can contribute, is not supported by these two users.

I have started a discussion again in the mentioned article, but is this a right behavior for a Wikipedian? I do not believe User:Opus33 behavior is correct. Any advice? Why shall I start a similar discussion with the same user for the same topic, just in another article? Miguel.mateo (talk) 15:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I have three thoughts: First, this sounds like a content dispute (see WP:Dispute resolution). Second, it's ok if an editor has a change of mind. Third, I'm not sure commemorative coins are notable enough for inclusion in most biographical articles, since these coins are often only marketing ploys by government mints. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank Gwen for the quick answer. Allow me to comment. First, I am asking for advice on behaviour, I have handled one content dispute and now the same user is asking for another dispute in another article, but with exactly the same conditions. Is this correct?. Second, that will be the case if the same editor change the same article, not blindly deleting content in another article, don't you think? If that is the case he should have asked in the talk page but that was not the case. Third does not apply, the last article is an article of a building; I am simply putting a reference to a commemorative coin that have the castle on one of its sides. But for example, if your thoughts were in the talk page then it would be a completely different story. An editor should put the changes in the talk page and wait for answers, not simply deleting it without any reason ... no?

Thanks again and apologies for the time taken, I really do not know what to do ... Miguel.mateo (talk) 15:54, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Miguel ... a couple things. I realize you are trying to help and honestly think these images improve the articles, but I'm not so sure they do, and please do not accuse other users (e.g. Opus33) of vandalism as you have here (maybe an honest mistake?) and here (content dispute). We had a compromise worked out on Haydn a ways back but now it seems you are adding these coin images to articles where a lot of other editors oppose having them. Gwen is right--it's a content dispute, and please try to put these images in perspective: are they really important enough to go in every article on a composer or piece of music for which a coin was minted? Consider what the articles would look like if we included everything of equivalent significance. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 16:06, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to talk much about content here but I think putting pictures of coins in biographical, architectural or other articles would be much like putting a picture of this biscuit tin in Mont St Michel (never mind I'd find a biscuit tin more thrilling). Gwen Gale (talk) 16:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest interested parties look at User Miguel.Mateo's Contributions page. He seems to be scattering coin images and paragraphs throughout Wikipedia. These contributions are generally of extremely dubious relevance to the topic at hand. He inserts them almost at random within the article text, suggesting he doesn't read the article text before editing it. To me, this all reads "problem editor," one who is inducing a slow, steady degradation to WP quality. I hope perhaps other editors might consider helping to get this under control? Sincerely, Opus33 (talk) 20:58, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm giving his talk page a try to see what he has to say. Loren.wilton (talk) 21:40, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion to Miguel.Mateo and others. I tend to agree that except in rare circumstances the pictures don't belong in the composer's articles, as they just don't have that much to do with the actual person. On the other hand, a run of commerative coins is IMO sufficiently notable for an article or a subpage under a commerative coins article, and I wouldn't ahve problems with the descriptions and images in such an article. I also would not have problems with one sentence in each composer's article that "in 200x the government of Y issued a commerative coin for this person" or the like. That sentence should go in some reasonably standard place near the bottom of the articles; again IMO. Loren.wilton (talk) 21:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think even a single sentence about any commemorative coin or stamp would be helpful or needed in most bios or other articles. However, commemorative coins are in themselves notable to collectors. Sourced and illustrated articles about them will be searched for and widely read. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:54, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I keep saying it, and some how it turns into the content dispute. This is not what I am asking for ADVICE in this page.

If you check my contribution page like Opus33 suggested you will see that I have been in Wikipedia only six months or so, doing nothing but numismatics (and removing vandalism in the pages I have worked on). So it is absolutely normal that you will see my trying to create intra-wiki cross-references where it makes sense, meaning where the coin is notable enough for the article.

I have been in numerous discussions of images and/or paragraph removals or changes, and I have been with the consensus. I am not asking about notability of the coins, for me that is obvious. Although for others does not seem like that, I have carefully read WP:REL and WP:NOTE and it is a simple reference mainly at the bottom of the articles. I do disagree with the biscuit comment, although funny. Again, I am open, and I have expressed this in the past, to changes to the wordings, but please do not simply remove the content without a particular reason.

What I am against is that we had a long discussion in one article about the reference to the coin, the conclusion was to keep it, and now the same editor is requesting another discussion in another article, non musical related. The same editor blindly removed the content without a reason when he knows about the previous discussion. I am getting the impression that the editor is taking this set of articles too personal and he is not allowing any changes that he does not like.

About the content dispute, this is being handle in the article in question (once again).

So what I am really asking for ADVICE is what to do in this case: an editor is taking this set of articles too personal and he is not allowing any changes that he does not like. Any help? Miguel.mateo (talk) 00:21, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Coolest Kid20 sockpuppet

Resolved

 – User blocked by Gwernol, {{sockpuppet}} template applied. RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 16:12, May 17, 2008 (UTC)

User:Coolest Kid20 seems to have created another sockpuppet: User:Coolest Kid 50. I'm really terrible at the sockpuppet reporting process, and I have no idea how the process goes in reporting another puppet of an already blocked puppeteer, so, uh, if someone could look into that it'd be appreciated. --Closedmouth (talk) 15:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

This is fairly cut and dry based on the username and user contribution. I'm sure an administrator can make a judgment call here. There's probably no reason to file/start a sockpuppetry case. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 15:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks like it's already been done : ). Also, in the future with such patently obvious cases such as this, you can be bold an add a {{sockpuppet} template to their user/talk page. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 15:54, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Can admins review this Topic Ban please?

After asking appeal and waiting about 3 weeks without any response from the arbcom it turned out that "appeals against topic and article bans imposed as part of an arbitration finding need not and should not (except in truly exceptional circumstances), be heard by the Arbitration Committee itself. They can be determined by consensus among administrators". So I am here to ask you a review about this topic ban. Summarizing (and quoting the beginning of the statement by the user who is appealing):

On April 21, 2008, User:Raul654 topic banned user:Thomas Basboll without warning, referring to the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions in the 9/11 area, and describing this edit as "horrendous POV-pushing" in the face of an alleged consensus that this version is the only one supported by policy (at AE).

All the statements are here while here is the explanation of the ban. What do you think?--Pokipsy76 (talk) 16:56, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, you are right, you should also be topic-banned along with Thomas Basboll. Guy (Help!) 17:09, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Guy, please stop these short, unhelpful, drive-by comments. You are prejudicing discussions and poisoning the well, as well as diverting the topic from Thomas Basboll's topic ban to your proposed topic ban of Pokipsy76. If you could present a longer, more reasoned argument, that would no doubt be greatly appreciated. I personally remain concerned at the way Raul instigated the topic ban, left it undefined, and didn't respond when asked about it. If Raul can't be bothered to defend a proposed topic ban, I see no reason why it can't be overturned. I think we should await Raul's explanation of the topic ban, and if no explanation is forthcoming, it should be overturned. If Raul's explanation is satisfactory, then the community can consider endorsing it. Does this seem like a good way to proceed? Carcharoth (talk) 17:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

    Shouldn't we assume that the note left by Raul in the talk page of Thomas was actually his "explanation" (even if someone could not really understand it)?--Pokipsy76 (talk) 18:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• It's not a drive-by comment, it is my considered opinion that Basboll's topic ban is amply justified (as I said when it was discussed), and that Popinsky76 is a net drain on the resources of the community, a pain in the fundament, and a POV-pusher, who should also be topic banned. Why waste words? Guy (Help!) 21:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• • I'm saying that I would like to see Raul actually explain his topic ban and justify it. He seems to have ignored the request for clarification thread. Could someone notify him about this? I'm currently trying to sort out something with BetacommandBot, which has all blown up again. Carcharoth (talk) 19:30, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

    Wow, BC is really testing the community's patience... --Dragon695 (talk) 20:50, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, User:Thomas Basboll has retired. I would like to point out that most POV pushers scream and rant when they get banned. If Basboll was pushing a POV (and note that editing purely about a single point of view is not POV-pushing as long as you only add stuff about the POV with the correct weight), then he was always clear about this, and tried an appeal, and when it failed, he quietly retired with a minimum of fuss. I only wish other people, like User:JzG (Guy), were as civil in the way they comport themselves. If everyone acted the way Basboll did, openly declaring their biases and behaving as civilly as he did, then the encyclopedia would be a lot easier to edit. Carcharoth (talk) 17:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, civility trumps all. How silly of us to think that guidelines like WP:WEIGHT, WP:V and WP:OR can begin to approach the hallowed status of WP:CIV. Raymond Arritt (talk) 19:00, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

This is another drive-by comment. Do you have anything helpful to say? My point is that those editing with due weight and verifiably and avoiding original research, still need to be civil while they do it, or enforce those standards. It just drives people away if they don't - just as POV pushing does, as does cynical comments like yours, which only serve to reinforce impressions that it is not what you say, but who you know, that matters. Any POV pusher can be tackled purely on the basis of their edits, not their behaviour. There is no need to resort to incivil behaviour or stonewalling after a ban, to discourage them. And if they are not pushing a POV, then a justified sense of injustice is bred. We should sometimes do due process if there has been an injustice done. I don't want Wikipedia to be built on the back of injustices and resentment due to inappropriate blocks and bans. We all have to both defend each other and watch out for incorrect blocks and bans. Carcharoth (talk) 19:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

They are in full-on bunker mode now. All comments they make seem to be about scoring points for the good guys, whoever they think they are. It is sad in a way, since this could be solved by having these editors simply do some work which wasn't contentious. I just get the impression that they cannot bear to admit they are wrong, and would rather scorch the earth then try to fix it. --Dragon695 (talk) 20:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I'll explain this in great detail and many words so not to be accused of a "drive-by" comment. I'll waste people's time, make them read more and all so that you can assume good faith of my comment. Or, you could let people make their points brief and succinct without feeling the need to disparage them. Shell ^babelfish 20:44, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but as far as I can tell you have stopped short of actually making the brief and succinct comment you seemed to be building up to. To make that clearer, what point were you making that was relevant to either the topic ban on Basboll, or the CIVIL vs WEIGHT/V/OR points above? As far as I can tell, you seem to be trying to start a new subthread on "drive-by comments" vs "long posts". Do you think you could, instead, maybe make a "brief and succinnt" comment on either of the first two topics, rather than change topic? I don't mind what the result is, per se, but I do mind if people let this thread get sidetracked. So, Basboll first: what comments do you have about that? What background do you have in relation to the topic Basboll was editing, and how well do you know what was going on there? Carcharoth (talk) 20:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I have to sympathise with Carcharoth here. So far all the comments have been singularly unhelpful. I mean, WP's not paper, people, but still, that's 30 seconds of your life you'll never have back. If you've nothing to say that's on-point, why bother? --Relata refero (disp.) 21:02, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• (ec) I would like Pokipsy76 to be barred from further forum shopping on this topic. The matter was first discussed at WP:AE,[68] and then appealed to ArbCom. The Committee declined to overturn the decision. Pokipsy76 then came here and to Raul654's talk page further nagging for the sanctions of his editing buddy to be overturned. This is disruptive and needs to be stopped. Jehochman ^Talk 20:54, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Meh, why? If ArbCom told him to get a consensus of uninvolved arbitators, why shouldn't he ask? Your time would be better served making a case for, or directing everyone to the already made case for, the other chappies' topic ban. --Relata refero (disp.) 21:02, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

No. Everybody's time - and I mean everybody's time - would be better spent ridding Wikipedia of the menace of tenacious endlessly polite POV-pushers who endlessly argue the same false points, endlessly revisit the same rejected arguments and in sundry other ways act to drive away through boredom, frustration or exasperation those who would defend Wikipedia from the inflation of fringe views and kook theories. Wikipedia is the number one most important place on the internet to promote mad theories, and most of the Wikipedia community is too busy arguing about the really pressing need for every episode of Family Guy to have at least five articles, to actually get down to it and enforce WP:NPOV in areas where it is under continual assault. And I do mean assault: there are long-term and often co-ordinated campaigns to skew articles on every single fringe subject, be it 9/11 conspiracies, homeopathy, pseudosciences, alternative medicine or whatever. There are organised groups, there are individuals, there are activists, and they are all here, and the good guys are barely holding their own, and often losing. The only reliable sources for much of this twaddle are the completely uncritical websites that promote it; the mainstream treats obvious nonsense with the contempt it deserves, so we have the unedifying spectacle of, for example, the tiny minority of cold fusion - sorry low energy nuclear research - advocates completely dominating an article on a subject which the vast majority of the relevant professional community treats with derision. If you don't give a damn about WP:NPOV then by all means forget the effect and the content of Basboll's contributions and focus on the undoubted fact that he is a terribly nice chap. If, on the other hand, you aspire to build a neutral encyclopaedia, then he has to go from those articles, because he bolsters and supports those whose agenda is to promote conspiracy theories, and by doing so he prolongs still further the never-ending requests for ever more weight to be given to these kooks. So, Carcharoth, was that a drive-by comment? I do seem to recall saying as much before, so I was hoping that my previous brevity would simply remind people of the obvious and well-documented fact that neutrality is under serious and sustained attack. Guy (Help!) 21:33, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

They don't have time. They're too busy weeding out uploaded photos for which there is 0 chance of a copyright suit being filed. And keep in mind that wikipedia has an official policy that "any moron can edit". That tends to work against quality of the content, but ya have to cut corners someplace. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:40, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

To Guy: no, that was a nice general post with a good amount of detail. Thanks for that. Now, would you like to provide actual links and diffs to help uninvolved admins review this topic ban, or has arbitration enforcement become judge, jury and executioner, with no recourse after that? Carcharoth (talk) 21:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Guy: you forget, you're preaching to the converted. Frankly, some days I want to ban everyone with an opinion. The point, however, is that diffs of this behavior which we all agree is unacceptable be provided. Or the previously collated diffs be linked to, and the banning admin make a short statement as to what he read into them. That is nether too much to ask, nor is it more than the least we can do. In fact, we had better do at least that much, to make sure we are getting things right. --Relata refero (disp.) 22:02, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Ban everyone with an opinion. Now that's sense! Obviously I don't have an opinion on it, of course, but it certainly sounds like a great idea :-) Guy (Help!) 23:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

To Jehochman: did you read what was said here? Instead of saying "The Committee declined to overturn the decision.", wouldn't it be more accurate to say that the initial discussion took place at AE, that the clarification thread had one (1) arbitrator comment, and that the original admin giving the topic ban has (for whatever reason) declined to comment in any way whatsoever (as far as I can see). From where I am sitting, that looks like insuffient review and stonewalling of requests for review, not forum shopping. Or are you saying that arbitration enforcement decisions can't ever be appealed? Carcharoth (talk) 21:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Carcharoth, perhaps this diff and this diff (the first originally filed by User:Thomas Basboll, the second filed by User:Pokipsy76) are more useful metrics; the second link, in particular, has the thoughts of three arbitrators, and the first has the input from another, all four of which broadly support the topic bans enacted by User:Jehochman and other admins on this tendentious topic. Horologium (talk) 23:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

From what I can tell that second diff (filed by User:Pokipsy76) does not relate at all to the issue of Basboll's topic ban, so I'm not sure it's relevant. As has been mentioned by others above, the appropriate approach would seem to be for someone with some knowledge of these issues to provide a link to supporting diffs (I assume these have been gathered about Basboll's behavior at some point considering all of the ArbCom action surrounding the 9/11 articles) and for the admin who administered the topic ban to weigh in here. The ArbCom did not review the ban, and one of the Arbs suggested that cases like this should be reviewed by admins. I seen no reason not to do that, but those of us who don't know the details of this case need more information. If some evidence can be provided and Raul can weigh in with his thought then we have something to talk about. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:03, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

The second diff doesn't relate to Basboll's topic ban, but it does relate to Pokipsy76's topic ban, and more generally, the topic bans of a bunch of like-minded POV pushers. Unlike Basboll, most of the topic bans went to editors whose behavior was marginally less polite, but all share a commonality of emphasizing minority viewpoints instead of the mainstream and widely accepted views. Basboll has left Wikipedia (again; this is not the first time he has announced his retirement); it appears that Pokipsy76 is willing to champion his cause and convince to return to WP once the forces of evil have been properly chastized. (Yes, that last clause is sarcasm.) I am convinced that Raul's actions would be endorsed, as not a single admin contested the topic ban. Horologium (talk) 00:21, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

BOT out of control and needs temporary blocking/shutting off

Bot: User:DumZiBoT or [69]

Confirmation that it is a bot: I'm a bot, I am not able to understand by myself what is the aim of all these basic binary operations that I'm performing

Diff that bot is deleting material, not just adding a link at the bottom: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&diff=213072670&oldid=213069913

Please disable bot until repairs can be made. DianeFinn (talk) 17:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Recent edits seem OK. It's not editing that fast either. Do you have time to try asking at User talk:NicDumZ? I'll keep an eye on it for the next few minutes. If you get no response on the talk page, come back here and leave a note. Or simpler still, edit User:DumZiBoT/EditThisPageToStopMe. :-) Carcharoth (talk) 17:49, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

A bot shouldn't be deleting anything. What's another possibility? Sneaky edit summaries and human editing using a bot user? I'm not going to accuse someone of that. So the neutral observation is that the bot is not functioning. DianeFinn (talk) 17:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked the bot. Carcharoth wasn't saying the diff wasn't a malfunction, he was saying that it was apparently not a part of a pattern. Still, it concerns me enough that I want the operator to look into it and actually request that the block be undone before the bot continues. Interwiki links aren't so crucial that blocking the bot is harmful. Mangojuice^talk 17:55, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I am sure this can be sorted out. AGF says that I don't say "the BOT is a ploy and a cover to do sneaky deletions" but rather look factually at the matter (the bot account is deleting, not what it should do, let's temporarily put the brakes on it). You see, the Barack Obama article can get very heated, even for simple factual stuff (example: people deleting his mother's name and opposing mentioning her full legal name in the sentence that Barack was born to father and mother. DianeFinn (talk) 18:02, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok guys, I'm on it.

A few things :

• DianeFinn, you could have asked me what was going on before posting here.
• Mangojuice, you could have asked me what was going on before blocking my bot.

I don't think that blocking then asking what was undergo was the right way to proceed here. My bot was editing approximately at a rate of one edit every TEN minute, it was obviously not an immediate threat to the community ?! No need to hurry, really.

Look at my talk page archives, I've been report hundreds of small mistakes by my bot, and it's the first time it's being blocked. (not to mention that reporting helps improving the bot) I... just don't know how to react here ?! guys, it was a single mistake... ? I seriously think that you overreacted on this issue.

On the technical side : DumZiBoT was running the well known and well used interwiki.py. I tried to understand what happened, I don't know yet. (And just so that you know, I'm a pywikipedia dev, I do understand how the script works, and I'm one of the maintainers.)

I'm asking you to unblock my bot. I honestly see no reason of having it blocked.

Also, I'll go on with my previous task. I'm trying to diagnose what happened right know. Don't re-block my bot on its next mistake, unless you are sure that *every* edit is a failure. One mistake over 200 edits is fine, just revert it, and report it on my talk page.

I know that at the moment bots are under strict looks here due to the behavior of some bot owners, but please, cool down. DumZiBoT is harmless.

NicDumZ ~ 18:50, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I've unblocked the bot. Please figure out what went wrong before restarting. Nakon 18:54, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Simple. It was an undetected edit conflict. The two previous edits [70] are exactly what got undone by the bot. Since it was editing another part of the page, no edit conflicts have been raised by mediawiki, or so I think. Further tests are underway. NicDumZ ~ 18:58, 17 May 2008 (UTC) mmmh... wrong. Can't be such a conflict two hours later. NicDumZ ~ 19:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Is it normal for the bot to make the same change twice on a single page? It seems to have done fine at 10:04, but then edited again at 10:14, and the second time it used the source from three revisions back. Loren.wilton (talk) 22:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Gwynplain

Resolved

Please block User:Gwynplain because of Wikipedia:No legal threats. Actually he tries to bring his problems from the german language wikipedia (GLWP) to the english language one (see here). After he was blocked at the GLWP because of being a sockpuppet, he told us he take us to the court because of violation his copyright. Gwynplain wanted to change the licence of some of his pictures after he was blocked from a free to an unfree licences. It's ofcourse not possible. And then it seems he really report us to the public prosecutor's office. Such a person should not be free in any of the Wikimedia projects. Marcus Cyron (talk) 17:51, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• [71] Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:02, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

  Thanks. But I hope he will not be set free, if he want it. Such destructive Members (I don't want to use the T-word) shouln't have any chance. Marcus Cyron (talk) 18:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

  It's open to him to withdraw the legal threats and come back if he so chooses. Stifle (talk) 23:30, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Possible Spam campaign

VincenzoMc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has created an extensive campaign to insert artist/illustrator Michael Quinlyn-Nixon into numerous articles. The main article is listed for speedy deletion. FWiW, the user is likely the artist himself. Bzuk (talk) 18:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC).

Note, this was originally at WP:AIV, before being moved here D.M.N. (talk) 18:10, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

LinkWatcher records:

1. 2008-04-29 14:33:27: User VincenzoMc (talk - contribs; 3) to Michael Quinlyn-Nixon (diff) - Link: www.chroniclelive.co.uk/north-east-news/todays-evening-chronicle/tm_headline=carry-on-teds&method=full&objectid=18769209&siteid=50081-name_page.html.

• Links added in this diff: www.chroniclelive.co.uk/north-east-news/todays-evening-chronicle/tm_headline=carry-on-teds&method=full&objectid=18769209&siteid=50081-name_page.html (3, 1, 1, 1) archive.thenorthernecho.co.uk/2003/12/2/69036.html (3, 1, 1, 1) www.frankiehowerd.com/news-calendar2008-bears.html (3, 1, 1, 1)

Michael Quinlyn-Nixon - information required for deleted page HaroldPGuy (talk) 21:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Block requested

Hi, I've never done this before so I hope I'm doing it correctly. I am constantly being pushed into edit warring on the article at Ulster Defence Regiment. I have requested page protection, intervention, assistance and anything else I can think of. I have spent over a week rewriting the article on a work page, informing other editors I am doing so and inviting comments on the talk page prior to transferring the rewritten information into the page. Almost as soon as I have done so, the user http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:RepublicanJacobite reverted the entire page without discussion or comment. I request that this user be blocked from making further edits on this article and asked to enter into discussion about what it is he does not like about the rewrite.GDD1000 (talk) 18:30, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• Welcome to the issues involved in editing articles about The Troubles. You may wish to read Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/The_Troubles and its subpages, especially Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/The_Troubles/Proposed_decision#Proposed_remedies. Black Kite 18:55, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I've read all this before but am getting absolutely nowhere. More experienced editors are simply running rings round me in an apparant attempt to stop me improving this article.GDD1000 (talk) 18:57, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I know it's difficult, but I'd like you to try imagining that their intention is not to stop you improving the article, but that instead they have good faith concerns about your changes, and that they're simply having trouble explaining them to you. What might those concerns be? For example, they may feel that articles that already represent a hard-won compromise are better improved piece by piece rather than replaced entire. Is it possible for you to introduce your changes more slowly? Have you identified the areas of the current article that are most in need of improvement? You may also want to try some of the techniques suggested for dispute resolution. Cheers, Bovlb (talk) 19:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I have tried everything. I have also been inviting comment on the rewrite for four days, even going to the talk pages of several editors and leaving them messages asking for comment and assistance. Then, out of the blue, come RepublicanJacobite who hasn't been involved in the discussion and he decides that all of the work is no good so he reverts it. I have no problem introducing the amends slowly but some sections will seem strange without others to back them up. I've asked the other ediotrs to view my work page and suggest changes but if they won't what am I supposed to do. I'm caught up in somethinh which I want no part of. People are trying to say I'm taking one side or the other - all I want to do is write a proper regimental history. If you look at my other contributions you can see I'm doing fine on those without any problems with other editors.GDD1000 (talk) 19:54, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Have you tried a request for external comment? Relata refero (disp.) 21:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

If you mean third party assistance, then yes. That was my first avenue of enquiry. The warring editors refused to accept the opinion of the third party.GDD1000 (talk) 21:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

A quick review of the page history shows that you have managed to get many many small edits through with a remarkably low reversion rate from the other editors. Considering how contentious The Troubles are here on Wikipedia I consider that nothing short of amazing.

The area you are editing is not like many other areas on Wikpipedia. I would venture to state that in The Troubles, nobody, not you, not anyone else, is going to succeed in completely replacing an article in whole cloth. This does not say anything bad about your editing abilities. It is simply a statement that the contenders (and that is the correct word, not editors) have fought long and hard over what is there, and they just aren't willing to take a chance on losing ground in the war. It doesn't matter if the article is 10,000% better rewritten, and it doesn't even matter if the new article favors some contender's position more than the old article did. It will get reverted simply because nobody is willing to take the chance of losing ground over what they have now, while they examine the new thing. And they aren't willing to examine the new thing before it is put in place, because they are too busy defending the current status quo.

As I mentioned above, you have managed to get a remarkable number of small edits through without major reversions. I strongly suggest that you continue in that vein, aiming at your vision of the final article, and see how close you can get to it. It will take time, and from time to time the interim chages will be ugly, and you might have to take devious routes. But I think you have a pretty good chance of getting close to what you want if you take that approach, and you have no chance of simply dropping in a new completed article. Loren.wilton (talk) 22:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Mike Obregon

Resolved

 – The user has not edited the article in a long while

Can someone who isn't busy attend this case? the thing is that this user is engaging in a rather pointy POV-pushing pattern over articles related to the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia‎, now the FARC have been identified as a terrorist group by several governments but this user is adding the word to all mentions of the group within the articles, obviously trying to influenciate the reader's mind in direct contrast to WP:POV. When I reverted the edits he responded in a harrassing manner, leaving notes shouting in my talk page and responded in the same way when the policy that he is violating was explained to him. I am currently working with several house improvements in real life but if someone else could attend the case I would be grateful, cheers. - Caribbean~H.Q. 19:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

User appears to have stopped. If he continues I would suggest coming back with diffs..though looking at the article's history is indeed convincing enough. Rgoodermote  20:16, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

User Niarch

Resolved

 – Blocked for separate but similar issue.

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

---

New editor, has made at least one incomprehensible posting on Talk:School Shootings. Someone w tact might like to check them out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaaronsmith (talk • contribs) 20:41, 17 May 2008 (UTC) :This edit could use some dumbing down...but it is not incomprehensible. I get the gist of the users words and it is POV in nature. I am going to warn the user of WP:NPOV. No admin intervention required right away. I can see it being needed later. Not marking as resolved would like more eyes. Rgoodermote  21:02, 17 May 2008 (UTC) He has been blocked. I had no clue of the other thing and I read that better. I thought I knew what it said but it seems that I was dead wrong. Anyways forgive me and also resolved Rgoodermote  21:07, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Its not incomprehensible, its plain old trolling. Anyone that claims to be a physics student in the top .5% of the intellegensia and can't spell small words correctly and has no conception of grammar is pretty clearly not who he claims to be.

Whether he is indeed someone grooming himself to be the next mass school shooter (as he somewhat implies) is maybe a different question. This is a case I'd almost consider reporting to The Authorities to see if the can scare the crap out of him. Loren.wilton (talk) 22:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest that but. I am not sure this fool was even being remotely serious. Anybody who makes an account and then raves about school shootings is just looking to stir up trouble. If there were specific threats I would be on the band wagon with this one. But I do not see a need yet. Like you said s/he is a troll and most likely is just trying to stir up Drama and I really do not want WP:DRAMA to be proven right. Rgoodermote  00:27, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

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

I'd ban him.

Looks like a vandalism only account. WAS 4.250 (talk) 23:03, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm stretching good faith once more, but I see no useful contribs from this account. seicer | talk | contribs 23:16, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I did it ... guilty as charged ... Blueboy96 23:21, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Need an admin to reverse pagemove

Resolved

 – done _→AzaToth 23:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I moved Hagger to Ha-test-gger to test the MW blacklist, but due to the blacklist I can't move it back. Ziggy Sawdust 23:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Fixed by AzaToth, but a WP:TROUT for screwing around :D Stifle (talk) 23:29, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

3RR block reviews (Betacommand and Locke Cole)

Resolved

 – Locke Cole unblocked. Will notify Betacommand and inform those who thought he hadn't breached 3RR. Carcharoth (talk) 01:06, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

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

---

User:Locke Cole drew my attention (by e-mail) to his current block (for 3RR at the bot policy page I'm copying material he has posted at his user page, as I think the situation does warrant further discussion. For those who aren't aware of the situation with Betacommand, he was recently indefinitely blocked (by another admin) with allegations of sockpuppetry. After discussion at AN, I proposed and carried out an unblock. At the time, people said that Betacommand had not breached 3RR (I count 5 people who said that Betacommand had only reverted three times, see diffs:). However, they all seem to have missed an earlier edit that Betacommand carried out using his other alternate account, User:Betacommand2 (see evidence below).

Betacommand violated 3RR

Betacommand made four reversions to WP:BOT in a twenty four hour period, violating WP:3RR, and was not blocked (two of those reversions using sock puppets, one an unnamed/abusive puppet which he did not disclose). The four reverts are:

Original

• 2008-05-06T00:38:02

Reversions

1. 2008-05-14T23:40:21 (Betacommand2 - 23:40, 14 May 2008)
2. 2008-05-15T13:25:34 (Betacommand)
3. 2008-05-15T14:15:22 (Quercus basaseachicensis)
4. 2008-05-15T14:34:04 (Betacommand - 14:34, 15 May 2008)

List of socks used

• Betacommand (talk · contribs)
• Betacommand2 (talk · contribs)
• Quercus basaseachicensis (talk · contribs)

(End copied text - some annotation added)

At the time, I would have reduced Betacommand's indefinite block to an appropriate length for 3RR, rather than unblocking completely. I can fully understand Locke Cole feeling aggrieved that he was blocked for edit warring, while Betacommand was not. What should be done? I think either unblock Locke Cole, or block Betacommand, but am uncertain as to which. Carcharoth (talk) 00:28, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Blocks are preventative, not punitive. The edit war is long since over. I would suggest unblocking Locke Cole, with the proviso that he agree not to edit-war further. Risker (talk) 00:33, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• I'd point out that his block expires in about half an hour anyway. Black Kite 00:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• Half an hour? Really? I hadn't noticed that. Thanks for pointing it out. Carcharoth (talk) 00:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Any further block to Betacommand would be solely punitive - the violation happened a couple of days ago now, and he was blocked for a short period of time - a further block would be silly. It's important to remember that when Locke Cole was reverting, he did not know he was reverting socks, therefore his edits did still merit a block for a 3RR violation. No action is needed here. Both were blocked (in the end), and any futher blocks would not help things. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:36, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not necessarily uninvolved here, having warned Locke a few times in recent weeks for edit warring, but Ryan has it spot on. Should just wait the last 1/2 hour of the block out, and note that edit warring isn't helpful. - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:37, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Hang on. From where I'm sitting the block log says: 01:10, 16 May 2008 and "55 hours". I make the expiry time 08:18 which is still 7 hours away. That's not half an hour. If people are going to say "oh, the block is about to expire", please get the times right. And the big glaring point people are missing is that Betacommand's use of an alternate account led people to miss his edit warring, though to be fair, the first revert was a long time before the other three. However, the 3RR is a bright-line rule for a reason, and needs to be enforced equitably, or it loses its force. Carcharoth (talk) 00:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• You're right; somehow I read it as 48 hours. I think Ryan is right anyway though, to be honest. Black Kite 00:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Apologies. I assumed BlackKite could tell time . - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:51, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Never assume anything is correct from someone who's in a timezone where it's 2 in the morning :) Black Kite 00:59, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• Outrageous that BC gets unblocked quickly and multiple admins decline an unblock without even mentioning it in the AN thread.--Cube lurker (talk) 00:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  • This has nothing to do with this thread so please move over to the main Betacommand thread if you wish to comment like that, but I suggest you might be better putting your efforts in elsewhere. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
    • I'm discussing the fact that LC wasn't unblocked, and the person he reverted was, the other person has a multisection thread, and the refusal to unblock UC happened without even a mention. I disagree with your analysis of my comment.--Cube lurker (talk) 01:02, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  • To be fair, it was me that unblocked Betacommand, and I had at the time been going on what others had said about Betacommand only having reverted three times. It was also me that started this review, after some of the unblock declines had been made. I'm not happy about all this, but let's not assume malice rather than incompetence or ignorance. Carcharoth (talk) 01:04, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
    • I'll meet you 1/3rd of the way and only assume the middle option.--Cube lurker (talk) 01:07, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
• Just unblock Cole now, and move on with our lives. --barneca (talk) 00:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
• I've already unblocked Cole because of what's come to light since. east.718 at 00:57, May 18, 2008
  • Thank-you, East. Good point barneca. Moving on now. Carcharoth (talk) 01:04, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

  Keep an eye on them both - they've been duking this out for ages. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:59, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

  Good move unblocking Cole. BC should be blocked again because yet another thread involving him, is disruption of the project IMHO. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 01:01, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• Uh oh... Marking this resolved. Please take this elsewhere. Carcharoth (talk) 01:04, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

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

Addendum - I know I marked this resolved, but that was before I was aware that the unblock came three minutes too late. See here, where Locke Cole retired with the comment: "enough, I guess some editors *are above the law* on Wikipedia". Please note that the blocking admin unblocked with the block log comment "although there was a 3rr breach, locke cole was revert-warring against abusive sockpuppets". Now look at the following declines of Locke Cole's unblock requests: [72], [73], [74]. While some of those decline reasons may be technically correct (though "deferring to the blocking admin" is not a vallid reason), they all show one thing in common - it seems none of them contacted East718 (the blocking admin). As it turns out, East would have been perfectly happy to unblock. Does this not worry anyone? I will request the input of those who declined the unblock requests. Carcharoth (talk) 01:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

What a suprise, Betacommand yet again gets a slap on the wrist for behaviour that would merit an indef block for anyone else. First verbal abuse, next abusing his bot, and now he socks too. Jtrainor (talk) 01:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

User:CMJMEM

This user has been previously blocked twice for disruptive page moves, and has since been unblocked. Since returning, his edits seem to be un-constructive. At Kristal Marshall, the user added information about Marshall being pregnant with an un-reliable source, so I reverted it and warned the user of their mistake. The user is responding by claiming that I am harassing him. I am trying to explain that in no way, am I harassing him. I'd like an admin's opinion on the situation. King iMatthew 2008 01:17, 18 May 2008 (UTC)